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

sort by:

Show per page

Replies: 568

By:

CJ70 When: 14 Oct 12 14:56

The only reason you are bothering is to try and provoke an argument because you are still troubled by the loss of your bet.

The fake quotes, the bad attitude, the childish insults. All add to the same thing.

By:

Rowan86 When: 14 Oct 12 14:56

I better just clarify what I meant by the following statement to avoid any potential confusion:

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.

I meant that that's the only way that could have been realistically possible if Liverpool were a genuine 2.0+ shot pre kick-off. This is a waste of time anyway because you think that the value of a bet isn't as important, or isn't important at all if that bet guarantees a profit on the event. You lack the ability to view things long-term because you place too much emphasis on making a profit on an event rather than trying to profit over many events.

By:

Rowan86 When: 14 Oct 12 15:00

CJ70 Date Joined: 26 Nov 11
Add contact | Send message When: 14 Oct 12 14:56 Joined: Date Joined: 26 Nov 11 | Topic/replies: 3,865 | Blogger: CJ70's blog
The only reason you are bothering is to try and provoke an argument because you are still troubled by the loss of your bet.

The fake quotes, the bad attitude, the childish insults. All add to the same thing.

I lost £20 on the event. I backed Liverpool to 1-0 at about 8.0 and to win 2-0 at about 12.0. That's not what I'm interested in.

I'm interested in debunking your trading fallacy. That's a much bigger issue.

By:

Darlo Bantam When: 14 Oct 12 15:09

Just because Betfair allows you the ability to trade your initial positions, doesn't mean that either you have to or indeed should do.

By:

sofaking When: 14 Oct 12 15:19

Oct 14, 2012 -- 2:56PM, CJ70 wrote:

The only reason you are bothering is to try and provoke an argument because you are still troubled by the loss of your bet.The fake quotes, the bad attitude, the childish insults. All add to the same thing.

Exactly. Can't believe this epic mug (Rowan) is still posting here. Will he ever let it go.

By:

Darlo Bantam When: 14 Oct 12 15:21

The difference is, Rowan lost one bet on this match, you lost two. Fair enough your first bet was a very good one imo, and you did win money, but you still lost two bets.

By:

sofaking When: 14 Oct 12 15:23

Oct 13, 2012 -- 8:09PM, sofaking wrote:

You call me an idiot yet these were your bets for the Liverpool game.Rowan86 • October 7, 2012 3:13 PM BSTMy 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 BST1.52 is a big price for Liverpool today. Great bet. . You are a pathetic, angry loser. Don't post on my threads again.

Rowan lost THREE bets. Liverpool to win, Liverpool. 2-0 and Liverpool 3-0. I made a LARGE profit on this game.

By:

sofaking When: 14 Oct 12 15:25

Oct 14, 2012 -- 3:21PM, Darlo Bantam wrote:

The difference is, Rowan lost one bet on this match, you lost two. Fair enough your first bet was a very good one imo, and you did win money, but you still lost two bets.

Quite possibly the most ridiculous statement I've ever read on Betfair though.

By:

Darlo Bantam When: 14 Oct 12 15:26

And why? Because you made money on one game and Rowan didn't. Making money needs long-term wins not just one match.

By:

CJ70 When: 14 Oct 12 15:27

Oct 14, 2012 -- 3:09PM, Darlo Bantam wrote:

Just because Betfair allows you the ability to trade your initial positions, doesn't mean that either you have to or indeed should do.

Quite. If the value is with you, what should you do? If I offer 100/1 on Liverpool at 30 minutes would you take it and have a losing bet as well as a winning bet, or would you leave it for the sake of it?

By:

DaveEdwards When: 14 Oct 12 15:28

I thought this thread had run it's course about a week ago?????

By:

Darlo Bantam When: 14 Oct 12 15:29

Exactly CJ. If you take each bet at its own face value irrespective of a bet already in the same market, then that's a winning move. The alternative is if you think Liverpool - in this example - would drift in the first 30 minutes by x percent irrespective of whatever value they were at the start.

