Football
Liverpoo 1.52 v Stoke City? Lay of the decade.
|
By:
|
|
By:
not "how often things happen" Rowan86...more a case of when...and how that "when" fits into your own personal strategy.
personally the concept of "value" is utterly meaningless ...to me at least. fascinating subject though. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Okay then. In that case, don't you think the best approach is to not stake so much that you end up making bets purely to reduce your liability rather than because they're good value?
|
|
By:
 wd |
|
By:
This Rowan seems an angry chap.
|
|
By:
lol Owl4life. It is pretty annoying trying to explain the simplest of concepts to people that just can't seem to grasp them no matter how hard you try!
|
|
By:
Sofa King. You backed Liverpool at 1.77 after 35 mins of playing pretty mediocre football despite saying 1.52 was RIDICULOUS pre match. That's as muggy as it gets!
|
|
By:
'value' is simply a perception. u thought it was value and you were wrong.
op thought it was a value lay and he was proved right. thats gambling. someone has to be wrong and it was you. gl with your value theory tho, youre gonna need it if this result is anything to go by.   |
|
By:
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Fair point. I'll leave him to it.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
More money to be made on 20 October, 17 November and December 1, by laying pre-match odds below 2.00, when Liverpool are at home to Reading, Wigan and Southampton.
|
|
By:
you should not use the outcome to determine whether the pre match odds were value or not
|
|
By:
Judorick
you should not use the outcome to determine whether the pre match odds were value or not That is one of the few credible posts I've seen on this thread! Now explain to them why they always need to consider whether their bets are value irrespective of any previous bets made they've made on the event and you'll be the king of the thread, because I just can't inject logic into them! |
|
By:
|
|
By:
The value for me was the evs on under 2.5 blinding bet. wish i had put more on.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
questioning someone's opinion of value is ridiculous unless you are the dogs bollox of probability and never wrong. HTH
|
|
By:
A debate on value can always be interesting. That's not really the point though. SofaKing didn't even care whether his bet on Liverpool after 35 mins at 1.77 was value. He just did it to "green-up". What a muppet!
|
|
By:
I can't be asked to explain all this stuff
there are books, papers, websites and all manner of stuff that proves what we are talking about, people just need to educate themselves Reading a lot of poker books would help a lot of people get away from outcome based decision making anyway, see ya around fellas, I'm trading the NFL game |
|
By:
Good point Judorick. Cheers mate and good luck. Thanks for the injection of intelligence. :)
|
|
By:
That's fairly common I would suggest. A bit like making a trade on the stock exchange with a buy and sell point. I didn't see the match so I can't comment on the price after 35 mins but if the initial lay was with the view to a trade then I see no problem with that tbh. If Stoke had scored in the 36th minute he would have been spot on, the probability of that may have been small but we've all seen 1.01's busted on a daily basis.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Of course 1.01s get busted on a daily basis. A 1.01 by definition has a 1% chance of getting busted, yet almost every single market hits 1.01.
|
|
By:
I love comments like that. Oh "you see 1.01s get busted on a daily basis" without any regard for the % of times they get busted. Do they get busted more than 1% of the time might be an interesting question and even that question's pointless because why generalise 1.01s as if they're part of some family? Why not try and gauge the value of each 1.01 you see on its own merit?
|
|
By:
Rowan you are confusing a trader and a punter.
|
|
By:
Trading is the same as punting! It's just making more than one punt on the same event! Jesus wept! How can that be so hard to understand?
|
|
By:
Trading for the sake of trading is in essence bullshit. All you're guaranteeing is a winning bet and a losing bet and hoping for a green book - though sometimes it's a red book. But there will be plenty of trades which include a value bet and a poor value bet. As in the case of the OP. He found a great value lay but then backed it back again when it was still the same great value lay simply to give a green book.
|
|
By:
was it a great value lay? That might have been your opinion but I would suggest there were plenty of others that disagreed with you because otherwise it wouldn't have been that price.
|
|
By:
Absolutely spot on Darlo! Hallelujah! I can possibly accept that the pre-match lay at 1.52 MIGHT have been good value. That's a separate debate anyway. Personally I don't think it was, but that's not the point. The critical thing is that the value of Liverpool hadn't really changed at the point that SofaKing backed them and he was irrational in placing that bet purely for the purpose of "greening-up" (God I hate that bloody phrase!).
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
01:21 22628523886 2012-10-08
00:00 Fixtures 07 October River Plate v Godoy Cruz / Match Odds / River Plate Lay 1.09 2012-10-08 01:21 22628454289 2012-10-07 23:52 Fixtures 07 October River Plate v Godoy Cruz / Match Odds / River Plate Back 1.10 I wasn't watching the match...would you consider them as irrational? |
|
By:
It depends. It could be. It might not be.
|
|
By:
Another good post Darlo.
The Mover: It was irrational if you made the bets purely to green up rather than because you thought they were value. If you thought both bets were value, then of course it wasn't irrational. |
I just can't believe how many people don't understand this. You can only argue that it was a good bet at 1.77 on the basis that Liverpool had more than a 56.5% chance of winning ((1 / 1.77)*100)% from the moment he placed the bet. Any previous bet is COMPLETELY irrelevant, unless, I suppose, if you've staked so much that you're shi**ing yourself about your liability to the point that you don't care about value anymore. Why is this so hard to understand? I'm genuinely losing faith in the human race!