Jun

22

I've been following these various notes on sports and trading for a couple of weeks now, and I must confess that I don't understand what the underlying theory is. Although I as a lifelong sports fan and a student of the market, I can't even imagine what the connection might be.

For example, why would have it been bad for Federer to lose today? Does it have something to do with his being the favorite? Would a loss by Federer damaged Wimbledon as a capitalist enterprise? Does such a loss indicate less certainty in the world, triggering fears on the part of a world looking for certainty? Is a singles match a more powerful indicator than a doubles match? Why should a first round match at Wimbledon matter more, for example, the golf's U.S. Open?

Are some sports more indicative than others? For example, soccer would seem to have more fans world-wide than tennis; does soccer have more of an effect? If a country wins a world-cup match, does that presage a rise in the winning countries stock market?

Does the market get bullish when NY teams win? Is this something to do with flowing testosterone? Can one be a Red Sox fan and a bull at the same time?

 

Jeff Watson comments:

Alan, to coin an old pjrade, "Follow the money.": The fix is in in many more sports than you;d realize. In basketball, a point shaving scheme of three points can mean millions of dollars. Boxing,,,,,,I won;t even mention, College sports are particularly vulnerable due to the financial pressures of students and the deep pockets of fixers, Whatever, you have to assume for the worst and hope for the best.


Comments

Name

Email

Website

Speak your mind

Archives

Resources & Links

Search