Blog Talk

There are some nice people out there. I stumbled upon this comment at Betfair Banter

Well, this is my favorite one [Green All Over]

I like it because it is not one of those blogs that every day only come with account statement, "Wow, yesterday was wonderful day, I traded xyz races for profit of 0.87 pounds!", or "Lack of discipline costed me half of my bank..."; no, in this blog you will not find any such a statement, but only interesting articles, thoughts, musings and views of different trading opportunities and events...

I also found out that the most productive link is that over at Sport Is Made For Betting followed by Cran The Trader and My Sports Trading Journey I feel bad, but Cran The Trader wasn't even on my blogroll. He is now.

Where do people go when they leave? Top of the list, rather neatly, is again Sport Is Made For Betting, followed by Talkbet (who appears not to be pulling his weight in terms of referrals...), and Betting at Betfair.

Mark Iverson has awoken after a long nap and appears on the charts, but Mastering Betfair, Lump On!, Trading Times, Juice Storm and BetfairTrader1977 seem to be on a long summer holiday. Never to return?

Holy Fix

A poster on the Betfair forum is under the impression that “the best professional gamblers hope to make 4-6% a year”.

He’s wondering ‘why bother?’

Wild statements like that reveal a not so sharp mind. That figure is of course a generalization, and it refers to percentage of turnover, not percentage of bank.

Pro punter Patrick “part brain surgeon, part mad axeman” Veitch claims 16%, whereas Harry Findlay reckons on no more than 8%.

The differences in part are due to betting styles. Findlay appears to favour lumping on at short prices, which makes achieving a large ROI rather difficult.

Veitch has a different style, which is basically that he owns horses himself and uses information from racing insiders to gain his edge. One example from his book talks about backing one of his horses, Exponential, in from 100-1 to 8-1 and winning himself £235,133.71 in the process. With a betting style of that nature, a much larger ROI is possible.

As an aside, although the author, for obvious reasons, tries to play down the influence of his inside information, what is revealed should be enough to put anyone on the outside off horse racing as a means of investment. One forum poster who claims to have lost close to £200k in the horse racing markets before finding an edge said of his horse betting

“…big mistake, I did not lose money to the market. Overall I was robbed by the bent market of horse racing, believe me, don’t believe me, but since those silly days, I have done well enough to schmooze with certain smaller type owners and my worst fears about the industry have always been 100% confirmed”.

My experience also.

Back to profits though, and it’s not all about ROI, it’s about turnover too. It’s better to have an ROI of say 8 per cent on turnover of £5m than an ROI of 16 per cent on turnover of £1m. This is important if your edge is in something like the Eurovision Song Contest or worse, UK General or Papal Elections. (Even worse would be North Korean General Elections I suppose, and with the winner already known...)

To take an extreme example, if you made your living from hovering, snapping up all those 1.01s on tennis, football and horse racing with your fast pictures, you would never have a losing bet, your ROI would only be 1%, but you would have a steady income every day.

If you’re limited to Papal Conclaves, your ROI might be huge, but your opportunities are somewhat limited.

Cane Toads

Close call on the Overs bet in the Brazil - North Korea match, but squeaked home in the end. No result in the Ivory Coast - Portugal game, and one goal short in the Slovakia - New Zealand game. Nothing to write home about there. Still a big advantage to Unders backers ahead 12-2 right now with an average per game of 2.38 now needed to beat the low of 1990.

Tournament favourites Spain make their debut tomorrow as the second phase of group matches begin with South Africa and Uruguay facing off.

Today's interest plays: Spain 1.32; Chile 1.25 DNB; South Africa v Uruguay DRAW 3.3

Before that I have backed the Maroons to win the second game of the State of Origin Series. Having won the first game in Sydney, albeit only by 4 points, home advantage should see my money safe at 1.5.

England News

World Cup Update: Robert Green was subjected to a rigorous training session earlier today. He had over 500 shots fired at him, and didn't concede a single goal.

Tomorrow, Heskey and Green will be training with the rest of the squad.

In other news, Anonymous has taken to talking about himself in the third person!

