Embarrassing

I don't know what's more embarrassing, our basketball team's performance against Angola or the performance of our commentators who insisted our next game is against Lebanon (they're not even in our group) or who referred to our opposition as "Angora". Listen buddy, there were goats out there but unfortunately they weren't from Africa.

In case anyone is interested, our next game is against Japan. Now Japan having a basketball team is right up there with Scottish swimmers and Swiss yachties as things I can't quite get my head around, but I have this uneasy feeling we are in for another disappointing afternoon. I'll probably watch, and with Japan at 2.40, I may even have a bet.

Still, in some ways, it's better to be thrashed by 20 points each game than lose the way the Aussies have. Geez, last night they're up by 3 points against Greece with seconds left - cue a three-pointer, a turnover and another three-pointer on the buzzer and they lose 72-69. What a heartbreak and after blowing a huge lead against Turkey the game before, Greg Norman may finally have someone to pass the "choker" label onto.

Now this is at times supposed to be a sports betting blog so I'll return to that cricket test for a mo' - I missed all the controversy as my sick body couldn't handle another all-nighter, but reading the Betfair forum has allowed me to piece together the betting prices as the drama unfolded.

From the time Darth Vader (that's umpire Hair) lifted the bails at 4.56 pm to the time when Betfair suspended the market at 5.01 p.m., England's price crashed from 30/1 to odds on. Five minutes of carnage as betters were either (a) taking a punt on England being awarded the match or (b) in a mad state of panic doing something about their liability on an England win.

There's been a bit of debate about whether bets matched in those 5 minutes should have been voided, and Betfair took 24 hours to pay out on the result so I guess they thought about it, too. Thankfully they didn't, as the result of the match was not known until sometime later - in fact, while I can understand why they suspended the market with the uncertainty, in some respects in a betting exchange environment they should have left it open until the result of the match was announced. If people want to indulge in a bit of speculation as to what might happen, let them. I guess the flipside is there is the potential for those close to the action to profit from knowing something the general betting public doesn't.

As much as a match being decided by a team forfeiting is unusual (to say the least, it's never happened in test cricket before), it does provide an example that even if you think the impossible will never happen, leaving yourself open by having a large liability on a result is IMO unwise. Some people will have holes in their wallets thinking (quite rationally) England could not win this match. I gave up laying 30/1 shots long ago, and even though I sat through the second and third days of the test thinking the profit I had on England was a waste of time, I wasn't tempted to get rid of it at 30's and 40's in the hope of making a few extra quid, even if the true price of England winning was closer to 100/1.

It's reawakened thoughts about using the fundamental principle of betting for value in the trading environment that is a betting exchange. Based purely on value, after England had conceded a 300 run first innings lead you would probably lay England at 30/1 until the cows came home. But if you are more concerned with managing liabilities and risk vs reward, you wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.