Liverpoo 1.52 v Stoke City? Lay of the decade. > Betfair Community

Betfair Community

Home › Sports › Football Forum › Liverpoo 1.52 v Stoke City? Lay of the decade.

Switch to Community Classic App Directory

Football

‹ back to topics

There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.

These 568 comments are related to the topic:
Liverpoo 1.52 v Stoke City? Lay of the decade.

Switch to Live View refresh Post Reply

Post your reply

Page 12 of 15 • Previous | 1 | ... | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | Next

sort by:

Show per page

Replies: 568

By:

kenilworth When: 10 Oct 12 13:44

Oct 9, 2012 -- 5:55PM, kenilworth wrote:

Burlington, what does the fact that L'pool have won 2 from 4 matches in 4 years against Stoke do with things ?

I would say that it shows Liverpool 'struggle' to beat Stoke at Anfield.

Incorrect. It shows that Liverpool have failed to beat Stoke on two of their
last 4 matches at Anfield, but has no connection with upcoming clashes between
the protagonists. If it was only that easy.

By:

Darlo Bantam When: 10 Oct 12 14:49

At least two of four matches in four years is nearly relevant. It's when people trot out stats saying Spurs haven't won at Old Trafford since 1989. Because of course Gary Lineker and Mark Hughes are still playing for Spurs and United respectively, and Terry Venables and Alex Ferguson are still in charge. Oh well, three out of four but you get the picture.

By:

kenilworth When: 10 Oct 12 14:59

Bookmakers ignore previous 'head to heads' correctly IMO.

By:

kenilworth When: 10 Oct 12 15:03

In fact if l'pool were to play Stoke again,
the following week, the betting, I suspect
would be virtually the same.

By:

Burlington Bertie When: 10 Oct 12 15:39

Oct 10, 2012 -- 1:44PM, kenilworth wrote:

Oct 9, 2012 -- 5:55PM, kenilworth wrote:Burlington, what does the fact that L'pool have won 2 from 4 matches in 4 years against Stoke do with things ?I would say that it shows Liverpool 'struggle' to beat Stoke at Anfield.Incorrect. It shows that Liverpool have failed to beat Stoke on two of theirlast 4 matches at Anfield, but has no connection with upcoming clashes betweenthe protagonists. If it was only that easy.

I agree it is not that easy, but no connection?

When Bolton were under Sam Allardyce and Arsenal regularly struggled to beat them, would you have said that those head to head games had zero bearing on future games?

By:

Burlington Bertie When: 10 Oct 12 15:43

Oct 10, 2012 -- 3:03PM, kenilworth wrote:

In fact if l'pool were to play Stoke again,the following week, the betting, I suspect would be virtually the same.

I certainly hope it is .....

By:

Burlington Bertie When: 10 Oct 12 16:09

Oct 10, 2012 -- 2:49PM, Darlo Bantam wrote:

At least two of four matches in four years is nearly relevant. It's when people trot out stats saying Spurs haven't won at Old Trafford since 1989. Because of course Gary Lineker and Mark Hughes are still playing for Spurs and United respectively, and Terry Venables and Alex Ferguson are still in charge. Oh well, three out of four but you get the picture.

Boom! There it is. I was just about to ask you what you considered relevant when I had one of those lightbulb above your head moments.
Cheers Darlo, cheers Ken, got it now.

By:

tobermory When: 10 Oct 12 16:23

The only thing to consider is the ability of the teams relative to each other .This should be judged on their overall results, going back quite a way, 30-40 games even (depending how much their team has changed over that time) but placing more value on the more recent 15/20 games than the first 15/20 games.

In that time the teams will probably have played each other 2 or 3 times at most , so H2H results are not significant . H2H results from years before , when the teams have been quite different are irrelevant .

The only time H2H results would be of interest in pricing up would be when there have been a lot of them within the past 2 years and the H2H is the only thing that separates the teams...

eg Barcelona played Real Madrid about 10 times between 2008-2011, during that time the teams were closely matched in overall results v the rest of the league but Barcelona had looked far superior in the matches between them.