He writes

“you seem a little obsessed with anonymous!!

I'd move on, take on board the valid points he makes and keep the blog positive.”

If you made any valid points, I would be glad to take them on board, but when you write nonsense like this: However, a lot of your methodology, your comments and so on are misleading to the average punter. I like to draw attention to these matters and then fail to give a single example of what you are talking about, isn’t that rather pointless and negative?

But you seem to think every anonymous is the same one.

If they are not the same, then can you explain why they are all using the same IP address in North Yorkshire? Is there a whole family of Anonymouses sharing the same PC?

Have some Wensleydale cheese, and stop posting negative comments that you are unable to support with facts. I'm all for free speech, but as you yourself said - keep the blog positive. Constructive criticism and comments by all means. Anonymous negativity - not wanted. Even if you do give me plenty to post about.

LDS - Latter Day Sinner

Nothing to do with betting, but I found this rather amusing, and it is at least blog related.

I was reviewing the blog stats and one of the things you can find out when the visit is the result of a search engine search is what the search criteria entered were. See above.

My copy and paste of Anonymous' comment of "...do you mean you weren't able to pussy out of your bet and lay some back in running?" seems to have resulted in some unexpected extra traffic to the blog including one visitor from Brigham Young University.

Founded by a racist with 55 wives who was implicated in the Mountain Meadows massacre, that's one not so esteemed seat of learning and a pretty weird religion while we're about it. One perhaps shouldn't be too surprised that one of those nice young men traveling the world spreading the word of his god in his white shirt and black tie is searching for porn when he gets back to his room at night.

My visitor didn't stay for long. I guess I wasn't the pussy he was looking for.

Perhaps he meant the kodkod?

North Korea Won

Brazil Real. Get it?

With a total of just 18 goals in 11 games, and just the one Over 2.5 game, the record low average goals per game of 2.21 set in Italy 1990 could be under threat.

An average of 2.34 goals per game is required to hit that total. The Brazil - North Korea game is favoured to go Over, and New Zealand and Slovakia both scored freely in qualifying but the opening games have for the most part been tight affairs.

Yesterday saw a no result in the Italy game, but a win on the Dutch. I layed the draw off in the Japan - Cameroon game after 36 minutes.

OK, I didn't really, but I knew Anonymous would like that line. A small loss on that one. When I saw how close the ratings were, I pondered Japan and DNB, but was influenced by the Cameroons having 'home' advantage.

Today's interest plays: Overs in Brazil - North Korea (1.62) and Slovakia v New Zealand (2.34) 2-0 Slovakia (7.0) and Ivory Coast DNB (2.08).

Will Brazil think twice before bringing on a sub?

I'll be here all week.

Prediction, Probability and Value

More clarifications for Anonymous:

Re: liquidity comment on asian handicap. You were worried there wouldn't be enough liquidity and you may have been "stuck" with your position. Hardly a shrewd comment or one in keeping with someone who has had what they perceive to be a value bet.

I wouldn’t have taken the initial position if I hadn’t perceived it to be value. The comment wasn’t meant to be “shrewd” – it was meant to indicate that I was aware going in that I would most likely not be trading out due to an illiquid market not being likely to offer a value opportunity to trade out. I was ok with that.

Re: predictions. You seem to think you predicted things quite nicely. Again, not a sign of a shrewd punter. It's all about value. If, say, you backed an "over" at, for example, a price of 2.5, and the game finished as an over, would you be saying you predicted it correctly? Or would you be saying you had a value bet that won?

Not to sound pompous or anything, but I don’t “think” I predicted things quite nicely – I know I did! Your point is correct about value though, but if you have read this blog for a while, you will know that I am the last person you need to talk about that.

In my opinion, (hence the prediction), the Germany – Argentina game was more likely to go Over than Under – i.e. the probability in my opinion was > 0.5. With a price of 2.3 on offer, this represented, in my opinion, very good value.

Predicting an outcome is not the same as backing an outcome. To take an extreme example to make the point clear, had the price on Overs been 1.5, I would still have predicted Overs, but only backed it if I considered the probability to be > 0.67. The Unders may well have been the value bet.

