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

sort by:

Show per page

Replies: 568

By:

CJ70 When: 14 Oct 12 23:04

Not interested, mate.

You've ended up rounding on yourself and endorsing what you were rudely insulting for the sake of it.

Most people realised what you were you about earlier.

By:

sofaking When: 14 Oct 12 23:09

Oct 14, 2012 -- 10:51PM, Rowan86 wrote:

The contents of this post have been hidden for this blocked user.

[Manage blocked users]

Rowan86 • October 14, 2012 10:50 PM BST
The contents of this post have been hidden for this blocked user. [Manage blocked users]

Fúcking hell, he's obsessed.

By:

Rowan86 When: 14 Oct 12 23:17

I'm sorry that you think that CJ. My point was not that it was impossible for both bets to be value, it was that SofaKing wasn't even considering whether the second bet was value. It's blatantly obvious that that's the case.

By:

CJ70 When: 14 Oct 12 23:25

"I love the way these "traders" think they're doing something completely different to those that they call "punters" when really they're just making more than one "punt" on the same market that happen to oppose each other! "

Now, I'm not interested in making up quotes, Rowan86. Who said this?

By:

sofaking When: 14 Oct 12 23:27

Oct 14, 2012 -- 11:04PM, CJ70 wrote:

Not interested, mate.You've ended up rounding on yourself and endorsing what you were rudely insulting for the sake of it. Most people realised what you were you about earlier.

So he has finally seen the light, CJ. About fooking time, eh. I've blocked him so unfortunately I can't see his posts any more.

By:

CJ70 When: 14 Oct 12 23:30

Well, he's backed himself into a corner. So he could be sensible and come out and apologise, or he could start shouting abuse as previous.

We'll see in the next post.

By:

sofaking When: 14 Oct 12 23:30

*gets popcorn.

By:

Rowan86 When: 14 Oct 12 23:47

CJ70 Date Joined: 26 Nov 11
Add contact | Send message When: 14 Oct 12 23:25 Joined: Date Joined: 26 Nov 11 | Topic/replies: 3,883 | Blogger: CJ70's blog
"I love the way these "traders" think they're doing something completely different to those that they call "punters" when really they're just making more than one "punt" on the same market that happen to oppose each other! "

Now, I'm not interested in making up quotes, Rowan86. Who said this?

I stand by that statement. There are people that think they've got some clever system when they make opposing bets on the same market and they forget the importance of boths bets being good value and estimating the value of each bet on its own merits. These people allow previous bets they've made on a market to influence their estimation of whether they should make a subsequent bet on a market.

By:

Rowan86 When: 14 Oct 12 23:49

What SofaKing did is a prime example. He didn't make the second bet because he thought it was a good price. He made it purely on the basis of a previous bet he'd made on the market.

By:

sofaking When: 14 Oct 12 23:54

Rowan86 • October 14, 2012 10:50 PM BST
The contents of this post have been hidden for this blocked user. [Manage blocked users]

By:

Rowan86 When: 14 Oct 12 23:56

But it's true though isn't it SofaKing? I asked you why you made the second bet. You didn't say you did it because it was value. You're just one of these that love pressing the greening up button. You weren't even considering value and you know it. It would be nice of you to end this argument and admit that.

By:

CJ70 When: 14 Oct 12 23:57

Oct 14, 2012 -- 11:49PM, Rowan86 wrote:

What SofaKing did is a prime example. He didn't make the second bet because he thought it was a good price. He made it purely on the basis of a previous bet he'd made on the market.

I'm glad you know what sofaking was thinking and why he made his trades.

You are being silly now.

By:

Rowan86 When: 15 Oct 12 00:00

By: This user is online. CJ70 Date Joined: 26 Nov 11
Add contact | Send message When: 14 Oct 12 23:57 Joined: Date Joined: 26 Nov 11 | Topic/replies: 3,884 | Blogger: CJ70's blog

Oct 14, 2012 -- 11:49PM, Rowan86 wrote:

What SofaKing did is a prime example. He didn't make the second bet because he thought it was a good price. He made it purely on the basis of a previous bet he'd made on the market.

I'm glad you know what sofaking was thinking and why he made his trades.

You are being silly now.

I don't know for a fact, because I'm not psychic, but it seems bloody obvious by what he's said that he was just pressing the greening up button coz he's got a fetish for going green. A lot of people do for some reason. Just read his cr*p explanations for why he made the second bet. It's obvious he was doing that. Other people think exactly the same thing. Although I suppose, he might just be extremely bad at expressing himself!

