The book is fairly standard though Clarkey. One team being too short does imply the others are highly likely to be too long unless the draw has taken on an unusual importance. The odds are related to eachother.
I think that was Declan Prendergast versus Clare last year.
That depends on what Limerick score.
They drew with a shit Cork team in the Munster final and struggled to beat Wexford and Offaly on the qualifiers in 2009. And they were rank in the semi against Tipp last year. So again I would suggest that this don’t go well early was not a well though out remark. They go as well as they do at any other time.
And that’s without ever referring to how well they went in the all Ireland final. [quote=“cluaindiuic, post: 600691”]
The “win” in 2009 you refer to was after a replay.
In the first game they scored 0-11. Do you think they’d win this weekend scoring 0-11?
Read more: http://examiner.ie/archives/2009/0615/sport/everyones-glad-to-have-another-go-at-this-one-94128.html#ixzz1OtHeYMF4
[/quote]
You’re right
Why are you talking about Munster Finals, AI Semi finals and finals. We’re specifically talking about their first games in the Championship.
And they have been shit for the past 3 years in their first games.
The last time they had a decent first day out was that ridiculous match with Cork in 2007. You won’t see that Waterford again.
Also, they played Wexford and Offaly in the qualifiers in 2008.
Because my point is that they go ad well in these games as they do in any other games. They are a mediocre team who beat mediocre opposition early in the year and lose to superior opposition late in the year. So by their own standards they actually go as well as they can early.
The Cork thing in 2007 is another red herring. First it is Justin era and second that Cork team was shorn of it’s key men thanks to Semplegate and still Waterford had to rely on the crossbar to ein the game t[quote=“cluaindiuic, post: 600698”]
Why are you talking about Munster Finals, AI Semi finals and finals. We’re specifically talking about their first games in the Championship.
And they have been shit for the past 3 years in their first games.
The last time they had a decent first day out was that ridiculous match with Cork in 2007. You won’t see that Waterford again.
Also, they played Wexford and Offaly in the qualifiers in 2008.
[/quote]
Shane Carwin @ 11/8
Kenny Florian @ 1/3
Dave Herman @ 2/5
Krzysztof Soszynski @ 1/4
Wexford (+10.0) @ 4/9
Limerick (+6.0) @ 4/9
Cavan (+7.0) @ 4/11
Louth (-3.0) @ 4/9
Leitrim (+6.0) @ 3/10
Wexford @ 4/6
Limerick are 5/2 with Powers now or 9/4 Draw No Bet.
What do you think of Limerick V Waterford under 40.5 pts @ 5/6.
Given the forecast conditions could be bad. The last Limerick Waterford game played in the wet was atrocious. I think it finished level 0-1 to 0-1
i’m tempted alright Runt. It’s the one bet that stands out for me.
How is the weather in Thurlas?
6/5 on betfair.
I bet Leitrim win … would bet my house on it… :lol:
1/3 - badly wrong with Leitrim. The Limerick game could have gone either way. Carlow choice was never in doubt :unsure:
Following MJ’s advice on The Committee Room the other night no doubt Mac
pity your cliche ridden style hasnt caught on fully on this thread but give it time.
unlucky with limerick, leitrim let us down bad, carlow was a great call. obviously double and trebles suffered. Still not too far off.
A big punter such as yourself probably had 50 euro easy on each of your three selections. tenner on the double, fiver on treble.
balance -60 euro after week 1
I have faith in you to get it right next time out so dont fret pal
love that certainty.
the disclaimer was a cracking touch too.
<_< Fucking Leitrim cunts.
You allowed yourself get drawn in by the optimism of people such as boxtyeater. This was your fatal error. Roscommon are a well drilled side with scoring talent and an astute manager.
Yeah, I’d imagine you know a lot more about it than I do. I’d actually like to understand a bit more though. The odds are obviously related to each other but the primary importance from the bookies’ perspective, as I understand it, is to manage the book. I think PP aim for a 10% profit on most “books”. In isolation, this would probably mean that prices are “perfect” and conceptually too long and too short wouldn’t exist, but there are a range of other variables to consider and the outcome is obviously uncertain.
For some reason, the logic in my head is telling me (probably incorrectly) that just because one is “too long” doesn’t imply the other is “too short”. In this case, all other things being equal, in a two horse race, if hypothetical horse 1 was 11/4 why wouldn’t hypothetical horse n (being any horse) always be the same price? If there’s a degree of judgement involved in calculating the odds, and there is, and the book is being managed, then surely one being too long doesn’t necessarily imply the other is too short.
Hmm. Have I started arguing for the theory I was trying to disprove?
I think I know what your getting at here. But basically what Mac was saying was that he thought it was priced wrong i.e. Horse 1 was 4/1 when Mac felt he was closer to a 2/1 shot. Therefore since the book is balanced Mac felt that the other horse at 1/4 for agruments sake should have been at 1/2 therefore too short. The book wasn’t balanced wrong Mac just thought it was priced wrong. I think thats what your on about anyway never know with ye gays.