By:

Rowan86 When: 13 Oct 12 17:00

By: This user is offline. Burlington Bertie
Date Joined: 10 Jul 08 Add contact | Send message When: 10 Oct 12 04:45 Joined: Date Joined: 10 Jul 08 | Topic/replies: 28 | Blogger: Burlington Bertie's blog

Overall, I wouldn't. I was just trying to point out a clear case for why 1.52 wasn't value.

Given how little weighting the 4 matches between Liverpool and Stoke over a 4 year span should really be given, I don't think you did make a clear point.

I believe other stats would back this up, including the guys who posted about laying Liverpool at under 2.0.

Can you provide the other stats please? The guys who post about always laying Liverpool under 2.0 are mental. How can you say Liverpool always have less than a 50% chance of winning a game of football?! That's just crazy!

You criticised Sofa for not thinking rationally, yet the evidence you supplied for reaching your decision didn't seem to contain any stats and only considered Liverpool's form.

So it DID contain some stats then! You've just said I used Liverpool's form as part of the basis for my judgement. That IS stats. Much more meaningful stats than those that you've offered. SofaKing is crazy because he backed Liverpool at 1.77 after 35 mins of the game despite saying they were a ridiculously short price pre kick off. That's just nuts. The price only increased by 16% after 39% of the match had elapsed with Stoke looking relative comfortable. I asked him for an explanation, as to why he did that and this is what he came up with:

"I was reducing my liability."

Making a bet purely to reduce your liability on an event is completely illogical unless you overstaked with one of the previous bets you made on the event. You can argue all day that my estimation of value was poor, but at least I understand the value concept. SofaKing doesn't seem to, which is a different level of ignorance.

As i mentioned earlier Stoke played well against Chelsea away previously - even keeping the ball on the ground for a while (shock, horror) and having the better chances in the first half. So, IMO, a repeat performance of that would take them very close against an inferior (to Chelsea) Liverpool side. The fact that Liverpool had put 5 past Norwich was impressive but they did let in two and Norwich arent the same team as last year.
Considering both teams other performances this season, Liverpool have played well at times but can't win/score but Stoke have also played well against good teams but without winning.
Taking into consideration overall stats, Liverpool v Stoke stats, last game form and season long form there is no way I could see value in 1.52 for a Liverpool win.

That's not such a bad argument!

As a newcomer to the concept of value I am fascinated by it - something that requires rational and logical behaviour but is ultimately ruled by opinion/subjectivity.
Some cases are clear cut such as the bookies offering 1.91 on either outcome of the toss before a cricket match is clearly poor value.

True.

So how can you know that 'value' punting will win out in the long term if value is different to different people?

The only logical approach to gambling is to try and gauge the probability of events happening. It's a fact that if you stake evenly at say 4.0 and win more than 25% of your bets, you will make a profit (ignoring commission). You obviously can't be 100% sure that you're making bets on things that are likely to occur more than 25% of the time, but the only logical approach is to try and estimate how often they are likely to occur. People will try and tell you that attempting to do that is impossible, but some people are very skilled at analysing data to gauge the probability of certain things happening.

By:

Rowan86 When: 13 Oct 12 17:05

CJ70
Date Joined: 26 Nov 11
Add contact | Send message When: 08 Oct 12 23:16 Joined: Date Joined: 26 Nov 11 | Topic/replies: 3,824 | Blogger: CJ70's blog

Oct 8, 2012 -- 11:13PM, Rowan86 wrote:

CJ70 Oct 8, 2012 -- 11:02PM, Rowan86 wrote:If I make over 50 bets in one market am I **** myself after overstaking constantly or am I doing something else?F*ck knows what you're doing CJ. You haven't even told me! Quite a strange question.

Of course I won't tell you. If I did you'd be telling me I was **** myself for overstaking.

You seem to be mising the point. The point is that the only logical reason for making a bet purely to reduce your liability on an event is that you overstaked with a previous bet you made on the event. "Greening-up" for the sake of "greening-up" is pure b*lls*it.