By:

CJ70 When: 15 Oct 12 00:02

Oct 15, 2012 -- 12:00AM, Rowan86 wrote:

By: This user is online. CJ70 Date Joined: 26 Nov 11 Add contact | Send message When: 14 Oct 12 23:57 Joined: Date Joined: 26 Nov 11 | Topic/replies: 3,884 | Blogger: CJ70's blog Oct 14, 2012 -- 11:49PM, Rowan86 wrote:What SofaKing did is a prime example. He didn't make the second bet because he thought it was a good price. He made it purely on the basis of a previous bet he'd made on the market.I'm glad you know what sofaking was thinking and why he made his trades.You are being silly now.I don't know for a fact, because I'm not psychic, but it seems bloody obvious by what he's said that he was just pressing the greening up button coz he's got a fetish for going green. A lot of people do for some reason. Just read his cr*p explanations for why he made the second bet. It's obvious he was doing that. Other people think exactly the same thing. Although I suppose, he might just be extremely bad at expressing himself!

At the end of the day. You could have just said you made a bad bet and not drawn this into thirteen pages?

By:

Rowan86 When: 15 Oct 12 00:02

The problem is CJ, that you're giving SofaKing too much credibility. He is actually a muppet. He would never have backed Liverpool at 1.77 if he hadn't layed them at 1.52.

By:

CJ70 When: 15 Oct 12 00:04

Oct 15, 2012 -- 12:02AM, Rowan86 wrote:

The problem is CJ, that you're giving SofaKing too much credibility. He is actually a muppet. He would never have backed Liverpool at 1.77 if he hadn't layed them at 1.52.

No. I don't know any more than you do what sofaking was doing, apart from him saying he would trade it. You've made this a big issue in an attempt to justify to yourself why you made a poor bet.

By:

Rowan86 When: 15 Oct 12 00:04

CJ70 Date Joined: 26 Nov 11
Add contact | Send message When: 15 Oct 12 00:02 Joined: Date Joined: 26 Nov 11 | Topic/replies: 3,885 | Blogger: CJ70's blog

At the end of the day. You could have just said you made a bad bet and not drawn this into thirteen pages?

True! I could have done, but I saw this as a good opportunity to challenge the infamous "greening up fallacy" that so many mugs fall for. That was a classic example of someone just pushing the greening up button compulsively. I sincerely doubt, although I suppose it's not impossible that SofaKing would back Liverpool at 1.77 after 35 minutes if he hadn't previously layed them at 1.52. That's what makes him a greening up mug.

By:

Rowan86 When: 15 Oct 12 00:08

CJ70 Date Joined: 26 Nov 11
Add contact | Send message When: 15 Oct 12 00:04 Joined: Date Joined: 26 Nov 11 | Topic/replies: 3,886 | Blogger: CJ70's blog

No. I don't know any more than you do what sofaking was doing, apart from him saying he would trade it.

I don't know for a fact, but it's blatantly obvious to me from his silly explanations for the second bet. He could have just wrote something like "Liverpool were playing well, so I thought they were good value." rather than talking sh*t about "reducing liabilities."

You've made this a big issue in an attempt to justify to yourself why you made a poor bet.

I'm sorry that you think that. I can only tell you that I couldn't care much less about the losing bets I made. I lost £20. I bet £10 on Liverpool to win 1-0 at 8.0 and £10 on Liverpool to win 2-0 at 12.0.

By:

CJ70 When: 15 Oct 12 00:12

Again. Why would Liverpool have to be playing well to make it a value bet?

By:

Rowan86 When: 15 Oct 12 00:16

By: This user is online. CJ70 Date Joined: 26 Nov 11
Add contact | Send message When: 15 Oct 12 00:12 Joined: Date Joined: 26 Nov 11 | Topic/replies: 3,887 | Blogger: CJ70's blog
Again. Why would Liverpool have to be playing well to make it a value bet?

Hmmm, well given that he thought 1.52 was a ridiculous lay pre kick-off, I thought it would probably take something quite significant for him to realistically make them good value at 1.77 after 35 minutes. Then again, I suppose it could be due to a free kick or something. The short answer is, they didn't have to be playing well for it to be a value bet.

