Liverpoo 1.52 v Stoke City? Lay of the decade.

sofaking

That's a 17% increase in 30 minutes.  My local bank offers me 3% per annum.

hahahah

That's the silliest explanation for making that bet ever. Thanks for basically admitting that you were being silly.

It's not silly at all.    Some punters on Betfair (with huge banks) are happy to take one or two ticks at a time.   I took twenty five.   I'm risk adverse and regularly "green up" whenever possible.   Anyway, I'm too busy now for this conversation.

Yes, that is plain stupid. You've basically admitted that you made the bet for no reason whatsoever. Thanks for exposing yourself.

Cop on you cretin.   What the **** is going on in your head?  I'm getting bored tring to explain myself to you.  I make a decent profit on Betfair.  You are just a grade A mug.

Rowan86, if you want people to take seriously you should stop intentionally misquoting them. It's not the first time and just reinforces the opinion that you are just after an argument.

Go out, do something.. Forget about your short priced loser and move on.

"I'm risk adverse and green up whenever possible". You make bets for sake of greening up. That seriously doesn't make sense. That is plan b*llsh*t. I can't believe you waste all this time making random bets. What an idiot.

You call me an idiot yet these were your bets for the Liverpool game.

Rowan86 • October 7, 2012 3:13 PM BST
My bets were Liverpool 2-0 at 8.2 and Liverpool 3-0 at 12.0. Painful to see people laying Liverpool at 1.52. That's a big price.     Rowan86 • October 7, 2012 3:03 PM BST
1.52 is a big price for Liverpool today. Great bet.

.   

You are a pathetic, angry loser.  Don't post on my threads again.

These are 2 of your bets from the game:

Liverpool to win at 1.77 after 35 mins and
Liverpool to win at 3.0 with 12 mins + injury time left.

The real inanity is in your theory that it somehow doesn't matter whether those bets were value or not because of a previous bet you made on the game. Any previous bet you made on the game should have no influence on any subsequent bet you make.

CJ

This is an exact quote:

CJ70

You need to learn how to use Betfair, Rowan86.

If you are betting on Germany v San Marino, the best policy is to trade off and take profit. Anything can happen in football

I've actually realised what you said was even more meaningless than I thought! That just doesn't mean anything at all!

If it was that easy why try and intentionally misquote me in the first place? It makes you look like a bit of a duffer.

I did start typing out why 1.77 could be both good and bad value and how the result of the game doesn't matter. I've thought better of it as you are clearly only here to throw tantrums.

CJ70 Date Joined: 26 Nov 11
Add contact | Send message When: 14 Oct 12 10:38 Joined: Date Joined: 26 Nov 11 | Topic/replies: 3,864 | Blogger: CJ70's blog
If it was that easy why try and intentionally misquote me in the first place? It makes you look like a bit of a duffer.

I was pretty sure that's what you wrote. What did you mean by that anyway? I assumed you meant that if you've backed Germany against San Marino and they're winning, it's best to trade out and take a profit the first time I saw your post. It's hard to make sense of it because you're not really even saying anything by it. Pretty similar to nearly every post you've made on this thread. The only interesting one you made was one where you were explaining how Liverpool might have been good value at 1.77 after 35 mins. I thought at that point you'd realised the fallacy endorsed by many traders that think that value isn't important if they're making a bet to guarantee a profit on an event.

However, it seems you're still stuck in this mindset that somehow traders are protected from poor value when they make a bet that creates an "all green book".

The simple fact is that if you keep staking evenly at 1.77 and win less than 56.5% of your bets, you lose money. Any other bet made on the same event does not compensate for that.

I did start typing out why 1.77 could be both good and bad value and how the result of the game doesn't matter. I've thought better of it as you are clearly only here to throw tantrums.

Right , this is brilliant. You were going to come up with a case for why 1.77 could have been good value?