By:

CJ70 When: 13 Oct 12 17:08

Oct 13, 2012 -- 5:05PM, Rowan86 wrote:

CJ70 Date Joined: 26 Nov 11 Add contact | Send message When: 08 Oct 12 23:16 Joined: Date Joined: 26 Nov 11 | Topic/replies: 3,824 | Blogger: CJ70's blog Oct 8, 2012 -- 11:13PM, Rowan86 wrote:CJ70 Oct 8, 2012 -- 11:02PM, Rowan86 wrote:If I make over 50 bets in one market am I **** myself after overstaking constantly or am I doing something else?F*ck knows what you're doing CJ. You haven't even told me! Quite a strange question.Of course I won't tell you. If I did you'd be telling me I was **** myself for overstaking.You seem to be mising the point. The point is that the only logical reason for making a bet purely to reduce your liability on an event is that you overstaked with a previous bet you made on the event. "Greening-up" for the sake of "greening-up" is pure b*lls*it.

Been on the sauce?

Did it really take you five days to come up with that rubbish?

By:

Rowan86 When: 13 Oct 12 17:14

CJ70
Date Joined: 26 Nov 11 Add contact | Send message When: 13 Oct 12 17:08 Joined: Date Joined: 26 Nov 11 | Topic/replies: 3,825 | Blogger: CJ70's blog

Been on the sauce?

Did it really take you five days to come up with that rubbish?

It makes perfect sense unless you can provide an example where "trading" makes sense when you haven't overstaked. I'm not surprised you haven't even attempted to, because you tend to try and win arguments by bluffing with completely empty statements.

By:

CJ70 When: 13 Oct 12 17:16

Oct 13, 2012 -- 5:14PM, Rowan86 wrote:

CJ70 Date Joined: 26 Nov 11 Add contact | Send message When: 13 Oct 12 17:08 Joined: Date Joined: 26 Nov 11 | Topic/replies: 3,825 | Blogger: CJ70's blog Been on the sauce?Did it really take you five days to come up with that rubbish?It makes perfect sense unless you can provide an example where "trading" makes sense when you haven't overstaked. I'm not surprised you haven't even attempted to, because you tend to try and win arguments by bluffing with completely empty statements.

If you don't understand trading that's your hard luck.

The fact you felt the need to bring up a five day old post to try and start an argument says a lot about you.

By:

Leo0nAHigh When: 13 Oct 12 17:19

Rowan86 why are you so upset?

By:

Rowan86 When: 13 Oct 12 17:23

themover
Date Joined: 25 Apr 03
Blogger: themover's blog Add contact | Send message When: 08 Oct 12 22:14 Joined: Date Joined: 25 Apr 03 | Topic/replies: 12,227 | Blogger: themover's blog
That's not the way it works Rowan, but I appreciate what you are saying. I will give you an example using horse racing, apologies if you aren't into horses but it will demonstrate the point. A horse always front-runs and has done in every event to date. It is 12/1 pre-race. Whether that 12/1 is value is debatable and I don't know if it is or not. But I do know the horse front-runs and that the longer it's at the front the shorter the price gets. So I buy at 12/1. I can watch the race but I will be 10 seconds behind live so even at the time I could see would be an ideal lay time the price has already gone. So I have a pre-determined lay price, let's say 8/1. Horse goes off and leads and price goes as low as 5/1 before tailing off. My 8/1 is matched so the trade is done. The chances are that my lay of 8/1 was not a value bet, as indeed my 12/1 back might not have been but I wasn't betting on the end result I was betting on a price movement.

That will be profitable long-term if you keep doing the same thing and the backs you make before the off are good enough value to compensate for any poor value that the lays might have in-running OR if the lays you make in-running are good enough value to compensate for any bad value that the backs you make before the off might have.

Once you've done this a large number of times, it then makes sense to assess whether the market has been consistently underestimating / overestimating the significance of horses leading the field by looking at whether your backs (in which case the market has been consistently UNDERESTIMATING the significance of horses front-running the field) or your lays (in which case the market has been consistently OVERESTIMATING the significance of horses front-running the field) have been more profitable, and then optimising your profits by proceeding to back front-runners before the off, or laying front-runners whilst their leading without trading.

