The sports spread betting blog

Glorious Goodwood - 28/7/09 until 1/8/09

Day Two of this year’s Glorious Goodwood dominated the pages of Wednesday’s Racing Post, especially the Sussex Stakes which offered the exciting prospect of the so-called ‘super filly’ Ghanaati battling this year’s leading colts, including Rip Van Winkle and Paco Boy. However, all of the races across the day promised to be competitive and it seemed an exceptionally tough day to try and pick a winner.

Instead, I decided to get myself involved with card markets available with the spread betting firms, which aggregate the results of all seven races in the day. Total winning distances caught my eye: the quote of 10.5 – 11.5 seemed high on a day with few short-priced favourites and a number of short, competitive looking races. I would have had the quote in for perhaps a point lower so, rather speculatively I CHOSE TO SELL DISTANCES AT 10.5.

Here’s how the day went, race by race:

1) 14:10: 2m 5f handicap. Oh God, what a race to start with – an epic staying race run over about as long a distance as you ever get on the flat. I’m assured by my pal who knows these things that the handicapper over the years has ensured it’s a tight contest, rarely making up over 1.5 lengths. Naturally, Sweetheart is absolutely smashed out by Jimmy Fortune and wins by 3.75 lengths. Not an ideal start, to say the least.

2) 14.45: 7f sprint. Xtension, the 7/2 favourite, is nowhere to be seen 2 furlongs out but suddenly starts storming its way past the field along the outside. I thank the Lord the finishing post appears when it does, as this horse was travelling, extending its lead at a quite scary rate. In the end I escape with just 1.25.

3) 15.25: 1m Sussex Stakes. The definite highlight from the day’s card and probably the biggest race from the whole Glorious Goodwood festival. Perhaps surprisingly, Johnny Murtagh sends 6/4 favourite Rip van Winkle out early, with a good 4 furlongs still remaining. Undeterred. he charges past a high class field and built up a decent 3 length lead which his rivals, despite my urging them on fail to make much of a dent in. A most impressive performance leads to an unwelcome 2.5 length victory.

I’m on 7.5 lengths with four races still remaining and this is already looking like damage limitation.

4) 16:00: 1m 4f handicap. A standard enough race won by Classic Vintage, under Jim Crowley, who takes the lead 2 furlongs out and holds on for a 2.25 length win. Except for reasons I fail to understand, it’s given as 2.75 lengths! It might only make half a point’s difference for me, but at this stage every extra millimetre is painful.

We’re on 10.25 after four and I have a quarter of a length to play with and three races remaining. This could get ugly.

5) 16:35: 6f Maiden Fillies stakes. Ah, wonderful news – I’m already in trouble and now have a maiden race full of untried fillies, one of which could be the new Rainbow View. Fortunately Beyond Desire, the eventual winner by 1.25 lengths, probably isn’t.

The in-running quote is now 13.9 – 14.4, so I can close out for a 4 point loss. But where’s the fun in that? I take my chances on the last two races.

6) 17:10: 1m 1f handicap. We’re getting into the grittier end of the card – race-goers are starting to stumble home after one too many G&Ts and terrestrial TV coverage is but a distant memory. Nonetheless, I sit transfixed to Racing UK and watch my best result of the day so far, with 9/2 joint-favourite Alsace Lorraine holding off the pack to sneak home by a neck. This equates to 0.3 lengths, apparently, which doesn’t make a lot of a sense to me. I mean, in what messed-up universe does a neck count towards 30% of a horse’s length? It’s not a bloody giraffe! But I digress.

7) 17:45: 7f ‘Lucky Last’. And so, on 11.8 after 6 races, it all comes down to this. Not to see if I win or not – that was probably decided after race one - but rather to see exactly how much I lose. This doesn’t make it the most enjoyable cheer in the world, but as Frankie Dettori guides home 4/1 shot Axiom to win by just half a length, I heave a sigh of relief.

A 12.3 make-up means a 1.8 point loss, but after 4 races things were looking a lot worse. Indeed, it’s such a turnaround by the end the small loss almost feels like a winner. Almost.

