General Betting
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
08 Feb 16
16:58
Joined:
Date Joined:
08 Apr 06
for example 33/1 ,31/1 ,51-54 61-64 etc
have i missed something obvious ?
seems like if youre putting a lot of money up theres a huge difference between 50 and 55 when 52 would be ideal.
You get 5.1,5.2 but no 52
confused ,and i've only just cottoned onto for the first time in 15 years
have i missed something obvious ?
seems like if youre putting a lot of money up theres a huge difference between 50 and 55 when 52 would be ideal.
You get 5.1,5.2 but no 52
confused ,and i've only just cottoned onto for the first time in 15 years
Show More
50 on the inverse side is 1.02
100 on the inverse side is 1.01
So, there's actually more possibilities between 50 and 100 anyway.
100 on the inverse side is 1.01
So, there's actually more possibilities between 50 and 100 anyway.
Darlo , with 1.01 and 1.02 it's the same , couldn't there be a 1.015 at that end ,or even 1.011 although it would look clumsy and those odds are rarely in use i guess .
could you not have single numbers 50-55 for example , would it not be workable .
noticed on the 100/110 scores , many times i would like to wedge in with a 105 if it were possible .
would make a difference to me ,but then i guess not many folk bet much on those odds as a rule
could you not have single numbers 50-55 for example , would it not be workable .
noticed on the 100/110 scores , many times i would like to wedge in with a 105 if it were possible .
would make a difference to me ,but then i guess not many folk bet much on those odds as a rule
Agree that it could/would make a difference but certainly not to everyone. Is it smarkets who use three decimal points on odds too backing up your suggestion of 1.015 etc.
ah , never been on there or seen those odds before.
just a thought really . I would have them myself
just a thought really . I would have them myself
Historical beginnings of betting when there was no decimilisation
The bet intervals (for example 50 to 55) were a brilliant way to get traders to put up money in markets as they ensure a worthwhile spread between buy and sell prices. Although they should have had more increments below 1.1 or 1.2 as a 0.01 increment is too large a percentage.
A secondary reason is the fixed increments keep it simple for casual punters. Otherwise the same amount on offer would be spread as small amounts over multiple prices.
A secondary reason is the fixed increments keep it simple for casual punters. Otherwise the same amount on offer would be spread as small amounts over multiple prices.
What pxb said, plus it means that those who parasite on others' research (by going one tick inside a market maker's price) at least have to accept more risk / lower margin by doing so, and not just make (eg) 5.001 to be ahead of 5.0 in the queue.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539