Low liability laying

An excellent night for those people out there who like to lay Liverpool. Unfortunately I'm otherwise engaged on Tuesday evenings and rushed out at half time without doing so, but yet again the 'cash cow' of the last two seasons proved worthy of that moniker again.

I did trade the Any Unquoted in the game three times. I'm personally rarely able to resist laying it in almost any game where it's under 3 at the start of the match, and duly did so. The intention was to take the green after 10-15 minutes and recycle it as the goals pinged in. As sometimes happens when you take that course, the first goal pinged in in short time. Whilst unfortunate in terms of my already set trade, it did have the effect of pushing the price of AU down to under 1.7. Think about what that means.....with 86 minutes plus injury time left to play the market believed that in 100 games, 59 of them would end with a four goal or more score from either or both teams. I don't know the stats and haven't the means (or inclination) to dig them out but my intuition tells me that it's bollox to put it bluntly! In this case it's clearly a reflection of the general consensus of opinion being that Liverpool would go on and thump County.  Having relaid at double my original stake I was able in fairly short order to come out with a small green before the second goal, at which point the odds dropped to the mid 1.2's. So I was able to recycle the same money again, and that was all I ended up doing in the game.

The main point though, is that it looks as if some £70k was matched on Liverpool at 1.01. The full time score was 2-2. If your bank can stand it, there's little downside to laying  £100, £1000 or even £10000 at those odds. Sure there will be many more losers than winners...but these things do happen. Based on my experience there are two top-flight English teams that it happens to more than most, the aforementioned and Arsenal. I'll always lay both of them at 2 or more goal leads.

How times have changed

Whilst City were 'playing' with Newcastle last night, comparisons were drawn with the Leeds team of the 1970's who mercilessly toyed with a team (I think it was WBA but my memory is hazy - I stand to be corrected) playing a sort of exhibition match to the delight of the crowd. One thing led another via google  as often happens, and I found myself reading about the 1970 FA Cup Final in 1970. 

That is a day I remember fondly, as at the tender age of eight, I sat with my Uncle Arthur watching the game and became a Chelsea supporter. To say I remember the game in detail would be to over egg the sauce a bit, but the account I read last night suggested it to have been a bruising encounter, and a very bad tempered one to boot. That match ended 2-2 when Ian Hutchinson, of the windmill long throw fame, netted in the final moments of the game.

The replay was played at Old Trafford and, if anything, was a more bruising encounter than the first had been. Remember, this is the era when players rejoiced in nicknames like Ron 'Chopper' Harris, Norman 'Bites yer legs' Hunter and 'Battling' Billy Bremner. Those names were genuinely descriptive of the way the game was played back then.

Which brings me to the title...according to an article on SkySports.com, retired referee David Elleray reviewed the game some 30 years later and revealed that he would have issued no fewer than 6 Red Cards and a staggering 20 Yellows. There was just the one 'booking' in the whole match!

Of course, the Blues won the replay thanks to a Dave Webb extra time header. Happy days :)

The meaning of life

One of the things I like best about the Betting / Trading 'blogosphere' is that it sometimes throws up some fascinating debates, not all of which are directly related to the subject. There is one such debate brewing at the moment about life, wealth, work and happiness / fulfilment / pyschological well-being call it what you will. Anyway, I thought I'd put my tuppenceworth into the mix.

To set the background for those who wonder what the old fool's rambling on about now, look at Caan Berry's piece, and Steve's comment in response to it and then pop over to Green All Over to see Cassini's usual non-combative everyone's entitled to an opinion stance on the subject.

I think both Caan and Cassini are right in different ways. It is rich, if you interpret that term in a holistic sense rather than a straight financial sense, to be your own boss. If you can earn a living working a few hours a day, have no-one to answer to but your other half (if applicable) and don't see the point in working harder to earn more as you don't see the point, I think that's a fortunate position to be in. Likewise if you are so contented in your career, as seems to be the case with Cassini, that the work / life boundary fades to an indistinct line then I also think that's a fortunate position to be in.

I generally speaking really enjoy what I do to earn a crust. There are apsects that I don't enjoy, although they are few in number and none engender a 'hatred' of the task - more of a 'needs must so let's just get it over and done with' response. The truth is though, that I sell cars because I was not good enough at playing either football or golf to make a career out of what I truly enjoy (on, in the case of football, used to enjoy) doing most!

For most people reading this post and the others mentioned I suspect that work is a necessity to enable them to live. I also suspect that, given the choice / chance most would like to quit the 'rat race' and control their own destiny. It is a little too simplistic, in my view, to say that if you dislike your job that much you just need to go and find something that you do enjoy.

I also think that people of my parents' generation and my generation have had / are having a far easier time than people of my sons' generation are likely to have. I'd like that not to be the case, but suspect it will prove so.

One trader I know gave up the rat race to trade full time. As far as I know he was making a good go at it, but then got invited back into the corporate world. After a bit of internal turmoil the appeal and challenge offered by the greasy pole proved too much to pass on and back he went. He stopped blogging regularly then as well, which is a shame. He knows who he is ;-).

Another trader of my acquaintance had been full time for over four years, and again, as far as I know earnt well enough from it. He now works with people who need help in a couple of areas of life truly central to their general well being. When I asked him why he quit full time trading and whether he was enjoying his new role his response was interesting. It seems that Betfair and their attitude to their customers was the central reason for him quitting... i.e. the Premium Charge among other things. He also said that in his new role he feels completely fulfilled, something that trading full time had not achieved for him. I don't know how much he's making now, but suspect he's taken a drop in income in return for what he sees as an improvement in his quality of life.

Cassini says that one definition of richness is when one's income from investment exceeds expenses. I'll add a definition I've heard: 'true wealth has been attained when the interest on your interest exceeds expenses'. I honestly doubt that many people reading these words fall into either camp. I know I don't. But on balance I'm inclined to side with the view that wealth or richness are all relative terms, and that, 'wishy washy' or not, I'll take a good family and close circle of good friends over the mansion and the Ferrari. All day, every day!