mug punters backing 1.01

not all at once

I've done very similar when I've not liked my position and wanted to trade out for a profit on other outcomes rather than trade for a loss on my initial position.

I didnt say they were at the same time, Gibbo was saying if you back a 1.01 you can't trade out

can be very scary if you trade and it takes a few minutes!!!!

You'd never get backed at 1.01 unless it was 3-0 and then if Rayo scored the next goal, you're potentially in trouble as two goal leads are ofetn pegged back. It just doesn't compute on a risk level.

sorry please explain to me how it doesnt compute that youve back Atletico at 1.01 for £1000 to win £10 and got £2 matched at 1000 on the draw and £2 on the Rayo win? You either win £6, or £1k!

It happens regularly.

teams don't regularly lose 4 goal leads tbf

And they didn't tonight either.

if u landed me that bet with extra time to play themover...i'd pay you mate,,,,,everytime!!!!!

Sep 17, 2012 -- 12:27AM, iron66 wrote:

if u landed me that bet with extra time to play themover...i'd pay you mate,,,,,everytime!!!!!

What?!

Sep 17, 2012 -- 12:25AM, themover wrote:

sorry please explain to me how it doesnt compute that youve back Atletico at 1.01 for £1000 to win £10 and got £2 matched at 1000 on the draw and £2 on the Rayo win? You either win £6, or £1k!

I was saying you won't get matched at 1.01 at 4-0....that price would have gone at 3-0. Thus negating this 1k bet and its subsequent trades,

eh? The person has backed the £1k at 1.01 at whatever time or score that is

I did exactly as themover suggested on Blackpool-Ipswich the other week. At 3-0, I had a full green book from tiny trades, but had £500 on the draw if Ipswich did make a comeback.

Sep 17, 2012 -- 12:25AM, tobermory wrote:

It happens regularly.teams don't regularly lose 4 goal leads tbf

I wasnt being specific to 4-0 leads. More specific to comebacks and as mentioned you wouldn't even get matched for 1.01 at 4-0....you'd have to have taken the risk at 3-0, making it risky. No value.

All bets have risk. That's the whole point.

taken a risk? Oh damn I forgot that was part of the game Please give me an example of a bet with no risk please

2 weeks ago Levadia Talinn won a cup game 18-1, even at 2-0 up inside 10 minutes you could still get 1.01 on them, was it value?

Er, youre straying from the point chaps. I'm aware of risk in every trade but surely its about balancing risk with reward wouldn't you agree. Winning 1% of your stake is fine but 99 winning 1.01 bets and just one losing bet means you're only EVEN over 100 bets. Not cool.

so what are the lowest odds you bet on please Gibbo?

leads of 2-0 or 3-0 can certainly be value @1.01

Barcelona 2-0 v Celtic on 90 minutes with 3 minutes added , any top team 3-0 v a lower half side with less than 10 minutes to go

there is a point in every match when a 1.01 is value. HTH

Sep 17, 2012 -- 12:35AM, Biscuit1979 wrote:

2 weeks ago Levadia Talinn won a cup game 18-1, even at 2-0 up inside 10 minutes you could still get 1.01 on them, was it value?

I know nothing about Levadia Talinn. However, i'm not keen in football backing at low odds due to the possibility of red cards, injuries to key players and the slightly freak nature of cup football. In hindsight, you're able to say it was a great bet but with no crystal ball, you're just taking a risk for pitiful reward.

I have given you an example where backing a 1.01 isn't for a pitiful reward. A 1.01 Atletico Madrid backer (at whatever point they became 1.01) for £1k that had £2 on the draw could have doubled their money with a late Rayo equaliser.

Sep 17, 2012 -- 12:37AM, themover wrote:

so what are the lowest odds you bet on please Gibbo?

depends on the situation mate but below 1.15 starts becoming silly. If i'm backing that low, i've probably missed the boat. Thats not to say you shouldn't back below that but for my standards, I like to have assessed the situation before the odds have swung that low.

so what makes you think a 1.15 is more successful at over-achieving it's probability rate than a 1.01?

i see what you are saying gibbo. i've been done backing 1.01 shots (yes plural). it always looks like free money and sometimes it is but if 1/100 times it isn't, you wasted a lot of time and effort. one was a basketball game a few months ago where the losing team were 25 points down with a few minutes to go and available to back at 1000. they stages one of the most miraculous comebacks ever and won by a point. literally hitting 3 pointers every 10 seconds while the other team were missing lay ups.

