Football betting and odds, discussion and other gambling stuff

[Athos]

Haters gon' hate
As you've already proved, your 'back this horse it's a sure winner' strategy is fucking shite
With gambling there is no sure way of winning anything, but in the past I've made more profit doing things this way, then I have slamming it all on 4/1 horses or whatnot. It works for me and it's simple as that.
The only time I've significantly won lots of money betting normal bets was the World Cup, I won a lot then too

I didn't say "it's a sure winner", though. My point was that you'd be better seeking value in singles than trying to string together a 30 leg accumulator. That's borne out by the maths, notwithtanding any claims you make to historical profits. I simply don't beleive you that a scheme based around many-legged accumulators at tiny odds works for you (or anyone but a tiny, tiny minority of people who can consistently find good value) in the long run.

 

[ffsear]

Ok. When you get back, goggle 'why bookies love accumulators' and 'accumulators for mugs.'

But this isn't a traditional accumulator. We're actually just betting on singles and going all in each time. This give us a number of advantages that accumulator betting does not allow.

1) We can bet with a variety of bookies and take advantage of the competitive pricing.
2) We can place bets in play and get better odds.
3) It's over a long period, so we can bet on our favourite teams/markets more then once in the same "accumulator". Most of which won't even of been priced up yet. E.g If i wanna bet on Man Utd to Beat Norwich on Dec 19th, I don't have to place it now. And doubt I could.

 

[Athos]

But this isn't a traditional accumulator. We're actually just betting on singles and going all in each time. This give us a number of advantages that accumulator betting does not allow.

1) We can bet with a variety of bookies and take advantage of the competitive pricing.
2) We can place bets in play and get better odds.
3) It's over a long period, so we can bet on our favourite teams/markets more then once in the same "accumulator". Most of which won't even of been priced up yet. E.g If i wanna bet on Man Utd to Beat Norwich on Dec 19th, I don't have to place it now. And doubt I could.

Notwithstanding all those facts, it is in essence an accumulator - you are rolling forward i.e. accumulating any winnings from one bet onto the next in the chain, and are locked into a high number of bets. In doing so, you magnify the edge the bookies have over you. And that's why bookies love wil love this 'strategy.'

 

[adidaswoody]

I didn't say "it's a sure winner", though. My point was that you'd be better seeking value in singles than trying to string together a 30 leg accumulator. That's borne out by the maths, notwithtanding any claims you make to historical profits. I simply don't beleive you that a scheme based around many-legged accumulators at tiny odds works for you (or anyone but a tiny, tiny minority of people who can consistently find good value) in the long run.

I didn't use 30 bets though, I used about 15 maybe? And My odds were between 1.1 and 1.3 ish I believe, like he said you don't have to stick with exactly only 1.07 bets and you don't HAVE to do 30 bets. I only bet on teams that were already winning as well. And also, your maths is again FLAWED because I profited 80, and he lost 40, making our average a 20 pounds each profit, not 10? Either get a calculator or stop pretending your good at maths please.

 

[Athos]

I didn't use 30 bets though, I used about 15 maybe? And My odds were between 1.1 and 1.3 ish I believe, like he said you don't have to stick with exactly only 1.07 bets and you don't HAVE to do 30 bets. I only bet on teams that were already winning as well. And also, your maths is again FLAWED because I profited 80, and he lost 40, making our average a 20 pounds each profit, not 10? Either get a calculator or stop pretending your good at maths please.

Ok, mate. Have it your way - this is a great way to make money, and bookies will fear you. License to print money.... sure thing... etc., etc. Do it every month, and see how it goes.

The truth is that I don't think you actually understand the probabilities at play here.

There are pages and pages on google explaining why accuulator schemes like this don't work, but, if you know better, go for it.

 

[Bonesy]

Bet about £20 most weekends, nothing major. Only really lump on a biggish bet (£100+) if I feel the odds merit it. Which I will be doing in the Aldo v McGregor fight. Aldo at 6/4 is a ridiculous price.

 

[ffsear]

The truth is that I don't think you actually understand the probabilities at play here.

.

Judging by some of the incorrect maths you have thrown at us on this thread.. especially when it came to apply a bookies over round to a single bet and not the entire market (10% per bet ). Getting your odds all wrong, then using the same odds to calculate our a chances of making money, 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!)

Perhaps it time your left! Either way, I won't be replying to any more of your trash.

 

[Athos]

Judging by some of the incorrect maths you have thrown at us on this thread.. especially when it came to apply a bookies over round to a single bet and not the entire market (10% per bet ). Getting your odds all wrong, then using the same odds to calculate our a chances of making money, 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!)

Perhaps it time your left! Either way, I won't be replying to any more of your trash.

Yeah, except I didn't actually do that.

The fact remains that this is a very poor scheme from a money-making perspective; any serious gambler would tell you that.

If you think otherwise, how about you put your money where your mouth is? With a small wager.

