Forums
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 431 comments are related to the topic:
Gubbing and Flipper Thread

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
Page 4 of 11  •  Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | ... | 11 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 431
By:
jucel69
When: 01 May 19 03:05
Anybody backing CMM yes at short odds in India at night deserves all they get.
No rain radars of any note in India and night skies. Even at the ground you wouldn't have been able to predict that rain at the end.
By:
VardonVoo.
When: 01 May 19 22:14
I was very surprised to see it that short, but with only about 3 overs to go I was worried that the radio feed may have been delayed longer than I thought and that the match might have been nearly over. But I guess even heavy rain before the last ball would technically be enough if they had to go off and didn't get back on again. Ever since Big Suze it's hard to trust umps not to continue playing in rain though these days.

Today's Royal London match between Northants and Yorkshire:-

Northants made 351 all out but Yorks got to 128/1 after a little short of 21 overs. A lengthy rain delay and Yorks being well-ahead on D/L made the odds trade like a CMM with Yorks hovering around 1.3 then going as high as 1.6 before dipping to 1.05 shortly before the rain abated (or before it became apparent that the ground could be dry in time for more play) - once the game resumed the odds were very volatile, spiking as high as 8.0+ and crashing back down again as wickets tumbled during a run chase that was achieved with only two balls to go.


espncricinfo.com/series/8335/game/1167100
By:
Cardinal Scott
When: 02 May 19 19:48
Sussex in early trouble chasing a fearsome 356 v Hamps sent Hamps to 1.01 then a magnificent recovery in large part down to David Wiese got Sussex down to 1.08 and then Hamps stormed back and look like winning.
By:
Cardinal Scott
When: 02 May 19 19:50
Why did the BBC extend the delay on these on-line streams....many people say they were right up with play a few years ago and now they are sometimes 2 overs behind.    Did some BBC anti gambling zealot/puritan/w*nker deliberately do this to thwart us?
By:
VardonVoo.
When: 02 May 19 20:24

May 2, 2019 -- 7:48PM, Cardinal Scott wrote:


Sussex in early trouble chasing a fearsome 356 v Hamps sent Hamps to 1.01 then a magnificent recovery in large part down to David Wiese got Sussex down to 1.08 and then Hamps stormed back and look like winning.


Thanks for contributing. I thought the smell of burning Martyr might have been making people stay away Cry.

What a great match that was! For a change I was actually all over the 1.01, not just observing the near miracle from the sidelinew. Sensibly I scaled out and kept a good green on both outcomes and caught a bit of the 1.1 on Sussex before that cricial wicket.

Think I've done OK out of the Royal London Cup on balance, all from my standard play of laying ultra-low odds and trading some out on rises or running free bets. Only exception was laying the 1.3 in size yesterday when the rain break brought Yorks, who were miles behind yet ahead of the rate, artificially short due to D/L and made the match odds trade like the weather market (CMM).

(As suggested by Jucel) here's the game link to today's thrilling entertainment:-

espncricinfo.com/series/8335/game/1167104

I'm not sure about the streaming delay. It's a processing and buffering thing I would have thought, which probably gets worse as the internet gets more and more crammed full of commercial sh!t. Only my broadcast TV-radio feed is close to being up with the action. I can't see why a stream would be deliberately delayed further than the already existing delay. But it's a question worth asking on the Beeb twitter feed maybe (if possible)?

By:
VardonVoo.
When: 02 May 19 20:41
IPL Match #50  Mumbai Injuries vs Sunrisers Hyperbad

Thai "NO" 1.02 was Fully Gubbed after trading around 1.10ish for a while, giving plenty of time for greens to insure" themselves by paying a "Tythe" (a nice but coincidental historical rhyme but not related to "Tie" - it means "a tenth" and was a tax on farm produce in the middle ages - kept in a "Tythe Barn", supposedly in case of a bad harvest).

