Man City price

Agreed is surprisingly generous. Especially taking into account recent form and recent history, and City finish strongly in the PL in the 2nd half of seasons (even last season). I decided to get stuck in.

Price seems value based on:

Man City Home record this season is Won 11, D2, L1

Therefore the probability of City winning at home is 78.5% and the market has them at 1.48 which is giving them a probability of 67.5%


In theory, if you were to bet £1 one hundred times at these odds and outcome probabilities then on average you would win £16.18

Man City v Nottm Forest -- Match Odds

3 Runners            £444,526 Matched

			100.7%		99.2%
Man City	1.46	1.47	1.48		1.49	1.5	1.51	£384,058
	£13,423	£20,002	£9,685		£7,421	£19,210	£6,521
Nottm Forest	7	7.2	7.4		7.8	8	8.2	£30,842
	£1,735	£2,365	£1,999		£2,476	£2,266	£1,943
The Draw	4.9	5	5.1		5.2	5.3	5.4	£29,626
	£3,817	£1,266	£2,461		£1,290	£4,865	£1,922

78.5% probability equates to 1.28 odds

Surely a drift of 1.37 to a high of 1.49 is too much of an overreaction based on Haaland not playing.

I've seen forest a couple of times since the new manager came in, away to Fenebache and home to liverpool and they looked half decent. Maybe this upturn in form is also contributing to the prices

could be, Pinny now into 1.414 though, was 1.45 earlier this avo.

haaland plays

Donnarumma G.
Nunes M.
Dias R.
Guehi M.
Ait-Nouri R.
Rodri
Cherki R.
Silva B.
Foden P.
Semenyo A.
Haaland E.

Haaland plays, I wondered why the odds have been contracting. Was 1.48 earlier today.

Leslie Crowther Spinning in his grave

Desmond

rubbish from city. ahead twice, pegged back twice. at home against a team towards the bottom of the league. not good enough and probably the end of their title challenge

Haaland 13 touches in 97+ minutes

Does that include kick offs

if odds look too good to be true they probably are

Very true. I was so confident City would roll this game I got well stuck in. Sadly it has dented my war chest for Cheltenham.

was on them myself storm but had the feeling that the odds knew something i did not. you would expect the odds to be shorter than they were but at the same time the odds are usually as they are for good reason even if it isnt obvious why

Missed Nico O'Reilly tonight. Very important for them lately

been saying it for months, this City side are not good enough to win the Title. It's Arsenal's to lose, even though they're not playing very well either.

Its betball its all a joke now

yes des

Another one that the monets got right.

PoP got this right, 1.49 into 1.43, the result is immaterial. If you back 1.43 shots at 1.49 you win long-term, if you lay 1.43 shots at 1.49 you will lose long-term.

I only had a small bet to be fair. I don't like betting PL on day of game as I'll usually know less than the Blooms of this world who are framing the market. I just couldn't understnd the odds. Turns out City just maybe aren't that good.

My larger bets are laying teams trying to win tournaments. Or backing teams leading the PL at Christmas. At some time backing Man Utd odds on when they were leading at Easter was very profitable.

Matches have always been risky, as yesterday confirmed yet again. It really was difficult to understand how Man City managed to not win that game after the 1st half performace.

Easter (Easter Mon) covers a potential period of 35 days.

I do wish peeps wood stop inferring it's a fixed day like Christmas.


But g/l with the punting.

If that winds you up, what about all these cnts using "lowkey" in every other sentence?

Na, it's just using easter statistically in compared to a fixed fckn day is worthless, even you should get that.

As 4 cnts, am sure u an expert.