At long last, I have now accepted the fact that it is impossible to win long-term by BACKING in Match Odds football. Of course, we have all enjoyed a winning streak, dodging bullets for a while. But you can’t back and win consistently enough to achieve long-term profit.
Barcelona were, for me, the last bastion of sanity in the game, but their 2-0 home defeat by newly-promoted Hercules last weekend has now convinced me to give up backing ANYONE. Amazingly, I did not even back Barca myself this time because their pre-match odds were just too ludicrous for words. That they also failed to deliver in the Over 2.5 scenario is another shattering realisation that no-one can be trusted.
Much as you put in the time and effort to study all the stats, do your homework on team line-ups and try to predict and cover every angle possible, you will always be stuffed by someone, somewhere. Be it one of the 22 mostly incompetent, overpaid and overhyped players or the three/four equally incompetent officials, or the clever managers who think they’re smart by leaving out their star man three days before what they consider to be a more important game. One of them will f*** your bet up.
The game is wracked with the illogical. We see it week in, week out, as one favourite is toppled by the outsider. The general erosion of playing standards across the glove at all levels of football has only made it even harder to consistently win by backing the team you think will win.
I know, I should have reached this inescapable truth many moons ago, but there you are. Mug, that’s me. I’ve learnt the hard way.
So it’s lay, lay, lay all the way for me from now on. Small stakes (£2 or £3 to win £100). Just wait until 10 mins from time and watch as, without warning, one team capitulates to the other. Preferably after holding a comfortable-looking two goal lead, so that we’re into 1.02 and 1.01 territory by then.
All it takes is patience and discipline. It happens time and again, week after week.
There is no other way to win consistently on 1x2 football betting.
My point is that given that such relationships exist, you will find odds that aren't in line with what they should be. Obviously not with this example as it is so simple.
FAFH,My point is that given that such relationships exist, you will find odds that aren't in line with what they should be. Obviously not with this example as it is so simple.
So who was the "wrong side winning" in 3 of above games ....?
"Usually" ....3 out of 4 sides that were ahead in above games ended up NOT WINNING! So how can you say "usually"....
If you mean the MATCH ODDS being "wrong" when the "wrong" side is winning.......were they "wrong" when 3 out of 4 games above did not finish with them winning.
If you mean the odds for 0-1 in LIVERPOOL game being "wrong".......surely the odds will be higher in CS MARKET for 0-1 when the less fancied team is ahead, and this just reflects the "usual" result in that "USUALLY" another goal will be scored.....
To make such a sweeping statement that "The odds at 0-1 are usually wrong when the wrong side is winning". ......is just incorrect as "USUALLY" another goal will be scored ....and "USUALLY" by the fancied team. 4 out of 4 matches above did not remain 0-1.
On Saturday 8 out of 9 matches never remained either 1-0 or 0-1 once a goal was scored.............the other game stayed 0-0.
So it appears to me that the "correct" statement is the market is usually correct keeping the odds high on 0-1......as it is unlikely to remain that way when the less fancied team is ahead 0-1.
Tottenham Hotspur 2 - 1 Aston Villa West Bromwich … 1 - 1 Bolton Wanderers West Ham United 1 - 1 Fulham Liverpool 1 - 2 Blackpool So who was the "wrong side winning" in 3 of above game
Think what the market makers do. They calculate the chance of a goal in any given minute for either team (using goal supremacy and goal expectation) and once a goal goes in you only need to know how many minutes remain to calculate the prices for match odds, correct scores, etc.
Which component of that lot could be flawed? How would you know?