Commies were talking about a Super Over after the Super Over if the first is a Thai, but Mumbai got two wickets which is "all out" in a Super-Over, so they only needed 9 runs to win, got a six off the first ball and walked it.
By:
Cardinal Scott
When: 02 May 19 20:44
"Only my broadcast TV-radio feed is close to being up with the action" Indeed but it enrages me when the cut away for Formula One practise sessions, Rugby League $hite, womens football, athletics and all other kinds of garbage.  We have got a whole summer of that to endure. Angry
By:
Whisperingdeath
When: 03 May 19 17:07
Where is Grant

POORAN!
By:
VardonVoo.
When: 03 May 19 20:32
Ireland v England Only ODI

England 1.02 Half-Gubbed - traded in size as high as 2.5 after wickets fell in fairly quick succession. Ireland started out well in their innings but fell away a bit leaving a target of only 199. Another 50 runs would have been quite a challenge for England.

espncricinfo.com/series/18956/game/1161014
By:
Cardinal Scott
When: 03 May 19 20:41
I wont go into details but will disclose at Eng 5 down I was a very unhappy human being.
By:
Cardinal Scott
When: 03 May 19 20:55
Kudos VV! ...This thread has been very helpful in showing how often low odds gubbings occur.   

Possibly the best thread on the cricket forum since

http://community.betfair.com/cricket/go/thread/view/94046/30871617/value-betting-in-cricket#flvWelcomeHeader
By:
VardonVoo.
When: 04 May 19 05:03
Thanks for the honour, Your Eminence! I'm glad if the thread has been helpful to people. Importantly, I think what's also noticeable is how often low odds gubbings nearly occur, or at least get more than half-way. Gamblers love 10-1 shots that come in, but how many get the same thrill from laying 1.01 and backing it when it pops up to 1.1 or even to 1.2? It just doesn't seem as exciting as a full flip but they happen much more often. Too often to list here, but "Half-Gubbings" are always due a mention because a 50-50 bet is by definition an equally likely outcome at "fair" odds, so once you get to evens a Gubbing or non-Gubbing should have been levelled out either way.

That value-betting thread was an interesting re-read - I think it's where Fatslogger first coined the terms for the highly useful concepts of  "outcome value" and "trading value"- shame it just petered out. Possibly worth resurrecting it in the light of two years more experience for its contributors.

Significantly, since I started this thread my non-Test cricket trading has become noticeably profitable, even after a one-off clumsy big-hit loss. It might be a temporary blip but what I've been doing is trading with more confidence and for bigger positions. I find too large or too small a position messes with one's discipline and testing ideas for months with peanut stakes makes it hard to quantify the results without being a spreadsheet nerd, which I've attempted with remarkable sporadicity. On the other hand, trading with enough to go "Ouch!" when you lose and "WOWSER!" when you win somehow focusses the attention and maybe keeping this thread going has pushed me into wanting to prove a meaningful point beyond just being able to say "well wasn't that an unusual result?". Or maybe I just got Foxtrot Oscared with noticing so many short-odds gubbings and near-gubbings without having a piece of the action.

I think it also helps to have several markets going on at once, so I'm loving the co-incidence of The Royal London Cup/IPL/South Africa T20 trinity. One long-shot a day could take weeks to pay off but four or more matches a day, along with all their manifold and various side markets gives plenty to chew on. Losing, say, 2 bet units in four out of five matches and making 10 on the fifth is a good day's work but losing the same 2 on four consecutive days of one game each inevitably means betting smaller on the fifth day and not making the full 10 units. so you might not even end up scratching. That's a whole discussion in itself for Kelly bettors (i.e should you bet the appropriate Kelly percentage of the whole bank for each of several concurrent, as opposed to sequential, events, or should you first reduce the bank by roughly the amount of all of the proposed bets before calculating the appropriate bet size? In theory 100 concurrent Kelly 1% bets could otherwise bust you, which Kelly is suppposed to prevent happening).

