only cos it was cold weather, fast courts and found out darcis beat berdych at olympics
thing is rafa has struggled early before against petzchner and haase but they just bottled it
and we'd never get the injury excuses after those wins
only cos it was cold weather, fast courts and found out darcis beat berdych at olympicsthing is rafa has struggled early before against petzchner and haase but they just bottled itand we'd never get the injury excuses after those wins
I backed him at the start, or laid the other fella. Think it was between 34 to 46 can't remember.
anyway in the first he looked off the web he was struggling a bit so laid off. early I had win $1 on Nadal lose less than 200 the other fella, then I think in second laid more at 1.11 . I backed Nadal in the third, flying blind but ended up losing less than a hundred in the match odds.
happy enough as my major plays are elsewhere.
Don't worry have been burnt before on Nadal, well and truely learn't my lesson after the French
I backed him at the start, or laid the other fella. Think it was between 34 to 46 can't remember.anyway in the first he looked off the web he was struggling a bit so laid off. early I had win $1 on Nadal lose less than 200 the other fella, then I thi
Nadal was not 1.01 pre -post certainly not in the lead up.
I laid a grand at 1.03 during the first set
and I put 40-50approx( don't know the exact amount as was winging it) on Darcis between 30-50/1, I can't remember in the first set meaning before the end of the first set after having a initial loss of more than 3K at the start on Nadal I was losing less than 200
If it makes you feel better I lost 2 grand it seems in the outright on Nadal approx.
Nadal was not 1.01 pre -post certainly not in the lead up.I laid a grand at 1.03 during the first setand I put 40-50approx( don't know the exact amount as was winging it) on Darcis between 30-50/1, I can't remember in the first set meaning before th
depends on the sport and event but even then it depends, you can get some real mad results. most recent Heat come back in the 6th thank you Ray Allen
Some sports you can but the nature of the beast can change as well.
these days I am very selective.
Somebody would have backed darcis 3-0 no doubt and cleaned up.
TBH even the outright market is so tight these I try an avoid but I have to cover for other results so I am forced to play
these days generally I am more a value player than frequency gambler and not sophisticated enough to exploit trading edges
not as often as I used todepends on the sport and event but even then it depends, you can get some real mad results. most recent Heat come back in the 6th thank you Ray AllenSome sports you can but the nature of the beast can change as well.these day
yeah but there are 1.03 bets and there are 1.03 bets
the trick is to find the 1.03 beats at value, which are few and far between these days
the other thing is sometimes you take short beats in the scheme of an overall cover strategy to extract arbitrage value, so sometimes there is method in the madness.
but what would I know, i am no expert
yeah but there are 1.03 bets and there are 1.03 betsthe trick is to find the 1.03 beats at value, which are few and far between these daysthe other thing is sometimes you take short beats in the scheme of an overall cover strategy to extract arbitrag
Anyway Nadal, 1.03 was value if you felt Nadal was value in the match.
I hope to see the replay to get a gauge of what happened.
Don't know much about Darcis but for someone like Darcis to do that to Nadal in 3 is a worry for Nadal IMO.
TBH, Nadal worried me in the early rounds of the French and , after thinking I am getting a better read on him , I felt all was not well despite the FO victory. To me certain limitations and vulnerabilities became vivid in my mind
Must have seen a sad face at another post.Anyway Nadal, 1.03 was value if you felt Nadal was value in the match.I hope to see the replay to get a gauge of what happened.Don't know much about Darcis but for someone like Darcis to do that to Nadal in 3
robbot to me that makes more sense because although you can sense Nadal may be undervalue so Fed overvalue you do not know if Darcis will be the instigator or someone else.
I have a good position on Fed to thankfully
robbot to me that makes more sense because although you can sense Nadal may be undervalue so Fed overvalue you do not know if Darcis will be the instigator or someone else.I have a good position on Fed to thankfully
TBH if Rosol was playing Nadal I would have laid Nadal 3-0 and even backed Rosol 3-0 for victory, actuaaly it was a 5 setter last year so I probably wouldn't
TBH if Rosol was playing Nadal I would have laid Nadal 3-0 and even backed Rosol 3-0 for victory, actuaaly it was a 5 setter last year so I probably wouldn't
had 4k or so on Nadal after he lost the 1st set... was gonna trade out when he served for the 2nd set but decided against it... was in deep crap at 2 sets down but Nadal was layable at 1.5 which was extremely cheap given the situation so I switch over and ended up having 1.5k on Darcis and 2.5k red on Nadal
had 4k or so on Nadal after he lost the 1st set... was gonna trade out when he served for the 2nd set but decided against it... was in deep crap at 2 sets down but Nadal was layable at 1.5 which was extremely cheap given the situation so I switch ove
had 4k or so on Nadal after he lost the 1st set... was gonna trade out when he served for the 2nd set but decided against it... was in deep crap at 2 sets down but Nadal was layable at 1.5 which was extremely cheap given the situation so I switch over and ended up having 1.5k on Darcis and 2.5k red on Nadal
is that even mathematically possible?
had 4k or so on Nadal after he lost the 1st set... was gonna trade out when he served for the 2nd set but decided against it... was in deep crap at 2 sets down but Nadal was layable at 1.5 which was extremely cheap given the situation so I switch ove