Most games go through the 1-0 phase.Think what the market makers do. They calculate the chance of a goal in any given minute for either team (using goal supremacy and goal expectation) and once a goal goes in you only need to know how many minutes re
The odds at 0-1 are usually wrong when the wrong side is winning, i.e. Liverpool v Blackpool, Arsenal v WBA
The eventual result is meaningless. I am saying that all the odds are usually wrong (correct score, match odds) from that point because the original favourite is invariably overestimated to overcome the 1-0 deficit. The only match amongst your 4 games to fit that criteria would have been the Liverpool match. deficit.
kenilworth The odds at 0-1 are usually wrong when the wrong side is winning, i.e. Liverpool v Blackpool, Arsenal v WBA The eventual result is meaningless. I am saying that all theodds are usually wrong (correct score, match odds) from that point
The odds at 0-1 are usually wrong when the wrong side is winning, i.e. Liverpool v Blackpool, Arsenal v WBA
The eventual result is meaningless. I am saying that all the odds are usually wrong (correct score, match odds) from that point because the original favourite is invariably overestimated to overcome the 1-0 deficit. The only match amongst your 4 games to fit that criteria would have been the Liverpool match. ==================================================================
To say the " eventual result is meaningless" after your statement that "The odds at 0-1 are usually wrong when the wrong side is winning"............does not make much sense!
If a goal is scored , AND IT NORMALLY WILL BE, then the odds are CORRECT......USUALLY.
The "eventual result" is what the market odds are set on when it goes to 0-1 by unfancied team. So how can the result be meaningless?
"USUALLY" such odds will be found to be correctly set at amounts to attract backers, as 0-1 will change USUALLY, and also USUALLY the team not fancied will not win.
kenilworth The odds at 0-1 are usually wrong when the wrong side iswinning, i.e. Liverpool v Blackpool, Arsenal v WBAThe eventual result is meaningless. I am saying that all theodds are usually wrong (correct score, match odds) from that point bec
IMO when the big priced outsider scores first, the market usually underestimates their chances of winning from that point. That is what I am saying. The results of 3 or 4 cherry picked results are meaningless in the context of my view. If you disagree with me, then we agree to disagree. End of.
IMO when the big priced outsider scores first, the market usually underestimates their chances of winning from that point. That is what I am saying. The results of 3 or 4 cherry picked results are meaningless in the context of my view. If you disagre
You picked 2 results to make a point.......I just picked all the results on SATURDAY/SUNDAY in PREMIERSHIP.....
So if you can pick yours .....I just widened the view on results on those 2 days....
Using words like "usually" and "meaningless" just made your point not make any sense.
Your last post is far better worded on first sentence, and now makes sense.IMO.
GL with bets.
You picked 2 results to make a point.......I just picked all the results on SATURDAY/SUNDAY in PREMIERSHIP.....So if you can pick yours .....I just widened the view on results on those 2 days....Using words like "usually" and "meaningless" just mad
kenilworth ..i understand what you mean , celtic , barcelona start very short odds , both go behind 1-0 early in a game ... price doesnt go out that much , 1.18 to about 1.35.... but thats because most feel they will get 1 or two goals back , ... they normally do !
kenilworth ..i understand what you mean , celtic , barcelona start very short odds , both go behind 1-0 early in a game ...price doesnt go out that much , 1.18 to about 1.35....but thats because most feel they will get 1 or two goals back , ...they n
A lot depends on the time of the goal. If the goal is scored early and the goal supremacy and goal expectation remains the same, then it is really no surprise. Neither would it be a surprise for money to pour in to support the favourite, because much like poker, people are reluctant to throw away good cards despite the evidence telling them they might be backing a loser(they haven't reassessed the situation).
Now if you are watching and can make a sound judgement to revise the goal supremacy...
A lot depends on the time of the goal. If the goal is scored early and the goal supremacy and goal expectation remains the same, then it is really no surprise. Neither would it be a surprise for money to pour in to support the favourite, because much
Quick test, found 13 games last season in Prem with home team 1/2 or less and away team scored first (in the first half) resulted in 6 home wins, 4 draws and 3 aways (no idea how prices changed).
Ken may have a point.
Quick test, found 13 games last season in Prem with home team 1/2 or less and away team scored first (in the first half) resulted in 6 home wins, 4 draws and 3 aways (no idea how prices changed).Ken may have a point.
"USUALLY" .......how can 3 out of 13 be "USUALLY"......?
It is less than 50%.....therefore cannot be described as "USUALLY"....
The market got it "right" in MATCH MARKET 10 times out of 13.....
The market got it "right" in CS MARKET on 0-1 ....10 times that it did not stay 0-1....