For anyone reading the thread that thinks "lay short odds then go and walk the dog" - I haven't done the stats (anyone else is welcome to!) but I have my suspicions as to whether such a simple strategy would be profitable. If it was then surely all the big banks that "buy money" at short odds would be busted very quickly and there would be less opportunity for the rest of us. So the value is likely to arise from the trading possibilities and the active "work" involved therein rather than the more passive "outcome value" of the lay. That means the profit is likely to be at the expense of a wider cross-section of punter, rather than just from the big banks, which is obviously way more sustainable if true. Nobody backing 1.01 shots would choose to continue to do so, nor still have the money to, if they lost 100 times their potential win several times within a short series of bets.

But let's say Mr Big-Wad backs at 1.01 which Mr Smart-Arse lays. Wickets fall and the market briefly spikes up to 1.10. Mr Smart-Arse backs at this price against Mr Panic-Lay who wants to lock in his profit after casually backing at evens against Mr Coin-Toss.

The short-odds team goes on to win so Mr Big-Wad is still in the game, wad intact plus 1% profit, Mr Panic-Lay keeps most of his green and is motivated to keep playing, convinced he'll win big one day and Mr Coin-Toss lost his full bet but will win about half his similar bets minus any commission and of course his own lock-in/panic lays, so he's happy to keep gambling. In this example Mr Smart-Arse's profit comes from the small-time punter who funds his weekend gambling fun from a regular PAYE job, rather than from Mr Big-Wad. Mr Big-Wad unemotionally backs a hundred 1.01 shots daily and loses his shirt at worst about once every 102 games, so he's happy with his average yearly return made up of a tiny percent per day compounded up to a respectable annual figure. Meanwhile, his continued presence in the market provides the essential liquidity needed by everybody else.

And that is my theowy what-it-is (that-it-is).
By:
VardonVoo.
When: 04 May 19 14:22
IPL Match #53 Delhi Crapitals v Random-Chance Royals

Royals 120 Runs 1.04 Gubbed
(and, worryingly, 115 runs not marked as a "Winner" by BF despite their own score-feed showing this total).
By:
jucel69
When: 05 May 19 01:34
VV there are a lot of 1.01 blowouts on inns runs over a year (liquidity can be a problem)
It's just the timing of them from a betting perspective that is difficult.
EG 150/160/170 may all be 1.01 if the batting side is in a formidable position but the final score is 168 and you chose to lay 160 not 170. You would need to cover 30 runs (150-170) each innings and even then the liquidity isn't always there.
Also 1.01 on runs to bet against feels so counter intuitive & impossible at the time, obviously not in hindsight!
The last 1.01 on inns runs was RCB.
With Kholi and AB blasting there's no way in the world you could imagine they would get less than 65.
They were 35 off 9 balls!

However I would say it's the way to go and it is worth merit in play. You get many more 1.01 gubbings on run lays than 100s backing. In fact you don't often see odds of 100s to back on the run lines and if so it would be for pence.
By:
jucel69
When: 05 May 19 01:36
Also depends if you have the mentality for lots and lots of losses in a row before you hit a jackpot
By:
Cardinal Scott
When: 05 May 19 13:44
99.9% certain there has been some orchestrated games in this years IPL, maybe not outrght fixing of the whole game but passages of play to stretch it out to the last over or even last ball.
By:
Cardinal Scott
When: 05 May 19 13:58

May 5, 2019 -- 1:44PM, Cardinal Scott wrote:


99.9% certain there has been some orchestrated games in this years IPL, maybe not outrght fixing of the whole game but passages of play to stretch it out to the last over or even last ball.


This posted in wrong thread Blush

By:
VardonVoo.
When: 05 May 19 14:13
Posting in the wrong thread is a "Cardinal Sin".
By:
VardonVoo.
When: 05 May 19 14:29

May 5, 2019 -- 1:36AM, jucel69 wrote:


Also depends if you have the mentality for lots and lots of losses in a row before you hit a jackpot


I compare it to a Poker player min-betting suited connectors or set-mining with a low pair. Most times you miss the flop and fold, sometimes you get a modest piece and occasionally you hit hard against another strong hand. The advantage here though is you don't have to commit more money - you're only ever risking the green resulting fro your initial stake. In a sense Poker is a game about winning the blinds as with no blinds (and no ante) there would be no reason to bet. So winning and losing lots of small bets is the norm, you just remember the occasional big wins more.

