Skip to main content

the rain dilemma


The third Ashes Test begins later today at Edgbaston. The outfield is sodden from days of heavy rain inthe Midlands. The draw price has been crunched down to 1.74 with more rain expected throughout the match. But does the prospect of wet weather also bring more wickets as the ball moves around more? If the water can be dispersed from the outfield and play start close to 11am, a reasonable day by the forecast could see a complete innings gone. And if that happens, the draw will no longer be odds-on.

Rain at Edgbaston all right for some

Last time at Edgbaston, the Aussies lost McGrath on the morning of the match and it cost them dearly. The two Tests we lost were the ones McGrath wasn't fit for. Will KP have a similar effect on the Poms? An England batting line-up with Bopara and Bell doesn't scare anyone. Mind you, the way Johnson is bowling, he's not exactly putting fear into anyone either. Though apparently he's patched up his differences with his mum over some ridiculous Mum v WAG argument...

This will be a key toss to win. Ponting hasn't had any luck on that front yet, and he won't want to make the same mistake as 2005, putting England in and watching them score 400 in a day!

Not expecting any changes to the Aus XI, no matter how deserved they might be. I'll be laying that draw and cheering the Aussies.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

It's all gone Pete Tong at Betfair!

The Christmas Hurdle from Leopardstown, a good Grade 2 race during the holiday period. But now it will go into history as the race which brought Betfair down. Over £21m at odds of 29 available on Voler La Vedette in-running - that's a potential liability of over £500m. You might think that's a bit suspicious, something's fishy, especially with the horse starting at a Betfair SP of 2.96. Well, this wasn't a horse being stopped by a jockey either - the bloody horse won! Look at what was matched at 29. Split that in half and multiply by 28 for the actual liability for the layer(s). (Matched amounts always shown as double the backers' stake, never counts the layers' risk). There's no way a Betfair client would have £600m+ in their account. Maybe £20 or even £50m from the massive syndicates who regard(ed) Betfair as safer than any bank, but not £600m. So the error has to be something technical. However, rumour has it, a helpdesk reply (not gospel, natur

lay the field - my favourite racing strategy

Dabbling with laying the field in-running at various prices today, not just one price, but several in the same race. Got several matched in the previous race at Brighton, then this race came along at Nottingham. Such a long straight at Nottingham makes punters often over-react and think the finish line is closer than it actually is. As you can see by the number of bets matched, there was plenty of volatility in this in-play market. It's rare you'll get a complete wipe-out with one horse getting matched at all levels, but it can happen, so don't give yourself too much risk...

What shits me about match-fixing 'journalism'.

The anti-wagering media bandwagon has dozens of new members this week, all weighing in an industry they have absolutely no idea about. I'm all for getting the betting industry into the mainstream but it shits me no end when they roll out reports and celebrities who simply don't have a clue what they are talking about and don't bother to check basic facts which key arguments in their story. If this was the financial industry, making errors like this would have them in all sorts of trouble, but the same level of regulation doesn't apply because finance stock markets are supposedly all legitimate and serious, whereas sports betting is just a bit of fun for people who can never win in the long-term... according to the media. This week we have seen the sting by the Telegraph which, on the face of it, looks to be a tremendous piece of investigative work into fixing in English football. But the headlines around it are over-sensationalised yet again. Delroy Facey, a former pla