Skip to main content

the moneybuyers get burned again hurrah, hurrah....


OK, so Kim Clijsters was in control of the match and a set and 5-2 up, but she did come into this match under a major injury cloud and is scratchy on clay.

Huge effort from Arantxa Rus, finally starting to realise some of that potential she showed as a top junior several years ago.

Trying to 'buy money' by backing at 1.01 can only end in tears.....

Comments

  1. Hi. I have been following the blog for about 1 year now and I have seen a few posts about 1.01-backers getting burned or having to go through a gut-wrenching reversal before getting their cent. I find all those examples interesting and have two questions. First, why are you so negative on these backers e.g. "hurrah, hurrah"? Second, by only showing the spectacular losses and never pointing out the frequent, boring wins you are not giving a fair (RoC) treatment of the strategy? I believe that it can be very profitable when paying attention to the right factors (like investment grade credit investing) and a good psychological fit for a certain type of people. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi George,

    That's fair comment. The 'hurrah, hurrah' part actually related to a song I'd been listening to this morning, an old song by The Jam, so it follows the tune. But yes I do cheer when 1.01s get beaten.

    Surely 'frequent, boring wins' can be achieved with far less risk by trading one tick briefly at a much higher price? Just one going wrong in 101 markets and all you can do is break square at best. Betting circles over the years have been littered with leviathan punters who took the short odds for huge sums with win after win after win.... then it all went pear-shaped and they ended up selling used cars or the Big Issue.

    In the States, they call them Bridge Jumpers (where they'll end up if it loses). In Australia, we call them bank teller bets - when a horse called Ajax in the 1930s would run, it was so good it would start very long odds-on. Bank tellers would take all the cash out of their drawer on a Friday night, take it to the racetrack, take home the 'interest' and put the money back in the drawer on Monday morning. When Ajax got beaten one day at 1-40, the brown stuff hit the fan.

    No doubt there is someone who can make it work but the cost of just one mistake is just far too high. At least if you were backing 1.02 shots on Betfair, there'd be an upside you could cash in on (lay 1.01) without sweating a result. Backing 1.01 leaves nothing to chance.

    I'm an 'educate the masses' guy. There will always be an exception to my advice but I'm trying to stop people falling into traps (eg thinking 1.01 always equals sure thing) and using their brains to find a strategy which suits them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. http://green-all-over.blogspot.com/2011/05/hurrah-for-greed.html

    Good luck!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Thanks for your comments, but if you're a spammer, you've just wasted your time - it won't get posted.

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

Spot-fixing - you will never, ever be able to stop it

According to this report , IPL tournaments so far have been rife with spot-fixing - that is fixing minor elements of the game - runs in a single over, number of wides bowled etc. The curious part of that article is that the Income Tax department are supposed to have found these crimes. What idiot would be stupid enough to put down 'big wad of cash handed to me by bookie' as a source of income? Backhanders for sportsmen, particularly in a celebrity- and cricket-obsessed culture like India are not rare. They could come from anything like turning up to open someone's new business (not a sponsor, but a 'friend of a friend' arrangement), to being a guest at some devoted fan's dinner party etc. The opportunities are always there, and there will always be people trying to become friends with players and their entourage - that is human nature. This form of match-fixing (and it's not really fixing a match, just a minor element of it) is very hard to prove, but also,

Betdaq.... sold...... FOR HOW MUCH???

So as rumoured for a while, Ladbrokes have finally acquired the lemon, sorry, purple-coloured betting exchange, Betdaq. For a mind-boggling €30m as 'initial consideration'. That's an even more ridiculous price than Fernando Torres for £50m, or any English player Liverpool have purchased in recent seasons! As I've written previously there are no logical business reasons for this acquisition. from Nov 29, 2012 The Racing Post reported this week that Ladbrokes are nearing a decision to acquire Betdaq. This baffles me, it really does. Betdaq are a complete and utter lemon. Their only rival in the market has kicked so many own goals over the years with the premium charge, followed by an increase in the premium charge, cost of API and data use, customer service standards which have fallen faster than Facebook share value, site crashes and various other faults. So many pissed off Betfair customers, yet Betdaq are still tailed off with a lap to go. Around the world, Betfair