I think we’re on the same page with this, so I’ll move on, but for future reference when I make a “prediction” in a two-outcome market in this blog, it means that I expect the event to happen, i.e. P > 0.5.

Re: Australia being tipped up - an obvious type. It's the same point as above. Successful bettors don't necessarily bet on what they think will happen.

Value, value, value...

What is an ‘obvious type’?

I guess if it’s the same point as already made, I don’t need to worry too much. Of course successful bettors don’t necessarily bet on what they think will happen! We bet based on probabilities – on an event that is more probable than the odds suggest – in other words, we bet when we have value. My blog is full of this all-important message.

Re: coming back for more. I like your blog, it's well written and in many ways is an interesting read. However, a lot of your methodology, your comments and so on are misleading to the average punter. I like to draw attention to these matters. But you seem to think every anonymous is the same one.

Agreed that Green All Over is the best blog of its type out there by some distance, and while some have described the style as pompous and arrogant, I can’t say that I have ever seen the slightest hint of that.

I’m also not sure how it can be true that a lot of the methodology and comments contained within it are misleading to the average punter. I do assume a certain level of knowledge and understanding of the betting markets, but perhaps the average punter is a little less sharp than I give them credit for. It’s revealing that for the most part, it does only seem to be Anonymous(es) who have trouble understanding most of the posts, and if clarification is sought, I do try to find time to respond.

Investors' Greatest Sins

From the pages of Yahoo!Finance comes this:

Overconfidence. Humans seem to be hardwired to expect success and to regard themselves as above average. Odean likes to hammer this point home to his M.B.A. students by asking them to rate their driving abilities. "Above average" is the virtually unanimous response. One of the few students who rated herself merely an average driver was, in fact, about to lose her license for having had three accidents in the past year.

Overconfidence permeates the ranks of investors, especially men, Odean concluded in a study with finance professor Brad M. Barber from UC, Davis. Looking at the trading patterns of 35,000 households over five years, they found that single men's confidence in their ability to outperform the market prompted them to trade 67% more frequently than did unmarried women. The payoff for all this activity was negative; the men's portfolios underperformed those of the less-frenetic women by 1.4 percentage points per year, Odean and Barber found.

Excessive trading. Princeton finance professor Burton Malkiel has argued that investors are on a fool's errand in trying to outperform an efficient market in which all relevant information is reflected in equity prices. Odean agrees that trying to beat the market is a loser's game for small investors but for a somewhat different reason. He thinks the casino is rigged in favor of large institutions.

Looking at every trade made on the Taiwan Stock Exchange over four years, Odean found that commissions, taxes and poor timing of buy and sell decisions sucked a collective $32 billion out of the pockets of individual investors over the period studied. (The exchange's listings have a combined market value of $660 billion.) The winners in this game: middlemen and institutions.

Even when the little guy thinks he's in the know, he is often clueless about what's going on behind the scenes. Not so the big guys, Odean argues.

"For an individual to not believe that he's at an informational disadvantage when he's trading against guys from Goldman Sachs is naive," he says. "It's like deciding to play one-on-one with a professional basketball player. You're going to lose."

Going with the crowd. Like children fighting over the same toy, investors are often attracted to stocks because others want them. In fact, individuals are much more likely to buy and sell the 10% of stocks mentioned in the news and ignore the other 90%, he found.

The problem with buying stocks when they're popular rather than on the basis of fundamental value is that they tend to be expensive and susceptible to changes in investor sentiment.

The day after a stock ranks among top performers, two-thirds of all trades by individual investors are buys (institutions, by contrast, tend to wait for dips in prices and trading volume). Over the following month these hot issues underperform the overall market by an average 1.6 percentage points, Odean found in a 2006 study. Adding salt to the wound, Odean tells us that more often than not the stocks that investors sell outperform the ones they buy.

