TheresNoLimit
-
Posts
82 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by TheresNoLimit
-
-
Re: Champions League T20 2013
No' date=' no, no, no, no!!! 10 from 2 balls in the super over and they can't manage 4 from 4. Pretty disgusting stuff and they've cost me/I've cost myself £1,000. Numb. These guys are supposed to be professionals.[/quote'] I've had another disaster and it's really upsetting/frustrating me. I lumped on Rajasthan to score over 162.5 runs at amazing odds of 5/6, with 8 overs gone when this looked like a fairly comfortable target. Obviously I'm fully aware of the risk of losing key wickets but that didn't happen and they comfortably moved towards a target far beyond this amount. Where did that farce of a last few overs come from? I've lost a lot of money which I can't afford again. Last night I had a bad bet on Swansea which won and today I've had another good cricket bet lose. It's disappointing that it should be like this, I don't want to see good bets losing in this manner. Any tips or thoughts? Should I be laying bets off more often and accepting less potential winnings? -
Re: Champions League T20 2013 No, no, no, no, no!!! 10 from 2 balls in the super over and they can't manage 4 from 4. Pretty disgusting stuff and they've cost me/I've cost myself £1,000. Numb. These guys are supposed to be professionals.
-
Re: Champions League T20 2013
Have I been sold down the river with this information as well? Looks like it after the first 10 overs.Having watched half a dozen overs of the first match this doesn't look an easy wicket to score on so after there has been 40 overs on it I don't expect it to get any easier to score on. Both bowling attacks in this match are very good and apart from one or two exceptions the batting line ups could be better so I would expect this to be a low scoring game. -
Re: Champions League T20 2013 What a day I've had of it. Chennai chased down 185 comfortably the other day so for Brisbane to fail to chase down 124 is embarrassing and rather amateurish.
-
Re: Hungarian Grand Prix What's just happened there? How has Hamilton ended up on pole after being nowhere all weekend? I can't stand the guy at the best of times, even less so when he's cost me hundreds of pounds. Anyone have any clue how that's just happened?
-
Re: World Matchplay - 20-28 July
You have to play the percentage shots and take into consideration the times you WILL get another go. Then you look pretty stupid sat on double 7, which is what happened on this occasion. Do you think going 20, double 14 wins him a higher percentage of legs than going 8, tops for example? I don't. That's down to a matter of opinion and a bit of percentage/statistical work. The one I'd hope you'd agree IS indefensible was his throw at treble 20 with 78 and one dart left. There's NO WAY you should be looking to leave 3 darts at a double which doesn't split when you have a chance (treble 18) to leave one which splits twice (double 12.) That WAS amateurish and inexcusable. Fair enough perhaps with two darts in hand but not with one.You have one dart at a double. No less than Phil Taylor is already on a double, I think he's entitled to think he'll only get one dart at a double so he set up his favourite double. I see no problem with that. He can't go 16/D16 on 48 because his dart for the 16 would cover the double and he's no more certain to hit 8/Tops with all the moving round the board than he was 20/D14. Wade throwing for a 10 rather than the 170 checkout is a completely different situation. -
Re: World Matchplay - 20-28 July
Come on Kev, I think you're defending the indefensible here. It's all very well having a 'favourite double' but you still have to play the percentage shots and leave yourself doubles which 'split' nicely. In the long run, leaving double 14 or double 9 is just causing yourself trouble. There are plenty of current top players who used to have double 18 as their 'favourite double' but have all moved away from leaving that as it isn't a viable percentage shot in the modern PDC game. We saw the professionalism of Wade in hitting two treble 20s on a 170 checkout and then hitting 10 to set up tops rather than going for the bull, because Whitlock wasn't on a finish. Those are the sort of correct percentage shots the modern professionals should be playing - despite pundits like John Part or Eric Bristow perhaps suggesting otherwise - and that was in complete contrast to the amateurish behaviour of Pipe in trying to leave double 14 or double 9.Pipe's favourite double is D14 and given that D9 is right next to it I'd say they were 2 perfectly reasonable ways to go. If you're going to criticise someone you'd at least be better off knowing the person you're criticising. He won the D14 leg too so not really sure what the issue is there. He gave it everything he had but ran into the best there's been on a night he was near his best. Against literally anyone else Pipe would've led 5-0 and been away and gone. -
Re: World Matchplay - 20-28 July I think that IS me done with darts betting now. I took Justin Pipe at 15/2 to beat Taylor and whilst I didn't think it would be an easy bet to come in, Pipe really didn't help himself. The leg-in-the-air lunges/snatches on his last dart I could live with. The refusal to switch to treble 19, when blocking the treble 20 bed with the first dart I could live with. What I couldn't live with however was the unprofessional and farcical routes to a finish that he took on several occasions (leaving double 14 when completely unnecessary and also throwing at treble 20 when left with 78 and one dart in hand.) We can't expect the players to hit every treble or double they go for but the least we can expect is that they attempt their score in a professional and most-efficient manner. I can't throw a dart to save myself but even I can do the correct counting. That's just a basic.
