Cilic US Open thrashing of Murray: The Sequel > Betfair Community

Betfair Community

Home › Tennis Forum › Cilic US Open thrashing of Murray: The Sequel

Switch to Community Classic App Directory

Tennis

‹ back to topics

There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.

These 1139 comments are related to the topic:
Cilic US Open thrashing of Murray: The Sequel

Switch to Live View refresh Post Reply

Post your reply

Page 26 of 29 • Previous | 1 | ... | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | Next

sort by:

Show per page

Replies: 1,139

By:

Darlo Bantam When: 06 Sep 12 00:50

Sep 6, 2012 -- 12:45AM, Gibbo99 wrote:

Nicky, you crack me up. 1.1 is NEVER 'MASSIVE' value loooooooooool. Its still only 10 percent!!!! ManU were 70 to win at Southampton before they equalised. Now THAT is massive value and you could see it coming!!!! It's ManU's forte vs minnows. Even if I get that bet wrong 69 times, i'll still be in 100% profit compared to your measly 10% if you get it right every time.... do the math mate.

How many times are you going to get a 70-1 shot right? How many times are you going to get a 1/10 shot right?

As long as the first is better than 1 in 70, and the second better than 90% then you make money with either betting strategy.

By:

ben1993 When: 06 Sep 12 00:50

always lay fav at start in cricket it always fluctates tday was 1 to 20 then went to 2 to 5 when lost 3 early wickets nicky 27

By:

nicky27 When: 06 Sep 12 00:50

darlo , you can't teach university level to kindergarten

By:

nicky27 When: 06 Sep 12 00:50

forget it

By:

hollywood85 When: 06 Sep 12 00:51

Sep 6, 2012 -- 12:50AM, Darlo Bantam wrote:

Sep 6, 2012 -- 12:45AM, Gibbo99 wrote:Nicky, you crack me up. 1.1 is NEVER 'MASSIVE' value loooooooooool. Its still only 10 percent!!!! ManU were 70 to win at Southampton before they equalised. Now THAT is massive value and you could see it coming!!!! It's ManU's forte vs minnows. Even if I get that bet wrong 69 times, i'll still be in 100% profit compared to your measly 10% if you get it right every time.... do the math mate.How many times are you going to get a 70-1 shot right? How many times are you going to get a 1/10 shot right?As long as the first is better than 1 in 70, and the second better than 90% then you make money with either betting strategy.

this

By:

AZ91 When: 06 Sep 12 00:51

lol @ this very stupid pointless arguement that will benefit NOBODY

By:

nicky27 When: 06 Sep 12 00:51

ben , I been into cricket my whole life , great to trade from

By:

nicky27 When: 06 Sep 12 00:51

i'm not a full time pro , but do all right

By:

nicky27 When: 06 Sep 12 00:52

nice extra income u might say

By:

ben1993 When: 06 Sep 12 00:52

how you trade on it then nicky glfs fluctates more than cricket and tennis

By:

Gibbo99 When: 06 Sep 12 00:52

Explain how my other statement contradicts that....it just doesnt.

Nicky, 1.1 for a 1.02 may be value but its TINY value, you have to get it right almost every time to avoid severe losses, and you have no room to trade if it goes wrong.....how many times do I have to explain.

By:

nicky27 When: 06 Sep 12 00:53

ok gibbo , thats fine

By:

nicky27 When: 06 Sep 12 00:53

i wish you all the best

By:

Has this ever happened before? When: 06 Sep 12 00:53

blimey 9 games in a row for muz

By:

AZ91 When: 06 Sep 12 00:53

hahahaha, the sarcasm is PRICELESS

By:

razz When: 06 Sep 12 00:54

Sep 6, 2012 -- 12:52AM, Gibbo99 wrote:

Explain how my other statement contradicts that....it just doesnt.Nicky, 1.1 for a 1.02 may be value but its TINY value, you have to get it right almost every time to avoid severe losses, and you have no room to trade if it goes wrong.....how many times do I have to explain.

Gibbo99 • September 6, 2012 12:45 AM BST
Nicky, you crack me up. 1.1 is NEVER 'MASSIVE' value loooooooooool.

Gibbo99 • September 6, 2012 12:48 AM BST
smb360, I don't do english lessons. Value is self-explanatory mate.... getting something for more than its net worth.

By:

AZ91 When: 06 Sep 12 00:54

bagel or 6-1

By:

nicky27 When: 06 Sep 12 00:54

like I said to darlo , you can't teach university level to kindergarten

By:

hollywood85 When: 06 Sep 12 00:55

Sep 6, 2012 -- 12:52AM, Gibbo99 wrote:

Explain how my other statement contradicts that....it just doesnt.Nicky, 1.1 for a 1.02 may be value but its TINY value, you have to get it right almost every time to avoid severe losses, and you have no room to trade if it goes wrong.....how many times do I have to explain.

How can you say its tiny value just by looking at the odds?!

