General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 342 comments are related to the topic:
Impossible to win long-term by BACKING in football
Impossible to win long-term by BACKING in football
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 342
|
By:
It depends on the original odds Marksman .
In rare cases a team can be seen to peak at 0-3 in the betting ,they would normally be priced up around 1.10 or less , but i'm sure Investor is talking about standard opponents. |
|
By:
opposition
|
|
By:
Fair comment, coachbuster. I know what Investor is saying: That there are times when he just knows that the odds are wrong. But, coachbuster, when you say standard opponents, at the moment, Chelsea are making standard opponents look moderate. I don't support them, but the whole team look awesome at the moment.
|
|
By:
marksman, you misread my post. I was saying that if 0-1 is more likely than 0-2 then 0-3 is less likely than both 0-2 and 0-1 as a final result.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
The odds at 0-1 are usually wrong when the wrong side is
winning, i.e. Liverpool v Blackpool, Arsenal v WBA |
|
By:
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 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. |
|
By:
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 remain to calculate the prices for match odds, correct scores, etc. Which component of that lot could be flawed? How would you know? |
|
By:
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 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. |
|
By:
REM
Most games go through the 1-0 phase. Yes 92% of them, and the one scoring first wins most of them. |
|
By:
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 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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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 ! |
|
By:
gib, not as often a needed by the betting. Liverpool
were still odds on when 1-0 behind, and being outplayed !! |
|
By:
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... |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
REM, there may be two reasons for that. (1) Layers of the fav closing (2) Others slow in realising the fav having an off day.
|
|
By:
"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. |
|
By:
DFC, Re your last post, which 3 from 13, or 10 from 13 are you referring to ?
|
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
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.... |
|
By:
TRADE off......
Anyway ...I get the gist of what you are saying.....so let's move on.... Gl with bets. |
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
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....... |
|
By:
I only admit to being wrong when I am wrong. That
is not the case here, keep trying though.  |
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
lol....its ok ..i ve read enough of your comments on forums here to know you are never wrong ..happy gambling
|
|
By:
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!   |
|
By:
Where is the proof of this ''fact''?
|
|
By:
Your turn K.
|
|
By:
You made the statement ...you PROVE IT......Wasted enough time re subject....and those reading thread will know who is "right" and who is "wrong".....
 |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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 ? |
|
By:
Pretty hard to argue againt statements prefaced by the disclaimer " in my usual experience ".
But there you are. |
|
By:
I wonder how Plechy is getting on with his laying?
|
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
Off subject Marksman.
He's gone bust btw. Just joking. |
|
By:
gibmark, I am wrong in giving an opinion ?
What a pompous, judgemental prig you are. |