Starting in December, we each notionally gamble £20 a month; we must stake the whole £20 every month, until we either make a profit of £130 +/-£10 or lose the £20 in that particular month; we must stop for that particular month when either of those things happen. I must place one bet a month (in effect this requires me to place one 'to win' bet on a single proposition, at a price of between 6/1 and 7/1, at some point during the month); you must place a series of bets on consecutive days - starting with £20 on the first and rolling the whole amount over with each subsequent bet, at prices of between 1.04 and 1.1. Neither of us may hold back a portion of the stake, or make any combination or exotic bets e.g. yankees, or even an e/w. All bets to be posted here before the start of the event. No betting in play. A failure to post the bet here means that the whole sum has been lost for that month (admittedly more onerous on you, since you have to post one a day, whereas I only have to post one at some point in the month). I'm happy to agree a panel of independent judges whose decision is binding, in the case of any dispute. I'd be happy with any regular poster who has shown an interest on this thread.

What stakes would suit you? £100 into the server fund from whoever loses the most/wins the least over the year?

 

[BCBlues]

Bet about £20 most weekends, nothing major. Only really lump on a biggish bet (£100+) if I feel the odds merit it. Which I will be doing in the Aldo v McGregor fight. Aldo at 6/4 is a ridiculous price.

Im on Millwall to beat FC Fylde this weekend, its 2/5 which given the league standings is decent.
I normally look for teams that have just hit form and still get decent odds, Crawley and Accrington most recently.

Ive been following this thread since ffsear put it up. I like to see how these schemes go and last season followed a couple where teams hadnt drawn for a while so punters bet on it doubling the stake until they win. Theres some scary bets have to go on if you pick a team who just go on winning or losing. I have seen people do this in Casinos on Red and Black in Roulette.

As a tester i had a go at this scheme (loosely) with a £1 starter. After ffs bad start (worse than Chelsea's ) I wasnt too convinced but adidaswoody restored my faith. After 5 days and 11 bets i now have £6.05, i'll top this up to £10 for the Millwall bet and restart the scheme next week if i win. I had three wins in play in the Mexico v Nigeria U17 game alone, i wouldnt have paid any attention to this game otherwise. I got brave and doubled up on Napoli and Bilbao last night. Its been good fun all week, something Athos is totally missing the point of.

 

[kabbes]

Yeah, except I didn't actually do that.

The fact remains that this is a very poor scheme from a money-making perspective; any serious gambler would tell you that.

If you think otherwise, how about you put your money where your mouth is? With a small wager.

Starting in December, we each notionally gamble £20 a month; we must stake the whole £20 every month, until we either make a profit of £130 +/-£10 or lose the £20 in that particular month; we must stop for that particular month when either of those things happen. I must place one bet a month (in effect this requires me to place one 'to win' bet on a single proposition, at a price of between 6/1 and 7/1, at some point during the month); you must place a series of bets on consecutive days - starting with £20 on the first and rolling the whole amount over with each subsequent bet, at prices of between 1.04 and 1.1. Neither of us may hold back a portion of the stake, or make any combination or exotic bets e.g. yankees, or even an e/w. All bets to be posted here before the start of the event. No betting in play. A failure to post the bet here means that the whole sum has been lost for that month (admittedly more onerous on you, since you have to post one a day, whereas I only have to post one at some point in the month). I'm happy to agree a panel of independent judges whose decision is binding, in the case of any dispute. I'd be happy with any regular poster who has shown an interest on this thread.

What stakes would suit you? £100 into the server fund from whoever loses the most/wins the least over the year?

Whilst you're 100% in the right about the risk factors, this particular experiment would prove little. The simulation error is too great, and there is too much systemic bias arising from which of you is better at identifying value propositions.

It'd leave it if I were you, mate. It's a simple enough point you are making -- if on average your bet pays less than true value, you'll do worse by compounding that loss than by taking a single hit. If people want to fly in the face of that, what skin is it off your nose?

 

[Athos]

Im on Millwall to beat FC Fylde this weekend, its 2/5 which given the league standings is decent.
I normally look for teams that have just hit form and still get decent odds, Crawley and Accrington most recently.

Ive been following this thread since ffsear put it up. I like to see how these schemes go and last season followed a couple where teams hadnt drawn for a while so punters bet on it doubling the stake until they win. Theres some scary bets have to go on if you pick a team who just go on winning or losing. I have seen people do this in Casinos on Red and Black in Roulette.

As a tester i had a go at this scheme (loosely) with a £1 starter. After ffs bad start (worse than Chelsea's ) I wasnt too convinced but adidaswoody restored my faith. After 5 days and 11 bets i now have £6.05, i'll top this up to £10 for the Millwall bet and restart the scheme next week if i win. I had three wins in play in the Mexico v Nigeria U17 game alone, i wouldnt have paid any attention to this game otherwise. I got brave and doubled up on Napoli and Bilbao last night. Its been good fun all week, something Athos is totally missing the point of.

