ffsear
Well-Known Member
No because part of the acca was still open, so if chelsea scored i was still covered. The only way i would of lost is if Watford scored 2
Football betting and odds, discussion and other gambling stuff
- Thread starter ffsear
- Start date
No because part of the acca was still open, so if chelsea scored i was still covered. The only way i would of lost is if Watford scored 2
ffsear
Well-Known Member
Athos mate, sorry to say i'm done with you. You have nit picked for 17 pages and its getting boring. I've noted you do this on a lot of threads. I don't know why, thats your problem not mine. I've tried to be as civil as I can, but its got to to the point where I have to stick you on block as well. You keep making botched claims and assumptions and i'm getting bored of explaining shit to you.
You are the weakest link
Goodbye.
You are the weakest link
Goodbye.
Athos
Well-Known Member
That's not true though, is it? It's clear that you made two singles.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Athos mate, sorry to say i'm done with you. You have nit picked for 17 pages and its getting boring. I've noted you do this on a lot of threads. I don't know why, thats your problem not mine. I've tried to be as civil as I can, but its got to to the point where I have to stick you on block as well. You keep making botched claims and assumptions and i'm getting bored of explaining shit to you.
You are the weakest link
Goodbye.
You couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel. So, what you've explained is nothing more than your own ignorance. I really don't need betting advice from someone who couldn't count their own balls and come up with the same answer twice.
Only one bet noticeably shorter than evens, two at about evens and others ranging up to 11-1. This is really proving your continued belief in your short odds approach, isn't it? Why don't you just agree that finding value in longer odds is where both the money *and* the fun is to be had and leave it there? Since that's what you are actually doing!
Athos
Well-Known Member
He can't read it; you're 'blocked.' Lol.
He responded to my previous post that was supposedly "blocked" so I've no reason to believe he isn't reading these too.
Athos
Well-Known Member
I know; I was taking the piss out of this clown.
ffsear
Well-Known Member
I appear to have cocked up this up. Looks like i've bet on Liverpool to score first and Saints to beat swansea (but thats not till next week!) God knows how i've done that but will leave it open anyway as I quite like the odds for the given event.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Corrected for you.
fractionMan
Custom Title
Habitual gamblers are terrible at maths and logic shocker. Hold the front page.
It's the tension between "having a bit of fun" and "making a profit". Lost? "just a bit of fun". Won? "I'm in it for the money, I have a system".
A win-win hobby imo.
It's the tension between "having a bit of fun" and "making a profit". Lost? "just a bit of fun". Won? "I'm in it for the money, I have a system".
A win-win hobby imo.
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
Listen, first, I admire you for fronting up with your bets, particularly in the face of the vilification you are receiving. But part of me thinks you only did this out of arrogance and intransigence, so determined are you to prove yourself right. When you are so wrong. Your bets today provide a perfect example.
Ignoring the one outsider you backed, you picked six favourites or second favourites at Leopardstown. And more than one of these was odds on. Result? Roughly a 50% loss. Or, in other words, exactly the sort of loss any bookie would have expected of such a betting pattern. The sort of loss your 10-20 short-priced accumulators would regularly accrue.
There is no value in backing favourites. Your bets today are a prime example. Fun? Maybe. Profitable? Never.
.
ffsear
Well-Known Member
nice!
ffsear
Well-Known Member
Betfair price gone now, but the money was there under 9's if you are quick enough.
Should set up a new thread for arb'ing
Last edited:
So, can anyone explain in laymans terms how this makes money?
If you place, say, a £10 stake @ 9/1 you will win £90.00. If you lay the same stake at, say, 8/1 you will pay out £80.00. The £10.00 difference is your profit. If the selection loses then you break even (ignoring commission for now).
You can back and lay at prices and volumes that would allow you to guarantee a profit regardless of the outcome.
So how would that work backwards? Sorry to appear dense.
What do you mean by backwards?
Basically, if you go into a bookies on the high street and place a bet on the Grand National you are betting that your horse will win. The bookie in turn is laying that selection - betting that it will lose.
Since the rise of betting exchanges you can lay selections as well as back them. Sometimes price fluctuations allow you to lay a selection you have already backed in order to guarantee a profit, sometime bookies will have better odds than are available on the betting exchanges. This lets you do the same if you can get on at the higher price.
Since the rise of betting exchanges you can lay selections as well as back them. Sometimes price fluctuations allow you to lay a selection you have already backed in order to guarantee a profit, sometime bookies will have better odds than are available on the betting exchanges. This lets you do the same if you can get on at the higher price.
If the selection loses.
In the example I gave, you'd break even - one winning bet, one losing - if no commission is involved.