This is you making a statement that Liverpool were "unlikely" to win pre-kick off, which equates to them having less than a 50% of winning, which equates to their "true price" being above 2.0:

CJ70

I'm not trying to justify making a fan bet, mate.

At the end of the day, you got caught backing short odds on a result that was unlikely to happen.

You then try and come up with an argument that Liverpool might have been value at 1.77 at 0-0 after 35 mins. The only way that could realistically be possible would be if Stoke had had a player sent off or Liverpool had a penalty.

That's just plain stupid. You priced Liverpool at above 2.0 pre kick-off and then think they might be value at 1.77 after 35 mins at 0-0. This is just getting silly. Don't know why I'm bothering!

The only reason you are bothering is to try and provoke an argument because you are still troubled by the loss of your bet.

The fake quotes, the bad attitude, the childish insults. All add to the same thing.

I better just clarify what I meant by the following statement to avoid any potential confusion:

You then try and come up with an argument that Liverpool might have been value at 1.77 at 0-0 after 35 mins. The only way that could realistically be possible would be if Stoke had had a player sent off or Liverpool had a penalty.

I meant that that's the only way that could have been realistically possible if Liverpool were a genuine 2.0+ shot pre kick-off. This is a waste of time anyway because you think that the value of a bet isn't as important, or isn't important at all if that bet guarantees a profit on the event. You lack the ability to view things long-term because you place too much emphasis on making a profit on an event rather than trying to profit over many events.

CJ70 Date Joined: 26 Nov 11
Add contact | Send message When: 14 Oct 12 14:56 Joined: Date Joined: 26 Nov 11 | Topic/replies: 3,865 | Blogger: CJ70's blog
The only reason you are bothering is to try and provoke an argument because you are still troubled by the loss of your bet.

The fake quotes, the bad attitude, the childish insults. All add to the same thing.

I lost £20 on the event. I backed Liverpool to 1-0 at about 8.0 and to win 2-0 at about 12.0. That's not what I'm interested in.

I'm interested in debunking your trading fallacy. That's a much bigger issue.

Just because Betfair allows you the ability to trade your initial positions, doesn't mean that either you have to or indeed should do.

Oct 14, 2012 -- 2:56PM, CJ70 wrote:

The only reason you are bothering is to try and provoke an argument because you are still troubled by the loss of your bet.The fake quotes, the bad attitude, the childish insults. All add to the same thing.

Exactly.  Can't believe this epic mug (Rowan) is still posting here. Will he ever let it go.   

The difference is, Rowan lost one bet on this match, you lost two. Fair enough your first bet was a very good one imo, and you did win money, but you still lost two bets.

Oct 13, 2012 -- 8:09PM, sofaking wrote:

You call me an idiot yet these were your bets for the Liverpool game.Rowan86 • October 7, 2012 3:13 PM BSTMy bets were Liverpool 2-0 at 8.2 and Liverpool 3-0 at 12.0. Painful to see people laying Liverpool at 1.52. That's a big price.     Rowan86 • October 7, 2012 3:03 PM BST1.52 is a big price for Liverpool today. Great bet. .   You are a pathetic, angry loser.  Don't post on my threads again.

Rowan lost THREE bets.  Liverpool to win, Liverpool. 2-0 and Liverpool 3-0.   I made a LARGE profit on this game.

Oct 14, 2012 -- 3:21PM, Darlo Bantam wrote:

The difference is, Rowan lost one bet on this match, you lost two. Fair enough your first bet was a very good one imo, and you did win money, but you still lost two bets.

Quite possibly the most ridiculous statement I've ever read on Betfair though.

And why? Because you made money on one game and Rowan didn't. Making money needs long-term wins not just one match.

Oct 14, 2012 -- 3:09PM, Darlo Bantam wrote:

Just because Betfair allows you the ability to trade your initial positions, doesn't mean that either you have to or indeed should do.

Quite. If the value is with you, what should you do? If I offer 100/1 on Liverpool at 30 minutes would you take it and have a losing bet as well as a winning bet, or would you leave it for the sake of it?