No, I absolutely get that it's a bit of fun. But what bothers me is the other two making out that it makes sense form a money-making perspective.

 

[ffsear]

Yeah, except I didn't actually do that.

The fact remains that this is a very poor scheme from a money-making perspective; any serious gambler would tell you that.

If you think otherwise, how about you put your money where your mouth is? With a small wager.

Starting in December, we each notionally gamble £20 a month; we must stake the whole £20 every month, until we either make a profit of £130 +/-£10 or lose the £20 in that particular month; we must stop for that particular month when either of those things happen. I must place one bet a month (in effect this requires me to place one 'to win' bet on a single proposition, at a price of between 6/1 and 7/1, at some point during the month); you must place a series of bets on consecutive days - starting with £20 on the first and rolling the whole amount over with each subsequent bet, at prices of between 1.04 and 1.1. Neither of us may hold back a portion of the stake, or make any combination or exotic bets e.g. yankees, or even an e/w. All bets to be posted here before the start of the event. No betting in play. A failure to post the bet here means that the whole sum has been lost for that month (admittedly more onerous on you, since you have to post one a day, whereas I only have to post one at some point in the month). I'm happy to agree a panel of independent judges whose decision is binding, in the case of any dispute. I'd be happy with any regular poster who has shown an interest on this thread.

What stakes would suit you? £100 into the server fund from whoever loses the most/wins the least over the year?

Screw the server...


If my method is so off, how about you just lay my bets! No bookie required. If I lose, I donate £20 to a charity of your choice. If i make it, you donate £150 to a charity of my choice. No money has to change hands between us.

 

[kabbes]

No, I absolutely get that it's a bit of fun. But what bothers me is the other two making out that it makes sense form a money-making perspective.

Hey, for there to be winners there also needs to be losers.

 

[Libertad]

How about it ffsear ? It would be both a fun and educative exercise.

 

[Athos]

Screw the server...


If my method is so off, how about you just lay my bets! No bookie required. If I lose, I donate £20 to a charity of your choice. If i make it, you donate £150 to a charity of my choice. No money has to change hands between us.

Is that a no?

 

[ffsear]

Is that a no?

Its a proposition, this thread is about my method. Not My method vs Your method. You have come on here and tried to completely dismiss this method. So you talk about putting ones money where ones mouth is, go ahead and underwrite my bets!

Or you scared it might actually work?

 

[Athos]

Its a proposition, this thread is about my method. Not My method vs Your method. You have come on here and tried to completely dismiss this method. So you talk about putting ones money where ones mouth is, go ahead and underwrite my bets!

Or you scared it might actually work?

My point isn't that it can't work once, but that it won't work over time. If you don't want to make it a competition between our respective methods, hiw about you do it every month for a year. If you're up by the end of the year, I'll donate £100 to a chrity of your choice; if you're down, you'll donate £100 to a charity of my choice.

 

[ffsear]

There are pages and pages on google explaining why accuulator schemes like this don't work, but, if you know better, go for it.

Come on! what you waiting for!

 

[mauvais]

How many £20s are you willing to stake on this bet?

 

[ffsear]

My point isn't that it can't work once, but that it won't work over time. If you don't want to make it a competition between our respective methods, hiw about you do it every month for a year. If you're up by the end of the year, I'll donate £100 to a chrity of your choice; if you're down, you'll donate £100 to a charity of my choice.

I don't, i want you to prove everything you've said by underwriting my bets.

 

[Athos]

I don't, i want you to prove everything you've said by underwriting my bets.

Are you saying that you won't take either of my challenges i.e. either that I do better than you, or that you finish down over a year? I wonder why?

 

[ffsear]

I'm not interested in your method, nor is this thread about your method.

Why won't you underwrite my terrible money losing system? ?

 

[Athos]

I'm not interested in your method, nor is this thread about your method.

Why won't you underwrite my terrible money losing system? ?

Becasue it's fucking dull.

Why won't you give £100 to charity if your scheme leaves you down over the year. Is it beacause of the overwhelming probability that it will?

 

[ffsear]

Why won't you give £100 to charity if your scheme leaves you down over the year. Is it beacause of the overwhelming probability that it will?

was this thread entitled "Long term money making method" ?

 

[Athos]

was this thread entitled "Long term money making method" ?

So do you accept that, over the long term, you will lose money? Because that's very different to the impression you've given over the last few pages.

 

[mauvais]

What is it entitled, remind us?

 

[Athos]

What is it entitled, remind us?

Turn £40 into £0 in under a week. Lol!

 

[mauvais]

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.

 

[ffsear]

Because that's very different to the impression you've given over the last few pages.

Please quote where I suggested this. All I have done it show the realistic odds and overrounds where yours were well and truly off.

 

[Athos]

Please quote where I suggested this. All I have done it show the realistic odds and overrounds where yours were well and truly off.

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