WGC Accenture Matchplay Round Two

WGC Accenture Matchplay Round Two [B]Geoff Ogilvy -185 vs Thomas Bjorn[/B] Bjorn defeated Tiger Woods 1 up through 20 holes and I'm pretty sure I or anyone on this board could have beaten Tiger on Wed. Bjorn made one putt outside of 10 feet, made 3 birdies and four bogeys, basically shooting over par and won. Ogilvy was 4 up through 9 holes and coasted through Padraig Harrington. We'll gladly take the 2x winner here in this spot after Bjorn on a high note. I believe this is an easy match, they never are in matchplay, but this is my strongest play so far and I'd lay up to and including -195. [B]Stewart Cink -150 vs YE Yang[/B] Unfortunately Poulter and Cink were paired in round one. They were/are go on matchplay players. Yang benefited from Quiros' wild game all over the desert and he just needed to make pars coming in to win, other than the par 5 2nd hole/20th hole of their match. Cink made 5 putts over 10 feet and kept the pressure on his opponent. [B]Nick Watney -105 vs Lee Westwood[/B] Westwood got an easy draw against Stenson the inconsistent and 210th ranked player on my big board. Westwood missed many putts inside 6 feet and he made 5 bogeys too boot. Watney hitting fairways and greens drilled A Kim handily. I think Watney should be -120 here.

Finally got a couple close matches to go our way Day 1. Nice call on The Tiger Fade Alf!

Yes the 2011 cherry has been popped!!!!

Mickelson vs. Rickie Fowler will have the attention of the Golf Channel staff and the TV watching public. I was dissapointed that Mickelson opened so cheap. Mannaserro IMO is going to be a Top 10 player in the World for quite some time. His swing (which I have yet to see in person) looks very much on plane, not much can go wrong with it under pressure it seems, and the kid can really putt. But Schwartzel is very steady, don't like him in the wind.

Could you please post the current line (Ogilvy), its not helpful to post a line that did not exist and never came back. 1 person could have bet -204. 02/23 05:03:32pm #7089 T Bjorn +151 OPENER 02/23 05:03:32pm #7090 G Ogilvy -167 OPENER 02/23 05:04:03pm #7089 T Bjorn +161 02/23 05:04:03pm #7090 G Ogilvy -179 02/23 05:05:09pm #7089 T Bjorn +170 02/23 05:05:09pm #7090 G Ogilvy -189 02/23 05:07:51pm #7089 T Bjorn +176 02/23 05:07:51pm #7090 G Ogilvy -196 02/23 05:08:22pm #7089 T Bjorn +183 02/23 05:08:22pm #7090 G Ogilvy -204 02/23 05:25:27pm #7089 T Bjorn +192 02/23 05:25:27pm #7090 G Ogilvy -214 02/23 06:01:29pm #7089 T Bjorn +189 02/23 06:01:29pm #7090 G Ogilvy -211 02/23 06:59:25pm #7089 T Bjorn +182 02/23 06:59:25pm #7090 G Ogilvy -203 02/23 07:10:36pm #7089 T Bjorn +180 02/23 07:10:36pm #7090 G Ogilvy -200 02/23 07:17:28pm #7089 T Bjorn +186 02/23 07:17:28pm #7090 G Ogilvy -208

We should clear this up. I haven't talked to Alf since all this bad lines crap showed up, but I assume that if a number is posted and you can't get it, whether it exists anywhere or not, it's a pass if you're going by the letter of the recommendation. Now, if you find it at a worse price, but based on other information you may have you still want to bet it, then knowing that Alf liked it, at least at the former price, might play into your decision. Am I right about this or not? I really do want to get to the bottom of what everyone's looking for aside from spoon-fed directions that are usually impossible to provide.

With pinny being at -204 ( the best line) at 519pm, then what is the point in posting at all? It is the same as posting Pittsburgh Steelers -2.5, when the line is 4.....what is the point?

Not getting on your case and not sure I have an argument (yet). Kinda sick of being called names and want to tighten it up a bit IF IT NEEDS tightening. I'll talk with Fezz and Alf and we'll try to put forth an explanation of what our posted lines mean. Yes, I'm reacting a little to the outside criticism, which I don't want to do too much. But if it's bugging our own people, it needs to be addressed.

[quote][B]Geoff Ogilvy -185 vs Thomas Bjorn [/B] ........ [B]this is my strongest play so far and I'd lay up to and including -195[/B].[/quote] I think this answers Jackie and Anthony's question. There is a little over a 1% difference between -185 and -195 and that's the strongest play. So, definitely don't take any regular play at -105 that is recommended at -100. These lines are real tight.

I think saying how high he would take it addresses the issue. I follow to the letter and didn't miss out on the Tiger fade the other day because even though I couldn't get +245, I took +240 because he said the line should be +180 or +160 or whatever it was he said. Absent any commentary about what line he would consider, I pass if I can't get the number, but I am positive that a lot of people here don't do this, because people consider wins and losses instead of juice when making a betting decision.