Possibly the market got it "right" in the 3 games ,where the team not fancied won,if another goal was scored in CS MARKET after it went 0-1 ?
So "USUALLY" the market gets it "right"....so how can K be "right" on his statement that "USUALLY" "WRONG" in circumstances described above.
"USUALLY" .......how can 3 out of 13 be "USUALLY"......?It is less than 50%.....therefore cannot be described as "USUALLY"....The market got it "right" in MATCH MARKET 10 times out of 13.....The market got it "right" in CS MARKET on 0-1 ....10 times
REM Joined: 09 Jun 02 Replies: 1763 05 Oct 10 09:51 Quick test, found 13 games last season in Prem with home team 1/2 or less and away team scored first (in the first half) resulted in 6 home wins, 4 draws and 3 aways (no idea how prices changed).
Ken may have a point. =================================================================
Surely K from REM above post it is self-evident which 3 results I am referring to?
REM Joined: 09 Jun 02Replies: 1763 05 Oct 10 09:51 Quick test, found 13 games last season in Prem with home team 1/2 or less and away team scored first (in the first half) resulted in 6 home wins, 4 draws and 3 aways (no idea how prices changed).Ken
K - I know what you mean.......but your wording is misleading...that is all I am saying.
Obviously you can get some good odds on 0-1 if you BACK it for a wee while , without another goal being scored ( which is very very likely to happen), and you can TRADE of such circumstances.....LAYING home team etc another ploy etc when 0-1....
K - I know what you mean.......but your wording is misleading...that is all I am saying.Obviously you can get some good odds on 0-1 if you BACK it for a wee while , without another goal being scored ( which is very very likely to happen), and you can
DFCIRONMAN Joined: 04 Dec 04 Replies: 9471 05 Oct 10 11:50 TRADE off......
Anyway ...I get the gist of what you are saying.....so let's move on
You are tying yourself in knots, so time to move on LOL
DFCIRONMAN Joined: 04 Dec 04Replies: 9471 05 Oct 10 11:50 TRADE off......Anyway ...I get the gist of what you are saying.....so let's move on You are tying yourself in knots, so time to move on LOL
It is just a case of it "falling on deaf ears" with you K.
You never admit you are "wrong" in what you say ...so what is the point in communicating any more on subject.......
It is just a case of it "falling on deaf ears" with you K.You never admit you are "wrong" in what you say ...so what is the point in communicating any more on subject.......
your right dfcironiman , ken has never said or ever will say he is wrong ! the fact that most favs going behind go on to win ..backs up arguement the market is correct
liverpool as you quoted ken ..were 1.35 sp ..far too low as their form has been poor , easy to say after of course , but early goal by 11/1 shots playing away.. of course the price wont increase by much , most who back liverpool at 1.35 ..will try to get themselves out of trouble by betting more at higher price to trade out if they get one back, and if you layed liverpool , then most will normally also then back them once behind to green up
your right dfcironiman , ken has never said or ever will say he is wrong !the fact that most favs going behind go on to win ..backs up arguement the market is correct liverpool as you quoted ken ..were 1.35 sp ..far too low as their form has been poo
gibmark, I do admit when I am wrong, when I am wrong. Where am I wrong in this case ? I am giving an opinion, not stating a fact. Read my posts and you will see that.
gibmark, I do admit when I am wrong, when I am wrong. Where am I wrong in this case ? I am giving an opinion,not stating a fact. Read my posts and you will see that.
kenilworth Joined: 04 Nov 05 Replies: 3507 04 Oct 10 06:32 The odds at 0-1 are usually wrong when the wrong side is winning, i.e. Liverpool v Blackpool, Arsenal v WBA ===========================================================================
This is just an incorrect statement.....Therefore your "opinion" is flawed.
The odds are USUALLY "correct" when the "wrong" side is winning 0-1.........This is FACTUALLY based on results, and has nothing to do with "opinion".
You are just "wrong" K...You have it back to front!
kenilworth Joined: 04 Nov 05Replies: 3507 04 Oct 10 06:32 The odds at 0-1 are usually wrong when the wrong side iswinning, i.e. Liverpool v Blackpool, Arsenal v WBA===========================================================================This is j
Actually a lot of us read these threads and just gloss over the perennial arguments between you and K. Nothing personal but it is all a bit too predictable between you two. A pity, because both of you have many good things to say, interspersed between all the invective.