By:

Rowan86 When: 15 Oct 12 00:19

Sorry, I meant "ridiculously short" pre kick-off. Not a "ridiculous lay".

By:

CJ70 When: 15 Oct 12 00:20

You asked earlier why I suggested you didn't understand trading. You've just given the answer.

By:

Rowan86 When: 15 Oct 12 00:22

Well I don't even like the term "trading". Why not just call it "two bets"? Why give them a special name just because the two bets oppose each other?

By:

sofaking When: 15 Oct 12 00:23

I can't believe this Rowan cretin is still posting on this thread over a week after the event. He likes to throw around abuse and insults but at the end of the day he backed Pool at 1.52 and claimed it was "great value".

Mugs like you have made me a lot of cash over the last few seasons. Keep on keepin' on.

By:

Rowan86 When: 15 Oct 12 00:26

You backed Liverpool at 1.77 and you can't even give a sensible reason why.

By:

sofaking When: 15 Oct 12 00:30

By:

Rowan86 When: 15 Oct 12 00:30

We pretty much agree CJ. The only difference in our views is that I'm a lot more cynical than you about the motive behind SofaKing's second bet.

By:

CJ70 When: 15 Oct 12 00:33

Oct 15, 2012 -- 12:30AM, Rowan86 wrote:

We pretty much agree CJ. The only difference in our views is that I'm a lot more cynical than you about the motive behind SofaKing's second bet.

Why? Unless you are second guessing sofaking, you would have made the same bet.

Unless you are going to disagree with what you posted earlier?

By:

Rowan86 When: 15 Oct 12 00:36

CJ70 Date Joined: 26 Nov 11
Add contact | Send message When: 15 Oct 12 00:33 Joined: Date Joined: 26 Nov 11 | Topic/replies: 3,889 | Blogger: CJ70's blog

Oct 15, 2012 -- 12:30AM, Rowan86 wrote:

We pretty much agree CJ. The only difference in our views is that I'm a lot more cynical than you about the motive behind SofaKing's second bet.

Why? Unless you are second guessing sofaking, you would have made the same bet.

Unless you are going to disagree with what you posted earlier?

I agree that me making the same bet would be pretty consistent with what I've previous said, but that's different because;

1. I didn't say Liverpool were a ridiculous lay pre kick-off. SofaKing did.

2. SofaKing has given numerous silly explanations for his second bet;

"to reduce liabilties" and "to get a 16% increase". He hasn't said anything about value once. He could have said "Liverpool had a free kick" or something.

By:

Rowan86 When: 15 Oct 12 00:37

A ridiculously short price pre kick-off I mean.

By:

CJ70 When: 15 Oct 12 00:37

You can't accuse people of making silly statements after some of your posts in this thread.

Just give it up, see it as a bad bet and move on.

By:

Rowan86 When: 15 Oct 12 00:38

I'm not saying that's conclusive evidence, but it's very strong evidence and I'm not surprised other people came to the same conclusion.

By:

sofaking When: 15 Oct 12 00:40

Oct 15, 2012 -- 12:37AM, CJ70 wrote:

You can't accuse people of making silly statements after some of your posts in this thread.Just give it up, see it as a bad bet and move on.

Please stop responding to him CJ. This is probably the only "human contact" he's had all week.

By:

Rowan86 When: 15 Oct 12 00:41

It may have been a bad bet. I'm not really bothered about that.

What annoys me is the compulsive greening up brigade. Call me a cynic, but I'm pretty damn sure what SofaKing did was another example of a compulsive greening up bet. Do you really think I'd go on this long just because I'm annoyed about a bad bet? That'd be ridiculous. Maybe it was a bad bet. I'm not bothered. I'm much more interested in this compulsive greening up that I keep seeing.

By:

themover When: 15 Oct 12 00:45

errrm, it's an exchange

By:

sofaking When: 15 Oct 12 00:47

Oct 15, 2012 -- 12:45AM, themover wrote:

errrm, it's an exchange

We've been trying to explain that to him for over a week but he's a lost cause.

By:

CJ70 When: 15 Oct 12 00:47

In all fairness. You brought this thread back up because you thought you'd found something clever to say, you've made up quotes and generally been abusive. Do I think it's because you lost your bet? Yes I do. I'm surprised if anyone could make any other judgement.

This is my last post in the thread.

By:

sofaking When: 15 Oct 12 00:48

Thread locked.

By:

Darlo Bantam When: 15 Oct 12 00:56