JW

England v Australia, second Ashes Test - 16/7/09 to 20/7/09

First of all, apologies for the lack of updates on the blog in recent weeks, but even the most committed punters need a break from their constant diet of live sport every once in a while. Since I last wrote, Wimbledon transformed from being a poor tournament betting-wise into a total disaster – needless to say, getting short of total games in the final was not the greatest idea I’ve ever had, especially when that final turned out to be the longest in Wimbledon history! Still, it could have been worse: I could have sold cross-courts like a friend of mine did. He sold at 100, it made up 351 for a painful 251 point loss. Ouch!

I decided to ease myself back into the fold with an interest bet on the Ashes. My initial instinct at the start of series had been to get with Australia and the first Test did little to dispel me of that notion – despite England escaping with a draw, there appeared to be a clear a gulf in class between the sides. This was borne out in the betting for the next test at Lord's, where the layers made Australia strong favourites on a ground where they hadn’t lost an Ashes test in 75 years. Their 25:10 price (which makes up 25 for a win and 10 for a draw) was 13-14.5, while England’s was at 8-9.5.

However, one nagging doubt put me off piling into Australia – this was the last wicket stand between Anderson and Panesar which had saved the first Test for England. Cricket series often turn on a single moment and I had a feeling that this epic, unexpected escape could be one. Thus I took the unusually sensible decision to watch the opening session of the day to see how England were getting on before making my move.

From England’s point of view, this could hardly have gone better. Strauss and Cook propelled their side to 126-0 at lunch with a supreme batting performance. Although it was still early days, that final wicket stand in Cardiff was starting to look pivotal. I had successfully talked myself out of backing Australia for the match, but did I have the courage to push my chips towards England instead?

I umm-ed and err-ed for most of the lunch break and just before Ben Hilfenhaus’s opening over of the second session I decided to BUY ENGLAND’S 25:10 AT 13.5. With such a solid platform to build off, and rain forecast for later in the week, I found it hard to see how England would lose the game from this position. I later rethought that theory, and decided that, with England being England, I could see them losing a game from almost any position, but by that stage the bet was on.

For once, my bet was not the signal for the familiar tumble of England wickets – totally the opposite in fact, as Strauss and Cook pushed on all the way to 196-0 before Cook fell lbw to the otherwise appalling Mitchell Johnson. The inevitable English collapse took until the second morning to occur, with Strauss failing to add to his 161 of the previous day and two more wickets falling for 14 runs leaving England rather precariously balanced at 378-9. But then came Jimmy Anderson’s second important contribution with the bat in two innings as he and Graham Onions put on a thoroughly entertaining, Lord’s record of 47 for the last wicket.

England suddenly had some momentum going into the change of innings and, sensing that the bowling attack would be galvanised by their collective effort with the bat, I played the ‘momentum’ card again and topped up my earlier position by BUYING ENGLAND’s 25:10 at 13.

If at that stage you’d offered me Australia to be 156-8 at the close of play – well, the phrase ‘I’d bite your hand off’ springs to mind. But that’s exactly where they were thanks to four wickets from Anderson, who was fast becoming my own betting hero. England chose not to enforce the follow-on once Australia were eventually all out for 215, instead putting on 311-6 themselves and effectively batting Australia out of the game.

With my worst case result now effectively a draw, and a make-up of 10, I was happy to sit out the rest of the Test and watch England – a few hairy moments aside – clinch a reasonably comfortable 115-run victory over the Old Enemy. Scenes of jubilation erupted around Lord’s – and my television screen too – as a 75 year curse was finally lifted. And to think that my initial instinct had been to back Australia...

JW

Wimbledon 2009 – the story so far

Strawberries and cream. Manicured grass courts. Tennis whites. Pimms. Mediocre performances from mediocre British players. Yes, there’s a lot of reasons to like Wimbledon and I haven’t even mentioned yet the myriad of betting opportunities. With 254 matches played in the Men’s and Women’s singles events, surely it can’t be that hard to turn a profit from a few wise spread bets…?

Well, that’s the theory at least. For as we rejoin The Championships halfway through, it has been something of a struggle betting-wise. Things weren’t helped by a self-imposed handicap before the tournament had even begun: I foolishly backed Rafael Nadal to win the tournament with one of the fixed odds firms that were not offering ‘non-runner, no bet’. Even by recent standards, to be in deficit before the tournament had actually begun was particularly impressive.

