Australia play England in the semi final of the Women’s World Cup today. I like to have a flutter on sporting events just to add to the excitement, or to make a dull game interesting.
To avoid total disappointment I bet on the outcome I least want to happen – my comfort bet. So I have backed Australia to beat England 2-1. Correct score betting gives fairly high odds 11 to 1 in this instance. That means I can afford to bet on my desired outcome as well, which is for England to beat Australia 2-1 (at similar odds).
Either way if the score goes to one all, I will be anxious to see another goal to decide the match and if Australia scores my disappointment is tempered by my winnings.
Could this principle be applied to geopolitics? Imagine if China secretly gave Ukraine billions to assist their war effort in the expectation that Russia prevails. Should the underdog beat the Russian bear, China will have forged a diplomatic friendship with a grateful Ukraine that would probably award contracts favourably to China to help rebuild their devastated cities. Obviously China would have to back Russia in public, but back door politics has a key role to play in brokering peace.
odespinner 