Actually a lot of us read these threads and just gloss over the perennial arguments between you and K.Nothing personal but it is all a bit too predictable between you two.A pity, because both of you have many good things to say, interspersed between
I've made a statement based on experience that when the big outsider scores the first goal, the market is ''usually'' wrong, as in ''more often than not''. That is my experience. If your ex perience is different, then ok. We agree to differ, end of ?
I've made a statement based on experience that when the bigoutsider scores the first goal, the market is ''usually'' wrong, as in ''more often than not''. That is my experience. If your experience is different, then ok. We agree to differ, end of ?
frog i agree with you , both at times have contributed imo interestingly to threads , not read enough of dfcironman to make a judgement , but have of ken ....., shame some take it personally.. forums could be constructive for all to learn , but some never learn , because they are never wrong
frog i agree with you , both at times have contributed imo interestingly to threads , not read enough of dfcironman to make a judgement , but have of ken ....., shame some take it personally..forums could be constructive for all to learn , but some
marksman..i bet he is doing ok ..i mean he cant lose much , since this thread ..if im green ...then i will lay the 1.04 and under, it works out only a very small % of winnings , havent kept score , but it has come up ..enough to keep doing it , ...if i looked at it the other way .. i would be sick laying out say £500 to win potentially a tenner or so....and lose !
marksman..i bet he is doing ok ..i mean he cant lose much , since this thread ..if im green ...then i will lay the 1.04 and under, it works out only a very small % of winnings , havent kept score , but it has come up ..enough to keep doing it , ...if
Well you have to admit, and sort of admire, that K is not on here for some warm, fuzzy reason of making new friends. Also he is totally non-discriminatory. He picks on everybody.
Well you have to admit, and sort of admire, that K is not on here for some warm, fuzzy reason of making new friends.Also he is totally non-discriminatory. He picks on everybody.
Well you have to admit, and sort of admire, that K is not on here for some warm, fuzzy reason of making new friends
Exactly what you seem to be on here for it would seem FAFH.
Well you have to admit, and sort of admire, that K is not on here for some warm, fuzzy reason of making new friendsExactly what you seem to be on here for it would seem FAFH.
FineAsFrogHair : Now until the mid 1950's , when a certain Californian university professor, first started using this in casinos to great success, nobody had ever apparently heard or thought of this very simple mathematical flaw in the game before. In retrospect, it looks so obvious as to be unbelievable that this could have been so. After all BJ had been around for a long time and no books or papers had been published on card counting. These things happen all the time. Current expansion of internet sports betting will not be any different. It will create unknown opportunities.Somewhere, someone will be seeing something blatantly obvious if and when it is revealed in due course. But then and only then.
Nice post that FAFH, I'm a value believer but also have an open mind. I've monitored 2 methods in the footy markets over the last year that involve placing a bet at a certain time of the game, which would mean taking the available odds at the correct price/poor value, never good value, one of which would have shown a 3.5k profit to £10 stakes (after comm) over the last 12 months of in-play matches, and the other 4.5k.
Now whether that can be labled as back fitting I don't know, but there is certainly no element of value involved in either method. As such it's hard to work out why it has worked for so long, but given the long time frame do you guys think it's likely to continue or more likely to drop dead? :)
FineAsFrogHair : Now until the mid 1950's , when a certain Californian university professor, first started using this in casinos to great success, nobody had ever apparently heard or thought of this very simple mathematical flaw in the game before.In
I've read that quite often the so-called wizards of the stock market, the hedge fund managers, indulge in strategies that just work, but they don't know exactly why. They activate the strategies first, and then maybe some time down the line work out why they're successful, or not, as the case may be. I suggest you should start doing the same. You'll learn more about your strategies by implementing them live, than by endlessly paper trading them.
I've read that quite often the so-called wizards of the stock market, the hedge fund managers, indulge in strategies that just work, but they don't know exactly why.They activate the strategies first, and then maybe some time down the line work out w
I agree with Mr Nice Guy, as in my experience (there I go again) paper trading simply doesn't work. Also in my view, if there is no logical reason for a method winning, it will correct itself.