Since the tennis actually started, my tournament strategy has consisted of three major tenets:

1) Get with Juan Martin Del Potro
2) Get with Juan Carlos Ferrero (pictured above)
3) Get against Ivo Karlovic

I’d like to think there was sound reasoning behind all of these, but they have produced mixed results. Ferrero’s recent resurgence has come as little surprise to his most loyal fans (i.e. me) who never lost faith in the former French Open Champion and World Number 1. This grass-court season, Ferrero has lent further credence to his own theory that fast courts now represent the former clay-court specialist’s best chance of success.

So far, he has recorded victories over Youzhny, Santoro and, most recently, Fernando Gonzalez in a phenomenal five-set contest full of attacking brim and sensational shot-making. Scheduled to face Gilles Simon in the 4th round, Ferrero’s ‘so-far’ currently stands at 5 on the tournament outright index, ensuring that those of us who bought him at 2.5 pre-tournament will at the very least double our money.

(FYI, the outright index makes up: 60 to the tournament winner, 40 to the losing finalist, 20 to the semi-finalists, 10 to the quarter-finalists and 5 for making the last 16)

King Juan Carlos has represented all that’s good about my Wimbledon so far. Unfortunately, he’s been pretty much my only success story. Most disastrous was my brief flirtation with the fifth-seeded Juan Martin Del Potro. Doubts had been raised pre-tournament concerning the French Open semi-finalist’s lack of experience on grass and, in particular, how the 6’6” giant would cope with the skidding, low bounce of the balls.

A first round 6-3 6-1 6-2 demolition of last year’s quarter-finalist Arnaud Clement was enough to persuade me that these fears were unfounded and so, fatefully, I piled into the Argentine, buying him on the outright index at 13. To say I didn’t get a run for my money would be an understatement; Del Potro lasted just three further sets in the tournament, all won by his second round opponent, Lleyton Hewitt. While the tennis world marvelled at the class demonstrated by the 2002 Wimbledon Champion – who looked far more at home on the grass of SW19 than his gangly opponent – I was left to come to terms with a 13 point loss.

Talking of big men looking ill at ease at Wimbledon, the 6’10” Croat Ivo Karlovic has struggled more than most in recent years. Despite regularly performing well at Queen’s and Nottingham in the lead-up to Wimbledon, he had suffered four straight first round defeats at the All England Club, most of which were against unheralded opponents. With such a record, the chance to sell his 25:0 at 21.5 against the Slovak Lukas Lacko was too good to turn down.

Karlovic promptly won in straight sets meaning another losing bet for me. Undeterred. I sold his 25:0 again in the next round, this time against Steve Darcis, a quarter-finalist at Queen’s. Karlovic again won in three. Sensing a pattern, I dodged his third round match against Jo Wilfried Tsonga, in which Karlovic’s unplayable, unbreakable serve was the key to another victory. Old habits die hard however and I’m already lining up a way to get against Dr Ivo in his fourth round clash with Fernando Verdasco – a match, which, amazingly to my eyes at least, the Croat is set to go off favourite.

So that’s the week that was for me at Wimbledon. Pretty disastrous so far, but at least – unlike every Brit bar Andy Murray – I’m still in the game, with a chance to turn things around. What price Juan Carlos Ferrero 2009 Wimbledon Champion?

JW

England vs Pakistan, Twenty20 World Cup – 09/06/09

God bless the England cricket team. Just when you think that they can’t plunge new depths of ignominy, they crash to a defeat so unexpected, so downright humiliating that it temporarily usurps all of their previous efforts. It doesn’t take long however for the latest shock to subside to merely another ignoble inscription on the pantheon of Great England Cricketing Disasters.

And so alongside Zimbabwe ’92, New Zealand ’99 and Australia ’07, we can add Holland ’09, after a memorable Friday night’s cricket at Lords when the Netherlands managed to defeat England off the last ball in the opener of this year’s Twenty20 World Cup. Never mind that England put on 100-0 off their first 11 overs, never mind that Stuart Broad had three run out chances and a potential caught-and-bowled in his shambolic final over; no, England still managed to achieve an impossible looking defeat.

