Does greater stakes mean more laziness?

i don't understand how can someone  lose 14k on a 1 tick deal that lasts an eternity (gambling wise) if they can make the same trade for 10 seconds

what do you mean?

1.01 bets, simple

how can that be value???

WHen something has a 99.5% chance of winning

then what are the odds of that happening in the first minute of the event??

..if you bet pre kick-off??

hope that helps

There aren't many 1.01s pre kick off are there

Sport would be pretty dull if there were

1.01 of course not

but 1 tick moves pre kick off... every day, almost every event

Might move a tick the other way though

Better to back a 1.01 in play when it's 1/500 to win

Might??

thats not the correct answer

might, is an answer of that happening with a minus EV expectation, so what are you defending??

some very weird questions on the forum lately

like betfair has just been introduced into a mental asylum on an experimental basis

"like betfair has just been introduced into a mental asylum"
Tbh the internet seems to be the worlds greatest mental asylum.
I look at people I know in life : reasonable people with the odd exception.
I look at the internet : nutter party.
?!

again, forget the inbetweens... does a bigger bank mean more lazyness, or more aversion to risk??

Why 14k?

IMO, the trouble with betting large amounts to win at 1.01, or laying at 200.0, 300.0 etc is that it can be successful for a long time and lull you into a false sense of security. You think you've got it made only to get hit by a bizarre sequence of events, or worse still a freak run of them.

I'm with Lusti though, 10k placed and lost at 1.01 is 10k lost, 10k placed on a tick that goes the wrong way maybe less than a loss of £100, with less time exposed to make the win.

He's probably using 14k as an example as that's what a guy (the investor?) said he lost on Sat due to Arsenal dropping their tiny whities and bending over a barrel at 4-0 up.

I personally believe a bigger bank would probably make you more lazy per pound but not as a ratio. Or to put it another way, you'd be more happy with losing a 10er with a 10k bank than you'd be on a 100 quid bank (10%), BUT you'd still be gutted to lose 1k (10%).

Or to put it another way : it's all relative. And the above is of course trying to decipher what the OP means by lazyness when I think he means .. cavaliar..ness??

I Think the 14k is a reference to The Investor apparently having 14k on Arsenal @1.01 yesterday.

Thta was a great bet though if it was placed at 4-0 or 4-1 late on

Oh, cheers guys, I didn't know, that sounds painful, I guess there would have been a lot of money trying to back at 1.01, what d'you reckon the true odds were then Tober?

When i started with a small bank i bet only on cricket

Now i have a larger bank I bet $10 or $20 on soccer games I know nothing about for entertainment.  SO I suppose it does make you bet more on random stuff. 

But I only do it cuz I break even,  if I was losing every bet on soccer only $20 a time I'd quit doing it. So its a kind of shrewd lazyness.  Ive also bet a couple of K on random soccer games in times of great emotional and alcoholic life disruption but luckily no harm done.

At 0-4 before the sending off i'd say 1/500 at biggest, wouldn't have layed it at 1/1000

Even after it 1/400 when there was only half an hour left

dont get me wrong guys, yes the 14k loss was based on the "investor" bet on the Arsenal match but if he does that kind of bet, even in a 99,9% sure bet, how much is that due to laziness or to risk aversion??

I don't think anybody could possibly call Investor lazy or risk averse.
Presumably he priced the bet up and came up with the conclusion that 1.01 was good value.
Just because it lost doesn't mean he was wrong, lazy or anything else negative.

i've open up this thread not because of Investor's bet, per se, but because i find myself doing stupid ultra short odds bets just out of pure laziness, because i wrongly think of them as ultra low risk bets when they aren't, the stakes are huge for such a little pay out and we all know that these freak outcomes happen much more frequently than we think

but of all the ultra short odds stupid bets that i made i've never ever bet on a 1.01 shot, because that has to be one of the worst bets a person can do

so i do short odds bets when i'm either on a lazy state or in a particular low confidence(risk aversion) state

it always amazes me to see in horse racing those 999/1 being hit for £300+, thats a hell of a lose for such a small pay out

There are plenty of 1.01 shots which are value. Every day you see a 1.01 which is available after the event has finished.

Maybe he could stand accused of over betting/over exposing himself

He lowered his liability by 36k, so I don't think so.

it always amazes me to see in horse racing those 999/1 being hit for £300+, thats a hell of a lose for such a small pay out

I know very little about horse races so excuse the estimates, but if you lay 10 horses at 1000s 20 times a day, you need to get hit every 5 days to make a loss.

The downside is that you WILL lay the losing ones, 100% sure.

he exposed himself

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/taleb08/taleb08_index.html

As I understood it that's right. I did only go through fairly fast though.

Lusitano
If anything I think I probably get lazier the longer the odds get that I'm betting at, as opposed to the shorter.
In the latter case, I feel pressure that I have to get it right almost without mistake to beat the odds long term, whereas in the former I feel that I will have quite a few more opportunities down the line to get enough of them right enough to beat the odds.

Mgt
He probably certainly felt flash when he made the bet ?

I'd assume that as his edge lessened he lowered his liability. Only conjecture though. Teams don't come back from 4-0 to 4-4 without going through 4-1 (obviously) so there's always time to reassess, meaning a large exposure is probably not too bad.

That said, I don't do much soccer trading.

You mean between dashes to the toilet, don't you ?

Lusi71 - Plenty of 1000/1's are laid on here ,  that's 10 times the risk .

Whats your opinion on such a lay ?

Investor invested too much money in something that wasn't a certainty. I suppose you could say he indecently exposed himself, something which he is known for doing in the past too.

He then came onto a public forum and admitted his mistake, he indecently exposed himself in public.

What exactly is your point Avo ?

i had chicken avocado salad for dinner

not sure

Avacados are best kept in a dark cupboard for 3 days after purchase 

hi Ghostbuster, how is the correct score laying going?

i could never back at 1.01 or lay at 1000 but i definitely could back at 1000 and lay at 1.01

Lusitano the reason you could never back at 1.01 is because your total bank only amounts to 100 pounds.

FINE AS FROG HAIR
When: 08 Feb 11 00:06
What exactly is your point Avo ?

he hasn't any, he is as dumb as they come

i make more on here than you do, f@ggot

Think you'll find the only layers of big prices and takers of 1.01 etc are punters who do no form now that is a 1.001 shot,only the clueless.

you spineless dumb coward!
i would like to see you call me that in my face

i though tu had me blocked d1ckhead