The Wager Zone

Sports Desk
By Aodhán Elder

Anyone for Tennis?

Maybe it's because it comes so early into the season or maybe it's because the players have all overdone it on the mince pies, but the Australian Open has been one of the more unpredictable Grand Slam events of the tennis season. With Roger Federer's talents apparently on the wane and Rafael Nadal never looking totally convincing on the hard courts, there could be value about some of the less feted names on tour. Last season Novak Djokovic took the opportunity to establish himself in the sport's elite, and after a season that featured a number of youngsters rocket up the rankings, the Melbourne tournament looks wide open in comparison to the relatively closed shops of Roland Garros, Wimbledon, and the US Open. Giles Simon, ranked number seven in the world, could be a value bet at 66/1 whilst compatriot and beaten finalist of 2008, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga has continued his improvement of the last couple of years, and if you can get in the region of 20/1, could be worth a small investment. Certainly, the big two look vulnerable and tick the boxes as good lay material.

Oscar Madness

Nominations of the Academy Awards are due out towards the end of January and watching the market is often the best guide to success. This year, Angelina Jolie seems to have targeted Best Actress with Changeling. It's a departure from the popcorn fodder she has been largely involved with of late, and considering it features the actress spending time in a Depression-era mental asylum, it looks to be her serious play for the award.

Suitably inspired, Jolie's partner Brad Pitt, looks to be targeting an award of his own with his role as Benjamin Button, in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, about a man who suffers from a reverse aging process. Unlike the actress category where it's not unheard of for a relative newcomer to claim the award, the Best Actor category tends to go to more established actors who have paid their Hollywood dues, but an interesting outsider could be Frank Langella for his role in Frost/Nixon, a film based on the epic series of interviews between Richard Nixon and David Frost in 1977.

Given that US presidents are big news at the moment, three of the last four awards have gone to actors who successfully capture the idiosyncrasies of non-fictional figures (Idi Amin, Truman Capote, and Ray Charles) and the fact he has already claimed a Tony Award for his stage portrayal of the shamed former president, Langella could be one to keep an eye out for at this year's awards. Heath Ledger will almost certainly head the market for his wonderful take on the Joker in The Dark Knight, but his price will be artificially low by virtue of the tragedy of his death.

Six Nations Once Again



Wales was the only Six Nations Championship team to come away with any credit from the series of November international test matches, and given that this season's fixture list is more favourable than the one they successfully negotiated to land the Grand Slam in 2008, the Dragons look like great value to win the Championship at around 2/1. The 5/1 for Warren Gatland's men to claim a second Grand Slam in succession is on the verge of tempting, but a trip to Paris is a major concern. Wales have the talent and continuity whilst most of the other teams fumble around with selection and struggle to execute any sort of tangible game plan. England are at a distressingly low ebb, and France already have more than one eye on the World Cup of 2011 and may continue to experiment for another season. Declan Kidney is still finding his feet with Ireland and as good as Italy have become, they won't be a factor in the Championship. There were some encouraging signs for Frank Hadden and Scotland as they ran world champions South Africa close, and while it's doubtful they'll make the improvement to challenge for silverware, it could be time to keep them onside in the match and handicap betting, when in previous seasons doing the exact opposite was the prudent strategy.

Second Hand Analysis
By Daragh Thomas

When I first got interested in poker, I watched a lot of it on TV. I saw a lot of the World Poker Tour, Late Night Poker, and later on the excellent High Stakes Poker. But always, the coverage I have enjoyed the most was the World Series of Poker. I remember staying at home late one Saturday night (if my memory serves me correctly) and being close to tears when Andy Black's fantastic WSOP run came to a premature end. I don't know whether its Norman Chad's lame ex-wife jokes, or the excitement around the most prestigious poker tournament in the world, but every year I end up tuning in and enjoying it, and this year was no exception. During the break before the final table I watched all of the available episodes. Normally I end up rooting for whoever I think is the most deserving of winning, which is whoever I feel is the best player. But this year I ended up wanting Dennis Phillips to win, an amateur who qualified online from Missouri. Although he clearly wasn't the best player left in the tournament, I found him the most likeable; and not a terrible player by any means.

Which is all by way of an introduction to a hand I will be analyzing in this issue. Chad mentioned that Phillips had received a huge amount of coaching in the time before the final table. Which meant I was very surprised when the following hand took place. As soon as I saw the hand I thought it would be a brilliant instructional hand, that illustrates precisely several huge mistakes that you want to avoid while playing poker. (If you want to watch the hand yourself, it occurs nine minutes into episode 31).

In the hand, Philips starts off by limping under the gun with A-K off-suit. Now this is not a play I would recommend (I wouldn't recommend limping any cards in this position), but there is nothing inherently wrong with it. His call costs him 300,000. It's then folded to the Russian player Demidov. He raises to 1,025,000, with A-Q suited. This raise is standard, both the action and the amount.

It's then folded back to Philips, who then proceeds to reraise. This move up to this point is called a limp reraise. And while I feel that a normal opening raise is better, again there is nothing inherently wrong with it. It gives him a good chance to end the hand preflop, which is perhaps why he chose this strategy, realising that post-flop the better players may exploit him. The problem is however, his limp reraise does not get enough of his stack into the pot, and he still runs the danger of seeing a flop; but now with more money to lose.