I agree with Mr Nice Guy, as in my experience (there I go again) paper trading simply doesn't work. Also in my view, if there is no logical reason for a method winning, it will correct itself.
It seems the desire to debate is undiminished this fine morning.
Backfitting data is by no means a crime, although many will sneer at it. I discovered one of my most profitable racing strategies that way and would probably have overlooked it otherwise. The results grabbed my attention and eventually I began to understand its significance (and it is blindingly obvious). I think that until you understand what you have found, you have no way of knowing what you have, how to refine it, how best to use or even how long it will last. Sure, you can also do it the conventional way and theorise first, then test - but you are limited by how well you can theorise.
I recall some years back reading about a major chemical company who employed many highly trained scientists, but also a few self taught mavericks. While the trained scientists had more knowledge, they had a similar and narrower approach to work, while the self taught would go down all sorts of crazy avenues - ocaisonally hitting upon gems.
As for BJ, it is not correct to say there was a mathematical flaw. Casinos understood the maths perfectly. It was the structure of the game (use of cards) that allowed someone who was determined enough to turn a game of (slightly loaded) chance into a game of (slightly reverse loaded) skill. Of course, these were the days before random number generaators.
What you here on Betfair is a mass of people placing money on events using the structure as designed by betfair. There are many tales of those who have profited from targetting the structure, or the movement of money, rather than concentrate on the event.
Finally, I leave you with this little analysis that sobered me up many years ago. It was refering to bookies and horse racing, but I think it's still relevant now, punter v punter:
There are only three ways to win: 1. Be a better judge; 2. Have a better system; 3. Have better information.
Now I must return to the real world...
It seems the desire to debate is undiminished this fine morning.Backfitting data is by no means a crime, although many will sneer at it. I discovered one of my most profitable racing strategies that way and would probably have overlooked it otherwise
Cheers guys, as REM suggests it's just something that I've noticed whilst trawling through my books of in-play match stats. It has no logic that I can see as of yet, but am looking deeper.
Cheers guys, as REM suggests it's just something that I've noticed whilst trawling through my books of in-play match stats. It has no logic that I can see as of yet, but am looking deeper.
come on now ladies put the handbags away,getting back to the original title i believe the original post is now true.i used to do quite well backing good teams to win however the tactics,fitness and general levelling in standards of teams over the past few years has definately complicated matters and especially this season i think the bookies will be delighted with their returns from football
come on now ladies put the handbags away,getting back to the original title i believe the original post is now true.i used to do quite well backing good teams to win however the tactics,fitness and general levelling in standards of teams over the pas
there's all sorts of information, esp inside information, that gives connected people an advantage, esp true in horse racing
fast picturesknowing about preperationknowing about injuriesknowing how much competitors are tryingthere's all sorts of information, esp inside information, that gives connected people an advantage, esp true in horse racing
I think it prudent to consider the possibility that there are people who have better/more/unique information than myself and indeed than most of us, and that may be feeding in to the market.
Bookies will use systems, experts and information to protect their position.
I think it prudent to consider the possibility that there are people who have better/more/unique information than myself and indeed than most of us, and that may be feeding in to the market.Bookies will use systems, experts and information to protect
I prefer horse racing simply because it might be fixed and that their is, hence, a genuine belief amongst the public that it is fixed to some extent. This makes the odds go all over the place, and people (sometimes) wrongly interpret market moves as being significant. This is most apparent in the ante post markets, where market moves are exagerrated on Betfair and, with the lack of any concrete information, people tend to fill in the gaps from these price fluctuations. There is an old saying that if people knew a race was fixed (but not which way it was fixed) betting turnover would be greater than on a race which was known to be run "straight". Looking back to that golden age, before the premium charge came in, I think that this was the main reason that I was able to make money on the horses. As for football, I am not convinced that I can make money betting on it. The problem is that each game is perceived as being straight, even though it might not be. This means that market moves are not interpreted as being significant, even though they might be due to fiddling. With such tight margins it only requires a few fixed games to scupper the most well thought out strategy. I do believe that the English Premier League is pretty much on the level, but outside of that, (league 1,2 anything Italian, Greek etc.) is subject to corruption.