I thought this thread had run it's course about a week ago?????

Exactly CJ. If you take each bet at its own face value irrespective of a bet already in the same market, then that's a winning move. The alternative is if you think Liverpool - in this example - would drift in the first 30 minutes by x percent irrespective of whatever value they were at the start.

CJ70 Date Joined: 26 Nov 11
Add contact When: 14 Oct 12 15:27
Oct 14, 2012 -- 9:09AM, Darlo Bantam wrote:

Just because Betfair allows you the ability to trade your initial positions, doesn't mean that either you have to or indeed should do.


Quite. If the value is with you, what should you do? If I offer 100/1 on Liverpool at 30 minutes would you take it and have a losing bet as well as a winning bet, or would you leave it for the sake of it?

I would take it because 100/1 is obviously good value. Your point earlier seemed to be that value isn't important if you're trading.

The key is that any previous bet you've made on the event should have absolutely no influence over your judgement of whether you should make a subsquent bet on the event.

Oct 14, 2012 -- 3:28PM, DaveEdwards wrote:

I thought this thread had run it's course about a week ago?????

It did but Rowan keeps bumping it.   His seething and bitterness shows no sign of abating.

SofaKing. You're right about me seething, but not why I'm seething. I'm seething at people's inability to grasp the value concept and what I've dubbed the "trading fallacy".

Rowan86 • October 14, 2012 3:39 PM BST
The contents of this post have been hidden for this blocked user. [Manage blocked users]

Darlo Bantam Date Joined: 27 Mar 07
Add contact | Send message When: 14 Oct 12 15:29 Joined: Date Joined: 27 Mar 07 | Topic/replies: 5,728 | Blogger: Darlo Bantam's blog
The alternative is if you think Liverpool - in this example - would drift in the first 30 minutes by x percent irrespective of whatever value they were at the start.

Yes! That's a logical approach to trading. If you think the swing in Liverpool price from kick off to 30 mins elapsed if likely to be disproportionate, but you're not sure whether the market is going to overestimate or underestimate the factor that you think will cause the disproportionate swing, so you take the approach that you think the bet you make before kick off will offer enough value to compensate for any poor value the second bet you make might have OR that the second bet will be good enough value to compensate for any poor value the first bet might have.

Oct 14, 2012 -- 3:29PM, Darlo Bantam wrote:

Exactly CJ. If you take each bet at its own face value irrespective of a bet already in the same market, then that's a winning move. The alternative is if you think Liverpool - in this example - would drift in the first 30 minutes by x percent irrespective of whatever value they were at the start.

That's the key isn't it. Restricting yourself to a single bet for the sake of it is silly if you can constantly be ahead of the game. So whether you have two losing bets and a winning bet or fifty losing bets and fifty winning bets, if you are taking the bets above the market your going to be a winner.

Rowan86, is arguing that the market is linear and there is no value in 1.77 if you have already taken at 1.52.

Oct 14, 2012 -- 3:31PM, Rowan86 wrote:

CJ70 Date Joined: 26 Nov 11 Add contact When: 14 Oct 12 15:27 Oct 14, 2012 -- 9:09AM, Darlo Bantam wrote:Just because Betfair allows you the ability to trade your initial positions, doesn't mean that either you have to or indeed should do.Quite. If the value is with you, what should you do? If I offer 100/1 on Liverpool at 30 minutes would you take it and have a losing bet as well as a winning bet, or would you leave it for the sake of it?I would take it because 100/1 is obviously good value. Your point earlier seemed to be that value isn't important if you're trading.

So you've got a losing bet and a winning bet now. Giving value away in your terms.

You didn't listen to my point earlier as you had no interest in anything apart from making arguments to justify why you made a fan bet.