By:

DStyle When: 06 Sep 12 00:55

gibbo has a point in a way

if, in its most simple state, value is the difference between your estimate of implied chance and that being offered by the market, the size of the value becomes smaller as you approach shorter odds.

an even money shot that i think should be 1.3, is inherently better value than backing a 1.1 shot if I think the opponent should be 1000-1.

By:

smb360 When: 06 Sep 12 00:55

Sep 6, 2012 -- 12:54AM, razz wrote:

Sep 6, 2012 -- 12:52AM, Gibbo99 wrote:Explain how my other statement contradicts that....it just doesnt.Nicky, 1.1 for a 1.02 may be value but its TINY value, you have to get it right almost every time to avoid severe losses, and you have no room to trade if it goes wrong.....how many times do I have to explain.Gibbo99 • September 6, 2012 12:45 AM BSTNicky, you crack me up. 1.1 is NEVER 'MASSIVE' value loooooooooool.Gibbo99 • September 6, 2012 12:48 AM BSTsmb360, I don't do english lessons. Value is self-explanatory mate.... getting something for more than its net worth.

razz - I was just about to link those two posts together. Thank you for saving me the effort. Top-class clown here.

By:

DStyle When: 06 Sep 12 00:55

Explain how my other statement contradicts that....it just doesnt.Nicky, 1.1 for a 1.02 may be value but its TINY value, you have to get it right almost every time to avoid severe losses, and you have no room to trade if it goes wrong.....how many times do I have to explain.

this is nonsense though

By:

nicky27 When: 06 Sep 12 00:55

yeah style I hear you

By:

AZ91 When: 06 Sep 12 00:56

BAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGELBAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGELBAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGELBAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGELBAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGELBAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGELBAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGELBAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGELBAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGELBAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGELBAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGELBAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGELBAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGELBAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGELBAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGELBAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGELBAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGELBAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGELBAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGELBAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGELBAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGELBAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGELBAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGELBAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGELBAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGELBAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGEL BAGEL

By:

razz When: 06 Sep 12 00:56

gibbo is basically saying that 1.1 is mathematically impossible to EVER be value. in which case everyone would just lay every 1.1 shot in any sport and any other market

By:

reveley When: 06 Sep 12 00:56

bagel :)

By:

Darlo Bantam When: 06 Sep 12 00:56

Sep 6, 2012 -- 12:52AM, Gibbo99 wrote:

Explain how my other statement contradicts that....it just doesnt.Nicky, 1.1 for a 1.02 may be value but its TINY value, you have to get it right almost every time to avoid severe losses, and you have no room to trade if it goes wrong.....how many times do I have to explain.

Alright bet the 1.10 shot that should be 1.02 with a £10 level stake 100 times. If it's 1.02, then you make £78.

Your 70/1 shot happens say one in 100, with the same £10 level stake, and you lose £310.

Now where's the value? And the massive losses?

By:

Gibbo99 When: 06 Sep 12 00:56

Yeah Hollywood, except i wont be getting 70-1 shots wrong 69 times, thats just a worst case scenario. Your strategy relies on you being right 80% of the time to break even. No one is that good.

Let me put it this way. If we could both spot value equally and used our respective strategies. Mine would outperform yours by a multiple many times to the power of 10.

By:

razz When: 06 Sep 12 00:56

ROFL completely forgot murray match was still on

By:

nicky27 When: 06 Sep 12 00:56

but if you let me back the 1.1 shot , that has only 2% chance of losing then I'll smash that if you give me 10% profit

By:

Darlo Bantam When: 06 Sep 12 00:57

Sep 6, 2012 -- 12:56AM, Gibbo99 wrote:

Yeah Hollywood, except i wont be getting 70-1 shots wrong 69 times, thats just a worst case scenario. Your strategy relies on you being right 80% of the time to break even. No one is that good. Let me put it this way. If we could both spot value equally and used our respective strategies. Mine would outperform yours by a multiple many times to the power of 10.

You won't get it wrong 69 times? Who the hell says?

By:

reveley When: 06 Sep 12 00:57

not often you see a top 10 player turned into a gibbering wreck

By:

nicky27 When: 06 Sep 12 00:57

thanks darlo , well explained

By:

Has this ever happened before? When: 06 Sep 12 00:57

gonna be 11 in a row to take the match

By:

Swum When: 06 Sep 12 00:57

I hate Cilic so much

By:

Darlo Bantam When: 06 Sep 12 00:58

Right. This match. Andy Murray. That has been a superb performance of a potential champion.

By:

razz When: 06 Sep 12 00:58

well actually gibbo mathematically speaking the worse case scenario would be getting it wrong 70 times

By:

aaronh When: 06 Sep 12 00:58

By:

nicky27 When: 06 Sep 12 00:58

lol AARON H

By:

nicky27 When: 06 Sep 12 00:59

that cracked me up

Page 26 of 29 • Previous | 1 | ... | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | Next

sort by:

Show per page

Switch to Live View refresh Post Reply

Post your reply

‹ back to topics