I prefer horse racing simply because it might be fixed and that their is, hence, a genuine belief amongst the public that it is fixed to some extent. This makes the odds go all over the place, and people (sometimes) wrongly interpret market moves as
Do you have the slightest proof that the majority of football games, being in your words all non- UK Premier league games, are subject to corruption. That is, after all, a pretty amazing statement.
Do you have the slightest proof that the majority of football games, being in your words all non- UK Premier league games, are subject to corruption.That is, after all, a pretty amazing statement.
Minor leagues are just full on tall , thick players with little skill and who don't work hard enough to develop skills.
They are just incapable of taking scoring chances .....nothing to do with "corruption" ...they just can't play the beautiful game!
Minor leagues are just full on tall , thick players with little skill and who don't work hard enough to develop skills.They are just incapable of taking scoring chances .....nothing to do with "corruption" ...they just can't play the beautiful game!
I'm not saying that most games outside of the Premier League are subject to corruption. But that a significant number are. Most of the fiddling goes undetected. But there was a game (season before last) in which about 5 (I can't remember the exact number) Accrington Stanley players placed bets on a game in which their team played in. It was later revealed that one of these players, after being transferred to Chester City (which no longer exists), continued to bet on football games and bet on one game, involving Chester City, in which he also played in. This scandal became apparent, because the players used their own betting accounts. So just think how many get away with it by betting in cash or getting others to put their bets on for them.
I'm not saying that most games outside of the Premier League are subject to corruption. But that a significant number are. Most of the fiddling goes undetected. But there was a game (season before last) in which about 5 (I can't remember the exact
Footballers are only human ...and people like to gamble.
They don't have to be "corrupt" betting on a match they are playing in.
Would have thought that some criminal element could put pressure on some players to do things in a game linked to betting. This is probably more likely than players just having a gamble on a game.
There are just too many thick players in game ....that is the "problem". Change that and you will get a higher standard of football.
Footballers are only human ...and people like to gamble.They don't have to be "corrupt" betting on a match they are playing in.Would have thought that some criminal element could put pressure on some players to do things in a game linked to betting.
im sure the odd fiddle goes on , e.g bet on the next new manager etc ,friends getting the nod ... but players nowadays get paid so much ...it really isnt worth their while , just because it happens in horse racing doesnt mean it happens in every sport
im sure the odd fiddle goes on , e.g bet on the next new manager etc ,friends getting the nod ... but players nowadays get paid so much ...it really isnt worth their while ,just because it happens in horse racing doesnt mean it happens in every sport
e.g bet on the next new manager etc ,friends getting the nod ...
Why is that a fiddle ?
A few years ago, a school teacher had the wisdom to have some money on Howard Wilkinson (to get the Leeds job), after overhearing his daughter (Wilkinson's) telling her friend that she heard her dad on the phone talking to the effect he had the job. I think he had about £50 at 14/1 and nobody saw anything wrong with that.
e.g bet on the next new manager etc ,friends getting the nod ...Why is that a fiddle ?A few years ago, a school teacher had the wisdom to have some money on Howard Wilkinson (to get the Leeds job), after overhearing his daughter (Wilkinson's) telling
kenilworth Joined: 04 Nov 05 Replies: 3540 06 Oct 10 15:26
Why not ? Because I believe it to be a myth. Who decides what is the best information ? I believe only what I see, and very little of what I am told.
kenilworth Joined: 04 Nov 05Replies: 3540 06 Oct 10 15:26 Why not ? Because I believe it to be a myth. Who decides what is the best information ? I believe only what I see, and very little of what I am told.
kenilworth Joined: 04 Nov 05 Replies: 3543 06 Oct 10 14:34
There are only three ways to win: 1. Be a better judge; 2. Have a better system; 3. Have better information
I don't agree with the third.