Stubbornness. Savvy investors sell losers to book tax losses, offset gains and stiff Uncle Sam. Logical as this is, few investors are willing to admit defeat. That was Odean's conclusion after analyzing 10,000 discount brokerage accounts over three years. The exercise revealed that investors are more likely to sell winners and trigger capital gains taxes than to sell their losers and avoid them.

The damage doesn't stop there. In addition to the tax drag such behavior entailed, Odean found that in the year after they were sold winning stocks went on to gain 3.4 percentage points more than the losers to which investors clung.

If you're sure you're an above-average investor, go ahead and trade like a fiend. But keep in mind the possibility that you are fooling yourself and would do better buying index funds and focusing on becoming a better driver.

Kindergarten Comment

More amusing comments from our Anonymous friend, who along with his other issues in life is also apparently struggling to learn the essentials of trading, how handicap markets work, and how to read a blog post in full.

He asks:

By lack of liquidity on asian handicap market not being a problem, do you mean you weren't able to pussy out of your bet and lay some back in running?

There was not one “Asian Handicap” market, there were several, but more importantly, if you are of the opinion that trading out of a position when it is value to do so is a poor move, you need to go back and read this blog from the beginning and take on board some of the advice. If it is value to do so, trade out.

He continues:

Think I've realised what some people don't like about this blog

(with an average of 271 visitors a day, that statement reminds me of Yogi Berra’s “no one goes to that restaurant any more – it’s too crowded” quote, and never mind that Anonymous himself just keeps coming back for more). He goes on:

"The Australia v Germany game went EXACTLY AS PREDICTED" really is a horribly pompous statement. Especially as all you predicted was an open game.

“All you predicted was an open game”. Let’s review what I actually wrote “I'm backing the Overs at 2.3 in the Australia v Germany match coming up shortly” and “Germany doesn't lose group games, winning eleven and drawing four of the fifteen played since 1986. A young Germany team against a veteran Australian team, and I'm expecting an open game. I've also backed Germany (-0.5/-1) on the Asian Handicap markets at 1.83.”

Which part of my predictions was not correct? Overs came in comfortably at 2.3. Germany do not lose group games, and didn’t lose this one. The game was an open game, and Germany won by more than 1 goal. As sports predictions go, I’d say that was pretty good.

Anonymous then shows his lack of understanding of the Asian Handicap markets by asking

Does tipping up Australia on the handicap mean you predicted they would win? Shouldn't do.

With handicaps, it rather depends what the handicap was – if it was Australia +4.5 then they would be a winner, but I never tipped Australia to win plus or minus anything, so I’m not sure what the point of that comment was.

I would recommend you at least read the post properly before you comment in future! You might actually learn something.

Italy Defends The Cup

Yesterday was a very good day, with the basketball following on from the football and playing out almost exactly as I thought and hoped. The Unders bets were both won easily, and the under 178.5 (at 4.4) also came in by a single point which would have been a nice play, but I musn't be greedy.

The Lakers just don't seem to have the chemistry that the Celtics have, and now they need to win game six to stay alive. Home advantage is big, but the Celtics have the momentum and have already won a game in Los Angeles.

One or two more games left in the NBA season, and it's been a good one. Not as good as 2008-09 but the second best season to date.

Baseball liquidity picked up a little once the World Cup game was other, and as I wrote previously, allowed me to lock in a nice green on the Angels - Dodgers game, but again my profits are well behind schedule to match last season's record year.

With a 17 day break coming up in August, this year was always unlikely to match last years but if the money isn't there at the right price, there's no point in trying to force it.

Interest may yet pick up though. All six divisions are close with no team having more than a 2.5 game lead, and the play-offs attract some money.

Patience is essential in this game, which is why the threads and challenges on making 2% or 5% a day are so ridiculous. Some days the value opportunities are just not there.

Some interesting World Cup games today, with the match of the day for me being the Italy - Paraguay game. Paraguay have an awful record against European teams. Italy are notorious slow starters, so Italy at 1.55 on the Asian Handicap is the play here.

After watching the first few games with little investing, I'm gaining a little in confidence now and have some profits from the Germany game to play with. Kokooooo brought a value play to my attention the other day, and he deserves a mention and a pat on the back even if no share of the profits! Nice call.

