Irish Sports
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
According to the Bookies that is. I have read a number of pieces lately with various bookies complaining about the large payout this will mean and their consequent losses.
Surely this is absolute horse sh*te? Is the payout not well covered by the millions they would have taken on the more traditional contenders?
Surely this is absolute horse sh*te? Is the payout not well covered by the millions they would have taken on the more traditional contenders?
Show More
Course it is . They love to talk about the winners they have laid , never a word about the losers they have counterbalanced with , particularly if there is a state employee involved for large sums . Its all sums and hype , good copy for the media .
Fair play to Leicester , hope they win out against the zillions outfits . I also have a slight vested interest in them winning ( no money or bets etc involved ) , so I will be keeping my fingers crossed for them .
Fair play to Leicester , hope they win out against the zillions outfits . I also have a slight vested interest in them winning ( no money or bets etc involved ) , so I will be keeping my fingers crossed for them .
They probably kept 95% of the money staked. Best year ever for the bookies.
one book was on SSN saying 47 people backed Leicester with them (from stakes of 0.50 pence)
This must be the greatest result their football traders have ever experienced
This must be the greatest result their football traders have ever experienced
Everyone is just thinking and talking about the start of the season, there was a 10 week period between say October-December where they kept winning but the price didn't really move.
Doesn't take much to build up a liability at prices between say 66 and 250-300. This is probably way wide of the actual mark but even one punter betting £1 per week at average 125/1 for 10 weeks, i we say one firm has 1500 shops is nearly £2m. Now add in all the jokers on at 4 figure prices, plus every other firms shops, and advocate for those where the average works out at more than £1 per week for 10 weeks and you get the figures being quoted
As for the notion that they'd get it all back from the bigger teams losing...you would really be surprised how little is staked on an outright market. The general public don't want to tie their money up for 10 months on a 15/8 poke
Doesn't take much to build up a liability at prices between say 66 and 250-300. This is probably way wide of the actual mark but even one punter betting £1 per week at average 125/1 for 10 weeks, i we say one firm has 1500 shops is nearly £2m. Now add in all the jokers on at 4 figure prices, plus every other firms shops, and advocate for those where the average works out at more than £1 per week for 10 weeks and you get the figures being quoted
As for the notion that they'd get it all back from the bigger teams losing...you would really be surprised how little is staked on an outright market. The general public don't want to tie their money up for 10 months on a 15/8 poke
Any bookie who laid Leicester at big odds had plenty of time to readjust their book over the course of the season . The concept that they just put up prices and lay away willy nilly just doesn't wash here . Even if you laid Leicester at 5000/1 to a tenner and they had that unbeaten run , there was plenty of opportunity to back them back . £200 at 25/1 would halve the liability .
Thats why they employ people they class as traders . And bookmakers as the term implies are in the business of "making a book" . They have built in margins too . Simple sums unless they get greedy .
Thats why they employ people they class as traders . And bookmakers as the term implies are in the business of "making a book" . They have built in margins too . Simple sums unless they get greedy .
Think they took only a miniscule amount myself,could be wrong though, the single story of that 50p cashout bet is all i've seen.
After Chelsea equalised last night,Spurs turned into a kinda Leeds early 70's side,twas brutal,they got 9 yellows.
Even on that besides the underdogs glad they got it.
After Chelsea equalised last night,Spurs turned into a kinda Leeds early 70's side,twas brutal,they got 9 yellows.
Even on that besides the underdogs glad they got it.
They can't have it both ways,if Leicester winning the Premiership is a bad result for the bookies then they must have won for the previous twenty odd years.
Having said that 5000/1 odds are usually to be got about Elvis Presley turning up on the moon,not. On something that could possibly win.
Having said that 5000/1 odds are usually to be got about Elvis Presley turning up on the moon,not. On something that could possibly win.
The press love a "cinderella" story , and Leicester fits that . Good luck to them , interesting to see how they fare next season .