Sep 17, 2012 -- 12:41AM, themover wrote:

I have given you an example where backing a 1.01 isn't for a pitiful reward. A 1.01 Atletico Madrid backer (at whatever point they became 1.01) for £1k that had £2 on the draw could have doubled their money with a late Rayo equaliser.

1% is especially pitiful if you get gubbed even once in 100 attempts. You're again speaking from hindsight. What if Rayo had scored at 3-0 just after half time. You're then in the position where you have to take a loss or stay in and hope they don't comeback. Good job it wasn't 3-0 or mr 1.01 would have been gubbed indeed.

its easy to think of 1.01 shots that you'd think were free money but got done....

by definition a 1.01 will go wrong 1 in 100 times, a 1.15 will go wrong 15 times in 100. Do you think a 1.01 goes wrong 1 in 100 times exactly, less or more?

Sep 17, 2012 -- 12:45AM, pulio wrote:

i see what you are saying gibbo. i've been done backing 1.01 shots (yes plural). it always looks like free money and sometimes it is but if 1/100 times it isn't, you wasted a lot of time and effort. one was a basketball game a few months ago where the losing team were 25 points down with a few minutes to go and available to back at 1000. they stages one of the most miraculous comebacks ever and won by a point. literally hitting 3 pointers every 10 seconds while the other team were missing lay ups.

At last, someone with sense. Time, effort and small reward encompasses 1.01 backing. Before someone argues AGAIN, remember to 100 bets in a row issue before rolling out the same chat about big stakes.

So 1.01s lose, yes we know , but if the previous 150 have won the guy is nicely in front to level stakes

Sep 17, 2012 -- 12:46AM, themover wrote:

by definition a 1.01 will go wrong 1 in 100 times, a 1.15 will go wrong 15 times in 100. Do you think a 1.01 goes wrong 1 in 100 times exactly, less or more?

Its not dice rolling mate. Sport allows insight and therefore value that is not reflected in the market price.

you think its possible to win long term backing purely 1.01 shots on here tober, with commission & PC taken into account?

im not saying it isnt btw

imagine if you could back at 1.001

Sep 17, 2012 -- 12:51AM, tobermory wrote:

So 1.01s lose, yes we know , but if the previous 150 have won the guy is nicely in front to level stakes

150 bets!!!. Whoa, how much profit is that?...better call the bank and check they'll have enough space in the vault for all my 1.01 winnings lol.

What time and effort is this Gibbo? You mean putting the bet parameters into a bot? Look at the Besiktas v Elazigspor match on the 17th September. You will see in there already are lay prices on every outcome at 1.01, do you think someone sat there and typed them all in?

Sep 17, 2012 -- 12:56AM, pulio wrote:

imagine if you could back at 1.001

You effectively can.

Sep 17, 2012 -- 12:56AM, themover wrote:

What time and effort is this Gibbo? You mean putting the bet parameters into a bot?  Look at the Besiktas v Elazigspor match on the 17th September. You will see in there already are lay prices on every outcome at 1.01, do you think someone sat there and typed them all in?

Er placing indiscriminate bets at 1.01 on football matches is a surefire way to get gubbed at least once in 100 times.

Sep 17, 2012 -- 12:57AM, Darlo Bantam wrote:

Sep 17, 2012 -- 12:56AM, pulio wrote:imagine if you could back at 1.001You effectively can.

How so?

Laying 1000 is basically backing 1.001.

true darlo.

imagine the scale of gubbings on here if the backing choice went down as low as 1.001

I can assure you Gibbo a 1.01 doesn't get gubbed 1 in 100 times

Sep 17, 2012 -- 1:00AM, themover wrote:

I can assure you Gibbo a 1.01 doesn't get gubbed 1 in 100 times

Apparently it's actually 1 in 80 on horse racing.

Sep 17, 2012 -- 1:00AM, themover wrote:

I can assure you Gibbo a 1.01 doesn't get gubbed 1 in 100 times

If you don't have an unfortunate episode like monsieur Pulio then go for it mate. I'm not telling you what to do with your money. I'm just saying there are excellent opportunities at far higher odds that net a hugely superior profit in a shorter space of time.

You're right. There are excellent opportunities at higher odds, but you said 1.01 can "never" be value. That's utter bollox.