-
Re: World Matchplay - 20-28 July
Chisnal to bottle it here' date=' as usual[/quote'] He did but then Caven managed to out-bottle him. Unbelievable and I'm finding it pretty difficult to even think about the amount of money I've been cost by players throwing away leads in the last 2 nights. A 13-10 defeat from 10-7 up is pretty embarrassing. He had Chisnall on toast there. It may now be time to stick darts on the list of sports that aren't worth betting on because I'm not sure how to begin to analyse a game like that from a betting point of view. If anyone has anything to offer in terms of analysis of that match, I'd be very interested to hear it because I'm completely baffled. -
Re: World Matchplay - 20-28 July
Are you serious? They're the two biggest bottlers/chokers I can think of, certainly in terms of the top ranked players. I'm sure plenty of people on here would back that up. As the odds don't account for these games when they can bottle it then I have to remember in future to avoid betting on this pair in particular.Talking about last night, imo Anderson at 2.4 was a better investment than Wade at 1.6 - Ok we might've preferred best of 19 instead of best of 25, but the odds more than compensated for that. Wade didnt look brilliant in the first round and Anderson looked like his former self. RVB has problems with beating himself up and is occasionally a culprit of losing a match before it has even started. That being said, Pipe played one of the best of his career and even then it was close. I dont understand how you can call a world champion (beat the greatest ever in the final) a 'bottler'. Let alone RVB who would be double world champ if he didnt meet Taylor averaging 111. I can see your frustration from last night (I myself had money on Anderson) but I wouldnt consider either of these two a 'bottler' -
Re: World Matchplay - 20-28 July
I thought his name was Jamie CAVEN, not Cavern?5.5pts J.Cavern to beat D.Chisnall 1.72 Bet365 2pts J.Cavern -2.5 games to beat D.Chisnall 2.50 Bet365 Cavern should such strength to beat Newton. Newton had a 7pt higher average but he dug deep to win and I think he will get his rewards by going deep in this tournament. He should beat Chisnall who didn't look outstanding against Nicholson. I think Cavern will improve here too whilst Chisnall I don't think he will. These 2 have met 8 times and Cavern leads 6-2 and beat him 6-0 recently. You only need to look at Thornton's performance to see that players don't forget them. -
Re: World Matchplay - 20-28 July I genuinely never learn and I'm so disappointed with myself. I've vowed before not to bet on 'bottlers' like Gary Anderson and Raymond Van Barneveld again and there I was again tonight with big money on Anderson. You can't rely on these types of players and the odds only take into account their ability and not the chances of them bottling it. I think we should stick to players like Wade or Whitlock who will give all until the very end. (I don't mean that based on tonight's results, those 4 players were just the best examples I could think of. Andy Hamilton is another good example of a 'trier.') I don't see the point in betting on Barney or Anderson again when there is always the chance of their bottle crashing.
-
Re: Ashes - In play/Discussion thread Can somebody explain the decision to not enforce the follow-on? You only have to win by one run to win the match, so surely the most efficient way for England to do that is to bowl Australia out for a second time and then set about reaching the necessary target? If you bat first in the second innings like England chose to do then you may be wasting valuable bowling time by setting a target way beyond what is needed to secure the win. What am I missing here?
-
Re: Tour De France
It was just a bit disheartening that's all. I'm not a cycling fan so I was reliant on the commentators to tell me what was going on. So, when a commentator states as a fact 'Cavendish will not be beaten from there' and then a second later he is beaten it's a bit of a let down. Why would you state as a fact something which isn't? It makes no sense for anyone to do that let alone someone who is being paid to commentate on an event.Phil has said that every time cav hits the front because until yesterday he was never beaten when hits the front. I struggle to see what difference it makes though as impossible to get a bet on that late in the stage. Sent from my GT-I8190N using PL Forum -
Re: Tour De France Why was the ITV4 (UK Tour De France broadcaster) commentator saying '....Cavendish won't be beaten from there,' or something along those lines? Not a very helpful or clever comment when people have sums of money invested in the outcome and one which I'm a bit annoyed about.