Oct 14, 2012 -- 3:45PM, Rowan86 wrote:

Darlo Bantam Date Joined: 27 Mar 07 Add contact | Send message When: 14 Oct 12 15:29 Joined: Date Joined: 27 Mar 07 | Topic/replies: 5,728 | Blogger: Darlo Bantam's blog  The alternative is if you think Liverpool - in this example - would drift in the first 30 minutes by x percent irrespective of whatever value they were at the start.Yes! That's a logical approach to trading. If you think the swing in Liverpool price from kick off to 30 mins elapsed if likely to be disproportionate, but you're not sure whether the market is going to overestimate or underestimate the factor that you think will cause the disproportionate swing, so you take the approach that you think the bet you make before kick off will offer enough value to compensate for any poor value the second bet you make might have OR that the second bet will be good enough value to compensate for any poor value the first bet might have.

Until you realise that the result has no influence on a traders decision the longer you'll be in the dark.

No point arguing with an idiot, CJ.   You can never win.

Oct 14, 2012 -- 9:21PM, sofaking wrote:

No point arguing with an idiot, CJ.

Quote hasn't worked once again.

"True, Rowan86 is just having tantrums and will probably end up on the blocked list.

I'm interested in what Darlo says in relation to Rowan86's temper tantrums, you can always learn something from someone holding a different opinion"

CJ70 Date Joined: 26 Nov 11
Add contact | Send message When: 14 Oct 12 21:08 Joined: Date Joined: 26 Nov 11 | Topic/replies: 3,875 | Blogger: CJ70's blog


So you've got a losing bet and a winning bet now. Giving value away in your terms.

You didn't listen to my point earlier as you had no interest in anything apart from making arguments to justify why you made a fan bet.

Oh right. Now I get what you mean. No, I'm not against making subsequent bets on markets at all and you're right that the market isn't linear. 1.77 might even have been value at the time even if 1.52 was "ridiculously short" pre kick-off as SofaKing put it, although that's bloody unlikely! That's hypothetically possible. So why did you keep saying I don't understand trading? That was the main cause of my disagreement with you.


The point is, SofaKing didn't make the bet at 1.77 because it was value. He admitted that he only made it because it gave him "a 16% increase in his bank" and to "reduce liabilities". It's obviously silly to make a bet purely on that basis.

You are going back on what you previously said now.

CJ70 Date Joined: 26 Nov 11
Add contact | Send message When: 14 Oct 12 22:21 Joined: Date Joined: 26 Nov 11 | Topic/replies: 3,876 | Blogger: CJ70's blog
You are going back on what you previously said now.

It is possible that 1.52 could be a ridiculously good value lay pre kick off and a good value back after 35 mins at 1.77. I'm not saying that's impossible, although I think it's highly unlikely and it does seem rather bizarre.

My main argument was that SofaKing made it abundantly clear that he purely made the back at 1.77 to "reduce liabilities" and give him a "16% increase". That's obviously inane.

Why is that insane? You said yourself you would have greened up if the price was right.

CJ70 Date Joined: 26 Nov 11
Add contact | Send message When: 14 Oct 12 22:38 Joined: Date Joined: 26 Nov 11 | Topic/replies: 3,877 | Blogger: CJ70's blog
Why is that insane? You said yourself you would have greened up if the price was right.

Yes, IF the price was right. I would back Liverpool at 1.77 if I thought that was a good price irrespective of any other bet I'd made. SofaKing has made it absolutely clear that he made that bet, not because he thought it was a good price, but purely because of a previous bet he had made on the market.

It's probably so insane that you can't get your head around it! I can empathise with that!

Oct 14, 2012 -- 10:40PM, Rowan86 wrote:

CJ70 Date Joined: 26 Nov 11 Add contact | Send message When: 14 Oct 12 22:38 Joined: Date Joined: 26 Nov 11 | Topic/replies: 3,877 | Blogger: CJ70's blog Why is that insane? You said yourself you would have greened up if the price was right.Yes, IF the price was right. I would back Liverpool at 1.77 if I thought that was a good price irrespective of any other bet I'd made. SofaKing has made it absolutely clear that he made that bet, not because he thought it was a good price, but purely because of a previous bet he had made on the market.