The Netherlands - Denmark game should go to the Dutch, but the Danes are dangerous opponents and I'll just have an interest bet on the Netherlands at 1.55. As for the Cameroon - Japan game, I know nothing about either team and the Elo ratings for both are almost identical. A small back of the draw on this one with a view to trade.

Avanti Azurri!

Sunday Round-Up

The Australia v Germany game went exactly as predicted, and in the end, liquidity on the Asian Handicap markets wasn't an issue. First Overs of the tournament too, and all round a very pleasing outcome.

Strange goings on in the inter-league baseball game in Los Angeles today. SP had the Dodgers as favourites at about 1.95, and the Angels batting first went 2-0 up. I put in a lay on the Angels at 1.5 which was taken almost immediately. I almost wrote 'to my surprise' but nothing surprises me any more about the prices people will take on this sport.

So the Dodgers come back with a home run on the first pitch they face to cut the lead in half, and I am able to lay the Dodgers at 1.88 when they get the lead runner on base in the second inning. Poor liquidity, but when people are happy to take the best price on offer, even though it is poor value, then there is money to be made.

Game five of the NBA finals later and the Celtics must have the edge after the way they beat the Lakers in game four. I'm expecting the Celtics to ride the momentum of that last quarter and make a strong start. The Celtics at 1.77 are value. As I've written before, the Lakers can be moody and if they get behind early I like the Celtics to run out easy winners. Under 198.5 at 1.38 is value, and I have a small interest in the Under 188.5 also at 2.02.

Australia v Germany

Two more Unders today brings the current sequence to seven, but I'm backing the Overs at 2.3 in the Australia v Germany match coming up shortly. An average of 2.33 goals a game now needed to exceed the all-time low. Were it not for goalkeeping errors and a needless penalty, the total goals would of course be even lower.

Germany doesn't lose group games, winning eleven and drawing four of the fifteen played since 1986. A young Germany team against a veteran Australian team, and I'm expecting an open game. I've also backed Germany (-0.5/-1) on the Asian Handicap markets at 1.83. Not sure how liquidity is on these markets, so I may be stuck with the punt, but it'll add a little interest before the bread and butter business of making money on the NBA continues later tonight.

Wooden Spoon

Everyone knows the winners of the World Cups over the years, but what is less well known is that FIFA rank every team in the tournaments, and here are the last placed teams over the years.

1930 Mexico; 1934 USA; 1938 Dutch East Indies; 1950 Bolivia; 1954 South Korea; 1958 Mexico; 1962 Switzerland; 1966 Switzerland; 1970 El Salavador; 1974 Zaire; 1978 Mexico; 1982 El Salvador; 1986 Canada; 1990 United Arab Emirates; 1994 Greece; 1998 USA; 2002 Saudi Arabia; 2006 Serbia and Montenegro

2010 North Korea?

Five games in and no over 2.5 goals matches yet. The lowest ever average for a World Cup finals is 2.21 in Italy 1990 and 2.29 a game are needed in the remaining 59 matches to hit that mark. It should be noted that the average has dropped every tournament since 1994, although Robert Green is single-handedly (pun intended) trying to raise it.

What a nightmare for him, and for me. The future Mrs Cassini is American, and I have a feeling this game might be mentioned once or twice in the coming years. Still, it's an improvement on 1950 and we have yet to place last in a World Cup!

Jabulani

Another World Cup related article that caught my attention, this time from Steve Mirsky at Scientific American:

With the World Cup soccer tournament underway in South Africa, a couple of things for the science-interested audience to watch for. First, the games will feature a new ball, called the Jabulani, the Zulu word for “celebrate.” And some players think something foul is afoot. They contend that the ball doesn’t behave the way a normal soccer ball should, that it even turns the wrong way in mid-air. Adidas, which makes the ball, claims that the players complaining all have contracts with Adidas’s competitors.