By:

Rowan86 When: 13 Oct 12 17:26

CJ70
Date Joined: 26 Nov 11
Add contact | Send message When: 13 Oct 12 17:16 Joined: Date Joined: 26 Nov 11 | Topic/replies: 3,827 | Blogger: CJ70's blog

Oct 13, 2012 -- 5:14PM, Rowan86 wrote:

CJ70 Date Joined: 26 Nov 11 Add contact | Send message When: 13 Oct 12 17:08 Joined: Date Joined: 26 Nov 11 | Topic/replies: 3,825 | Blogger: CJ70's blog Been on the sauce?Did it really take you five days to come up with that rubbish?It makes perfect sense unless you can provide an example where "trading" makes sense when you haven't overstaked. I'm not surprised you haven't even attempted to, because you tend to try and win arguments by bluffing with completely empty statements.

If you don't understand trading that's your hard luck.

I'm pretty sure there's nothing to understand. Do you want to have a go at trying to explain what you think there is to understand?

The fact you felt the need to bring up a five day old post to try and start an argument says a lot about you.

I don't exactly live on Betfair. I happen to be at the computer now in which case I can respond to some of the points made on this thread.

I don't think this is a pointless argument. After all, if you can't even grasp the value concept, you really shouldn't be gambling.

By:

Rowan86 When: 13 Oct 12 17:29

Leo0nAHigh
Date Joined: 13 May 12 Add contact | Send message When: 13 Oct 12 17:19 Joined: Date Joined: 13 May 12 | Topic/replies: 979 | Blogger: Leo0nAHigh's blog
Rowan86 why are you so upset?

I'm not sure I'd describe it as being upset. I find it pretty annoying that so many people fall for this fallacy that if the second bet they make on an event is a back at a bigger price than the price they previously layed it at, it doesn't matter if they think it offers value or not.

By:

CJ70 When: 13 Oct 12 17:32

Oct 13, 2012 -- 5:26PM, Rowan86 wrote:

CJ70 Date Joined: 26 Nov 11 Add contact | Send message When: 13 Oct 12 17:16 Joined: Date Joined: 26 Nov 11 | Topic/replies: 3,827 | Blogger: CJ70's blog Oct 13, 2012 -- 5:14PM, Rowan86 wrote:CJ70 Date Joined: 26 Nov 11 Add contact | Send message When: 13 Oct 12 17:08 Joined: Date Joined: 26 Nov 11 | Topic/replies: 3,825 | Blogger: CJ70's blog Been on the sauce?Did it really take you five days to come up with that rubbish?It makes perfect sense unless you can provide an example where "trading" makes sense when you haven't overstaked. I'm not surprised you haven't even attempted to, because you tend to try and win arguments by bluffing with completely empty statements.If you don't understand trading that's your hard luck.I'm pretty sure there's nothing to understand. Do you want to have a go at trying to explain what you think there is to understand?The fact you felt the need to bring up a five day old post to try and start an argument says a lot about you.I don't exactly live on Betfair. I happen to be at the computer now in which case I can respond to some of the points made on this thread.I don't think this is a pointless argument. After all, if you can't even grasp the value concept, you really shouldn't be gambling.

Considering you've posted seven times since that post, including posting an apology to me after realising you were being silly. The "Oh I wasn't on Betfair" excuse doesn't wash.

If you are still cut up a week after losing your fan bet then you probably shouldn't be gambling. I'm certainly not going to spend my day arguing with you.

By:

Rowan86 When: 13 Oct 12 17:50

Add contact | Send message

13 Oct 12 17:32
Joined:

26 Nov 11
| Topic/replies: 3,830 | Blogger: CJ70's blog

Considering you've posted seven times since that post, including posting an apology to me after realising you were being silly.
The "Oh I wasn't on Betfair" excuse doesn't wash.

