Football
Liverpoo 1.52 v Stoke City? Lay of the decade.
|
By:
|
|
By:
Of course we are!
|
|
By:
Whenever I need a lift I will read this post. I've seen many mugs on Betfair but you buddy are close to being top of that list.
|
|
By:
Christ, why am I still arguing with these fools.
 |
|
By:
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
true darlo
 |
|
By:
is punt and leave like wash and go ?
 |
|
By:
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
haha, great cop out CJ! You've gone from trying to be condescending with comments like; "Rowan, you don't understand exchanges", "Rowan, trading is different" to realising the argument against your "trading" strategy and then offering a plausible explanation for why SofaKing might have backed Liverpool at 1.77.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
ror 08 Oct 12 22:52 Joined: 23 Oct 08 | Topic/replies: 4,961 | Blogger: ror's blog
It's funny. Rowan is really going the wrong way about arguing his case, Sofa is crying because he made peanuts on what was a decent initial position. Everyone else is just confused over what happened and who is right. This. Thanks for clearing that up ror, had no idea what this argument was about |
|
By:
Ah, sorry CJ. I genuinely misinterpreted that.
|
|
By:
Agree with Rowan i suppose, though he seems rather obnoxious. I did have a similar dispute with a couple of guys a few months back but it only lasted half a page as they had plainly convinced themselves that being able to reverse their original bet was a magic trick that would lead to a pot of gold and actually did not even comprehend any of my points to the contrary so i didn't bother arguing.
At any rate the 1.52 Lay to begin with was better value than a back .Liverpool would have returned a big loss at home to mid table sides at those odds last 2 years and i can't see why people think them better at the moment. As to the subsequent backs of Liverpool i don't know enough about adjusting odds in play to be confident if those bets were poor value . 1.77 on 37 mins and 3.0 on 78 would be close to the 'correct' price for a team that began at 1.52 i would think though . One of Rowan's points i don't agree with is that Liverpool must have been poor value at those points because Stoke were looking comfortable and having a lot of possession .In the same way that a single result does not prove a bet was value or not, then neither does how well the teams are playing prove it either . |
|
By:
|
|
By:
I certainly agree with your general point that if a team is poor value at kick off, when they are 1.52,they will usually be poor value right to the finish wether they are 1-0 up 0-2 down or whatever.
Sofaking's reasoning for greening up may not be too convincing but what he had done was confidently* pick out a bet that was going against the crowd (most people seeing Liverpool as a 'banker' ), and then in the course of the match his assessment of Liverpool being a 2nd rate team ,rather than the Top 4 contenders that the odds of 1.52 indicates, is being justified by the poor level of their play. So he has in a sense been 'proved right'. Though of course takes more than 1 game to prove how good/bad they are, the match was at least evidence in favour of Sofaking's view. BUT despite this his original bet could still be a loser right up to the final whistle . And i agree that he should not rationally worry about that, as if he can pick out loads of poor value 1.52 lays and just leave them ride, then he will win big long term, even though the majority of those bets will be losers .But it is psychologically very testing to make a fairly bold call as he did, have the match itself back up what you've said, and still end up with fk all! This i think is why he greened up . It was not that he overstaked and couldn't afford the loss, just that it would be exasperating to end up with nothing, particulary in the context of the thread he had started (imagine Liverpool getting a dodgy inj time pen and all the aftertiming fav backers joyously arriving on the thread celebrating their undeserved win with GTFI! type posts ) |
|
By:
*confidently
the asterik was just to indicate 'the lay of the decade' stuff was just a typical forum exaggeration that people do to reinforce their opinion, i doubt he literally meant that .He just though it was a good bet and then when the match seemed to back up his opinion became concerned that he should guarantee some reward for his pick. |
|
By:
At least one of his bets may well have been good value, but it's pretty blatant that at least one was irrationally motivated. Probably the 1.77 and 3.0 backs for the reasons you suggested.
|
|
By:
Oh yeah, I'm sure he didn't mean it that literally.
|
|
By:
I green up sometimes when i have placed bets that are not part of an overall strategy . eg i bet on a Carling Cup game the other week , despite not having compiled ratings for one of the teams involved .I just figured the price was likely too big though i couldn't be too precise in my opinion - given the team changes/doubtful motivation- as to what the correct price actually was. The stake was not part of any 'bank' i had set aside for particular bets ,so hard to decide what the correct stake was . So there was always an element of doubt that i shouldn't have placed the bet at all , it was fairly speculative . So it seemed prudent to green up late on, only being sure it was not a really poor value Lay at that time, not that it was actually value to lay.
When i have a definite strategy, confident pricing, and a fixed % of bank to bet, i never green up at all , and never regret not doing so . I backed QPR at City last day of season @23 . Doesn't bother me as betting in a very clearly defined way like that is all about the overall result and that is all i consider then. With the Carling Cup bet though i'd have been annoyed to lose because it was just a 'random' bet .I wouldn't have thought much about it being a part of an ongoing sequence of bets because it wasn't one in the sense it was not selected with the necessary rigour i apply to those. I expect most people on here do 'random' bets most of the time.... In the sense that they don't have a particular strategy they are employing , and their stake/selection criteria vary a great deal. With that approach you are more likely to be concerned about the outcome of individual bets. |
|
By:
While I think Rowans point about value is spot on I am not sure his thinking is as rational as he would like Sofa's to be.
"Liverpool have just beaten Norwich 5-2 away and played well all season. Surely they have more than a 65% of winning at home to Stoke." Actually no. Prior to the game this weekend, Liverpool had beaten Stoke 2/4 at home (since Stoke's return to the Premier League)which equates to a 50% chance of winning, odds of 2.0 If you are basing your opinion solely on Liverpool's win at Norwich then that is irrational as Stoke's performance at Chelsea was also very good, even if ultimately ending in defeat. Liverpool to win at 1.77 after 35 mins (lost) Liverpool starting to look like the struggling side of last season, and 1.52 to 1.77 would be a disproportionately small price increase relative to time elapsed even if they were playing well. How can you say 1.52 was a ridiculously short pre-kick off and then make this bet? While I don't think 1.77 was huge value (see above) it does represent a 16% increase (please correct my maths if this is wrong). I don't think many people would turn down an annual increase in their bank of 16%. Liverpool to win at 3.0 with 12 mins + injury time left (lost) Similar to last bet. If you accept the right price for a Liverpool win to be 2.0 then with them on top in the game, pushing for a goal then maybe 3.0 does offer some value. |
|
By:
Pretty much spot on tobermory and Burlington Bertie.
 No doubt Rowan is still lurking though.  |
|
By:
Burlington, what does the fact that L'pool have won 2 from 4
matches in 4 years against Stoke do with things ? |
|
By:
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Is this the weekly meeting for the spastic society, looks like it.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
piece*
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
|
Your comprehension skills seem poor.