Skip to main content

Wimbledon day 4 activity

Let's try posting a bit earlier today...

There may be a tad of bias here being Australian, but I think Hewitt is a live chance against del Potro today. I've never been a huge fan of his to be honest, but I marked del Potro only a slight fav - he has to be a lay at 1.45. Lleyton's last five losses here have been to Federer (x3), Djokovic and Baghdatis (the year he made the semis). He loves Wimbledon and will make sure he keeps the ball low, making it tough for the 6'6" Argentine to get a rhythm.

Baltacha is favourite in a match at Wimbledon. I don't care who she's playing, that has to be a lay! Flipkens isn't great, but nor is she hopeless.

Gonzalez has complained of knee soreness and plays a very promising kid in Leo Mayer. I've seen him live a couple of times in recent weeks and have been very impressed with his game. Lay the 1.25 for two units, with one unit traded back at 1.5 or so in-running.

Cuevas beat Rochus in five, not a great achievement, but did serve 36 aces. Levine beat a disinterested Safin and shouldn't be 1.5 in any match...
Labels:

Comments

  1. Peter Webb25 June 2009 at 14:34

    Good shout on Hewitt, as he is not seeded he has sort of been forgotten.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Scott25 June 2009 at 14:38

    he's not there yet :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Peter Webb25 June 2009 at 20:17

    There you go, I had complete confidence in your ability. When I read your post it just seemed to make perfect sense. So I owe you a beer for that one.

    Good call on Baltacha as well!

    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

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, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
33 comments
Read more

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...
14 comments
Read more