As the Dutch celebrated their most unlikely triumph, captain Paul Collingwood was left with the unenviable task of trying to rally his men for their upcoming match against Pakistan at the Oval. This contest was suddenly transformed from a meaningless tie between two sides guaranteed qualification into a must-win match for England, lest they depart their own T20 tournament at the earliest possible stage.

And yet, despite all of this, England amazingly started the match against Pakistan as slight favourites. Now I don’t profess to be any great expert on cricket (or any other sport for that matter), but this just didn’t seem right. Pakistan have always struck me as a quality, if slightly erratic outfit, whereas England are – well – England, an erratic outfit distinctly lacking in quality. Having chosen to get with Pakistan for this match I had a couple of options: either I could simply back them to win at 11/10 with a choice of fixed odds firms or, more interestingly, I could back them on the spreads. It is often remarked that cricket is the perfect spread betting sport and on this occasion I liked the look of the supremacy market, which makes up 1 point per run, or 10 points per wicket won or lost by. The quote here was England / Pakistan 0-8, meaning it was possible to SELL THE SUPREMACY AT 0 and, in other words, back Pakistan off scratch.

DURING THE MATCH

Oh dear. This was one of those bets that was in trouble from pretty much the first ball of the match. England batted first and got off to a blistering start through Luke Wright, who pinch-hit an impressive 34 off 16 balls. What’s more, Kevin Pietersen was playing worryingly well on his return to the side, finding the boundary with what seemed like every shot. Non-stop sixes may be entertaining for the fans in the crowd, but they’re a merciless bombardment on your wallet when you’ve backed the bowling side. Even more frustrating was the Pakistani fielding, with dropped catches and mis-fields galore, not to mention the infuriating habit of attempting the unlikeliest run-out, regardless of potential overthrows. This all contributed to England setting a challenging target of 185, which in truth, Pakistan never got close to chasing. Wickets fell all too frequently in the reply, many of which were brought on by iffy shots, even by the standards of a Twenty20 slogathon.

As I was on course to lose a point per run that Pakistan trailed England’s by, a bit more spirit from the Pakistanis would have been welcome; instead, they meekly made their way to 137 and a 48-run defeat. As the rest of the country celebrated England’s resurgence as a cricketing superpower, I looked back on a Great England Cricketing Disaster of my own making.

JW

Williams vs Kuznetsova, French Open quarter final - 3/6/09

The last of the women’s singles quarter-finals at the French Open promised to be the best. Serena Williams, the 2002 Roland Garros champion faced the 2006 finalist, Svetlana Kuznetsova of Russia in a match which the bookies were having trouble calling. Kuznetsova’s form over the clay season had been more solid than Serena’s, who as usual had undergone an in-and-out campaign marred by fitness issues and inconsistent performances in the lesser events.

Serena had wobbled a couple of times en route to the quarter-finals, dropping sets to unsung journey-women Klara Zakopalova and Maria Martinez Sanchez, while Kuznetzova, in contrast, had continued her impressive form, dropping just the one set in her first four matches while asserting herself as the clear second favourite for the tournament (behind the seemingly unbeatable Dinara Safina).

There is little doubt that were this match taking place in your average non-descript stop on tennis circuit then Kuzzie (as she’s known to her mates) would have started as clear favourite. However, as followers of women’s tennis know all too well, Serena in a Grand Slam is a different animal to at any other time: her motivation and competitive spirit is unquestionable and her performances speak for themselves (she has just the 10 Grand Slam titles to her name). Thus, a match where Kuzzie seemed the clear jolly was now more open for interpretation. One spread betting firm, taking a view on the match at odds with much of the market, went so far as to make Serena favourite.

Now, as good as her Grand Slam form may be, this seemed a step too far for me and, putting my faith in the Russian’s solid all-court game and praying that she would, for once, be able to close out a match against a top player, I DECIDED TO SELL SERENA’S 25:0 AT 12.75.

This meant that I would win 12.75 points if Serena lost and lose 12.25 points if she won – in other words, I was taking umbrage with the firm’s view that Serena was slight favourite for the contest and putting my faith in the talented, if flaky, Russian.

