4th Round Matchups--Bodog

4th Round Matchups--Bodog Those 3rd round matchups at the Greek yesterday were very good as the sharp money knew what they were doing. The leans today at the Greek weren't very strong so I haven't played any of them. I reviewed some of the Bodog matchups and there is some very good value on the underdogs in several matchups IMO. I don't bet the maximum on these so they just probably still be there. I just played William Cauley +250 against Gary Woodland---ties lose though. I have no idea who Cauley is but that line can't be right? Chez Reavie is +175 against Goosen ties lose. Havret is +150 vs. Karlsson. Henley is +175 against Quiros. Frazar is +150 against McDowell. And Jason Day is +150 against Westwood. There are quite a few others and probably worth looking at. In most cases the underdog has already beaten the favourite in at least one of the rounds and sometimes 2 of them or 1 and a push, etc. The players went off similar score through 3 rounds. Note: Just saw Alf's post on YE Yang. Another dog. +140 at Bodog vs. Rory TIES LOSE.

Ties lose has to be brutal in these.

Ties Lose? Go play the "BIG WHEEL"

I don't have any data on ties but books that have 3 way on golf with a tie option seem to pay +750 on the draw. I have to infer that is too little. I wonder about that in certain matchups but generally I think we need to assume that the true odds of a tie are probably 9:1. For instance YE Yang vs. Rory at +140 IF my analysis is correct is probably close to +120 no ties---maybe slightly better, maybe slightly worse but probably pretty similar. If you bet +120 no draw you're going to win and let's just say that is the fair bet you get on 10 trials no decision. And then on the other 90 you are winning 41 times out of the 90 (which is 45% of the time) and losing 49 times. But you're 41 pays 1.2 so you would earn 49.2. Basically, I'm saying you'll break even if YE wins the matchup 45% of the time and you get a refund on ties. Now I'll lose 10 for the draw. But on the other 90 I'm going to win 45% of the time or 41 wins just like you but I'll be paid 1.4 which equals 57.4 so I'll lose 59 total which is slightly negative 1.6. I would have to say the +120 no draw is at least equivalent to betting +140 Ties Lose at Bodog but for sake of argument let's say it is close enough to be interchangeable since we need a few assumptions to get there. (1) Of course the tie being more frequent or less frequent changes the value of the bets. I don't know the answer to this. If my 9:1 is a little high and the odds really are 11:1 the Bodog bet gets better since I'll lose a little less on ties and get my 1.4 a little more frequently. BUT the opposite is also true in that the more frequent a tie it is less value. (2) Bodog puts up matchups I don't see elsewhere and they just seem like they're inflated prices to be honest. I don't think you can bet them similarly elsewhere with no ties. What was the one I bet? Can't even remember the guy already. Cauley? +250 against Woodland. You're bang on the ties are a killer and certainly something like Day +150 over Westwood I just didn't see the matchup anywhere else at no tie odds. I have to admit it probably isn't as good as I think but I probably jumped when I saw 2 golfers not exactly even I certainly have to favour Westwood but +150 sounded good. The +250 on Cauley I was ready to bet Arnold Palmer +250 against Woodland to tell you the truth.

Just want to emphasize my comments were based on the handicap of the matchups at Bodog. The key is they offer big dog prices on matchups that I don't see elsewhere. The TL angle is obviously a factor but whatever you adjust I'm going to assume it is still a good price. What I'm really interested in is whether Cauley was good value TL +250 against Woodland. If Alf or Dude or anyone else on the board wants to tell me Woodland should be -300 against this guy that is fine. I just felt these prices were too high. The ties refund or ties lose was no consideration to me but I pointed out that is the way Bodog books these. For the Yang matchup that is why I emphasized TIES LOSE. You don't have the same bet as what Alf recommends but I thought if +120 is value this is a decent play as well. What else would be good to know is whether +750 has value. If the ties occur way more frequently, the tie will be a great bet. But I am doubting that unless someone knows something else and wants to share it. Not sure if this statement is correct but I'll actually theorize that the more you bet the underdog on these the less the tie is actually hurting and if they keep putting up the same tie odds as the other plays that will be a horrible bet. Again so with Woodland if he's really -250 and Cauley was +250 and I think the ties was +750 the same as all the others although I can't guarantee that you have to assume that the probability of a tie in this match is less than the Yang matchup and the probability of a tie in the Yang matchup is less than a matchup that is exactly even between 2 golfers. If one assumes Bodog does have the correct odds on Woodland/Cauley, their scoring distributions are far different and the ties win or lose angle means less and I would assume to be the tie is just an even worse bet than normal. What would Rory be or Westwood against Cauley? Aren't they trying to tell me that either of those guys is -400 against Cauley? The tie is much less likely. I'll have to admit I'd be inclined to put a little on Cauley against Westwood or Rory at those odds. I already know I'm probably going to lose but I would just feel those odds are too high.

I thought I remember Alf having a discussion some time back regarding the value of a 1/2 stroke in a golf matchup. Thought it was like 50 cents but not positive.

On Betfair ties are around 9:1 Your math seems right skeeter

I mean +800 (9.0 european odds) Its comparative to around 20-25 cents (less on favourites, more on dogs)