So it couldn't be a good price if you previously were involved in the market?

By: This user is online. CJ70 Date Joined: 26 Nov 11
Add contact | Send message When: 14 Oct 12 22:47 Joined: Date Joined: 26 Nov 11 | Topic/replies: 3,878 | Blogger: CJ70's blog

Oct 14, 2012 -- 10:40PM, Rowan86 wrote:


So it couldn't be a good price if you previously were involved in the market?

It makes no difference either way. Whether you've made a previous bet or not on the event is completely meaningless.

completely irrelevant* I should say.

Oct 14, 2012 -- 10:48PM, Rowan86 wrote:

By: This user is online. CJ70 Date Joined: 26 Nov 11 Add contact | Send message When: 14 Oct 12 22:47 Joined: Date Joined: 26 Nov 11 | Topic/replies: 3,878 | Blogger: CJ70's blog Oct 14, 2012 -- 10:40PM, Rowan86 wrote:So it couldn't be a good price if you previously were involved in the market?It makes no difference either way. Whether you've made a previous bet or not on the event is completely meaningless.

You are confusing yourself again. So after 13 pages and resurrecting this thread x amount of times you are now saying that sofaking could have been taking a value bet?

I'd be just as likely to back Liverpool at 1.77 if I'd layed them at 1.52 as I would be if I hadn't. Just making my position clear!

CJ70 Date Joined: 26 Nov 11
Add contact | Send message When: 14 Oct 12 22:51 Joined: Date Joined: 26 Nov 11 | Topic/replies: 3,879 | Blogger: CJ70's blog

You are confusing yourself again. So after 13 pages and resurrecting this thread x amount of times you are now saying that sofaking could have been taking a value bet?

I haven't contradicted myself once. That's always been my view. He could have been making a value bet. If he'd just said "oh, Liverpool were playing much better than I expected and I suddenly thought they were value at 1.77", there wouldn't be an argument. The reasons he gave were insane. He just did it because he's part of the "greening up at all costs" brigade!

Not sure how you are going to untie yourself on this one.

haha, I haven't contradicted myself once. Seriously. I just find it annoying that people make bets purely to green up rather than because they think it's value. SofaKing has made absolutely clear that that's why he made the bet. Can't you see that? People do that very often. It's a common theme.

The reason this has gone on for ages is because I was convinced you were saying value isn't important when you're greening up and you thought I was saying it was impossible that SofaKing's second bet was good value. We actually believed the same thing all along!

That's not quite right. I meant that you were convinced that I was saying that it was impossible for 1.77 to be good value if 1.52 was ridiculously short. I never said that. That was just the main reason I thought SofaKing made the second bet purely to green up because it seemed a strange thing to do.

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.

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.   

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.

"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?

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.

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.

*gets popcorn.

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.

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.

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

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.

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: 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!

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

A ridiculously short price pre kick-off I mean.

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.

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.

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.

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.

errrm, it's an exchange

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.

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.

Thread locked.

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

errrm, it's an exchange

I'll repeat what I said earlier, just because you can do something, does not mean you have to or should do. This was one of those examples.

you mean decide on how you are going to play an event and then change your mind halfway through depending on the circumstances at the time? pffft cba with that

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.

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

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.

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.

Enough. Where the **** is the quote function in standard view?

only works in Live View BB

OK, cheers for that tobermory - thought I was going a bit more nuts than usual

Oct 7, 2012 -- 3:37PM, sofaking wrote:

Pool now 1.77.

sofaking • October 7, 2012 3:37 PM BST
Pool now 1.77.  Greening up a LITTLE.

Here is my original quote from the game. Notice the "LITTLE" in CAPITAL letters.   This Rowan chap has been twisting just about
everything I've said on this thread.  By the way,  his tips for this game were "Liverpool to win, Liverpool to win 2-0 and Liverpool to win 3-0"   All losers.