Football
Liverpoo 1.52 v Stoke City? Lay of the decade.
|
By:
"even though he wasn't watching the match".
Like it. Just like you weren't watching the other match you traded higher up in the thread. |
|
By:
correct Darlo. As I stated it was a bet for a quick trade and nothing to do with what was happening on the pitch.
|
|
By:
It's not so much what he could have run, but his true odds.
If you green at any price but let reds run, then you're not really getting the odds you thought you were in the first place. But don't worry, I learned years ago over in "general betting" that you can't educate a gambler, least of all a "trader". |
|
By:
I didn't see the match ror, what iyo were the true odds after 37 minutes when it was 1.77?
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Liverpool, in my book, were a 1.8 shot after 15 minutes.
|
|
By:
Personally, I wouldn't be backing Liverpool at odds-on at the moment at all. I wouldn't be laying them necessarily, but I wouldn't be confident they have a 50 per cent chance of winning many games - particularly not league games. But that's an entirely different argument.
|
|
By:
sofaking
Oct 8, 2012 -- 12:21PM, Leo0nAHigh wrote: 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. Cheers Leo, this Rowan chap just won't let it go. He backed Pool at 1.52 and also 2-0 and 3-0 scorelines (all are posted above) but yet he comes on here trying to ridicule me. Quelle idiot. I just don't get why you said Liverpool were a huge lay at 1.52 pre kick-off and then went on to back them at 1.77 after 35 mins and back them again at 3.0 with 12 mins + injury time left. Just seems a bit bizarre. I'm interested to know why you made those bets. Can you explain please? Just interested... |
|
By:
|
|
By:
If i made those bets/trades it would be because I'd overstaked and knew if events went against me i'd be shafted.
It's like when people green out when the team they backed goes 1-0 up regardless of price they'd usually be far, far better off operating in the next goal market. |
|
By:
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!
It's hard enough trying to explain the value concept to the average gambler let alone "traders"! |
|
By:
Liverpoo 1.52 v Stoke City? Lay of the decade.
sofaking sofaking 05 Oct 12 20:21 Joined: 08 Nov 07 | Topic/replies: 13,001 | Blogger: sofaking's blog These are two fairly evenly matched teams so Liverpool are ridiculously short as usual. I'll be laying and trading in play. From what i saw,Liverpool didnt win,the OP was correct........end of thread  |
|
By:
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
You wouldn't back the
'Lay of the decade' back at 0-0 when the price is only 1.77 after almost a half the game has passed though. What people do/ how they operate is their business but a thread titled 'Lay of the decade' then back that Lay of the decade back at the price is daft. If the lay was made the day before at 1.52 a price of 1.77 pre game may well have made it a back. It all depends on what you had them priced at. i.e you had Liverpool at 1.66 so 1.52 was a lay but, if team news was as expected, and they had drifted to 1.77 pre kick off they'd then become a back. What you think will happen has no baring you just back/lay the prices. |
|
By:
But that's the whole point - everyone sees value or bets in different places.
Each to their own isnt it....far be it from me to tell him how to trade his bets. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
I didn't totally green out at 1.77. There's a lot of crap being written in this thread. Here is my original post.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
And this classic from Rowan86. And this classic from Rowan86.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
I don't need to explain myself to the likes of you. I make money here and it's quite clear that you don't. "Liverpool at 1.52 a good value back".
 Anyway, I'm done here. Hope you realise soon that Betfair is not for you before you do too much damage to your bank. Good evening. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
mrfishfingers 05 Oct 12 20:46 Joined: 04 Apr 11 | Topic/replies: 1,730 | Blogger: mrfishfingers's blog
Liverpool will SMASH UFC united into bits. Suarez 2 goals or more. Gerrard to score. Pulis to run down the tunnel crying like the gim p he is NAP  |
|
By:
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
"Well it doesn't make sense to "enter the market to buy something". You make money by making good value bets. I think your fallacy is rooted in your intent on making a net profit over all bets on a particular event. You don't get a bonus prize for making a net profit on an event, so why not just focus on making good value bets?"
You entered the market and bought Liverpool at 1.52. In your opinion it was value. 2012-10-06 23:54 22598125768 2012-10-06 23:39 Fixtures 06 October Estudiantes v Quilmes / Match Odds / Quilmes Back 140.00 2012-10-06 23:54 22598161883 2012-10-06 23:43 Fixtures 06 October Estudiantes v Quilmes / Match Odds / Quilmes Lay 14.60 2012-10-06 23:54 22598165037 2012-10-06 23:44 Fixtures 06 October Estudiantes v Quilmes / Match Odds / Quilmes Lay 15.50 That one took 4 minutes on a buy at 140.0 and a sell at 14.6/15.5 Good luck with your 1.52 Liverpool to win "value" bets. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Why did you think Liverpool were good value at 1.52?
|
|
By:
Actually, there's another valid approach!
Let's say there's a factor that you think will cause a disproportionate downward swing in the price of an event, which we'll call "event A". We'll call the factor; "factor X". You're not sure whether other punters betting on the market will overestimate or underestimate the significance of factor X. So, you back event A prior to the occurence of factor X and then lay event A after its occurence, as you don't know whether the back or the lay is likely to offer better value, but you think one will offer sufficient value to compensate any bad value that the other one might represent. You keep doing this for a while because it seems to be profitable. However, it makes sense that the disproportionate price swings are either being caused by the market consistently overestimating the significance of factor X or consistently underestimating the significance of factor X, because why else would you see consistently disproportionate price swings? It's unlikely that the market is arbitrarily overestimating and then underestimating factor X. So the next step is to take a sample of your results and see whether its your backs that are more profitable (in which case the market is consistently overestimating the significance of factor X), or your lays that are more profitable (in which case the market is consistently underestimating the significance of factor X). You then optimise your profits by solely backing prior to the occurence of factor X, or solely laying after the occurence of factor X, accordingly. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Do you think the hammering of a poor Norwich side tricked you into backing at a silly price?
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Did you back Tottenham at home to Villa?
|
|
By:
No.
|
|
By:
Interesting that they were around the same price and against poorer opposition and you didn't back them.
|