Football
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Best ..WBA.
Worst.. Liverpool.
Worst.. Liverpool.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 28
|
By:
Before even opening this thread i knew the worst would be Liverpool, they must have been the worst last season too. Almost always odds on at home and hardly ever win.
7 wins in 26 league games in 2012 against..... Wolves (since relegated) Blackburn (since relegated) Everton (always beat them) Chelsea Norwich twice Hardly inspiring yet people still steam into them every week |
|
By:
Ditto.
|
|
By:
I didn't post the thread because it featured Liverpool,
I'm actually beginning to be somewhat sympathetic of them.  |
|
By:
Yeah me too, i actually like Rodgers, his passing football and what he's trying to do, just isn't happening though
|
|
By:
They will win this week.
|
|
By:
It's going to take more than a month of the season to change Liverpool's fortunes round.
|
|
By:
Liverpool are much the same as last season, but seem to be even shorter prices for no apparent reason
|
|
By:
after the match against United it was Liverpool's worst start to a season for 101 years. I could probably get my local school kids to pass a ball around a lot but I'm not sure they'd win anything
 |
|
By:
I'd have to agree that Liverpool have been the worst team to back this season as they desperately need a striker.
I would say Everton are a good side to follow so far and If it wasn't for some really strange decisions by refs they would be right up there at the top. |
|
By:
Regards Liverpool when does bad luck become bad play,was watching against udinese and instead of being 2-1 up they were 3-1 down within about 5 minutes
|
|
By:
liverpool always have a lot of the play but it's the fact that they don't do anything with it that's the problem.
|
|
By:
Problem backing L'pool is the prices they go
off at... WBA 1/1 ManC 21/10 Arsenal 23/20 Sunderland 13/10 ManU 15/8 Norwich 5/6 Stoke 8/13 so despite having won a game, you are worse off backing them than some sides who haven't won yet. Saving grace is perhaps that they have already played the perceived 3 sides. |
|
By:
Dodgy logic there kenil. If a side hasn't won yet then you could be getting 200/1 and you'd still have lost x stakes where x the number of games!
(I do know what you mean though, pool are always too short, and you're worse off than backing a team that's poor and won only one at ok odds.) |
|
By:
Not sure of your view ror. By backing L'pool in each of their
matches played so far, you would have lost more money than backing any other side in the league. For instance backing 'pool to beat Stoke at 8/13 to return 100 requires a stake of 62, whereas backing Stoke at 7/1 attracts just 12.5.(5 times as much) |
|
By:
Kenil: If you stake for a level profit, then yeah you'd have lost the most backing pool.
I stake to level liability, so I'd still have lost more (marginally so!) backing QPR, who have returned nothing so far. |
|
By:
ror, I'm not betting to a level profit, but a level RETURN,
including stake. For example 1/1 is 50 to win 50, returns 100, 6/4 is 40 to win 60, 100 return, 3/1 is 25 to win 75, return 100, etc, etc. It's the way I bet as it happens, but you do it your way, I really don't mind, but if you bet to win a fixed sum, say 100, a 1/5 chance would attract a stake of 500, whereas a 20/1 chance just 5. I couldn't back that way. |
|
By:
Liverpool were 1.85 at kickoff against west brom I backed them at 2.1. I used to get annoyed at Liverpool's short prices last season espicially after I got on the wrong end of the price move when they got backed in at newcastle away.now it's simple back them early lay off at kickoff let the Asian punters damage themselves when the wall of cash arrives overnight before the game :)
|
|
By:
Yeah me too, i actually like Rodgers, his passing football and what he's trying to do, just isn't happening though
yeah, no one else has ever tried that - the way people talk about Rodgers you would think he invented pass and move |
|
By:
L'pool for the last 2 or 3 years, have been difficult to
price up and it seems to me that that the early price compilers tend to err on the side of caution, but anyway this thread is about 20 teams in the PL to see who are correctly priced sides, and as only 7 matches have been played, it's early days IMO. |
|
By:
Kenilworth - I've been wanting to ask you this for ages.
Why do your posts come out in lines of 10 or so words? |
|
By:
Because I chose to do it that way. Does
it bother you at all ? |
|
By:
It does yes.
Not to worry though. |
|
By:
which sides are currently 9th and 10th and 11th
they should be ones to avoid ??? |
|
By:
Ah fair enough Kenilworth, I hadn't thought about that third way of staking, I'll have to incorporate that into my analyses some time.
|
|
By:
Not sure of your view ror. By backing L'pool in each of their
matches played so far, you would have lost more money than backing any other side in the league. For instance backing 'pool to beat Stoke at 8/13 to return 100 requires a stake of 62, whereas backing Stoke at 7/1 attracts just 12.5.(5 times as much) ror, Ken is the master of this type of staking. You should from the above figures his methodology is always bang on |
|
By:
There is no ''correct'' way of staking, there are other ways.
I prefer the one I have outlined, others may prefer something different. |
|
By:
best chelsea
worst liverpool by a distance |
|
By:
expat09, do I smell a bit of sarcasm, or am I
being a little sensitive ? |