By:

Rowan86 When: 14 Oct 12 15:31

CJ70 Date Joined: 26 Nov 11
Add contact When: 14 Oct 12 15:27
Oct 14, 2012 -- 9:09AM, Darlo Bantam wrote:

Just because Betfair allows you the ability to trade your initial positions, doesn't mean that either you have to or indeed should do.

Quite. If the value is with you, what should you do? If I offer 100/1 on Liverpool at 30 minutes would you take it and have a losing bet as well as a winning bet, or would you leave it for the sake of it?

I would take it because 100/1 is obviously good value. Your point earlier seemed to be that value isn't important if you're trading.

By:

Rowan86 When: 14 Oct 12 15:34

The key is that any previous bet you've made on the event should have absolutely no influence over your judgement of whether you should make a subsquent bet on the event.

By:

sofaking When: 14 Oct 12 15:35

Oct 14, 2012 -- 3:28PM, DaveEdwards wrote:

I thought this thread had run it's course about a week ago?????

It did but Rowan keeps bumping it. His seething and bitterness shows no sign of abating.

By:

Rowan86 When: 14 Oct 12 15:39

SofaKing. You're right about me seething, but not why I'm seething. I'm seething at people's inability to grasp the value concept and what I've dubbed the "trading fallacy".

By:

sofaking When: 14 Oct 12 15:40

Rowan86 • October 14, 2012 3:39 PM BST
The contents of this post have been hidden for this blocked user. [Manage blocked users]

By:

Rowan86 When: 14 Oct 12 15:45

Darlo Bantam Date Joined: 27 Mar 07
Add contact | Send message When: 14 Oct 12 15:29 Joined: Date Joined: 27 Mar 07 | Topic/replies: 5,728 | Blogger: Darlo Bantam's blog
The alternative is if you think Liverpool - in this example - would drift in the first 30 minutes by x percent irrespective of whatever value they were at the start.

Yes! That's a logical approach to trading. If you think the swing in Liverpool price from kick off to 30 mins elapsed if likely to be disproportionate, but you're not sure whether the market is going to overestimate or underestimate the factor that you think will cause the disproportionate swing, so you take the approach that you think the bet you make before kick off will offer enough value to compensate for any poor value the second bet you make might have OR that the second bet will be good enough value to compensate for any poor value the first bet might have.

By:

CJ70 When: 14 Oct 12 21:06

Oct 14, 2012 -- 3:29PM, Darlo Bantam wrote:

Exactly CJ. If you take each bet at its own face value irrespective of a bet already in the same market, then that's a winning move. The alternative is if you think Liverpool - in this example - would drift in the first 30 minutes by x percent irrespective of whatever value they were at the start.

That's the key isn't it. Restricting yourself to a single bet for the sake of it is silly if you can constantly be ahead of the game. So whether you have two losing bets and a winning bet or fifty losing bets and fifty winning bets, if you are taking the bets above the market your going to be a winner.

Rowan86, is arguing that the market is linear and there is no value in 1.77 if you have already taken at 1.52.

By:

CJ70 When: 14 Oct 12 21:08

Oct 14, 2012 -- 3:31PM, Rowan86 wrote:

CJ70 Date Joined: 26 Nov 11 Add contact When: 14 Oct 12 15:27 Oct 14, 2012 -- 9:09AM, Darlo Bantam wrote:Just because Betfair allows you the ability to trade your initial positions, doesn't mean that either you have to or indeed should do.Quite. If the value is with you, what should you do? If I offer 100/1 on Liverpool at 30 minutes would you take it and have a losing bet as well as a winning bet, or would you leave it for the sake of it?I would take it because 100/1 is obviously good value. Your point earlier seemed to be that value isn't important if you're trading.

So you've got a losing bet and a winning bet now. Giving value away in your terms.

You didn't listen to my point earlier as you had no interest in anything apart from making arguments to justify why you made a fan bet.