I used to work on commission for years - the majority of appointments were a no-deal, and most that did paid only a minimum flat fee or a small commission  basically for filling out the paperwork, and these would be your bread and butter to cover petrol, phone calls etc, then once or twice a month you'd pull off one of those big deals netting £500+ or maybe even a grand or more. It's a precarious living if you only do a few appointments a month, but if you keep busy you can do well on average. Combined with Test match betting it was a good stage in my life.

By:
VardonVoo.
When: 05 May 19 14:31
IPL Match #55 Kings v Chennai

Kings Runs

175 1.02 Gubbed
180 1.05 Gubbed
By:
VardonVoo.
When: 05 May 19 14:32
And the link to it - espncricinfo.com/series/8048/game/1178430
By:
VardonVoo.
When: 05 May 19 14:39
Sorry, that was CSK's runs. Target set for Kings - 171.
By:
VardonVoo.
When: 05 May 19 15:50
Not sure if I should include this one - Royal London Kent v Essex CMM  Yes 1.01 took out several requests for odds up to 1.8.
No rain in sight so I assume it was a sausage trade.
By:
VardonVoo.
When: 05 May 19 15:52
Ireland v West Indies

WI Runs 390 1.02 Gubbed, not sure if it was for very much though.

espncricinfo.com/series/19067/game/1168508
By:
VardonVoo.
When: 06 May 19 13:40
Did anyone note the starting odds for SA v Pak Wimminz ODI? I'm shocked that Pak won, but even more appalled that the whole thing was over so quickly. SA were all out for 63 runs!! Gash cricket indeed!
By:
Cardinal Scott
When: 06 May 19 19:38
Nothants about to be defeated by Notts after trading as low as 1.05
By:
Cardinal Scott
When: 06 May 19 19:41

May 6, 2019 -- 7:38PM, Cardinal Scott wrote:


Nothants about to be defeated by Notts after trading as low as 1.05


Royal London One Day Cup

Breath of fresh air not being paranoid about corruption, scripted finishes and other nonsense.........Best country for cricket trading ...Dear Old BLIGHTY! Grin

By:
VardonVoo.
When: 06 May 19 19:45
Royal London Cup Northants v Notts

Northants 1.05 Gubbed

The odds dipped to 1.05 twice with a rise to 1.5+ in between

Very close match in the end - won by the last batting pair with only 3 balls left.


espncricinfo.com/series/8335/game/1167115
By:
VardonVoo.
When: 06 May 19 20:03
Supernovas v Trailblazers - Women's T20

I didn't have a feed so just followed it via Cricinfo.

Trailblazers went realy short before the last over, sub 1.07 I think, then the odds shot up to 100 as Supernovas' Kaur, needing 19 off the last over suddenly started hitting boundaries - it which went 4,4,0,4,4,OUT!

This comp could be interesting!

espncricinfo.com/series/19201/game/1181893
By:
VardonVoo.
When: 06 May 19 20:14
By the way that means a sub 1.1 on the winning team was nearly Fully Gubbed AND a 1.01 on the opposite team WAS Fully Gubbed!!

Annoyingly I'd cancelled my resting bets to avoid being hoovered, so I didn't make the once-in-a-blue-moon windfall possible from  these kind of matches.
By:
VardonVoo.
When: 07 May 19 15:21
@ Scotty Breath of fresh air not being paranoid about corruption, scripted finishes and other nonsense.........Best country for cricket trading ...Dear Old BLIGHTY!