Most firms will have a losing book on Leicester for the outright, to a reasonable significant sum for certain firms. The outright market pales into insignificance compared to the week by week markets though and it has been a beano year for football layers with regular coupon busters. I know of one form which didn’t have a single losing week over the PL season. That is unheard of.
I can identify with the thread title. Leicester, winning the Premier League, represents my biggest ever loss in betting. Financial considerations aside though, I'm delighted for them.
Re bookmaker liabilities, TellTheKing has it right, as the comment from this article testifies :
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/may/03/5000-1-outsider-leicester-city-bookmakers
"Yes, they may have paid out a lot of money on the Foxes on Tuesday morning, but Leicester’s 5,000-1 title victory was not achieved solely by the outstanding performances of Claudio Ranieri’s team. It also depended on every other fancied team underperforming significantly over the course of the season, with the inevitable result that, almost without fail, the bookies cleaned up on the Saturday coupons from one weekend to the next."
Re bookmaker liabilities, TellTheKing has it right, as the comment from this article testifies :
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/may/03/5000-1-outsider-leicester-city-bookmakers
"Yes, they may have paid out a lot of money on the Foxes on Tuesday morning, but Leicester’s 5,000-1 title victory was not achieved solely by the outstanding performances of Claudio Ranieri’s team. It also depended on every other fancied team underperforming significantly over the course of the season, with the inevitable result that, almost without fail, the bookies cleaned up on the Saturday coupons from one weekend to the next."
Seldom bet on the soccer myself , occasionally on the TV matches , seldom at weekends . Looks like few clicked multiples which I suspect is the way most punters back , due to some hotpot screwing up result wise each weekend .
Reb , on the outright market did you lay Leicester or just keep switching / backing others in the race ?
Reb , on the outright market did you lay Leicester or just keep switching / backing others in the race ?
Pay back time will start around July when punters start drifting into offices in Burnley,Middlesborough and maybe even Brighton to back them for the premiership.
Bookies are good at the whinge but even better at the self promotion.
Bookies are good at the whinge but even better at the self promotion.
Kelly, as bank interest rates have plummeted in the last few years I decided to tie more money up in the Prem winner long term market. Early last Dec I decided to lay Man U at odds of around 5/1. That was my core bet and, soon after, was looking good. I then started looking around for other value bets on the market (mostly lays) as the weeks passed as I had a good sum tied up in the Man U position; I considered Leicester one of those. As time passed, I was looking at a healthy position. Man C (the biggest), Arsenal and Spurs were all winners for me. I really couldn't see Leicester doing it. I wasn't foolish or greedy and felt there was merit in all my lays (timing of the fixtures is very important).
I never ruled out the possibility of Leicester triumphing; I just thought there was always some value in the positions I took against them. I got Man C very wrong though; hard to believe how they never got going even allowing for their injuries.
Personal financial considerations aside, I'm delighted for Leicester; I hate the chronic over- monetisation of football that has occurred in the last 25 years. Leicester are,arguably, the ultimate underdog triumph in sport.
Ranieri comes across as a nice guy.
I never ruled out the possibility of Leicester triumphing; I just thought there was always some value in the positions I took against them. I got Man C very wrong though; hard to believe how they never got going even allowing for their injuries.
Personal financial considerations aside, I'm delighted for Leicester; I hate the chronic over- monetisation of football that has occurred in the last 25 years. Leicester are,arguably, the ultimate underdog triumph in sport.
Ranieri comes across as a nice guy.
reb - I have some news for you. You were both foolish and greedy, whether you care to admit that or not.
Most people who gamble are greedy even though very few admit it.
I expect someone like gant to come along and say he had a few bob on them in September, seriously though NeddieK must have lost a fortune this season with the favs getting hammered.
The ball just hopped the wrong way then, reb . Happens . C'est la vie , but there is always tomorrow.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539