The Sports Technology Research Group at England’s Loughborough University designed the ball. The sections aren’t stitched together anymore. Instead, the seams are glued or heat-sealed. The group leader, Andy Harland, told the Telegraph newspaper, “We have created a ball that is almost perfectly round, and more accurate than ever before.” Well, millions of soccer fans will ultimately decide the latter.

Also watch for the effects of altitude. Some of the games in South Africa will be played at elevations over a mile high. Which could make catching one’s breath the primary goal.

Perfectly round? I always thought that golf balls had dimples for a reason. This ball has grooves though.

"The surface of the ball is textured with grooves, a technology developed by Adidas called GripnGroove that are intended to improve the ball's aerodynamics".

Kicking Back

A wonderfully entertaining article in today's Wall Street Journal. Well worth a read. "Kicking Back at Those 13 Colonies" by Gerard Baker, who writes that for England, Saturday's match against the U.S. could be a chance to settle some old scores.

When the England soccer team lost to West Germany, as it then was, in the Mexican heat of a World Cup quarter-final in 1970, a British commentator managed to wax philosophical about the national tragedy.

"We shouldn't be too upset that the Germans had beaten us at our national game", he said. "After all, we beat them at their national game twice".

It was a joke, of course. Honestly, a joke. But like all jokes it had a point. That an entire nation should be moved—even in jest—to seek consolation for a sporting defeat in victory in two world wars tells you much that you need to know about the most watched, most passionately absorbed sporting event on the planet.

All sports, of course, when played out on an international stage, become metaphors for geopolitical competition. The U.S. had its Miracle on Ice, the improbable victory over the Soviets at the Olympics in 1980, that presaged a rather larger Cold War victory a decade later.

But soccer is in a league of its own when it comes to substituting athletics for politics.

When the FIFA World Cup opens Friday in South Africa, it will be much more than a quadrennial competition for sporting supremacy.

In fact if Clausewitz (spiritual head coach of the German national team, 1830-1945) had ever actually suited up in cleats and shin guards, he might have modified his famous dictum and asserted that soccer is a continuation of war by other means.

Perhaps not war, exactly. No brave wounded soldier ever writhed so violently or screamed so loudly as an Italian striker tripped by a stray foot just outside the penalty box. But the world's premier international sporting competition represents the opportunity to replay—with a similar level of intensity—the confrontations, skirmishes and battles that define a nation: a score-settling exercise in which 22 absurdly overcompensated men in uniform get the chance to right the wrongs of misfortune and relive the triumphs of an entire people.

So when England takes the field Saturday against the United States national team in Rustenburg, just outside Johannesburg, more than three points will be at stake.
Officially, it's just one game in the opening round of the contest. It's not even a decisive, win-or-go-home match. It's merely the first game in a protracted phony war, the group stage of the competition, which lasts two weeks. If the form book holds, and whatever happens on the field tomorrow, both England and the U.S. are very likely to progress to the second round.

But to the English, a proud people with a recent history that is somewhat at odds with their historical self-image, it is much more than that.

For one thing, the other teams in Group C are Algeria and Slovenia, and try as he might, the average Englishman can't get terribly worked up (or summon a single relevant historical fact) about either nation.

But this is America, longtime friend, occasional foe, distant relative, superpower usurper.

The official record states that, in their previous meetings England has enjoyed a comfortable advantage—having won seven and lost two of their nine meetings in international games.

But to the English that's an incomplete scorecard. It doesn't take into account the hefty defeat of 1776 (an early showing for the Tea Party crowd); the late winner the U.S. scored in 1781; the thumping victory on away soil the English achieved in 1812; the repeated own goals in 1956—when the U.S. managed to beat England, France and Israel, all together; or that very long game that lasted from the late 19th to the early 20th century and which resulted—after overtime and penalty kicks—in England finally ceding its crown as Political, Economic and Military World Champions to the ill-bred upstarts from across the Atlantic.

Then there are the cultural scores to settle: the defeat represented by all those GIs who stole away British women while the men were off fighting in the Second World War; the terrible trades that saw England provide Jane Austen and Charles Dickens while getting John Grisham and Dan Brown; or the deals whereby the U.S. got Cary Grant and Bob Hope, the other side Madonna and Gwyneth Paltrow.

