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

    • Hi - I posted a request for some help with a stuck door and possible leaky roof. I had responses from Lukasz at Look_as.com and Pawel at Sublime Builders. I don't see any/many reviews - has anyone used either person?  Could use a recommendation rather then just being contact by the tradespeople... Many Thanks 
    • I'm a bit worried by your sudden involvement on this Forum.  The former Prince Andrew is now Andrew Mountbatten Windsor Mountbatten in an anglicisation of Von Battenburg adopted by that branch of our Royal Family in 1917 due to anti-German sentiment. Another anglicisation could be simply Battenburg as in the checker board cake.  So I surmise that your are Andrew Battenburg, aka Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and that you have infiltrated social media so that the country can put the emphasis on Mandelson ather than yourself.  Bit of a failure. I don't expect an answer from police custody.  
    • We had John fit our PLYKEA kitchen (IKEA cabinets with custom doors) and would happily recommend him and Gabi to anyone. Gabi handled all communication and was brilliant throughout — responsive and happy to answer questions however detailed. John is meticulous, cares about the small details, and was a pleasure to have in the house. The carpentry required for the custom doors was done to a high standard, and he even refinished the plumbing under the sink to sit better with the new cabinets — a small touch that made a real difference. They were happy to return and tie up a few things that couldn't be finished in the time, which we appreciated. No hesitations recommending them.
    • Not sure about that. Rockets seems to have (rightly in my view) identified two key motivating elements in Mcash's defection: anger at his previous (arguably shabby) treatment and a (linked) desire to trash the Labour party, nationally and locally. The defection, timed for maximum damage, combined with the invective and moral exhibitionism of his statement counts as rather more than a "hissy fit".  I would add a third motivation of political ambition: it's not inconceivable that he has his eye on the Dulwich & West Norwood seat which is predicted to go Green.  James Barber was indulging in typical LibDem sleight of hand, claiming that Blair introduced austerity to *councils* before the coalition. This is a kind of sixth form debating point. From 1997-1999 Labour broadly stuck to Tory spending totals, meaning there was limited growth in departmental spending, including local govt grants. However local government funding rose substantially in the Noughties, especially in education and social care. It is a matter of record that real-terms local authority spending increased in the Blair / Brown years overall. So he's manifestly wrong (or only right if the focus is on 1997-1999, which would be a bizarre focus and one he didn't include in his claim) but he wasn't claiming Blair introduced austerity more widely. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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