Football
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.
Liverpoo 1.52 v Stoke City? Lay of the decade.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 568
|
By:
I don't see any problems with trading or greening up. However, "lay of the decade" at 1.52 does not become a back bet again at 1.77, just 35 minutes later.
|
|
By:
I backed a horse the other day with a view to trading as it was a front-runner. It was 33/1 at the off, I layed it for split green at 25/1 when it was about a dozen lengths clear. I thought it should have been shorter that 25/1 being so far ahead but I took the 25/1 as that was what I had decided to do pre-race....it fell at the next fence. I have no idea what sofa's intentions were other than he said it was lay of the decade at 1.52 and that he was going to trade the price in-play, which he did. I didn't see the match but I understand Stoke had been playing well but I also believe Liverpool had two decent chances shortly before the minute he traded. If I was sitting on a lay and that team had rattled the crossbar twice (not saying that happened here) I would also probably be out faster than a 15 year old at a Jim'll Fix it show
 |
|
By:
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. We can go around in circles on this one, so shall we agree to disagree? 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! In 2012, Liverpool have won 2 games at home to Everton and Chelsea, both probably at odds of 2.0 plus. They have lost 6 at home including to Wigan, West Brom and Fulham and drawn at home with, dare I say it, Stoke twice and Villa - I would assume in these 6 games Liverpool started at odds of under 2.0 Thanks for making me look at the stats properly, Liverpool's form is pretty appalling - I am going to look at laying ALL Liverpool games !! 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. I was referring to the use of form in the sense of writing "playing well, but not winning" rather than cold, hard stats (This season: W1, D2, L3). 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! That is my full argument - plus new stats above ! 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. That's right and the ones who then knock 10% off the price are called bookies aren't they? Sorry, I wasn't very clear in my question. I am not arguing the point of value, to me there is no argument. In the long term it must be the best way to profit - only how can it be shown/proven. |
|
By:
themover's blog
I backed a horse the other day with a view to trading as it was a front-runner. It was 33/1 at the off, I layed it for split green at 25/1 when it was about a dozen lengths clear. I thought it should have been shorter that 25/1 being so far ahead but I took the 25/1 as that was what I had decided to do pre-race....it fell at the next fence. I have no idea what sofa's intentions were other than he said it was lay of the decade at 1.52 and that he was going to trade the price in-play, which he did. I didn't see the match but I understand Stoke had been playing well but I also believe Liverpool had two decent chances shortly before the minute he traded. If I was sitting on a lay and that team had rattled the crossbar twice (not saying that happened here) I would also probably be out faster than a 15 year old at a Jim'll Fix it show I think the value guys will be happy with that Mover overall. Not sure how a pre-meditated lay sits with the value concept, but it looks like a sound plan to me: get on a front runner, wait for the price to drop and get out before it gets beaten. |
|
By:
Enough. Where the **** is the quote function in standard view?
 |
|
By:
only works in Live View BB
|
|
By:
OK, cheers for that tobermory - thought I was going a bit more nuts than usual
|
|
By:
|