Sep 17, 2012 -- 1:01AM, Darlo Bantam wrote:

Sep 17, 2012 --  1:00AM, themover wrote:I can assure you Gibbo a 1.01 doesn't get gubbed 1 in 100 timesApparently it's actually 1 in 80 on horse racing.

Don't go near the horses mover, could spell then end for you lol.

Sep 17, 2012 -- 1:03AM, Darlo Bantam wrote:

You're right. There are excellent opportunities at higher odds, but you said 1.01 can "never" be value. That's utter bollox.

Its just too much effort for too little reward when you take into account the risk of gubbings. My view is that if you plough the same time and effort into higher odds bets, you'll profit more (if not just because you can trade out of those bets very easily if you enter the market effectively).

in-play betting on horses is doomed with slow pics, unless you are an on-course track player it is a road to nowhere

Sep 17, 2012 -- 1:06AM, themover wrote:

in-play betting on horses is doomed with slow pics, unless you are an on-course track player it is a road to nowhere

I don't agree, its easy money with the correct approach.

we seem to disagree on a lot Gibbo

Sep 17, 2012 -- 1:05AM, Gibbo99 wrote:

Sep 17, 2012 --  1:03AM, Darlo Bantam wrote:You're right. There are excellent opportunities at higher odds, but you said 1.01 can "never" be value. That's utter bollox.Its just too much effort for too little reward when you take into account the risk of gubbings. My view is that if you plough the same time and effort into higher odds bets, you'll profit more (if not just because you can trade out of those bets very easily if you enter the market effectively).

That does not equal 1.01 are "never value".

Betfair trading is self taught and so approaches will vary wildly but if you're making consistent profit then you're probably on the right track.

Sep 17, 2012 -- 1:09AM, Darlo Bantam wrote:

Sep 17, 2012 --  1:05AM, Gibbo99 wrote:Sep 17, 2012 --  1:03AM, Darlo Bantam wrote:You're right. There are excellent opportunities at higher odds, but you said 1.01 can "never" be value. That's utter bollox.Its just too much effort for too little reward when you take into account the risk of gubbings. My view is that if you plough the same time and effort into higher odds bets, you'll profit more (if not just because you can trade out of those bets very easily if you enter the market effectively).That does not equal 1.01 are "never value".

Ok Darlo, if you really focus hard on that phrase then its a bit strong to say 'never' but I still maintain, when taking into account time, effort, risk and reward....its just not value mate.

1.01 can never be very good value, but you said "never value" and that is utter bollox.

Sep 17, 2012 -- 1:09AM, themover wrote:

we seem to disagree on a lot Gibbo

I respect your opinion. We just have different outlooks on certain parameters and strategy. If we all bet the same way, it would be very boring.

Sep 17, 2012 -- 1:13AM, Darlo Bantam wrote:

1.01 can never be very good value, but you said "never value" and that is utter bollox.

Darlo, i'm not taking it back.

Sep 17, 2012 -- 1:15AM, Gibbo99 wrote:

Sep 17, 2012 --  1:13AM, Darlo Bantam wrote:1.01 can never be very good value, but you said "never value" and that is utter bollox.Darlo, i'm not taking it back.

Fair enough. Then I can't respect your betting philosophy at all then.

cry baby

Not at all. If you can't work out that 1.01 can be value via associated probability then you don't understand the first fundamental of gambling.

everything has a price regardless whether it's a low or a high price. For example India to beat Afghanistan in the upcoming T20 world cup are 1.05. If Afghanistan would beat India in 5 matches out of a 100 then I'm a member of the Taliban

Oh for god's sake, I understand the exact meaning of the word value. Of course 1.01 represents some iota of value and therefore 'never' isn't the correct word to use but its only ever 1% at best....which is as close as you can get to zero value. Is that a satisfactory answer your highness?

Sep 17, 2012 -- 1:22AM, Gibbo99 wrote:

Oh for god's sake, I understand the exact meaning of the word value. Of course 1.01 represents some iota of value and therefore 'never' isn't the correct word to use but its only ever 1% at best....which is as close as you can get to zero value. Is that a satisfactory answer your highness?

Oo, well done. You can put the handbags away now.