It's entirely possible that sub-continent cricket fans watching matches in England might say the equivalent about their cricket (but we know they're wrong, of course Cool ).
By:
VardonVoo.
When: 07 May 19 15:30
West Indies v Bangladesh ODI

WI Runs 160 runs 1.06 Half-Gubbed (traded back up to 2.0+ before crashing back down again).
(170 runs only got as low as 1.14).

espncricinfo.com/series/19067/game/1168509
By:
peckerdunne
When: 07 May 19 21:26
€72,223
1.09    €1,600        €66,818
1.10    €29        €49,029
1.11    €13        €57,026
1.12    €49        €60,993
1.13            €62,349
1.14            €70,467
1.15            €80,985
1.16            €90,044
1.17            €171,755
1.18            €92,537
1.19            €60,814
1.2            €76,758
1.21            €76,217
1.22            €65,829
1.23            €139,197
1.24    €12        €111,707
1.25    €96        €57,778
1.26            €44,411

Sussex
By:
VardonVoo.
When: 07 May 19 21:57
Yeah, this Royal London Cup has had a few good close matches, hasn't it?

Sussex was the only Full Gubbing today. 

espncricinfo.com/series/8335/game/1167118


Kent made a good effort chasing 381 by Middx who traded up from 1.05 but only got above 1.5 briefly.

espncricinfo.com/series/8335/game/1167119
By:
VardonVoo.
When: 08 May 19 15:14
Gash Cricket T20 Tournament in India

Trailblazers v Velocity

After the Double-Gubbing the other day this one is worth a mention. With a target of 112 Velocity got to 77/2 after 14 overs and were cruising it. Trailblazers' odds soon headed to the stratosphere and traded at 1,000 then with two runs left to get FIVE wickets fell in seven consecutive balls with no runs. Trailblazers traded below 100 for a possible ten-bagger.

espncricinfo.com/series/19201/game/1181894
By:
VardonVoo.
When: 08 May 19 15:31
I should put "Double-Gubbing" in quotes as obviously you can't have sub 1.1 odds on each side both losing but it captures the idea of both sides trading very short then going above evens and then trading short on the oppoosite side.

Some, maybe all, of this T20 tourney is Day/Night, which goes some way to explain that wicket McFlurry.
By:
VardonVoo.
When: 08 May 19 20:22
Pak v Eng CMM YES had been as high as 1.8 before the match, came down to 1.2 then up to 1.4 but dipped to 1.08 as the weather appeared to clear, then rose towards evens and stayed in the high 2s-to-mid-3s for most of the latter part of the day. Very deceptive moves in the market. Easy to get wrong-footed when trying to reduce a red.

As usual, been ****ed over by the unreliable weather radar. The "forecast" had it all narrowly missing a few hours ago.

Also I'm right of the edge of it, so I had blue sky in SW London when rain had supposedly passed here and was now falling at the ground. Seems there was more behind it just North of me. Also, going against my normally rigid policy, I'd backed YES at moderately short odds and added to it on the rises, trying to recoup losses from elsewhere. For that reason greed and false confidence in the radar prediction deterred me from cashing out at 1.08 like I should have done. Bad day - undone a lot of good work. Bah! Humbug!
By:
VardonVoo.
When: 08 May 19 20:25
I should add that low-odds Pak runs (which I stupidly didn't even think to lay as a hedge) that traded in meaningful size and were Gubbed were as follows:-

90 1.01
100 1.01
110 1.02
120 1.07
130 1.04
150 1.08

espncricinfo.com/series/18664/game/1152841
By:
VardonVoo.
When: 08 May 19 20:37
...right on the edge of it...
By:
jucel69
When: 08 May 19 23:50

May 8, 2019 -- 8:25PM, VardonVoo. wrote:


I should add that low-odds Pak runs (which I stupidly didn't even think to lay as a hedge) that traded in meaningful size and were Gubbed were as follows:- 90 1.01 100 1.01110 1.02120 1.07130 1.04150 1.08espncricinfo.com/series/18664/game/1152841


Would have been void VV, not 20 overs completed.

Page 4 of 11  •  Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | ... | 11 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
‹ back to topics
www.betfair.com