CRICKET WORLD CUP

british bulldog

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 5, 2002
695
1
0
62
England, u.k.
At last Australia are starting to show some cracks. After just being swept 3-0 by New Zealand and having lost their last 3 of 4 in the Commonwealthbank series they have fallen from the number one spot in the ODI world rankings.

I have been saying for some time that Australia's failure to introduce younger players in dead teat matches would come back to haunt them at some time and I may have just been correct. Without Warne, McGrath, Langer and Martyn in the test arena, its a large wealth of experience to be losing.

And now they are in the position that resting key players in the one day side is proving probmatic. Without Gilchrist, Ponting, Symonds and Lee, the Aussie's would find it hard to win a raffle even if they had bought the only ticket to be sold.

Admitterly, Ponting and Gilchrist will be back for the start of the World Cup, but Lee and Symonds participation in the early group matches is still in doubt. They have more than enough talent and when they are firing they are an exceptional side, but losing how they have their last two must be worrying having not been able to defend around 340 runs on both occassions.

So while Australia have a few worrying problems and a need to address the loss of players over the next two to three years (Gilchrist, Hayden, Hussey), the other nations will close the gap.


Having already taken the gamble (speculate to accumalate) in backing England to win the World Cup for small stakes totalling ?200 with the exchanges and one sportsbook whilst the Commonwealthbank Series was taking place, I was fortunate enough to see England's fortune's turn around and was able to lay off for a guaranteed profit whatever the outcome.

I was expecting England to get to the second stage of the World Cup (beating Kenya and Canada and possibly New Zealand in the early group stage) and with luck or good play, managing to win two of their earlier sets of games would have meant I would be in the position to lay off at some stage during the competition for a probable small profit. But I didn't need to wait as long as I thought I would have to as England are now as low as 9.00 with the books and below 12.00 on the exchanges.


Backed

England @ 67.00 @ ?30 and ?10

England @ 121.00 @ ?9

England @ 101.00 @ ?6

England @ 71.00 @ ?8

England @ 56.00 @ ?8

England @ 51.00 @ ?62

England @ 34.00 @ ?67


Total staked ?200

Possible profit: ?10,631


I took the option of trading England back at an average price of 12.00, securing ?902 in stakes, so producing an outright profit of ?702 regardless of who wins the World Cup.

So I now find myself in a very nice position before a ball has been bowled.



But having seen the Australian's struggle in recent ODI's I am going to make a play on the new world number one's in the hope that a trade is very much possible at some stage during the World Cup. Step forward SOUTH AFRICA.

With most of the prominant countries having injury scares in one form or another, South Africa have no such concerns.

The Proteas have won 12 of their last 16 ODI's played with two no results due to weather. And it's not just recently that their form has improved as they have won 75% of their last 50 ODIs. That is the best figure in the World at present.

It's been written elsewhere that South Africa's attack will not be suited to the expected conditions in the Caribbean as they lack a world class spinner. Well, past results don't reflect that as the Proteas have won 10 of their last 11 there including 5-0 back in 2005 against the West Indies.

Everything at present points to South Africa having an exceptional chance this time around and I fully expect a good showing. At the 6/1 available (7.00), an early lay is possible if South Africa beat Australia in the early group match as they will be able to carry the points won from that match through to the Super Eight stage.


3 units South Africa @ 7.00 to win the World Cup.

1 unit South Africa @ 2.50 to win "Group A"

1 unit Pakistan @ 2.36 to win "Group D"
 
Last edited:

hoss

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 24, 2002
382
0
0
England
Bulldog - I'm sure plenty of people appreciate the effort you go to with your write-ups, but why do you have to put in such a load of nonsense about the betting!!

Anyone who follows cricket knows that England were never any bigger than 20/1 on the exchanges, let alone the ridiculous prices you quote.

Betfair has a history feature in case you didnt know - there has been the grand sum of ?13 matched at 22 and 23 and that is it. betdaq is the same. please feel free to name another mystery exchange where you do business...

sorry to point it out (again) but it really is annoying.

hoss

ps I hope you are right with S.Africa as I am on them myself!
 

british bulldog

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 5, 2002
695
1
0
62
England, u.k.
If you are questioning my integity why don't you just e-mail betfair and ask them for all trades not shown on the bet history, or ask them if England were traded (layed and bet) at any prices over 100/1.

I know the top priced layed at betfair has been 131.0 to lose ?500 for a stake of ?3.85

Ladbrokes layed three bets at 66/1 and I had TWO of those (?30 and ?10).

So answer this, why did Hills and Corals have England at 50/1 and Ladbrokes have England at 66/1 with plenty of other books all above 40/1 when England had won just one game after having played five matches in the Commonwealthbank series.

It is VERY ODD for any exchange to have prices twenty too fourty points lower than the bookmaker industry's top price offer. Since when has that happened ?????

But as you say I'm talking crap !!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Better still, I don't have to defend myself on here. I know what I have wagered on and I keep strict records (dating back as far as 1998) of every bet I have made and if anyone cares to come and see me, I will gladly show them all documented records as every wager over the internet is recorded with date, time etc.
 

british bulldog

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 5, 2002
695
1
0
62
England, u.k.
May I also say that if you don't have anything constructive to add to any of the threads that I start, then please don't bother posting.

In fact, I can't remember the last time any of you contributed anything constructive. Your like little schoolboys running to the teacher saying so and so is calling me names, or "x" is lying.

It's pathetic ........... you missed the opportunity and now it doesn't sit well with you.

Grow up, get life's and as delboy would say .......

when you talk (write) what is it I can smell, horse shit, cow shit .............. NO, it's bullshit.



IN FACT ......... I'M DONE WITH IT HERE. I COME HERE AND POST IN GOOD FAITH, AND GET SLEDGED ON NEARLY EVERY OCCASSION. ADMIT IT, YOU DONT POST POSITIVE INFO, YOU SCOUR THE FORUM'S LOOKING TO BITCH ALL THE TIME. WHAT SAD LIFE'S YOU MUST LEAD.
 
Last edited:

hoss

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 24, 2002
382
0
0
England
You really are completely bonkers arent you!!

You think Betfairs Bet History only shows some bets?!?!!? Whats the point of that! Maybe on the Disney exchange they only show the bad value bets...

You also don't realise that I work in the Industry and have access to price historys and fieldbooks.....

whats that smell?????
 

phar.lap

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 15, 2006
390
3
0
Australia
Not to mention I think its poor form listing bets you have already traded out of purely to tell everyone what profit you just made (imagined or or otherwise). The idea of these forums, as I understand it, is to post plays that give others the opportunity to take advantage of your advice (or not if they so decide). Not to wax lyrical about how much you have just made on opportunities that have now passed us by.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top