World Cup
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 60 comments are related to the topic:
Villa spain bookie settlement.
Villa spain bookie settlement.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 60
|
By:
Anyone who thinks the double should pay less than the single on spain really haven't grasped the maths at all. People like Baz really need to think about it before they come on these threads spouting rubbish. It's not like a normal double because the odds have already been reduced drastically due to the related contingency. It's hard to come up with a defining answer but the hills price of 6/1 seems about fair in the circumstances.
|
|
By:
How about using the same table they use to calculate these prices in the first place to calculate the price for a 4/1 (Spain win WC) and a 2/1 (Villa at 1/4 odds) shot combined (or whatever their prices were).
Will probably come out at around 11/2. |
|
By:
Don't bet on scorer/winner combos with the bookies, ever.
NAP |
|
By:
If you don't understand the rules, you should not be placing bets. simples.
|
|
By:
Don't bet on scorer/winner combos with the bookies, ever. Another stupid cunnnt. Theres alot of people out there who just like a bet on big events for a bit of interest. So they do these type of bets for small stakes. Whats wrong with that. As for not understanding the rules. I do but this one seems to make the rules like shitt. If the bookies where to be fair 11/2-6/1 would be about the correct price. 2.75/1 on the double when the single was 4/1 is not fair and i dont care what anyone says on that. Its just the bookies been poxxy greedy. The same way they ripped punters off on the grand national when they shortened most of the field ten minutes before the off. Piddys/Boyles give money back specials or specials when it suits there pocket but because spain won(fav) and spain/villa (fav) both came in they would have lost a bit on this. So they decided to be tight prikkks and pay out to their rules which on this bet make no sense.
|
|
By:
It's not a scam by the bookies, it's just a situation where there is a possibility of a dead heat, and dead heat rules need to apply or they would be paying out on everyone. Unfortuante that the sh1t price people took on spain/villa made the payout less than spain alone, but anyone placing their bets must have been happy with the horrendous price or they wouldn't take it.
|
|
By:
Asparagus, please do yourself and look at this example. I have never 'spouted rubbish' on here and the ignorance on this thread is mindblowing.
Just for eg, if you back a double of 4-1 (winner) and evs and the even money chance dead heats with 3 other selections, would you still expect the double to pay at least 4-1? Naturally it wouldn't, it's a case of what price you consider Villa in the double. If the Villa/Spain double were 25-1, you would be paid at 11-2 (bigger than the 4-1 Spain were). If you don't understand a really basic example like this, maybe betting is not for you. |
|
By:
Asparagus, the following is complete nonesense.
Anyone who thinks the double should pay less than the single on spain really haven't grasped the maths at all. |
|
By:
Should read nonsense not nonesense.
|
|
By:
Anyone who thinks the double should pay less than the single on spain really haven't grasped the maths at all.
It seems to be you who hasn't grasped the maths. Of course it can pay less than the single, because only 1/4 of the 2nd leg has won, and 3/4 has lost. If Villa is priced [implictly] at less than 3/1 in the event of a Spain victory then that leg of the bet is a net negative, so the double pays less than a single on Spain. Whether the 3/1 is a decent price or not is not the point - if you backed it, you accepted it. There are four winners: Spain/Villa, Spain/Muller, Spain/Forlan and Spain/Sneijder so it is clearly a four-way dead heat, even if some of those weren't quoted ("others on request"). |
|
By:
Bushy, of course, spot on.
|
|
By:
If I had asked the bookmakers for a price (before the tournament started) for Villa to be one of the top 4 goalscorers and for Spain to win the World Cup I guess (if at all) I would have been offered 6/1 or thereabouts.
I've been arguing with Joe Koral's aned they hide behind teir own, wrong, rules Ridculous |
|
By:
Whitburn, you would have backed 2 winners in that example. You can't change from a win bet to a place bet when it suits. Naturally in that example you would have had no chance of being paid at 14-1.
|
|
By:
Yes, you'd have been offered around 6/1, and you'd be on a winner. And you'd also be on a winner had (a) Villa scored one more goal (in which case the Spain/Villa double pays at 14/1) or (b) Sneijder scored one more goal (in which case the Spain/Villa double loses). It's not the same bet.
|
|
By:
No Bushy - even if Sneidjer had scored Villa would still be one of the top 4 scorers ie 2nd equal
|
|
By:
That's exactly what I'm saying. If you wanted that bet (a guaranteed 6/1 if he was one of the top 4 scorers) then you should have asked for it.
14/1 is the price for him to be the top scorer. If he dead-heats for that then you lose a proportion of your stake and get the remainder paid at 14/1. Imagine, for the sake of argument, that 10 players - including Villa - all finish with 5 goals. Would you still expect the "Spain/Villa top GS" double to pay out more than the Spain single? |
|
By:
THIS is the exact reason why these bets are daft.. backing the actualy doubles especially when the goalscorer is proven at international level is far from stupid..
spain/villa brazil/fabiano germany/klose etc etc isnt stupid because its almost guaranteed that when the scorer bangs in 4-5+ then their teams will go well for that comp.. especially when its a stronger country that doesnt just rely on that one player.. the goals can get shared around a bit more. but the player still notches regularly.. oh fk it i may have typed that incorrectly but you all get me.. i dont do them myself but as a rule they arent the stupidest bets and THIS situation (when there is a dead hear) is when it can really fk you over.. |
|
By:
I BACKED SPAIN AND SNEIJDER AND WAS GIVEN 4/1 AND 100/1 AS IT WAS NOT A RELATED DOUBLE.
I GOT BACK £631.25 FOR MY £5 DOUBLE, BUT I STILL FEEL EXTREMELY AGGRIEVED. THE REASON BEING THAT SPAIN/VILLA PUNTERS HAD THEIR ODDS GREATLY REDUCED BECAUSE THAT IS A RELATED CONTINGENCY, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT WHERE YOU BET A PLAYER FROM AN OPPOSING TEAM SHOULD YOUR ODDS NOT BE INFLATED? SEEMS LIKE THE BOOKMAKERS WANT IT ALL WAYS. THERE TEAM TO WIN/TOP SCORER DOUBLE BOOK PROBABLY WORKS OUT AT OVER 200% BEFORE SHAFTING US WITH THE RELATED CONTINGENCIES! I'M SURE INSTEAD OF GETTING JUST OVER 500/1 MY DOUBLE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN 550/1 AT LEAST ANY VIEWS |
|
By:
People do realise this is a dead heat??
as well as Spain/Villa, you have Spain/Muller etc... thus odds lower than expected |
|
By:
People need to realise that their bet is actually 3/4 losing bet and only 1/4 a winning bet. Staggering decision by Hills imo.
|
|
By:
 |