And on it goes. Almost every week now the newspapers are full of new humiliating reminders of England's eclipse at the hands of America. Last month it was the ignominy of British troops in Afghanistan placed for the first time under a U.S. general. In February it was Cadbury, the makers of the only culinary delicacy in which England could muster any pride—delicious, creamy milk chocolate—forced into the barbarian arms of Kraft, a highly successful American purveyor of synthetic cheeses.

To listen to some of the rhetoric coming out of Washington this week concerning British Petroleum, that iconic British company, you could be forgiven for thinking that certain Americans think the Gulf oil spill is English payback for all those defeats.

But the real opportunity for revenge will be Saturday. The beauty of the World Cup, and especially this game, is that it's a marvelous opportunity to demonstrate one small piece of lingering English superiority.

This "showdown" between England—three lions on their shirts recalling the glory days when the sun never set—and the Americans—white teeth a-gleaming—is in fact a made-for-history moment to score one back for the old country.

It's the one darned thing they know they can beat America at.

When the draw for the World Cup groupings was made in South Africa last December, there was unsuppressed giddiness in England at the wonderful hand the country had been dealt in Group C: an unchallenging saunter through the opening phase of the tournament before the rigorous tests of Brazil, Argentina and Spain in the elimination rounds.

The Sun—the pitch-perfect articulator of English jingoism—spelled out on its front page the names of the four rivals in the group, highlighting the first letter of each:
"England, Algeria, Slovenia, Yanks—EASY"
"Best English Group Since the Beatles," said another headline.

They knew it was a gift because Americans of course don't even play the game. For a start, even calling it "soccer" shows how alien it is. In England, as in the rest of the world, it is called football, reflecting, the locals like to think, the fact that it is a game involving a ball, played predominantly with the foot—rather than with the hand, arm, head, shoulders, and 1,200 pounds of padding, as is the case with the American version of the game of that name.

The Brits have grown tired of hearing how soccer is finally catching on over here:

They send an emissary like David Beckham to promote it, and all they discover is that you're much more interested in his Posh wife.

And yet, the awful, ineffable truth is that, even as they thump their bare chests, don the red and white war paint and get ready to lord it over the Yanks just this once, the worm of doubt is eating at the badly depleted English national self-confidence.

The national superiority complex is actually cruelly misplaced when it comes to soccer. Having lost the colonies, an empire, global leadership and half of the Rolling Stones, the idea that England is a great footballing nation has been a birthright for the Queen's subjects, a heady concept allowed to enter and suffuse the English consciousness.

They do indeed like to consider it their national game. But the fact is that in the last 40 years England has enjoyed as much success in the World Cup as it has in the World Series.

The country did manage, memorably, to win one World Cup—in 1966, almost two generations ago. But it was played on home turf, at Wembley Stadium in London, against—who else?—the Germans. And victory was assisted, even the most die-hard of fans will admit, by a dodgy refereeing decision that deemed a questionable goal valid.

Of the other 14 World Cups, England failed to qualify for three; it reached the semifinal in 1990, and other than that has never advanced beyond the quarter-final.

England's claim to global excellence in football is roughly equal to that of the Kansas City Chiefs—both were World Champions 40 years ago and have never been near a final since.

Also gnawing away at the collective English sporting consciousness this weekend is the terrible memory of that infamous World Cup in 1950, when England actually contrived to lose 1-0 to the U.S. in Brazil.

That defeat was itself taken in the popular English consciousness as the surest sign yet of the nation's inexorable decline.

A similar result Saturday—especially when English hopes are riding high in a sporting contest for once— would quite possibly have a similarly devastating effect.

But, hey! There's still cricket.

Corrections & Amplifications

Queen Elizabeth II ascended to the throne in 1952, and Winston Churchill was Britain's prime minister in the years 1940–45 and 1951–55. This article incorrectly states Elizabeth was queen and Churchill prime minister in 1950.

There are some great lines in there I hope you'll agree.

