brazil 1.6 on sunday?

just took the 1.65

i think with it being a showpiece match, new stadium etc, brazil will be up for it and fielding their strongest..still its one of the rare occassions when i wouldnt mind losing a bet if we manage to pull it off

SCOM
1 bet, 0 wins, -100% ROI, avg price 1.6

Scom
Well done IQMC with the 6% ROI after 175 bets, but 6% is not enough of a return for me

Good luck with beating 6% with bets at 1.6 fraudy

DFC the word IF has never been so prevalent

I would replace the word 'trader' with guesser or fraudster

"Trader" might be wrong word......but nevertheless BRAZIL took the lead and if he backed 1.65 as  VALUE back initially, then ,when goes 1-0 ,lays some of profit on BRAZIL off to go all green in match market .......leads to profit.

BRAZIl should have been a few goals ahead at HT.......so SCOM's view that BRAZIL were value at 1.65 was a reasonable view on the odds.

ENGLAND did well to hang in 1st half....and took goals well.....The game probably was more important to E before WCQ matches, whereas BRAZIL already have qualified by right.....and their sharpness was not there in this match. So mentally a good result for E.....before next match.

GL with your "guesses" IQMC.....

why would a trader lay off at 1-0, when they didnt red out at half time

backing a 1.6 shot and laying off if it hits the front seems a weak strategy

if its a good 1.6 shot and it gets beat its still a good 1.6 shot, and constant
identification of value bets is the best way forward

oh and kenilworth ''thats two from two''  yeah, ive been on here for years but ok thats ''two from two''

Darlo is, of course. Sweetchildofmine backed Brazil because he
thought it was a good price, simple as that, nor is there anything
wrong with backing a loser, except of course, if your name is
Kenilworth. The backer should remember though, that people in
glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Losers at 2/7 and 4/6 means that
backing odds on shots now requires the OP to back 6 winners to get level!

Darlo is, of course. Sweetchildofmine backed Brazil because he
thought it was a good price, simple as that, nor is there anything
wrong with backing a loser, except of course, if your name is
Kenilworth. The backer should remember though, that people in
glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Losers at 2/7 and 4/6 means that
backing odds on shots now requires the OP to back 6 winners to get level!


i guess the 36.0, 45.0, and 75.0 winners on the golf recently (as posted pre event on golf forum) would help the balance sheet then dont you think? now just concentrate on your own affairs, theres a good chap 

post them up? why? youve never posted a bet in your life ffs..now heres a tip, just chill, enjoy betfair and dont let the forum consume you, its bad for the blood pressure

Why post them up? Because they never happened, that's why.
sweetchildofmine, you are a total fake. Don't let the forum
consume me? You post on 40 times a week, and you shouldn't   
have the nerve to say that to anyone. Yes a total fake.lol.

if england had won you wouldnt have posted on this thread..nap..you really are everything thats wrong with the forum these days

why should i? ''man loses bet'' wow hold the back page, kenny youre making an utter fool of yourself as you normally do on every thread you ever post, which coincidentally happens to be every single thread im on, now please go away and stop stalking me, its disturbing

and hes back, i wonder if you can take out a betfair injunction for obsessive love sick stalkers?

scom posts a lot ken , wheras the only 2 you posted last season were your nap of shef utd at 2/5 v hartlepool , now that really was a shocker ken and stoke to draw somewhere , which came in , but you forgot to put your bet on  - so your skill on bf is akin to your betting shops - non existant grandad

lol 30 posts a day oooh...youve posted 10 times today on this thread alone...ive told you before kenny you just aint my type, failed bookies dont do it for me hth

and of course kenny followed hejik around like a lovesick poodle, right up to the point where he had his mental breakdown and surprise surprise hes also slavishly following his other username too

DUFC i would not Call backing at 1.6 and then greening up at the first opportunity 'trading'. I would call that giving away profit because the 'trader' feels uncomfortable with money in play. This style of betting will only hinder the roi and ultimately lose money.

Trading to me is making dozens of quick price movement bets every race/match.

Finally, I don't believe in luck and I accept it has no role in winning or losing (long-term)

IQMC - In the BRAZIL game......it did look the type of match the way it was being played that BRAZIL would score.....but having put so much effort into keeping possession 1st half....that the opposition would get a chance to score and might take it.

So when BRAZIL took lead.....there was always a danger in that game that it would go to 1-1, and may well finish 2-2. Any team working so hard 1st half .....in such conditions .....may well falter 2nd half....and that is how E got their chances which they took very well.

So....you might view it as GIVING AWAY PROFIT laying home team at 1-0 to secure a profit.....but as it finished 2-2.....in this case such a lay decision would have been proven to be "correct" on that match.

On balance the initial BACK on BRAZIL at 1.65 odds was a very good decision by SCOM as an initial bet. IMO If he/she kept that bet , then IMO they were making a mistake on THAT GAME.........but in long run their initial bet was a good bet based on BRAZIL being likely to dominate from the start.

LUCK does exist IQMC.......and ENGLAND's LUCK held up 1st half.....otherwise they would have been hammered. You might say it was down to their "good" defence.....but IMO was down to poor execution on opportunities created by BRAZIL. Had they been playing ARGENTINA ......BRAZIL would not have missed such chances....but it was only ENGLAND....so they were careless on finishing.

GL with bets

Our ken was going to but was quoted £24.50,....declined as he thought £24.38 was the correct price.