By:

CJ70 When: 14 Oct 12 21:10

Oct 14, 2012 -- 3:45PM, Rowan86 wrote:

Darlo Bantam Date Joined: 27 Mar 07 Add contact | Send message When: 14 Oct 12 15:29 Joined: Date Joined: 27 Mar 07 | Topic/replies: 5,728 | Blogger: Darlo Bantam's blog The alternative is if you think Liverpool - in this example - would drift in the first 30 minutes by x percent irrespective of whatever value they were at the start.Yes! That's a logical approach to trading. If you think the swing in Liverpool price from kick off to 30 mins elapsed if likely to be disproportionate, but you're not sure whether the market is going to overestimate or underestimate the factor that you think will cause the disproportionate swing, so you take the approach that you think the bet you make before kick off will offer enough value to compensate for any poor value the second bet you make might have OR that the second bet will be good enough value to compensate for any poor value the first bet might have.

Until you realise that the result has no influence on a traders decision the longer you'll be in the dark.

By:

sofaking When: 14 Oct 12 21:21

No point arguing with an idiot, CJ. You can never win.

By:

CJ70 When: 14 Oct 12 21:28

Oct 14, 2012 -- 9:21PM, sofaking wrote:

No point arguing with an idiot, CJ.

By:

CJ70 When: 14 Oct 12 21:31

Quote hasn't worked once again.

"True, Rowan86 is just having tantrums and will probably end up on the blocked list.

I'm interested in what Darlo says in relation to Rowan86's temper tantrums, you can always learn something from someone holding a different opinion"

By:

Rowan86 When: 14 Oct 12 22:13

CJ70 Date Joined: 26 Nov 11
Add contact | Send message When: 14 Oct 12 21:08 Joined: Date Joined: 26 Nov 11 | Topic/replies: 3,875 | Blogger: CJ70's blog

So you've got a losing bet and a winning bet now. Giving value away in your terms.

You didn't listen to my point earlier as you had no interest in anything apart from making arguments to justify why you made a fan bet.

Oh right. Now I get what you mean. No, I'm not against making subsequent bets on markets at all and you're right that the market isn't linear. 1.77 might even have been value at the time even if 1.52 was "ridiculously short" pre kick-off as SofaKing put it, although that's bloody unlikely! That's hypothetically possible. So why did you keep saying I don't understand trading? That was the main cause of my disagreement with you.

The point is, SofaKing didn't make the bet at 1.77 because it was value. He admitted that he only made it because it gave him "a 16% increase in his bank" and to "reduce liabilities". It's obviously silly to make a bet purely on that basis.

By:

CJ70 When: 14 Oct 12 22:21

You are going back on what you previously said now.

By:

Rowan86 When: 14 Oct 12 22:32

CJ70 Date Joined: 26 Nov 11
Add contact | Send message When: 14 Oct 12 22:21 Joined: Date Joined: 26 Nov 11 | Topic/replies: 3,876 | Blogger: CJ70's blog
You are going back on what you previously said now.

It is possible that 1.52 could be a ridiculously good value lay pre kick off and a good value back after 35 mins at 1.77. I'm not saying that's impossible, although I think it's highly unlikely and it does seem rather bizarre.

My main argument was that SofaKing made it abundantly clear that he purely made the back at 1.77 to "reduce liabilities" and give him a "16% increase". That's obviously inane.

By:

CJ70 When: 14 Oct 12 22:38

Why is that insane? You said yourself you would have greened up if the price was right.

By:

Rowan86 When: 14 Oct 12 22:40

CJ70 Date Joined: 26 Nov 11
Add contact | Send message When: 14 Oct 12 22:38 Joined: Date Joined: 26 Nov 11 | Topic/replies: 3,877 | Blogger: CJ70's blog
Why is that insane? You said yourself you would have greened up if the price was right.

Yes, IF the price was right. I would back Liverpool at 1.77 if I thought that was a good price irrespective of any other bet I'd made. SofaKing has made it absolutely clear that he made that bet, not because he thought it was a good price, but purely because of a previous bet he had made on the market.