DURING THE MATCH

Kuzzie came flying out of the blocks on Court Suzanne Lenglen, winning the first three games of the contest and quickly asserting herself as a warm favourite for the match. After barely 10 minutes, my bet was seriously onside and I was tempted to close out there and then by buying Serena at 7.25 for a fast 5.5 point win. But then, I thought to myself, why? The bet was in great shape, Kuzzie was playing solidly and Serena didn’t look at the races. No reason to close, I reckoned; instead I’d let the bet ride and continue to enjoy watching this Kuzzie demolition job.

Big mistake, as it soon transpired, for while Serena had started the match looking like she’d just got out of bed, it was unrealistic to believe her sloppy play would continue forever. Williams forced the match into a first set tie-break and, despite a phenomenal series of points which Kuzzie put together to take it 7-3, was still looking in good shape to mount her inevitable charge.

Instead, history repeated itself in the second set: again Kuzzie took a 3-0 lead and at one stage led 5-3, with a chance to serve for the match. But again Serena came storming back, and Kuzzie’s inability to close out matches returned to haunt her as Serena broke twice more to take the set 7-5.

And so the match entered a third and deciding set and by this stage, there was little doubt who was favourite. The market clearly expected Serena to continue apace with her comeback and to close at the start of the set would have required buying Serena at 17, i.e. a loss of 4.25 points.

Instead, I again chose to hold on and let my bet ride, hoping beyond hope that Kuzzie would perform better from behind than she did as a front-runner. At 3-1 to Williams things were looking bleak, but now it was Kuzzie’s turn to mount a stirring comeback of her own. She wasted two match points at 4-5 in the final set after some strong serving from Serena kept her in the match, but Kuzzie refused to be denied and finally clinched the match in Serena’s next service game.

In a topsy-turvy match that showed the very best of the women’s game, it was the Russian who happily prevailed handing me a satisfying, if nerve-jangling, 12.75 point win.

JW

Nadal v Federer, Madrid Masters Final - 17/5/09

It took until the last of 2009’s three clay court Masters Series for it happen, but the two dominant tennis forces of recent times were ready to once again collide. Of course, as rivalries go, what Rafael Nadal vs Roger Federer exudes in intensity, it lacks in equality. For this was a ‘rivalry’ with one protagonist clearly superior to his opponent: Nadal had won his last five matches against Federer, including a draining five setter in Australia which left Federer beaten, battered and quite literally in tears.

Their head-to-head record on clay made even more sobering reading for the Swiss: Federer had only once triumphed out of 11 meetings, and that was in Hamburg two years ago. Since then, Nadal had racked up four consecutive wins, including a 6-1 6-3 6-0 pulverisation in the 2008 French Open final. In short, Fed-ex’s prospects could barely have looked worse.

However, according to the bookmakers, the Swiss had a fighting chance. His 25:0 (which makes up 25 if he wins the match and 0 if he loses) was 6.5 – 8, which was a couple of points higher than I had expected it to be. Nadal, it must never be forgotten, is pretty much Superman on clay – his record since 2005 was a mind-boggling 150 wins and four defeats. Add to this the hoodoo he seemed to hold over Federer and there was just no way that I could see the Swiss winning this match. And so, despite a usual reluctance to pile into short prices, I CHOSE TO SELL FEDERER’S 25:0 AT 6.5.

DURING THE MATCH

The contest started off as expected, with Nadal looking his usual supreme self on the red stuff and Federer struggling a little, saving break points in both his second and third service games. Then, however, the tide slowly began to change, with Federer exerting his own pressure on the Nadal serve and the King of Clay, unusually, finding it hard to respond. Federer duly took the first set 6-4 and another factor came into play. For in the semi-finals, Nadal played one of the matches of the year against Novak Djokovic, saving three match points before winning a 3rd set tie-break 11-9 to clinch a memorable triumph in four hours and three minutes.

Now, less than 24 hours later, he was being asked to come back again from one set to love down, this time against an inspired Roger Federer. Now, normally the words ‘Nadal’ and ‘fatigue’ go together about as well as ‘Murray’ and ‘charming’ or ‘Kim Clijsters’ and ‘in shape’. On this occasion, however, Nadal worryingly looked absolutely knackered. Backhand passes that he’d normally rip cross-court were landing in the tramlines, second serves were being buried in the net.

