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

    • I would like to understand this promise by the Greens in greater detail and how it applies locally? Presumably road/pavement upkeep and renewal is as important for cyclists and pedestrians as motorists? I am not aware of plans to build new roads locally but there has been plenty of money spent on converting roads into pedestrian only areas. On the face of it this feels a slightly empty statement, when applied at local level. I'd love to know the Greens stance in hiring out parks for private use (given impact on park environment), I'd also like to understand their stance on fireworks- I will look to see if I can find anything. I don't know if a manifesto exists under the documents section of Southwark Greens, but you can only access that bit by signing in- which is disappointing. If anyone has a manifesto that reflects local priorities- could they post a link?
    • You are most likely correct in thinking that  Kinnock, Blair, Brown, Starmer et all knew it.  But they obviously thought that his skills, abilities and usefulness far outweighed the negatives. Here is a summary of the positives lifted from elsewhere:-   1. Strategic Architect: He was a primary architect of "New Labour," rebranding the party and shifting its core ideology to win the 1997 general election. 2 Master of Communication: Often called the original "spin doctor," he revolutionised how political parties manage the media. He famously created the "grid" system to coordinate government messaging. 3 Networking and Charm: Known as "Silvertongue," he possesses a peerless ability to charm and network with high-level global figures, including business leaders and heads of state. 4. Governance and Trade Expertise: Beyond strategy, he was considered a highly efficient minister, serving as European Commissioner for Trade and Secretary of State across multiple departments, including Business and Northern Ireland.  5. Reinvention: His capacity to adapt to changing political climates and rebuild relationships reflects personal resilience and strategic flexibility. With his skill and abilities, he delivered results for all his bosses. In the short time in Washington, he found a way to get on the right side of Trump - despite him  being critical of Trump in previous years. That said he is complex personality.  He can be simultaneously brilliant and arrogant, thick-skinned yet sensitive, and selfless for his party while appearing narcissistic in his personal dealings.  My OP asked if he would be accepted over the pond. It turned out he was because he got on famously with trump. He worked out the correct strategy to get on the good side of Trump and secured a better trade deal than the EU and other nations.    
    • Malumbu, do you happen to know what the current figure is for "trips into town made by walking, cycling and public transport"? 
    • Before voting, do you not think it's logical to evaluate each party on its policies and make a tally of the reasons "For" and "Against" voting for each party.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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