Realising I was being silly? I was apologising for thinking you were accusing me of having poor punctuation. Not really for being silly. Why don't you believe me? I didn't post for 5 days because I was doing other things. Now I'm back and responding to a lot of the posts. You're very cynical.

If you are still cut up a week after losing your fan bet then you probably shouldn't be gambling. I'm certainly not going to spend my day arguing with you.

I don't know why you keep going on about the bet I made. That bet may or may not have been value. Whatever. I'm more interested in educating people on this trading fallacy they keep falling for.

By:

CJ70 When: 13 Oct 12 17:54

My point was that you posted several times after that post and chose to revisit it today because you fancy an argument on the Internet.

Good luck to you and what you believe is correct, I'm not going to be drawn into your tantrum.

By:

Rowan86 When: 13 Oct 12 18:09

Oh right. I can see what you mean now. I'm responding properly to some of the points I didn't reply to properly the last time I was posting on here. There were a lot of posts being made. It's not that easy to address them all at once and I didn't necessarily respond to them in order.

No you don't want to argue, but you're quite happy to spout off loads of completely meaningless posts that you couldn't substantiate to save your life.

By:

CJ70 When: 13 Oct 12 18:11

As I said earlier I'm just going to let you stamp your feet and shout.

By:

Rowan86 When: 13 Oct 12 18:23

That's a good description of what you've done right throughout this thread. No explanations for many of the statements you've made. Just stuff like:

"If Germany are ahead against San Marino then you should probably trade and run."

That just doesn't really mean anything.

"You don't understand trading."

Erm.... what?!?!

By:

sofaking When: 13 Oct 12 18:51

This penniless mug is still posting crap on my thread I see. I took your cash (thanks for backing Pool at 1.52

) but you obviously still very angry about it. Time to move on and let it go, my friend.

By:

Rowan86 When: 13 Oct 12 18:55

SofaKing. I can't really be bothered debating with you anymore, because you seem a lost cause. I really don't think you're ever going to understand. I've tried making the same point about 1000 times, but you just don't get it. I'll ask you one more time:

How on earth did you go from saying Liverpool are a ridiculously good lay at 1.52,
to backing them at 1.77 after 35 mins?

I just don't get it, but I'm beyond the point of expecting a sensible answer from you. You just give childish answers.

By:

sofaking When: 13 Oct 12 19:16

I've already explained earlier in the thread. The fact that you backed Liverpool at 1.52 tells me that you're not really cut out for Betfair. If you want to make a little extra cash online try selling on eBay online surveys or whatever. Good luck.

By:

sofaking When: 13 Oct 12 19:17

* try selling on eBay or online surveys or whatever.

By:

Rowan86 When: 13 Oct 12 19:19

sofaking

I've already explained earlier in the thread. The fact that you backed Liverpool at 1.52 tells me that you're not really cut out for Betfair.

Okay, that might be true, but didn't you back them at 1.77 after 35 mins? That's quite a similar bet.

By:

sofaking When: 13 Oct 12 19:27

That's a 17% increase in 30 minutes. My local bank offers me 3% per annum.

By:

Rowan86 When: 13 Oct 12 19:29

sofaking

That's a 17% increase in 30 minutes. My local bank offers me 3% per annum.

hahahah

That's the silliest explanation for making that bet ever. Thanks for basically admitting that you were being silly.

By:

sofaking When: 13 Oct 12 19:36

It's not silly at all. Some punters on Betfair (with huge banks) are happy to take one or two ticks at a time. I took twenty five. I'm risk adverse and regularly "green up" whenever possible. Anyway, I'm too busy now for this conversation.

By:

Rowan86 When: 13 Oct 12 19:45

Yes, that is plain stupid. You've basically admitted that you made the bet for no reason whatsoever. Thanks for exposing yourself.

By:

sofaking When: 13 Oct 12 19:50

Cop on you cretin. What the **** is going on in your head? I'm getting bored tring to explain myself to you. I make a decent profit on Betfair. You are just a grade A mug.

By:

CJ70 When: 13 Oct 12 19:59

Rowan86, if you want people to take seriously you should stop intentionally misquoting them. It's not the first time and just reinforces the opinion that you are just after an argument.