Sep 17, 2012 -- 1:22AM, themover wrote:

everything has a price regardless whether it's a low or a high price. For example India to beat Afghanistan in the upcoming T20 world cup are 1.05. If Afghanistan would beat India in 5 matches out of a 100 then I'm a member of the Taliban

Remember Ireland? 1.01 gubbage. Someone usually gets gubbed at major cricket tournaments. However, that could work but i'm not keen on the 1.05.....maybe if they lose a few early wickets and the odds move out a bit then i'd get involved.

then surely you would be laying at 1.05 if you think the price is wrong?

I'm sceptical of low T20 odds. It's too easy to turn around a match in that format. I saw it in the IPL. Ditto with basketball - seen too many games go too short to take a position of any conviction.

Yes I remember Ireland, but I expect there's been quite a lot of T20 1.01's that have won since. I don't have any stats on T20 gubbings so can't say for sure. Could be a 1.01 paradise as far as I know

Sep 17, 2012 -- 1:26AM, themover wrote:

then surely you would be laying at 1.05 if you think the price is wrong?

No, i'd be waiting for a match situation that wasn't reflected in the market price. i.e quick fall of India wickets. The market sometimes gets ti hugely wrong in cricket when successive wickets fall as the market feels it has to move even if the batting team bat deep and can afford to lose the odd wicket with no real effect on the match.

ah ok, I wasn't planning on watching it for the day

just keep checking the scores, that's all you need to do.

Picking up pennies in front of a steam roller can have its drawbacks.

If you have the bottle and luck it can be a good way of 'free money'.

Being at a game for instance and you see that extra time has 30 seconds left and the winning team have just won a corner - wouldn't anyone see this as value?

Depends if the steam roller is on or not. Or whether it's simply a cricket light roller!

It could still give a nasty nip

I'm up late playing poker, so I've had a look at my data for the last 3 months on my main account.

At 1.01

Lays: volume     2283983.3    P&L 3216.81
Backs: volume   2636168.87   P&L 12522.31

In that time only one 1.01 got turned over, and it skews the figures as I was a bigger layer than backer. But I would be fairly confident that I would turn a profit both backing and laying 1.01s.

Nice work Bayes.

Seldom I have seen a TS talking such BS and being inconsistent in arguments. Saying is it never value shows you dont now much about sportsbetting at all although you try to convince everyone you do.

All reasons opposing backing at 1.01 are just phantom reasons to me. Statement like  'it is not worh the effort' 'you cant trade out' and 'you are screwed if it fails more than 1 in 100 attempts' are not reasons at all. Just some blabla

I bet at 1.01 at times and so do other profitable bettors i know. If you pick your spot right 1.01 can be value. Even if I make 0.1% on the longrun it is worth it. +EV = +EV.

You personally think it is not worth your time. That is the only true statement you have given this whole topic. You just have 0 reasons to argue why 1.01 is not value looking from an objective standpoint

for the P&L and the poker

The interesting thing is, without the one that got turned over I would be -20k lays +25k backs.

Small sample size though I guess.

Spoke too soon on the poker. Not as late as I would've hoped:


*********** # 1 **************
PokerStars Hand #86291536084: Tournament #2012090044, $2000+$100 USD Hold'em No Limit - Level XII (300/600) - 2012/09/16 20:53:48 ET Table '2012090044 72' 9-max Seat #7 is the button Seat 1: donvito1st (34274 in chips) Seat 2: Bayesian (12246 in chips) Seat 3: delegator (85794 in chips) Seat 4: Sniperace84 (32309 in chips) Seat 5: adam_0925 (10457 in chips) Seat 6: Tlaudrup (15444 in chips) Seat 7: ImaLucSac (55854 in chips) Seat 8: Pampey777 (45461 in chips) Seat 9: Ringelsdorf (77253 in chips)
donvito1st: posts the ante 70
Bayesian: posts the ante 70
delegator: posts the ante 70
Sniperace84: posts the ante 70
adam_0925: posts the ante 70
Tlaudrup: posts the ante 70
ImaLucSac: posts the ante 70
Pampey777: posts the ante 70
Ringelsdorf: posts the ante 70
Pampey777: posts small blind 300
Ringelsdorf: posts big blind 600
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Bayesian [Ac Kh]
donvito1st: folds
Bayesian: raises 600 to 1200
delegator: folds
Sniperace84: folds
adam_0925: folds
Tlaudrup: folds
ImaLucSac: folds
Pampey777: calls 900
Ringelsdorf: folds
*** FLOP *** [8c 5c Kd]
Pampey777: bets 1200
Bayesian: calls 1200
*** TURN *** [8c 5c Kd] [5h]
Pampey777: bets 1800
Bayesian: raises 3000 to 4800
Pampey777: raises 3000 to 7800
Bayesian: raises 1976 to 9776 and is all-in
Pampey777: calls 1976
*** RIVER *** [8c 5c Kd 5h] [3c]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Pampey777: shows [Ad 5d] (three of a kind, Fives)
Bayesian: shows [Ac Kh] (two pair, Kings and Fives)
Pampey777 collected 25582 from pot
Bayesian finished the tournament in 564th place
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 25582 | Rake 0
Board [8c 5c Kd 5h 3c]
Seat 1: donvito1st folded before Flop (didn't bet) Seat 2: Bayesian showed [Ac Kh] and lost with two pair, Kings and Fives Seat 3: delegator folded before Flop (didn't bet) Seat 4: Sniperace84 folded before Flop (didn't bet) Seat 5: adam_0925 folded before Flop (didn't bet) Seat 6: Tlaudrup folded before Flop (didn't bet) Seat 7: ImaLucSac (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet) Seat 8: Pampey777 (small blind) showed [Ad 5d] and won (25582) with three of a kind, Fives Seat 9: Ringelsdorf (big blind) folded before Flop