Nadal was looking like a shadow of himself and playing like one as well. Federer, sensing blood, seized upon his fatigued opponent and broke again midway through the second set, before serving out the match for a 6-4 6-4 victory. A shock result in many ways and not a good outcome for my bet, although it did offer much needed confirmation that Nadal is not quite Superman. Yet.

JW

Review: 2009 Snooker World Championships - 13/5/09

This year’s World Snooker Championship seemed to be especially important for the long-term future of the sport. In the previous weeks, snooker has been engulfed with bad news: from betting scandals (the Maguire vs Burnett affair from December’s UK championship is still under police investigation) to outspoken criticism over the direction the sport was taking from the man who is arguably its only real star, Ronnie O’Sullivan. Furthermore there was speculation that the tournament was prepared to abandon its legendary home of the Crucible Theatre in Sheffield for some glitzy new venue in China or Dubai. All in all, the World Snooker Authority was in desperate need of the positive publicity that a successful tournament could garner.

From a bettor’s perspective, this was significant. A good tournament would surely feature close matches and, more importantly for us, high scoring. Crucially, the latter is something that can be influenced by the organisers. A little softening of the pockets here, a change of cloth there and the world’s most gifted snooker players would have the best possible opportunity to showcase their break-building talents. In the current climate, it was in nobody’s interest to have matches dominated by balls rattling in the jaws of unforgiving pockets, and dour safety play encouraged by the player’s reluctance to chance their arms with long pots.

In light of this, two quotes in particular caught my eye. Total tournament centuries were available to buy at 67 and tournament ton-ups (i.e. the total number of points scored over 100 in each century break) at 1080. Historically speaking, these quotes look on the high side – only twice in the last ten years had centuries made up higher than 67 and ton-ups had never done so. However, sometimes it can pay to not get bogged down in past results. The overall standard of snooker has been significantly improving for years now; the young players coming through all seem to be talented break-builders and the number of centuries scored was increasing: at the Masters in January, the world’s top 16 players – who would all be present in Sheffield – combined for 32 centuries in just 15 matches. Over the longer format of the World Championship, I anticipated a similarly strong performance and so BOUGHT TOTAL CENTURIES AND TOTAL TOURNAMENT TON-UPS.

On the outright market, I had a strong liking for Ali ‘The Captain’ Carter. Frequently acclaimed as one of the brightest young talents in the game, he had consistently reached the latter stages of tournaments during the 2008-9 season and had recently claimed his first ranking title. Having already reached the World Championship final the previous year, I fancied him to go deep again this year and so chose to BUY CARTER ON THE 4-PAY INDEX AT 18. This would make up 100 if he won the tournament, 50 if he reached the final and 25 for a semi-final, so I needed at least a last-four appearance from Carter to turn a profit in the match.

DURING THE TOURNAMENT

Well, I was certainly right on one count. The tournament was indeed a festival of scoring. In the very first session, Ronnie hit a 140 break and was 13 reds and blacks into a potential 147. The scoring barely let up from then on and it soon became clear that the previous record of 68 tournament centuries was going to be obliterated. Despite a slight let-up in the scoring as the tournament reached the tense semi-final stage, both of my tournament bets ended up as very decent winners: centuries made up 83 and ton-ups 1277. Unfortunately, my faith in Carter was somewhat misplaced as he crashed out of the tournament to the Aussie Neil Robertson in the 2nd round stage. Indeed, Carter was a let down all-round, as he contrived to exit the tournament early on without contributing a single century. Still, even his early exit couldn’t spoil what was an excellent tournament, both for my punting and, probably more significantly, for the ailing sport of snooker itself. It was announced halfway through that the World Championships will be returning to Sheffield for the next five years; I, for one, cannot wait.

JW

Preview: Arsenal v Man United, Champions League semi-final, second leg - 5/5/09

There are so many matches between the top four clubs in England these days. I remember a time when it was so rare that English clubs were drawn against each other in Europe that I wasn't even sure if it was allowed in the rules. It's different nowadays, and when Liverpool and Chelsea were put together yet again for this year's Champions League quarter-finals, you could almost hear the groan from every football fan in Europe.

