« Arnold Palmer Invitational round three: Will Bay Hill Singh to Vijay's tune?Arnold Palmer Invitational round one: Tiger Woods 1 Arnold Palmer 0 »

3 comments

Comment from: Alex [Visitor] Email
Anthony,

I've been wagering with a contact down in the islands since internet sports wagering has been proscribed here in the States.

Betting on the theoretical matchups, I've managed a profit of $512 on the first two days of the Palmer.

I bet against Tiger both rounds, dropping $100 on Thursday but winning $250 on Friday.I just can't bring myself to bet on Woods having to lay 2.5, 2.75, or 3 to 1. My fanatical brother-in-law, a Tiger fan if there ever was one, is in the tank again wagering on Woods.

He won $100 on Tiger the first round, became so confident that he doubled his bet in round two against Stenson laying 2.75 to 1 and dropped $550.

He just called to tell me that he is seriously thinking of quadrupling his bet lating 2.3 to 1 on Tiger against Retief. He'd have to lay $920 to win $400! If he loses that one, he may end up in a padded cell. That might be better than facing my sister when she finds out.
2007-03-17 @ 08:26
Comment from: Anthony Urquhart [Visitor] Email
Probably a bit late now but your brother should save his Tiger bets for the Doral.
2007-03-18 @ 06:37
Comment from: Alex [Visitor] Email
Anthony,

My brother-in-law got a "push' yesterday when Woods and Retief both shot 70. I ended up $5 ahead, dropping $200 on Appleby's 73 against Phil's 72, but winning $105 on Vijay's 67 against Ernie's 71, and another $100 on Trevor's 70 to Sergio's 71. I am $517 up for the three rounds of the Palmer, so I have only made two wagers today: $200 on Chad Campbell vs. Paul Casey at Chad +105, and $300 on Sergio vs. Tiger at Sergio +220. If neither of them pan out, I'll still be ahead the magnificent sum of $17.

Anthony, I'm not sure that Tiger would ever be a good bet, what with the ridiculous odds one has to lay when betting on him to win these theoretical matchups. When he loses just one of these matchups, which he invariably does, his backers are put into an almost insurmountable deficit. Then, like by brother-in-law, they have to start "chasing" to get even. As you said once before, Woods is great, he's a superstar, but he's not "superman" which he'd need to be to make his persistent backers winners.
2007-03-18 @ 08:46

Comments are closed for this post.