I've bet on 1.01's many times, but never in-play. I would never 1.01 in-play, just due to how the whole point of football is how the improbable constantly happens.

Mostly my 1.01's will be sides that have next to no chance of losing against some pub side, and a lot of the times it will be a Draw No Bet, so I have a safety net. Only time I've gone balls deep on outright 1.01's were opposing Andorra and San Marino against England and Holland (6-0, 11-0). Think the closest to 1.01 I've gone on Over 0.5 was when Madrid put eight past some side right at the end of two seasons ago. About £14 off 1k.

Two years ago I was backing in running on the horses I only had three bets. 

All of my bets were made at odds against, two of the three horses were matched at 1.01 in running and lost.

Nothing scientific about this post just wrote it to illustrate they do get beat.

About the same time I backed a horse before the start of the race which was favourite at at around 5/2, on here and it won. What's strange about that I here you ask? At one point in the race it went to 1000/1.

Plenty of 1.01s get beat every week with bursts of late goals which can easily happen in football, but there is of course value in ANY price.

However, the same rules of sensible staking and sound selection are even more important with low odds.

My last post shows that even 1.001 can get beaten, E.g. the person who laid that 1000/1 in running.

If you look in the right markets you can still pick up 1.01 on results that are settled. Real free money.

Joined: 25 Apr 03 | Topic/replies: 10,846 | Blogger: themover's blog
by definition a 1.01 will go wrong 1 in 100 times, a 1.15 will go wrong 15 times in 100. Do you think a 1.01 goes wrong 1 in 100 times exactly, less or more?


Does this mean that a 1.99 will go wrong 99 in 100 times?

1.99 is right 100 times out of 199

It isn't successfull 99 times out of a hundred

1.99 is right 100 times out of 199

It isn't successfull 99 times out of a hundred

Eh??

I realise that. I was responding to this error:
by definition a 1.01 will go wrong 1 in 100 times, a 1.15 will go wrong 15 times in 100

I put succesfull in my last sentence when i meant to put unsuccessfull

I wondered why you were making the point. I'd already done so at 11.36. This comment: "Does this mean that a 1.99 will go wrong 99 in 100 times?" is supposed to be a reductio ad absurdum.

Some are value and some are not, same as any price.

THERES A BLOKE I KNOW WHO MAKES MORE  MONEY OUT OF SELLING THE BIG ISSUE THAN BY BACKING 1.01 S,HE THOUGHT HE COULD MAKE MORE BACKING 1.01 S BUT HE FINALLY AGREES WITH ME NOW HE SELLS THEM BECAUSE HES NO MONEY

ITS THE SAME WITH HIS MATE WHO LAYED THEM

THERES A BIG GANG OF THEM

AT GAMBLERS ANNONOMOUSE THERE KNOWN ASTHE 1.01 ERS

THEY GET QUITE ANGRY WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT CERTS

SOME OF THEM WERE VERY CLEVER PEOPLE AND WORKED AT BIG BANKS BEFORE THEY WENT TO PRISON AND GAMBLERS ANNONOMOUSE

Well, from time to time I lay correct score at 100, has never lost yet.