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 wasn't watching the match so I had no idea whether it was value or not, but I estimated it wouldn't take long to drop .01
|
|
By:
well I thought the 1.1 was value because it would quickly be 1.09 (in this case 8 seconds), but that had no bearing on what was happening on the pitch or the likely outcome of the event. (River Plate were 2-0 up at the time, it ended 5-0 but I wasn't backing on the outcome I was backing on a price movement in a short space of time - 8 seconds as it turned out).
|
|
By:
Just going to bed now Mover. I'll reply to that tomorrow. Good night. :)
|
|
By:
Good night, sleep well :)
|
|
By:
I only got to page 6 of this lol thread but rowan was right. Bad value greening is bad value, and just gives away profit.
Laying 1.52 then backing 1.77 is the equivalent of backing that outcome at around 1.2. So you essentially backed stoke to be level or ahead after 30 mins at 1.2. A terrible bet. You.then gave away even more backing pool at 3.0. How much net profit did you actually make in the end, relative to your initial stake? If you let it all ride you'd have made close to 2/1 on your money, I'd wager you made less than evens. The green at any cost brigade is what keeps the big algotraders in profit, they sit there getting amazing value in the last ten minutes as everyone panics. |
|
By:
YES!! Faith in humanity further restored by ror!! Well done Pal.
 This has to be a classic thread! |
|
By:
traders and punters have different mentalities.
|
|
By:
well done Sofaking - i was probably a bit harsh but you got it right - hope you got plenty
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
"If you let it all ride you'd have made close to 2/1 on your money, I'd wager you made less than evens"
hindsight is a wonderful thing  |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Lol - makes me laugh how when someone wins there needs to be a postmortem of all figures before a simply well done can occur - had Liverpool won would just be full of one word insults.
Well done Sofaking. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
You are Rowan under a different username?
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Just saw this in a racing thread :
Two gambling mates going to the dog track and are arguing over who was the better punter, where one takes the pi$$ out of the other saying he's so rubbish at betting that even if he backed the hare he would still lose, so his mate takes him up on that and they have a even £100 on the outcome. They both put their money down and the bell goes for the hare running, the traps open and obviously the hare crosses the line first with the 3 and 4 dogs next in a photo, to which the hare backer pi$$es himself laughing saying it's the easiest ton he's ever made as he goes to pick up the money, where upon his mate tells him. "Hold on a minute until we know the result of the photo first" So his mate stops laughing and gets the needle saying. "Come off it ffs, it doesn't matter about the photo and we've both just watched the hare cross the line in front of the dogs and so it's clearly won" only to hear his mate reply "Well you know that, I know that but the judge has just given it to the 4 dog!"   |
|
By:
There is no constant value. The joy of the exchange is that there could be value on Stoke, Liverpool or the Draw fields at any one point.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
so what your'e saying Darlo is that if the Liverpool price all throughout the match was no value then you should leave the lay at 1.52 in place even though you might have initially entered the market to buy something at 1.52 and sell it at a higher price in-running? Did you back Liverpool at any point during the match when you thought they were value?
|
|
By:
Strictly yes. Not all bets are winning ones - I don't think even the most confident punter can pretend they aren't - so long-term statistical theory shows that good value losing bets are still better than poor value winning ones. All greening out is doing is making another bet. It can be a good value bet or a bad value bet.
ror's post above is an excellent one to explain trading theory. |
|
By:
you haven't answered whether or not you backed Liverpool at any price during the match when they were value?
|
|
By:
I wasn't involved in the Liverpool match at all. Why does that even matter.
|
|
By:
ror's post is nothing to do with trading, ror's post is about what sofa could have won if he wanted a punt on the match and had left his initial lay in place.
|
|
By:
So to quote you from your earlier thread :
"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. So you weren't involved in the match and didn't have a bet yet you are happy to post that the sofaking traded out at a price that was a great value lay. How come you weren't in on this "great value lay"? |
|
By:
Because I agree with him that 1.52 is a lay price on Liverpool at the moment. And therefore in 30 minutes of football, I still think the price he backed at is also a lay price.
|
|
By:
so you must have watched the match to think the price he backed at was wrong, so why wouldn't you lay something that you described in your own words as a "great value lay"?
|
|
By:
Why wouldn't I lay it? Probably because I never looked at this match and wasn't in yesterday. You know that you don't have to get involved in every match. Liverpool's price is almost always too low on here.
|
|
By:
so you didn't see the match?
|
|
By:
No. But if I think Liverpool is a lay at 1.52 I'm not going to change my mind that 1.77 is a back price after 30 minutes of football.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
so with that in mind, what price during the match would you have backed Liverpool at?
|
|
By:
I probably wouldn't. I wouldn't touch Liverpool with a bargepole at the moment. But you don't have to take one specific example to try counter-argue that trading for trading sake rather than for value's sake is giving away profit.
|
|
By:
Let's put it in other words, if the OP thought 1.52 was a lay bet at kick-off but 1.77 was a back bet when he greened out, then fair enough he's made a profitable trade. If the OP still thought 1.77 was a lay bet then he's done the counter-intuitive simply to "protect his bank". In the long-run, the former strategy is a winning one, but the latter one either is a losing one or at least limits a winning strategy.
|
|
By:
I have no idea what sofaking's intentions were pre-match but if you go into a trade looking to achieve a value lay and a value back then you are making your task considerably more difficult than by going into a trade saying I will buy at this price and sell at that with x% return.
|
|
By:
With regards to value is this right: if Sofaking had simply replied that he thought Liverpool were going to score so he took 1.77, it would have been a value back?
And this thread only 2 pages long |
|
By:
It's easy to aftertime so I'll take the easy route
 0-0 at 15 in this game was massive value and probably an overreaction to Liverpool scoring 5 at Norwich. |
|
By:
it's all a bit confusing Bertie
but this is what we have so far to go on :1. ror has advised on what sofaking could have won if he had let his lay run (said in Jim Bowen style )2. rowan86 backed pool at 1.52 but then seems to be advising 1.77 was a lay after 37 minutes (I assume he was a layer at 1.77 but I have no evidence to back this up) 3. Darlo has advised 1.77 was a great value lay although he wasn't watching the match and this was on the premise that he felt Liverpool were a lay at 1.52 pre-match and 30 minutes of football wouldn't have changed his mind. 4. buzzer has chipped in with a 0-0 being "massive value" at odds of 15.0 |