-
Re: Wimbledon 2013
Yeah, it was the assumptions you made that were pretty upsetting. I don't just watch the top 10 players in the Grand Slams. I wasn't basing anything on ranking, I didn't even mention it. Please don't make baseless assumptions about people in future. Well done on the Murray tip.TBH, I'll apologise actually. I was aggrieved at how he thought his opinion was "right" or of a superiorty to others. I was trying to explain to him that whilst they may be better players on paper, of a higher caliber and achieved more in the game... what was most important was the performances they put in against Novak and compared to Janowics, Verdasco and Youzhny... with the slight exception of may be Del Potro, they didn't really give Djoker as hard a task as those others did Murray. (The level of tennis they produced was of a much higher level) He felt he shouldn't even need to "back up" and that it wasn't even a discussion and all these so called experts were bound to agree with him because those player's have had better seasons and done more in the game. I apologise for the gloat there at the end ThereNoLimit, I just hope you can try and be a little more open minded next time and not base everything on what is said on paper as rank doesn't mean everything. -
Re: Wimbledon 2013 Just a clue, but the fact you're saying 'look what Youzhny did once in 2007' and 'look what Verdasco did once in 2009' kind of shows that these players are not on the same level as players like Haas, Berdych, Del Potro, who perform to that high standard regularly in this decade, not the last one. There is no point in you and I taking up pages of a public forum by continuing this debate. I'd like to hear some neutral opinions but otherwise we have to leave it because this isn't the place.
-
Re: Wimbledon 2013 Can some neutral people please step in and help out here because this is getting silly. Haas/Berdych/Del Potro or Youzhny/Verdasco/Janowicz. It isn't even a debate. Go and ask 100 tennis experts and they'll tell you the same thing. I haven't even mentioned ranking, so I'm not sure why that was brought into it. I don't want to get banned from these forums so I don't know what to do here? Someone is writing blatant nonsense as well as twisting my words and misquoting me. It's obviously intended to provoke a reaction. Please can we make sure the right person is taken to task for this, I haven't done anything wrong here.
-
Re: Wimbledon 2013
The bookies don't go on opinion' date=' but even if they did and shared the same opinion as you, they wouldn't make a player they thought would win 3-2 .. 1.3 odds.[/quote'] I think 3-2 is the most likely score but he may also win 3-1 or 3-0. The 1.3 odds would be a combination of all 3 possibilities. Equally, the bookies think the most likely score is 3-0 Djokovic, so you could say to them 'How can you have someone you think will win 3-0 at odds of 1.6 for the match?' -
Re: Wimbledon 2013
You're insulting my intelligence by typing that Haas, Berdych, Del Potro (on grass) is an easier passage than Youzhny, Verdasco, Janowicz (on grass.) You're insulting your own intelligence if you actually believe that. Plenty of people will confirm which is the easier route, I'd hope it should be obvious though. The prices the bookies released were very similar to what they are now. It would be different if they had started Djokovic much shorter and he'd been backed out to 1.6. There's no need to get so worked up about someone having a different opinion. (6 replies in half an hour, all on the same theme.) Calm down, enjoy the game, as I said previously, the proof will be in the pudding.You just sound like a fan more than anything. Did you see the way Verdasco played? He's using a bigger frame and he played tennis that was dating back to his australian open 2009 run. Youzhny is a very tough player on grass to beat. Djokovic had a far easier passage, it's not as simple as that, you're clearly obsessed with Djokovic and can't see past him. Also the bookies are not favouring Murray. What happens is they release a price on two players and then move that price accordingly based on how much money has gone on each player. It's "you" "us" the punters that decide the odds essentially, not the bookies, the bookies simply dictate the opening line. -
Re: Wimbledon 2013
Unless I've done my maths wrong, backing at 1.3 means that Djokovic needs to win more than 72% of the time to make a profit. Given the bookies built-in profit margins, 1.3 would suggest Djokovic wins this around 67% of the time, ie 2 times out of 3. I think he does that comfortably. Just my opinion.How can you price a player at 1.3 if you think they will lose 1 or 2 sets? You need to understand, you are basically saying that you make Djokovic 1.3 to deal with the big points well. You're saying you make him 1.3 to come through a close encounter. The bookies cannot afford to think the way you do financially, they would get burried alive. If the bookies think there is a good chance a player will lose 1 or 2 sets on the way to winning a best of 5 set encounter, they can no way price that player at 1.3, that would be the dumbest thing they could ever do. So with all this said how can you critisise the bookmakers? lol I don't get what you're saying. -
Re: Wimbledon 2013