This collective grumpiness would not just have been because of the repetition of games between these two, but also because the matches over the previous few years had been fairly dull. You could argue that the tension made the games exciting, but not many people genuinely enjoy watching matches that commentators are describing after ten minutes as a 'chess match'. I personally found it hard to believe that Chelsea under Mourinho banging the ball up to Drogba over and over again was really the all time pinnacle of football strategy.

One feature of these Liverpool v Chelsea ties was that goals always seemed to be very low - usually a dour, grinding 0-0 away draw from Liverpool followed by a tight win at Anfield on penalties or by one goal. Last season's ties finished 3-2 (after extra time) and 1-1, but still, the instinctive reaction on which way to trade on total goals would be to sell rather than buy. The problem is that bookmakers are aware of this as well, so total goals quotes for the first leg at Anfield were very low, with a typical quote being 1.95-2.15.

I had a look at average total goals make-ups in recent meetings between the sides, and found that in the last twenty-two Liverpool v Chelsea matches goals had averaged 1.82, and in the Champions League matches between them the average was just 1.25. So one could argue that a sell at 1.95 might still be an idea. I simply didn't fancy it though, although I can't claim that I was tempted to buy either. The first leg finished 1-3, which meant that the second leg would be far more open with Liverpool needing three goals to have a chance of going through. The total goals market was therefore very tricky, with lots of factors to take into account - very low historical average, an average of 3.66 in the last three matches between them, and a game which was likely to be very open.

The spread betting firms were still forced fairly low though, with most quotes being around 2.4-2.6 and 2.5-2.7. I still couldn't bring myself to have a buy, and was regretting this as one of the matches of the season finished in a 4-4 draw. There was a similar scenario for Liverpool v Arsenal recently. It sounded like low goals, especially with Adebayor and Van Persie out, but it finished 4-4 again.

It's now very difficult to know what total goals are going to be like in future matches between the big four. After these high goals make-ups we saw another tight affair last week as Manchester United beat Arsenal 1-0. It's tempting after some high goals make-ups to fall into the trap of thinking that all matches between the big four are going to be goalfests in future, and similarly if there's a couple of chess matches one might be tempted to sell for the next one. The correct answer is obviously somewhere in the middle, which is why it's not a surprise to see the spread betting firms putting out fairly neutral total goals quotes like 2.4-2.6 for the Champions League semi-final second leg between Arsenal and United.

AR

Andy Murray v Novak Djokovic, Miami Masters final - 5/4/09

The rise and rise of Andy Murray appears to know no bounds. His latest final appearance, in the Miami Masters, represented his fourth of the season so far, out of only five tournaments entered. The fact that the one final he missed was the Australian Open will continue to raise doubts as to whether Murray has the makings of a Grand Slam champion, but – Melbourne aside – his start to the season has been pretty much faultless.

Such stellar progress had not escaped the attention of the nation’s bookmakers, who made Murray a strong favourite for his Miami final with Novak Djokovic. Murray was available to back at as short as 4/9 with some fixed-odds firms, but the market which caught my eye was the 10/5 set supremacy on the spreads.

This spread betting market, which makes up between -20 and +20, awards 10 points to the winner of the match and 5 points per set won by. The quote for the final of 4.5 – 7.5 in Murray’s favour equated to a degree of favouritism towards the Scot that, in my opinion, was a touch too strong.

Murray’s form, as outlined above, was exemplary, but Djokovic himself was coming off a fine win against Roger Federer and, despite his patchy recent displays, on hard courts remains a severe test for any player. This, added the fact that were they playing just six months ago you could reasonably expect the supremacy to be reversed (i.e. for it to be Djokovic ‘over’ 4.5 – 7.5), all convinced me to SELL THE 10/5 SET SUPREMACY AT 4.5.

DURING THE MATCH

Taking a position that runs contrary to the prevailing market view is extremely rewarding if you get it right. On certain occasions though, like this one, you end up feeling like quite a chump. As it was, the match proceeded just as the market had been anticipating. Murray was too much for Djokovic: too strong, too fast, too resilient and just too darn good. He broke the Serb in his very first service game, and again in his second, racing into a 4-0 lead.