BP - Buying Puts?

The BP share price seems to be generating almost as much interest in the sports oriented blogging world as the World Cup. BFAL appears to have taken my advice for a quick dip into the market for a profit. Perhaps when he’s finished looking at his 2010 Panini World Cup sticker album, he’ll get around to sending me a small percentage. Or perhaps not. (Some of us still have our 1970 album and Esso World Cup coin collection...)

A nice jump in the price today, but I’m not convinced they are a value play any more. Implied Volatility (IV) jumped about 45% today up to 95 with put option volume very high at some very low strikes. Not only in the longer term dates, but some in June. For July, the open interest in the US market at the $12.50 strike has traded over 12,000 contracts, up from just 350. There may be a leak... someone knows something.

As I have written before about share trading, plenty of insiders know far more about these things than I do, and day-trading is a losing proposition for the likes of me. BP shares are a big gamble right now, and I have no edge. It’s fascinating to watch from the sideline though.

World Cup Opener

While watching the opening game of the 2010 World Cup, with only a small financial interest (opening games are usually tight, but 1.54 on Unders was too short for me).

A draw was probably a fair result. Hosts don't lose their opening game, and unbeaten in 13 games, they have done better than their Elo rating suggests albeit with home advantage.

What was interesting was how the price on Unders dropped from 1.62 in the last few hours before kick-off. Uruguay v France has done the same, or is doing the same, so I've had a back at 1.64 with a view to laying off before kick-off.

This is the fourth World Cup with 32 teams and no Group has yet seen all six matches finish under or over 2.5 goals. 43.75% (2.38) of matches in 2002 and 2006 went over, with 52.08% (1.92) in 1998.

Elo At The World Cup

The World Cup starts today, and the Elo ratings have Brazil just 2 points ahead of Spain, followed by Netherlands, England, Germany, Italy, Argentina and Mexico.

Although I am obviously biased towards England and Italy, (50.0 to meet in the Final) the ratings suggest the Netherlands at 10.0 offer the best value.

Should Argentina be third favourites? Not according to the ratings.

I'll be playing with these during the group stages for small stakes, using the Asian Handicap markets which appear to have good liquidity.

And if you're thinking of a punt on Algeria, New Zealand or North Korea, save your money. They make up the final three ratings.

Elo Contenders In 2010-11

Following on from the strugglers post, and I spoke too early about Forest Green Rovers who received a reprieve after Salisbury City were demoted two divisions on Thursday. Rather unfortunate as they had a good season, but they broke rules and the FA can't be having that.

The following teams are those that the ratings suggest will do well next season. Same caveats as with the strugglers post though.

No prizes for guessing who the ratings have at 1 and 2 in the Premier League, with Chelsea and Manchester United clear of the rest. Arsenal are 3rd with perhaps surprising Liverpool, Everton and Manchester City making up the top 6.

In the Championship Reading, Leicester City, Sheffield United and Nottingham Forest the top four.

Southampton are miles clear in League One, with Swindon Town, Charlton Athletic and Huddersfield chasing along behind, and in League Two Torquay United and Port Vale look to be the picks with a bunch of teams behind them.

The Conference sees Luton Town well ahead of York City and Rushden and Diamonds.

But plenty of comings and goings during the close season will shake these teams.

BP - Bankruptcy Possible?

At the close of business at the Stock Exchange today, my BP shares are down almost 40% on the year at 365.5. It seemed to me that the market initially over-reacted to the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, and presented a buying opportunity. On May 27th the stock rallied about 7% but the slide has since resumed in earnest.

BP is one of the biggest companies in the world, engaged in one of the most profitable businesses and from what I read, the company's assets now exceed their market valuation. The concern about the continuing leak of oil, together with concerns about the open-ended liability is clearly weighing heavily on the stock, which is now at a 13-year low. I've owned them for over 20 years, so I'm still in profit!

Their annual report is usually consigned to the bin unopened, but this next one will be opened and read. I'm leaning towards adding to my shares over the next few weeks. The news surely can't get too much worse for them.