Your Wilkinson anecdote is a perfect example.
kenilworth Joined: 04 Nov 05Replies: 3543 06 Oct 10 14:34 There are only three ways to win:1. Be a better judge;2. Have a better system;3. Have better informationI don't agree with the third. Your Wilkinson anecdote is a perfect example.
I wouldn't put ''knowing the result before anyone else'' as ''better information'' but I suppose some would, even though nothing like that has ever happened to you (or me). Like I said, you could starve to death waiting.
I rate 'inside info' in the same category as intellegemt staking plans, a la 'Mr Nice Guy', no one knows about them.
I wouldn't put ''knowing the result before anyone else'' as''better information'' but I suppose some would, even thoughnothing like that has ever happened to you (or me). Like I said, you could starve to death waiting.I rate 'inside info' in the same
didnt hear about harry red , getting his inlaw frank lampard to get french bookie to back him to be next pompey manager ? only came to light cause he wasnt bothered about his salary in his contract , didnt need to of course...made 4 years wages in one bet !, i heard a few next managers bets ....some from your neck of the woods ...oh thats harry patch isnt it !...lol
didnt hear about harry red , getting his inlaw frank lampard to get french bookie to back him to be next pompey manager ?only came to light cause he wasnt bothered about his salary in his contract , didnt need to of course...made 4 years wages in one
Give it up K. You obviously have no idea what I'm talking about ( which is good for mr betting wise). And I'm obviously not going to reaveal how I operate, as it would be totally self defeating. I simply make the general statement thst staking does not mandatorily have to be linked to finding value in the odds being offered, and then staking more or less in relation to that perceived value edge.. Take what I say on board or leave it. You chose to leave it. Fine. But don't assume that all punters approach things your way, which you seem to imply is the only way. That's a mite arrogant to say the least.
Give it up K.You obviously have no idea what I'm talking about ( which is good for mr betting wise).And I'm obviously not going to reaveal how I operate, as it would be totally self defeating.I simply make the general statement thst staking does not
Mr Nice Guy, I am not in the slightest bit interested in what you do, win or lose, and I am more than happy that no one is interested in what I do, but you were the one that mentioned the magigal, intelligent, infallible staking plan, which I know, and you know, doesn't exist. Am I wrong ? Is there such a staking plan ?
Gibmark, don't believe what you read in the 'red tops', and even if what say is is true, what good is that to you or me ?
Mr Nice Guy, I am not in the slightest bit interested inwhat you do, win or lose, and I am more than happy that no one is interested in what I do, but you were the onethat mentioned the magigal, intelligent, infallible staking plan, which I know, and
I concede I did use the adjective "intelligent " to describe the staking plan. But did I really use the words " magical " and " infallible ". Not words I am really comfortable with. Start using those words about anything and I think you are asking for trouble.
I concede I did use the adjective "intelligent " to describe the staking plan.But did I really use the words " magical " and " infallible ".Not words I am really comfortable with.Start using those words about anything and I think you are asking for
Btw everything you do in betting revolves around some form of staking plan ( unless you are flat betting of course). The difference between you and me, is that you are using the " price value" as the main determinant of what you stake, and I'm not .
Btw everything you do in betting revolves around some form of staking plan ( unless you are flat betting of course).The difference between you and me, is that you are using the " price value" as the main determinant of what you stake, and I'm not .
ken , yes it was usefull to me ..as is ALL inside info , would of been no good to you pre , as you dont believe anyone ! in fact from what you say no inside info is either ...lol i thought you were a bournemouth fan , ...you dont the right people thats clear , want to be a believer ..start by not being so proud and except others might know something you dont
ken , yes it was usefull to me ..as is ALL inside info , would of been no good to you pre , as you dont believe anyone !in fact from what you say no inside info is either ...loli thought you were a bournemouth fan , ...you dont the right people thats
gibmark, I would appreciate it if you would re type your post as your original grammar is difficult for me to under stand other than that you are perhaps privy to the most sensitive of info, and perhaps mix with those at the heart of such things as management appointments. You make some reference to my weekness for AFC Bournemouth though I'm not sure what you are getting at, other than the Redknapp factor, again you have the advantage over me. If I am reading correctly I feel privileged to be exchanging views with such a well placed person and am truly humbled. Please accept my apologies, although I think you are living in a dreamworld. Sorry.
gibmark, I would appreciate it if you would re type yourpost as your original grammar is difficult for me to understand other than that you are perhaps privy to the most sensitive of info, and perhaps mix with those at the heartof such things as mana
I too have a fondness for my local team Bournemouth. But my heart belongs to charlton.