Murray was pummelling Djokovic in the way that Djokovic had done to so many inferior opponents over the years. It was merciless and, for sellers at 4.5, it was painful too. I looked in vain for a closing price, but the spread firms were one step ahead of me. By the end of the first set, which Murray won 6-2, the 10/5 supremacy was trading at 14.5 – 17.5. While I had already resigned myself to a probable loss, I had no desire to buy at 17.5 and lock in – or rather lock out – 13.5 points with no chance of getting anything back.

My continued faith in Djokovic nearly paid dividends when he took a 5-2 lead in the second set – even if Murray went on to win the third, the bet making up 15 would still be preferable to a close at 17.5. Such speculation soon turned irrelevant though, as Djokovic contrived to throw away his 5-2 lead in the most spectacular way imaginable, passing up two set points on his way to a 5-7 reverse for set and match.

A 15.5 point loss then and a lesson learned. That Andy Murray, he’s really quite good. I’ll probably think twice about getting against him again.

JW

Premier League Darts, Week 8 - 26/3/09

Week 8 of the Premier League darts took place in front of a strangely muted audience in Birmingham. Maybe it was due to the earlier than usual 6.30pm start time, but the first match of the night started with the distracting backdrop of the Birmingham crowd still searching for their seats as they hurried from work into the cavernous National Indoor Arena.

This cannot have been good news for Wayne Mardle, whose entire game plan these days seems to be to rely on an intoxicated, boisterous late-night crowd to succeed in putting off his unfortunate opponent. You got the impression that a soulless, half-empty arena on the outskirts of Birmingham wasn’t quite the kind of sort of atmosphere he was looking for.

A quiet night at the darts was exactly what I was looking for though spread betting-wise, as I had chosen to SELL TOTAL 180s ON THE NIGHT AT 24.75. Selling 180s is never a particularly fun bet, especially for the casual punter, who in general would prefer to buy and cheer each 180 as it comes in. Having done the same spread bet earlier this year, I remember going along to the World Championships at Alexandra Palace and being the stick-in the-mud of our group, the only person who’d stay in his seat when a 180 was thrown instead of cheering like a simpleton and waving around a cheap sign.

Still, no-one said betting was supposed to be fun. Winning, however, most certainly is and I was confident on this occasion. In the previous seven weeks of the Premier League, total 180s had made up under this quote four times. What’s more, total 180s dropped from a monstrous 34 in Week 6 to just 20 in Week 7 and I was hopeful that this trend would continue.

DURING THE NIGHT

The subdued atmosphere worked a treat in the first match, as Mardle and Mervyn King combined for just three 180s. King managed to destroy Mardle 8-2, leaving very little time for either player to throw in their expected number of 180s. The next match was a far better contest, with Jelle Klaasen coming from behind to defeat Terry Jenkins 8-6.

This was one of those horrible games where the first two darts from each player kept nestling into the treble-20 bed, leaving the committed seller permanently on the verge of a heart attack. Fortunately, both players had also mastered the art of the stray third dart, meaning a lot of 140s, or indeed 121s and 125s, but very few 180s – just three, in fact, over the 14 legs of the contents.

With a running total of six from two matches, my sell was very much onside, meaning I had a massive 18 ¾ 180s to play with in the remaining two matches. The last thing I needed, then, was an absolute bonanza in the next match, as John Part and James Wade produced a match brimming with quality, and some very heavy scoring.

Ten 180s later, and the bet was now much less onside than I would have liked. To make things worse, the final match of the evening was Phil Taylor vs Raymond van Barneveld, a contest that had 180s-fest written all over it.

As it transpired, the match between the two old rivals had more in common with King’s hammering of Mardle earlier in the evening, than the classic 2007 final which Barney won 7-6. This time, Barneveld looked strangely out of sorts and suffered a veritable thrashing at Taylor’s hands, losing 8-2. Again, the short match worked in my favour – the 10 legs produced five 180s, leaving the total for evening at 21 and me with a decent 3.75 points profit – and a feeling of great relief.

JW