Go out, do something.. Forget about your short priced loser and move on.

By:

Rowan86 When: 13 Oct 12 19:59

"I'm risk adverse and green up whenever possible". You make bets for sake of greening up. That seriously doesn't make sense. That is plan b*llsh*t. I can't believe you waste all this time making random bets. What an idiot.

By:

sofaking When: 13 Oct 12 20:09

You call me an idiot yet these were your bets for the Liverpool game.

Rowan86 • October 7, 2012 3:13 PM BST
My bets were Liverpool 2-0 at 8.2 and Liverpool 3-0 at 12.0. Painful to see people laying Liverpool at 1.52. That's a big price. Rowan86 • October 7, 2012 3:03 PM BST
1.52 is a big price for Liverpool today. Great bet.

.

You are a pathetic, angry loser. Don't post on my threads again.

By:

Rowan86 When: 13 Oct 12 20:12

These are 2 of your bets from the game:

Liverpool to win at 1.77 after 35 mins and
Liverpool to win at 3.0 with 12 mins + injury time left.

The real inanity is in your theory that it somehow doesn't matter whether those bets were value or not because of a previous bet you made on the game. Any previous bet you made on the game should have no influence on any subsequent bet you make.

By:

Rowan86 When: 14 Oct 12 00:11

CJ

This is an exact quote:

CJ70

You need to learn how to use Betfair, Rowan86.

If you are betting on Germany v San Marino, the best policy is to trade off and take profit. Anything can happen in football

I've actually realised what you said was even more meaningless than I thought! That just doesn't mean anything at all!

By:

CJ70 When: 14 Oct 12 10:38

If it was that easy why try and intentionally misquote me in the first place? It makes you look like a bit of a duffer.

I did start typing out why 1.77 could be both good and bad value and how the result of the game doesn't matter. I've thought better of it as you are clearly only here to throw tantrums.

By:

Rowan86 When: 14 Oct 12 14:43

CJ70 Date Joined: 26 Nov 11
Add contact | Send message When: 14 Oct 12 10:38 Joined: Date Joined: 26 Nov 11 | Topic/replies: 3,864 | Blogger: CJ70's blog
If it was that easy why try and intentionally misquote me in the first place? It makes you look like a bit of a duffer.

I was pretty sure that's what you wrote. What did you mean by that anyway? I assumed you meant that if you've backed Germany against San Marino and they're winning, it's best to trade out and take a profit the first time I saw your post. It's hard to make sense of it because you're not really even saying anything by it. Pretty similar to nearly every post you've made on this thread. The only interesting one you made was one where you were explaining how Liverpool might have been good value at 1.77 after 35 mins. I thought at that point you'd realised the fallacy endorsed by many traders that think that value isn't important if they're making a bet to guarantee a profit on an event.

However, it seems you're still stuck in this mindset that somehow traders are protected from poor value when they make a bet that creates an "all green book".

The simple fact is that if you keep staking evenly at 1.77 and win less than 56.5% of your bets, you lose money. Any other bet made on the same event does not compensate for that.

I did start typing out why 1.77 could be both good and bad value and how the result of the game doesn't matter. I've thought better of it as you are clearly only here to throw tantrums.

Right , this is brilliant. You were going to come up with a case for why 1.77 could have been good value?

This is you making a statement that Liverpool were "unlikely" to win pre-kick off, which equates to them having less than a 50% of winning, which equates to their "true price" being above 2.0:

CJ70

I'm not trying to justify making a fan bet, mate.

At the end of the day, you got caught backing short odds on a result that was unlikely to happen.

You then try and come up with an argument that Liverpool might have been value at 1.77 at 0-0 after 35 mins. The only way that could realistically be possible would be if Stoke had had a player sent off or Liverpool had a penalty.

That's just plain stupid. You priced Liverpool at above 2.0 pre kick-off and then think they might be value at 1.77 after 35 mins at 0-0. This is just getting silly. Don't know why I'm bothering!