Hmmm…Uruguay bundle one in and now it’s 3-2. Umbrella-chewing time for the Dutch.
HA!
The part where they call them out for being floppers and bullies? I’m assuming this isn’t how the Dutch normally play, and I’m just catching a bad game for them.
Spain over Germany…no doubt.
I was willing Uruguay to grab a last minute equaliser there - anything for the drama (and I’d had a cheeky £2 at 150/1 on Uruguay to qualify when they were 3-1 down with 15 mins to go - stranger things have happened!).
Even with almost 5 mins of stoppage time, no dice. Why couldn’t they have scored five minutes earlier? 
Holy smokes - almost two minutes of additional time after additional time…
That’s not a cheeky bet. I’ve lost £2 coins down the sofa, so the chance of multiplying it by 150 times, however slim the real-life chances were, is well worth the speculation. 
Yes I thought the odds were pretty good, considering there were still 15 mins plus stoppage time for them to get two goals and take it to extra time. If they had, the odds would have been around 2/1 Uruguay at worst, so I could have hedged for a decent profit.
In-play betting on Betfair rules. 
I made over £350 on this match from an initial investment of £4 or thereabouts.
Man United were 3-2 up with a minute to go and something like 1/50 to win, so I laid them. Downside £4, upside £200.
City equalised in the last minute and the draw odds went to about 1/25 as there were 4min of stoppage time indicated. I laid that too. Upside £400ish, or upside £184. No downside.
Utd grabbed a winner to make it 4-3 in the sixth minute of stoppage time. I cracked open a beer.
Wait. United was winning in the 89th minute and somebody gave you 50-to-1 odds that United would win?
Forlan for man of the tournament. He came close to almost singlehandedly putting his side in the finals, and made it look good.
No, United were winning and he gave somebody else 1-50 odds that they would win, which seemed inevitable at the time. Then City scored, and he cashed in big time.
Suarez definitely also had a hand in Uruguay’s success.
But he still ended up losing that bet, right?
I guess if he wagered a lot on the non-draw scenario, then he was in good shape.
Edit: ekweizn: I see what you did there.
Man Utd were 1/50 (“50 to 1 on”) to win. I effectively offered that bet to someone else - they thought it was a sure winner and staked £200 to win my £4.
Man City equalised and now the draw was a huge favourite, so I could use some of my (potential) £200 profit on the draw to offer someone else a cheap bet on the draw winning. So they staked £400 to win my £16 (at odds of 1/25).
In the event Man U did win, so I lost my original £4 (and the first punter, after a change of underwear no doubt, picked up their £4 winnings for a £200 stake.
However, the person that backed the draw at short odds lost, and I got to keep their stake, which (much) more than covered my £4 loss on the original bet.
It sounds complicated when you try to explain it, but it’s simple really 
I do understand. I guess it wasn’t clear exactly how much you had wagered on your hedge (regarding the draw).
Had Man City won the game, you would have had to replace several pairs of underwear, correct?
Not as I read it. If Man City had won then Colophon wins his initial bet (200) but loses the second (16). Still a handy win.
Basically he took some of the (potential) profit on the first wager to cover the other (two) sides. Man U wins, he wins the second bet - any other result he wins the first.
Well his first bet was AGAINST ManU winning the game. His second bet was AGAINST a draw, which also would not have happened. So he would have won both bets.
I’m not impressed with this without seeing comparisons with other balls.
You’re right. I took your comment to mean that he would have lost if Man City won the game. :smack:
I’ll leave the gambling to the pros.
And so will I with jokes regarding soiling one’s underpants.