Jump to content

Betting advice please - TLS? / Quids? anyone else......


Recommended Posts

What am I missing?

Celtic / Rangers SPL showdown Sunday afternoon.


I have put ?200 on Celtic @ 1.7 Betfair. If Celtic win title I profit ?140. If they don't I lose ?200.

Celtic then messed up against Hibs and are now 3.35 to win SPL. It looks like I will lose ?200 so have to find a way out.

Odds are now: Celtic 3.35 Rangers 1.4

How can i set off the bet?.

bet on Rangers or lay Celtic is the easiest option to reduce your loss...but still gonna take a loss. Potentially, You could also do some actual match betting on both fixtures thinking about how the various potential outcomes effect your position...but that depends on the odds and may have to be done in inplay. Or you could have faith in the Bhoys!! ;-)

The latter part of what ???? said could be an option if they allow in-running on the 2 games ( which I assume are the last game each and are played simultaneously).


Although, sometimes, you can do "damage limitation" this, apart from the situation changing in-running, is not one of them, unfortunately Mick, as to back both teams at 1.7 ( a shade better than 4/6 ) and 1.4 ( exactly 2/5 ) can only lead someone to the poor house.


So:


Option 1: Sit on it and pray!

Option 2: Trade in-running if you are able to and the situation changes in your favour)...

I have done a little spreadsheet. The best I can do is generate a ?100 loss on both results (by putting additional monies on both teams) - that way I'm guaranteed to lose ?100 either way and have no upside - see below:


SCENARIO A - CELTIC WIN TITLE


Celtic Win Current Odds Celtic 3.350

Rangers 1.400



Risked Odds Result Proceeds Win / Lose


Celtic 200 @ 1.700 Win 340 140


Rangers 310 @ 1.400 Lose Nil (310)


Celtic 30 @ 3.350 Win 101 71


Overall Loss (100)


SCENARIO B - RANGERS WIN TITLE


Celtic Lose Current Odds Celtic 3.350

Rangers 1.400



Risked Odds Result Proceeds Win / Lose


Celtic 200 @ 1.700 Lose Nil (200)


Rangers 310 @ 1.400 Win 434 124


Celtic 30 @ 3.350 Lose Nil (30)


Overall Loss (106)


At the end of the day I'll probably just stick with what I have got. Might back Rangers in running if they struggle early on. Cheers for help.

Tony.London Suburbs Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The latter part of what ???? said could be an

> option if they allow in-running on the 2 games (

> which I assume are the last game each and are

> played simultaneously).

>

> Although, sometimes, you can do "damage

> limitation" this, apart from the situation

> changing in-running, is not one of them,

> unfortunately Mick, as to back both teams at 1.7 (

> a shade better than 4/6 ) and 1.4 ( exactly 2/5 )

> can only lead someone to the poor house.

>

> So:

>

> Option 1: Sit on it and pray!

> Option 2: Trade in-running if you are able to and

> the situation changes in your favour)...


Tony, not all true - ?200 on Rangers would reduce losses for certain to ?120.. or ?60 if Celtic won surely?

???? Wrote:

unfortunately Mick, as to back both teams at 1.7, a shade better than 4/6 and 1.4 ( exactly 2/5

Tony, not all true - ?200 on Rangers would reduce losses for certain to ?120.. or ?60 if Celtic won surely?


I'll be really quick ???? as I've got to go and meet someone but ?200 on Rangers would restrict a Rangers loss to ?120 as you said but Celtic only Won ?140 in the first place and now putting ?200 on Rangers means Celtic lose him ?60 ( ?140+ - ?200) so he would lose ?120 on Rangers and now ?60 on Celtic...

Tony.London Suburbs Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ???? Wrote:

> unfortunately Mick, as to back both teams at 1.7,

> a shade better than 4/6 and 1.4 ( exactly 2/5

> Tony, not all true - ?200 on Rangers would reduce

> losses for certain to ?120.. or ?60 if Celtic won

> surely?

>

> I'll be really quick ???? as I've got to go and

> meet someone but ?200 on Rangers would restrict a

> Rangers loss to ?120 as you said but Celtic only

> Won ?140 in the first place and now putting ?200

> on Rangers means Celtic lose him ?60 ( ?140+ -

> ?200) so he would lose ?120 on Rangers and now ?60

> on Celtic...


er...tony......at the end of my previous post


"Tony, not all true - ?200 on Rangers would reduce losses for certain to ?120.. or ?60 if Celtic won surely?".....


you took the words right out of my mouth...>:D<

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What am I missing?

> Celtic / Rangers SPL showdown Sunday afternoon.

>

> I have put ?200 on Celtic @ 1.7 Betfair. If Celtic

> win title I profit ?140. If they don't I lose

> ?200.

> Celtic then messed up against Hibs and are now

> 3.35 to win SPL. It looks like I will lose ?200 so

> have to find a way out.

> Odds are now: Celtic 3.35 Rangers 1.4

> How can i set off the bet?.





Buy a cheap bottle of Scotch




Drown y'sorrows with an offset headache

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Girls In Your City - No Selfie - Anonymous Casual Dating https://SecreLocal.com [url=https://SecreLocal.com] Girls In Your City [/url] - Anonymous Casual Dating - No Selfie New Girls [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/vanessa-100.html]Vanessa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/vanessa-100.html]Vanessa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/molly-15.html]Molly[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/cheryl-blossom-48.html]Cheryl Blossom[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/carola-conymegan-116.html]Carola Conymegan[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/pupa-41.html]Pupa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/mia-candy-43.html]Mia Candy[/url]
    • This is a remarkable interpretation of history. Wikipedia (with more footnotes and citations than you could shake a shitty stick at sez: The austerity programme was initiated in 2010 by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government. In his June 2010 budget speech, Osborne identified two goals. The first was that the structural current budget deficit would be eliminated to "achieve [a] cyclically-adjusted current balance by the end of the rolling, five-year forecast period". The second was that national debt as a percentage of GDP would fall. The government intended to achieve both of its goals through substantial reductions in public expenditure.[21] This was to be achieved by a combination of public spending cuts and tax increases amounting to £110 billion.[26] Between 2010 and 2013, the Coalition government said that it had reduced public spending by £14.3 billion compared with 2009–10.[27] Growth remained low, while unemployment rose. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_austerity_programme From memory, last time around they were against the LTNs and competing with the Tories to pick up backlash votes - both failed. They had no counterproposals or ideas about how to manage congestion or pollution. This time around they're simply silent on the matter: https://www.southwark-libdems.org.uk/your-local-lib-dem-team/goosegreen Also, as we have seen from Mr Barber's comments on the new development on the old Jewsons yard, "leading campaigns to protect the character of East Dulwich and Goose Green" is code for "blocking new housing".
    • @Insuflo NO, please no, please don't encourage him to post more often! 😒
    • Revealing of what, exactly? I resurrected this thread, after a year, to highlight the foolishness of the OP’s op. And how posturing would be sagacity is quickly undermined by events, dear boy, events. The thread is about Mandelson. I knew he was a wrong ‘un all along, we all did; the Epstein shit just proves it. In reality, Kinnock, Blair, Brown, Starmer et all knew as well but accepted it, because they found him useful. As did a large proportion of the 2024 intake of Labour MPs who were personally vetted and approved by Mandelson.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...