By:

Rowan86 When: 14 Oct 12 22:42

It's probably so insane that you can't get your head around it! I can empathise with that!

By:

CJ70 When: 14 Oct 12 22:47

Oct 14, 2012 -- 10:40PM, Rowan86 wrote:

CJ70 Date Joined: 26 Nov 11 Add contact | Send message When: 14 Oct 12 22:38 Joined: Date Joined: 26 Nov 11 | Topic/replies: 3,877 | Blogger: CJ70's blog Why is that insane? You said yourself you would have greened up if the price was right.Yes, IF the price was right. I would back Liverpool at 1.77 if I thought that was a good price irrespective of any other bet I'd made. SofaKing has made it absolutely clear that he made that bet, not because he thought it was a good price, but purely because of a previous bet he had made on the market.

So it couldn't be a good price if you previously were involved in the market?

By:

Rowan86 When: 14 Oct 12 22:48

By: This user is online. CJ70 Date Joined: 26 Nov 11
Add contact | Send message When: 14 Oct 12 22:47 Joined: Date Joined: 26 Nov 11 | Topic/replies: 3,878 | Blogger: CJ70's blog

Oct 14, 2012 -- 10:40PM, Rowan86 wrote:

So it couldn't be a good price if you previously were involved in the market?

It makes no difference either way. Whether you've made a previous bet or not on the event is completely meaningless.

By:

Rowan86 When: 14 Oct 12 22:50

completely irrelevant* I should say.

By:

CJ70 When: 14 Oct 12 22:51

Oct 14, 2012 -- 10:48PM, Rowan86 wrote:

By: This user is online. CJ70 Date Joined: 26 Nov 11 Add contact | Send message When: 14 Oct 12 22:47 Joined: Date Joined: 26 Nov 11 | Topic/replies: 3,878 | Blogger: CJ70's blog Oct 14, 2012 -- 10:40PM, Rowan86 wrote:So it couldn't be a good price if you previously were involved in the market?It makes no difference either way. Whether you've made a previous bet or not on the event is completely meaningless.

You are confusing yourself again. So after 13 pages and resurrecting this thread x amount of times you are now saying that sofaking could have been taking a value bet?

By:

Rowan86 When: 14 Oct 12 22:51

I'd be just as likely to back Liverpool at 1.77 if I'd layed them at 1.52 as I would be if I hadn't. Just making my position clear!

By:

Rowan86 When: 14 Oct 12 22:54

CJ70 Date Joined: 26 Nov 11
Add contact | Send message When: 14 Oct 12 22:51 Joined: Date Joined: 26 Nov 11 | Topic/replies: 3,879 | Blogger: CJ70's blog

You are confusing yourself again. So after 13 pages and resurrecting this thread x amount of times you are now saying that sofaking could have been taking a value bet?

I haven't contradicted myself once. That's always been my view. He could have been making a value bet. If he'd just said "oh, Liverpool were playing much better than I expected and I suddenly thought they were value at 1.77", there wouldn't be an argument. The reasons he gave were insane. He just did it because he's part of the "greening up at all costs" brigade!

By:

CJ70 When: 14 Oct 12 22:54

Not sure how you are going to untie yourself on this one.

By:

Rowan86 When: 14 Oct 12 22:56

haha, I haven't contradicted myself once. Seriously. I just find it annoying that people make bets purely to green up rather than because they think it's value. SofaKing has made absolutely clear that that's why he made the bet. Can't you see that? People do that very often. It's a common theme.

By:

Rowan86 When: 14 Oct 12 23:00

The reason this has gone on for ages is because I was convinced you were saying value isn't important when you're greening up and you thought I was saying it was impossible that SofaKing's second bet was good value. We actually believed the same thing all along!

By:

Rowan86 When: 14 Oct 12 23:02

That's not quite right. I meant that you were convinced that I was saying that it was impossible for 1.77 to be good value if 1.52 was ridiculously short. I never said that. That was just the main reason I thought SofaKing made the second bet purely to green up because it seemed a strange thing to do.