So Philips makes it 3.5 million. This amount is fine in my opinion. It's big without being too big. Here is where the hand gets interesting. Up until the point both players are playing normally and their actions are consistent with their hand strength and the pot size. Demidov re-reraises to 8,225,000. Now unless he thought Phillips is getting out of line (which I doubt based on what was shown) Demidov has to realise that he is now turning his hand into a bluff. He is representing a really strong hand, stronger than A-Q suited. I like this play, because I think that Demidov has correctly assumed that Philips would be very reluctant to put his tournament on the line at this point. Up until now Phillips had played, and talked about (which was unfortunate) how he wanted to coast into the final three without risking too many chips.

So now Demidov is asking Philips the question; "do you want to put your whole tournament on the line now?" It's a good move because he is risking less than 5 million chips to win the already large pot. Other people probably view this action as reckless, and there is no doubt that it carries a lot of risk, but that had been Demidov's strategy all along, and it had served him well. The downside to the play that I can see, is that Philips' range is quite strong, and that too great a portion of the time, Philips is going to have A-A, K-K, or Q-Q and not be prepared to fold them. However without watching all of the hands before, I have to assume that Demidov (who played well in other hands) had a much better idea of Phillips' range than we can.

So now the action is back on Phillips. Here I feel he has two clear choices. The pot is now huge in relation to his stack. There is roughly 12 million in there. He can either push, or fold. Calling puts too great a percentage of his stack into the middle, with an extremely vulnerable hand. Phillips had somehow backed himself into a very profitable situation. He can push all in over the top for around 16 million, hoping to pick up the 12 million chips in there. It's not often you can make a bet like that preflop, that if successful your stack becomes 175 percent of what it just was. The reason this play is so profitable is that Demidov is going to have to put Phillips on a very small range, and fold a huge percentage of his. And when he does call, because the pot is already so large, Philips doesn't lose much in equity. (Even against K-K, A-K has 30 percent equity.) If Phillips pushes and Demidov folds a pair, it is a huge coup for Philips; and I think it is very likely that Demidov would be forced to fold medium or small pairs. (Even up to jacks!)

Now, if you value your tournament life very strongly, or if you somehow convince yourself that Demidov probably has aces you can just fold. This way you can protect your 16 million chip stack, and move on to the next hand. Calling is by far the worse option. By calling all you are doing is making the pot bigger and bigger, but not giving yourself a good chance to win it. It's a cliché, but it's never truer than here. The pot is so big that you really want to see all five cards. Two-thirds of the time when you call there will be no ace or king on the flop, and you are going to be out of position, in a weird and costly no-man's land. I'll continue this analysis in the following issue.

Antepost
Make Hay as the Frost Comes
By Roy Brindley

This is one of my favourite times of the year with the national hunt season getting into full swing and everyone gearing up for Cheltenham's festival. However, cold snaps invariably hold up trainers' plans, with meetings cancelled due to bad weather, and gallops frozen.

Unsurprisingly, as with the foot and mouth outbreak in 2001, the loss of horse-racing fixtures means more interest and turnover at the dog tracks.

But, as opposed to horse-racing losing meetings to the elements, cancellations are not considered part and parcel of the greyhound racing - a sport which is struggling and desperately needs the income that either Bookmakers' Afternoon Greyhound Service (BAGS) meetings (paid for by the bookmakers), or the restaurant and bar takings during evening racing, creates.

While dogs can race through a typhoon and track management can hold a meeting up for hours waiting for fog to clear, the modern greyhound cannot run on concrete and so a frozen track is avoided at all expense.

Therein, with the hint of frost even whispered, groundsmen at tracks the length and breadth of the UK plough into their sand tracks enough salt to melt an iceberg.

That's fine, it affects things only slightly, possibly making the surface run a little slow and disadvantaging the dogs with stamina issues, but only by a tiny margin.

However, fast forward 24 hours when the frost has cleared and the rains have come - normally a Saturday night meeting following a Friday card which was subject to freezing conditions - and the net result is a quagmire.

It's not just any quagmire mind, it's one that is hock-deep on the inside of the track and as smooth as a cushioned billiard table on the outer.

You see greyhound tracks are similar to velodromes - that's the banked cycle tracks for the uninitiated - and being covered in sand they are also part beach.

Sandy salty beaches drain downwards towards the waterline, in this case they drain down to the inside of the track, and if you have ever walked along a sandy beach you will know the wet areas are far more stamina sapping than the few feet beyond the lapping waves range.

Now, stop to consider greyhounds do not change their running styles; meaning that if a dog is a slow starter he will always be a slow starter, and a fast trapping early-speed type will always have those characteristics. Likewise wide running dogs will always be wide runners and they will always be allocated the outside traps - 4, 5, and 6.

The net result, and I assure you this is quite true, will be plenty of meetings during the course of early 2009 which will produce a preponderance of wide runners filling both the winners and runner-up spots.

Keep an eye on the elements - look for a frosty Friday followed by a wet Saturday - fill out a betting slip with a long list of 6 x 5 reversed forecast doubles and trebles and you could be returning to the betting shop the following morning with something worth more than a Willie Wonka Golden Ticket.

Experience tells me Wimbledon and Sunderland are the two tracks most likely to have a one-off roaring night where no winner comes from any trap other than 5 and 6, with no trap 1 or 2 making the frame.

This system is not a ringing endorsement of the bet in any way however, as forecasts offer percentages worse than win bets. Just consider this:

There have been a fair few instances of all six runners in a race being returned at 4/1 - normally at Romford where races are graded very tightly - and theoretically, if all runners are the same price they all have the same chance of winning.
With races consisting of six runners that is an over-round of 120 percent. However, in such situations the forecast pays in the region of £20 making the selection of the first and second a 19/1 shot. That's pretty poor odds when you consider there are 30 possible combinations.