Someone left a brief but succinct comment under last night's post that wasn't too complimentary about James Wade. Presumably the Commentor is an On The Oche subscriber; Wade was the service's antepost tip to win this week's World Grand Prix. Unfortunately, after trading at a ridiculously low price to win yesterday's first round match, Wade somehow managed to get himself knocked out. Hence the offensive comment, I guess.
The result was certainly frustrating, but what I hadn't known until this morning was that Wade has, over a number of years, been trying to cope with the effects of clinical depression. In today's OTO email, Matt referred to the fact that Wade hadn't looked too good on the stage last night, describing him as being, "in a pretty bad way". In light of this, my frustration at not getting a run for our antepost money on Wade has disappeared somewhat. From the very little I know of the condition, I believe clinical depression to be a horribly debilitating affliction and anyone suffering from it has my sympathy. It certainly makes me a little embarrassed by my recent frivolous whingeing at the careless mistakes I've made with my gambling. In fact, looking on the bright side, my error in backing Wade to win the tournament as opposed to the recommended each way has saved me half a point.
Summer Of Football had a winner in Brazil last night, but unfortunately I wasn't on it. I can't quite decide whether or not I did the right thing by not backing the selection.
JP once advised that I never chase a price down on a bet and that if the value has gone, then the wise thing to do is to leave it. Graeme Dand recently imparted the same wisdom to his subscribers. My own rule is that I need to secure a price that represents at least 90% of the advised price when looking to strike a football/sports bet.
The question though, is where do you draw the line when considering what price you can take? That 90% figure I mention is completely arbitrary. I've noticed that the price that Sportyy suggests as the minimum acceptable on his picks is 90% of the price he advises at, but even so, the level of value contained within any one bet is impossible to quantify. You therefore have to think that in this context, any self-imposed restriction to the odds deemed acceptable on a bet is all a bit of a nonsense. Particulary when you set a minimum acceptable price on a bet of 1.83 and don't back it when the maximum found is 1.81, which happened to be the case yesterday with the Summer Of Football tip (in fact James stated today that 1.825 was available, which makes my opting out even more of a nonsense!). It's a tough one though. Do you draw a line and then allow yourself to fall the wrong side of it, even if the margin is tiny? Logic says no. Common sense possibly says yes.
Either way, James was good enough to record the bet for official proofing purposes as being settled at 1.825, a move that reinforces his service's reputation for treating it's customers fairly. His email today certainly made for thought-provoking reading. It referred to Asian betting syndicates - and an implication that the way they work is sometimes "interesting" - and unusual trading patterns during the relevant game itself. It was like the opening episode of a good television drama series, revealing a tantalising glimpse of a world of shady goings on and subterfuge, and which left one wanting to know a lot more.
Finally for today, I want to mention an issue that affects all of us online gamblers. Mat Hare, one time author of an excellent gambling blog (much better than this one, I can tell you!), prolific SBC forum contributor, and portfolio gambler, had his William Hill account abused by an unknown third party. Essentially what happened was that he lost a fair amount of money he held within his online Hills account due to some bastard using the money in the company's online casino.
From reading the thread in the SBC forum, it is as yet unclear exactly how the fraudulent third party gained access to Mat's account. One thing is beyond doubt though, and that is the fact that William Hill are washing their hands of it, refusing to accept any responsibility for the security of their customer's account which quite frankly, I find absolutely disgusting.
I wish Mat well in his efforts to gain some level of compensation. In the meantime, it might be wise to ensure passwords and usernames to online bookmaker accounts deviate from the predictable. It might also be prudent to keep funds held within these accounts to relatively low levels. It can be a nasty old world out there.
Oh, dear. Another poor day.
No joy at all with the racing, Winning Racing Systems (Favs) (0/2) and On The Nose (0/1).
Sportyy managed to find one winner (Verdasco to win the 1st set vs Monaco - 6/5) but also suffered two losers. We've talked about the On The Oche antepost bet already, but they had two match bets, one a winner (I.White to beat van Barneveld - 6/4), the other a loser.
Winning Racing Systems: Staked 2pts, -2pts.
On The Nose: Staked 0.5pts, -0.5ts.
Sportyy: Staked 3.5pts, -0.174pts.
On The Oche: Staked 1.5pts, -0.25pts.