You think Djokovic should be 1.3 yet you think he'll win 3-2? If I thought a match was likely to go 5 sets I would much rather be laying than backing 1.3! Also the stats you quote ignore the fact that Djokovic isn't quite at the same level he was in 2011 and Murray is a different animal to 5 years ago. Basically' date=' most people perceive that Murray is finally starting to achieve the champion's mindset that he used to lack. Also they consider that his level of play right now on grass is at least on a par with Djokovic's. Djokovic is obviously being given favouritism as he has 'been there and done it' more than Murray has but I certainly couldn't make him 1.3 and I agree with others here that this is a pick'em match and Murray should be backed. Also I like RuleBritannia's analysis above, I agree, Murray's movement is better on grass.[/quote'] I think 3-2 or 3-1 are the most likely scores, yes, but I would price him around 1.3. Remember, most games which go to a deciding set/frame/leg/whatever are close to 50/50 however some players are better in that situation than others. Djokovic is one of those. John Higgins in snooker is another example I can think of off the top of my head. -
Re: Wimbledon 2013
I think you've misunderstood some of what I said. I wasn'tse suggesting your tips were based on Murray's 'Big Four' status, I was suggesting that the bookies' odds for Murray compared to Del Potro were based a lot on one being in the 'Big Four' and one not. Murray and Del Potro BOTH beat Djokovic at the Olympics last year. There's just no way Djokovic should be 1/7 against Del Potro and then 6/10 against Murray, the odds should be far closer to each other than that. During this tournament and several other recent tournaments the bookies have over-estimated 'Big Four' players and their odds don't reflect the fact that the 'Big Four' are no longer the dominant force they once were. So, that comment was aimed at the bookies, not at any of you on here. Moving on, grass is the one surface where the 'Big Four' are all very even - I wish more than one month of the season could be played on this surface. It all comes down to who is playing best on this surface. Last year Federer and Murray found their form but this year Murray hasn't played to that level yet whereas Djokovic's serve looks immense and he is the one in form on the grass. If Murray had Djokovic's route to the final, I don't think he'd be there. Simple as that. Murray could magically find his previous grass court form today but I'd be wanting more than 2-point-whatever odds on that happening. Djokovic rarely loses these big 5 set matches and even more rarely loses them to Murray. The mental side of things is where he has a big advantage, as much as Murray has worked on that side of his game, it just isn't and perhaps won't ever be where Djokovic is. I could write a lot more but I think it's better at this stage to just say 'the proof will be in the pudding.' I can't see past Djokovic and previous history says 3-1 or 3-2. The guy can now compete with Nadal on clay, so competing with and beating Murray on grass is not that big an ask in comparison.Why are you asking whether it's because Murray is a member of the big four? It's like you want it to be the reason?, so you can be proved "genius". Yes, we're all influenced cause he's number 2 in the world and really Djokovic is head and shoulders the best player in the world. :zzz We all provided reasons other than that of, he is a member of the top 4, so why are you saying you don't understand why we are going for him? Perhaps try reading? You've basically supported the argument that Murray comes closer to Djokovic on grass, but then said however bla bla bla...... so then how can you say Djokovic should be 1.3? All these stats in grandslam head to heads aren't as significant as you think, player's develop over the years and these stats therefore count for very little. Their Australian Open semi final encounter in 2012 was incredibly close. I don't think it is clear cut whether Dokovic is the better player than Murray, on grass. Certainly on hardcourt, Novak's sheer amazing athletism and movement wins him the upper hand, but having watched the highlights of their match at the Olympics on youtube, I am not so sure Djoker has his number on a grasscourt. Murray has a better first serve also, so a lot will be to do with with howmany first serves he can make and at what times. He also needs to avoid serving outwide to Djoker's clear strength, his backhand on the second serve. If Murray had a better second serve, I'd be more confident than I am now. Just think a lot of people are underestimating the importance of the surface here, hardcourt is mainly only where both of these two have really competed against each other. I have yet to see Djoker beat a really good player on grass in fine form. With movement being less valuable, this is so even. It's fine if you think Djokovic will win but don't try and say you "don't understand" when both me and Czech gave long articulate reasons. Murray posseses just as much power at his disposal and even class in those the longer rallies IMO. Where Novak's ahead is in terms of movement. Murray's a great mover but Novak's an exceptional mover. That's why he has defensive to offensive class in the longer rallies. Novak's an exceptional mover and will need to move exceptionally tomorrow, wheather he will on this grass where it's harder to change direction, is the question for me. :) I reckon not and it's why it becomes even more of an even contest for me. Home tie for Andy and therefore he's the value at this price. Try thinking more outside of the box. ;) -
Re: Wimbledon 2013
I think he would have taken out all of the tour except for the ONE player he faced. Don't think there are 2 or 3 players who would have beaten him.I'd price it Novak 1.8 Murray 2.1 Cant say Murray is playing as well as Djokovic though, just need to look at the semi-finals to see that. Djokovic faced a player who would have taken out most of the tour with his performance, but for 2 or 3 players.
Champions League T20 2013
in Cricket Predictions
Posted
Re: Champions League T20 2013
I'm totally aware of that fact and I did think about that when the line went to 175.5 but then if I only win one of the two bets, I end up losing money, as they would both be at 5/6.