Best and worst Premier League sides to back so far...

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

Ditto.

I didn't post the thread because it featured Liverpool,
I'm actually beginning to be somewhat sympathetic of
them.

Yeah me too, i actually like Rodgers, his passing football and what he's trying to do, just isn't happening though

They will win this week.

It's going to take more than a month of the season to change Liverpool's fortunes round.

Liverpool are much the same as last season, but seem to be even shorter prices for no apparent reason

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.)

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)

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.

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.

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 :)

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

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.

Kenilworth - I've been wanting to ask you this for ages.

Why do your posts come out in lines of 10 or so words?

Because I chose to do it that way. Does
it bother you at all ?

It does yes.

Not to worry though.

which sides are currently 9th and 10th and 11th

they should be ones to avoid  ???

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.

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

There is no ''correct'' way of staking, there are other ways.
I prefer the one I have outlined, others may prefer something
different.

best chelsea
worst liverpool by a distance

expat09, do I smell a bit of sarcasm, or am I
being a little sensitive ?