Anyway, let's put the squabbling to one side for a moment and consider this:
Do Northampton have a roughly 31% possibility of getting a result away to Cheltenham tomorow?
I think it's somewhat less.
I too have a fondness for my local team Bournemouth. But my heart belongs to charlton. Anyway, let's put the squabbling to one side for a moment and consider this:Do Northampton have a roughly 31% possibility of getting a result away to Cheltenham t
ken , my point is ..if you were any sort of bournemouth fan you would know what i am talking about ! there arent that many who go , its asmall town too , pop in the queens park pub , non match days , ladbrokes on holdenhurt rd , wimborne rd , winton ..why harry restarant is , any wine bar , pub , near sandbanks where he lives , , everybody who was any sort of bournemouth would know in fact , oh , if you play golf ..dunwood manor , easy info everywhere , mel machin also ...but that another story , point is inside info is everywhere ..and dispite what you say ..its all usefull
ken , my point is ..if you were any sort of bournemouth fan you would know what i am talking about !there arent that many who go , its asmall town too , pop in the queens park pub , non match days , ladbrokes on holdenhurt rd , wimborne rd , winton .
Common knowledge is useless IMO and not something I'm interested in, nor ever have been. I'm a football fan, betting and watching, nothing else. The gossip is kid's stuff, and you are welcome to it if it will make it happy.
Common knowledge is useless IMO and not something I'm interested in, nor ever have been. I'm a football fan,betting and watching, nothing else. The gossip is kid'sstuff, and you are welcome to it if it will make it happy.
thats the point its not common knewledge , but can be found out ! , you wont concede then that information of future sport betting isnt usefull, its facts , not gossip ..there is a difference,
thats the point its not common knewledge , but can be found out ! , you wont concede then that information of future sport betting isnt usefull, its facts , not gossip ..there is a difference,
are you deaf ? there is a difference between gossip and facts ! i bet if you bumped into eddie howe and he told you something you wouldnt believe it , your not interested because you refuse to admit , lots of people are privy to info that can help in sport betting , your not interested because you can see past "value bets "..lol..oh and you are NEVER wrong !
are you deaf ?there is a difference between gossip and facts !i bet if you bumped into eddie howe and he told you something you wouldnt believe it , your not interested because you refuse to admit , lots of people are privy to info that can help in s
You are being rude AGAIN. ''lots of people are privy to info that can help in sport betting'' That's why your 'info' is worthless. your not interested because you can see past "value bets ".. You got that right. Look, mate, you do what you want to do, I'm really not interested. Can we leave it at that ? PLEASE.
You are being rude AGAIN. ''lots of people are privy to info that can help in sport betting'' That's why your 'info' is worthless.your not interested because you can see past "value bets "..You got that right. Look, mate, you do what you want to do,
lol....ive got no info for you !.. you wouldnt believe it anyway, and i wouldnt dare put it here in anycase
but why cant you admit info is usefull ? why cant i leave it ? answer the question ! info can be usefull .... would you believe eddie howe if he told you ?
lol....ive got no info for you !..you wouldnt believe it anyway, and i wouldnt dare put it here in anycase but why cant you admit info is usefull ? why cant i leave it ?answer the question !info can be usefull ....would you believe eddie howe if he
eddie howe is bournemouth manager , thing is frog ..and im sure i havent got to tell you this , premiership aside ..super stars and the like ..its really easy to get info from 20yr old kids earnig only a grand a week in a small town like bournemouth , they all go out , eat and drink , play golf etc ..easy to bump into or meet groundsmen etc , all got something to say ...same in all lower league towns im sure
eddie howe is bournemouth manager , thing is frog ..and im sure i havent got to tell you this , premiership aside ..super stars and the like ..its really easy to get info from 20yr old kids earnig only a grand a week in a small town like bournemouth