Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Football betting and odds, discussion and other gambling stuff

So, do you accept that, with your method, you'll almost certainly lose money over time?


99.9% of betting loses money over time. Every clown knows that. This was a short term method with a cut off point as stated from the start.
 
99.9% of betting loses money over time. Every clown knows that. This was a short term method with a cut off point as stated from the start.

Buy a weekly lotto ticket, mate. Unlikely to deliver a long-term profit, but you might become a millionaire!
 
Last edited:
Actually fuck it, lets do it. Max I can lose in a year is £240. 2 months of hitting £150 will cover that.

So i accept your challange
 
I think you're the one not quite understanding the probabilities, while missing the general consensus of this thread. (which you appear to be taking far too literally!).
There is no consensus on this thread. There is a diversity of opinions, from interest in your method to various criticisms of it. And you have no right to expect people who think this is a stupid idea not to post what they think and why. You are, of course, free to ignore whatever posts you like, but you don't get to decide what kind of thing others post.
 
There is no consensus on this thread. There is a diversity of opinions, from interest in your method to various criticisms of it. And you have no right to expect people who think this is a stupid idea not to post what they think and why. You are, of course, free to ignore whatever posts you like, but you don't get to decide what kind of thing others post.


who made you referee?
 
Actually fuck it, lets do it. Max I can lose in a year is £240. 2 months of hitting £150 will cover that.

So i accept your challange

Cool. Which one? Your system v mine over a year, or whether or not yours is up or down over the year?

And you needn't lose the £240; they can be notional bets, as long as you screenshot genuine prices. But you could lose the £100 server or charity bet.

As for hitting £150 twice, do you really not see how slim the chances of that are?!
 
Not referee. But you're throwing your toys out every time someone criticises you. And there is no consensus. You're just wrong about that.


No one is throwing toys out of their pram. This has been a decent discussion between myself and Athos about probability, stats and odds.

Perhaps you are being over sensitive! Regardless, we don't need you to come on here and be offended on our behalf.
 
No one is throwing toys out of their pram. This has been a decent discussion between myself and Athos about probability, stats and odds.

Perhaps you are being over sensitive! Regardless, we don't need you to come on here and be offended on our behalf.
I'm not offended on anyone's behalf.
 
For my part, by the way, I'll bet that I can return or at least retain more money than either of you by taking a pot of £240 and, err, investing it. Which may or may not be leaving it well alone.
To be fair, I've recently managed to turn money into less money by investing it too.
 
We can do both!

Like this?:

We both run the systems as set out in post #248; each of us who is down after 12 months gives £100 to a charity of the other's choice, and, the respective winnins/losings of each are compared, and whoever does worse gives £100 to the server fund? You could lose nothing, £100, or £200. Either rway the server fund gets £100, and, potentially, charities could make £200.
 
But the small cap, high growth, definitely-not-frauds of the Alternative Investment Market looked so good!
Hah. Small cap has actually done the best for me so far. But emerging markets has really tanked.
 
Like this?:

We both run the systems as set out in post #248; each of us who is down after 12 months gives £100 to a charity of the other's choice, and, the respective winnins/losings of each are compared, and whoever does worse gives £100 to the server fund? You could lose nothing, £100, or £200. Either rway the server fund gets £100, and, potentially, charities could make £200.


Can we widen the odds range, for both of us. I'd like up to 1.2
 
Yes but then i did go on to say,..

It's a massive difference. At 1.07 it'd take roughly 300% of the number of bets it would take at 1.2, to turn £20 to £150.

Aren't you tacitly acknowledging my point, that the smaller the accumulator the better? The logical endpoint of which is that you should place a single bet.
 
It's a massive difference. At 1.07 it'd take 300% of the number of bets it would take at 1.2, to turn £20 to £150.

Aren't you tacitly acknowledging my point, that the smaller the accumulator the better? The logical endpoint of which is that you should place a single bet.


But your entire argument has been about the odds not representing true value, so by your logic, i'll get knocked out sooner.
 
And increase the chance of it failing on that particular day!

Taking an average of 1.15 would require 15 consecutive winners. Again, assuming the true odds are 10% away from the price, the probability of success is still around 10% i.e. 10/1 odds for a 15/2 payout.

Whichever way you cut it, it doesn't make financial sense to bet like this. Even within the arbitrary confines of seeking to tur £20 into £150 in a month, your best chances of doing that are to put it all on a 15/2 shot to win, where the true odds are as close as possible to the price (or, very rarely, in your favour). By combining bets, you are leveraging the bookie's spread between the price and the true odds, over and over again. Whilst it has an instinctive attraction as a money-making scheme, the maths show it's very, very poor. (Though it might be fun.)
 
But your entire argument has been about the odds not representing true value, so by your logic, i'll get knocked out sooner.

No, my whole point has been that the difference between prices and true odds is magnified by the compound effect of rolling them up.
 
No, my whole point has been that the difference between prices and true odds is magnified by the compound effect of rolling them up.


SO what the issue of me taking a 1.15 or a 1.2. You point will still stand.
 
SO what the issue of me taking a 1.15 or a 1.2. You point will still stand.

Becasue the fewer bets you need to combine, the fewer times you need to consecutively find value i.e. the easier it becomes. Else why don't I just let you do a double?
 
Well i'm going to bet as i see fit, but i won't be capped at 1.10. If you don't like it then sorry. But i will still prove my point that you can make money on short odds
 
Back
Top Bottom