**I am running a Betfair account which is used exclusively for plays mentioned here. Every single play I put up here will go immediately on my Betfair account. Started the account with £1000 and my rate will be £20 per Point. The stakes will vary from the minimum of 0.25 pts to the maximum of 10 pts (so £5 to £200 for me) unless I am laying long odds on. With the account being used solely for Tour-Tips, it will therefore tell us exactly what the profit/loss record of this page is, including commission costs. If you want to think of these as recommendations to bet or lay these players then please do so, but be aware that sometimes the price will shift and you'll have to decide whether the new odds are value or not. If the new odds are only one or two increments different to what are on here then I'm sure I'd usually suggest to still play** 


HP Classic of New Orleans @ Betfair

FINAL RESULT:

Loss = 7.55 pts

Bank is now £1024.57 after 4 weeks (started at £1000).

Summary:
Damn, damn, damn, damn ... why do I make things complicated. Trying to nick a few quid by laying Singh at odds higher than his starting price backfired when all I should have done was take on Charles Howell. Swerved laying Singh and Mickelson at the start and should've made money after starting that way. Again the backs didn't challenge despite three of them showing up and giving hope at odd stages. A disappointing tournament ultimately where I found it hard to get involved and I would hope for a lot more action at the Wachovia Championship this week where we have a tough US Open-type course to sort them out.


Page Update #3 (Monday morning):
(Winner market)
Lay Joe Ogilvie 2.5 pts @ 5.5
Lay Charles Howell 0.75 pts @ 6.6
Lay Vijay Singh 1.5 pts @ 8.2 --- ALL MATCHED
Lay Justin Rose 1.5 pts @ 8
Lay Hidemichi Tanaka 1.5 pts @ 8
Lay Ted Purdy 5 pts @ 4 AND 10 pts @ 2 AND 10 pts @ 1.5
Got it wrong on the Matchups page, calling Ogilvie "simply Nationwide standard" as he's played really well (seemingly much-improved) and is 2 clear with a round to go. Even so, I don't think he can win this. I'm also even more convinced than yesterday that this isn't going to be Howell's week and I fancy laying Singh at that price when he's 4 behind and surrounded by a lot of golfers - from the front he's awesome but I don't know if he can putt the lights out to come from behind in a rush to the line. Don't fancy Rose or Tanaka either but seeing as their prices are currently too high I'll put a couple of lays in for later in case they start well and their prices go into single figures. Generally putting my hopes in Mickelson, Choi or someone who might shoot really low from -12 or -13 .... if that's to be Ted Purdy then all the better! Just in case it is, I'll put some lays up at short prices.


Page Update #2 (Sunday morning but 2nd round still unfinished):
(Winner market)
Lay Charles Howell 2 pts @ 5
Unless this becomes much, much more of a test to the players, I can't see that Howell will be able to keep putting well enough to win. His iron play is good, as usual, but the reason he's contending this week is because he is holing plenty of putts; his putting statistics in the first two rounds are a world away from what he normally achieves so there has to be significant doubt that he'll keep that up. And he'll have to if he wants to hold off his birdie-crazed fellow competitors! I'm glad the PGA Tour seem to have committed themselves to a full 72 hole tournament as three of our boys are doing well, particularly the 'rag' Burns, who is a superb -6 thru 12 so far in his second round so far (-9 total). Purdy was playing great until bogeying two of his last three and settling on -8, while Flesch must be rueing his par five play this week. He is currently -9 and has only dropped shots on three holes out of his 36 so far ... but bizarrely they were all par fives. Two bogeys and a double on those three holes and if he'd even managed what would've been perceived to be three disappointing pars on them, he'd have currently been clear third. Obviously playing very well here, yet again, and hopes are high that a real challenger will emerge from our trio. Will look again at the state of play when round two finishes and may update the page again if there are significant changes between now and then.


Still not laying after day one, so many in contention (32 within 2 shots) and the first round not finished yet. Will now wait and hope for something to get our teeth into at the halfway stage.

Page Update #1:
(Winner market)
Back Steve Flesch 0.75 pts @ 55
Back Ted Purdy 0.5 pts @ 160
Back Steve Stricker 0.5 pts @ 190
Back Bob Burns 0.25 pts @ 470
--- ALL MATCHED (Purdy average odds 143.05 & Burns 485.80)

Decided not to lay any before the event as so many of the market leaders have strong claims and I wouldn't know which ones to oppose. I'd rather weigh up after the first round and start the laying at shorter prices.
Going for some small backs, defending champion Flesch being by far the most obvious one. He hasn't really prospered like many thought after finally getting his first win in this last year, but he's not been that poor. Four top tens in the final eight events of '03, it looked for all the world that he'd be a real force this season. It hasn't worked out like that but six top 20s in his 13 events so far suggests he just needs a little spark to get him right up there. English Turn might just be it as apart from the win he also has two runners up spots and a 6th place - a very impressive record. Purdy has already secured 4 top 20s in a very impressive start to his first full season on the main tour including when he so nearly clinched the Heritage two weeks ago. He did brilliantly to shrug off that play-off disappointment with a tied 11th last week when he was 2nd in GIR. Stricker has been missing from leaderboards for over a year and a half with his putting touch deserting him. He missed so many cuts in that period many must have doubted whether he'd ever come back, but the last two weeks he has found something and I'd expect that to continue this week. One of the missed cuts in that barren spell was here but prior to that he'd played the course well on all four appearances. Burns is a real speculative pop but why not? He was 6th here in 2000 so can play the course, he has won and shown nerve before, holding off DiMarco and a charging Woods with a Sunday 65 to win the 2002 Disney, and he has a touch of current form - 10th at the Players and 16th at the Heritage in his last 4 starts. Both those courses are similar to here in that the greens are Bermuda grass and very difficult to hit in regulation and I'll chance the minimum stake.