Jump to content

Betting Matters....

Mick Mac

By Mick Mac
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

????

????

Posted
Posted

It means you can become the bookie Declan. Say Ireland are 6 (decimal) to win the Grand Slam and you don't think they've a cat in hells chance you can lay it...in effect offer 6. So if you lay ?2 you'll win just ?2 if they fail...if they get the Grand Slam you're ?10 down. Risky business.



BUT...you can use it for Hedging and trading more but that's an entirely different story

Narnia

Narnia

Posted
Posted
Thanks for that Quids but it leads me to ask why it's so risky? Say in any given footie match there are 3 possible outcomes, by laying you are banking on either of two of the three happening. If that's right is the risk you refer to being what losses you might incur if you are wrong?
????

????

Posted
Posted
You're right but it's the odds that do you in as a small experiment I tried laying for ?2 the opposition of Liverpool/Man U/Arsenal/Chelsea a few years back...West Ham neat Man U once and Arsenal twice that season at odds of between 8-13. So costing me about ?20 a pop. Most weeks Kerching ?8 more quid in the bank but you only need one or two of the bigger upsets and you've a lot to claw back!
????

????

Posted
Posted
You're right but it's the odds that do you in as a small experiment I tried laying for ?2 the opposition of Liverpool/Man U/Arsenal/Chelsea a few years back...West Ham neat Man U once and Arsenal twice that season at odds of between 8-13. So costing me about ?20 a pop. Most weeks Kerching ?8 more quid in the bank but you only need one or two of the bigger upsets and you've a lot to claw back!
????

????

Posted
Posted

Declan, the real thing about betting is that broadly the odds are normally 'about right' but slightly in favour of the bookmaker on Betfair they are probably more equal. But effectively the probability is about right. So to gamble successfully (traditionally -ie not trading) you need to look where you think the bookies have got their probability wrong - that is called value - and then go big. This takes a combination of balls, a knowledge better than the market maker and a bankroll ( a serious gambler will stack big on something that they think is priced wrong but offers value ie their probability = 6/1 the bookies 8/1 then in the long run this is likely to be a profitable play but requires a bankroll). To illustrate a professional gambler if offered 2/1 on a coin flip on the proviso they had to bet at least ?10,000 pounds would take it no problem, it's value...would you if you had it as spare cash?


there are exceptions to the market being about right IE England are always a stupidly short price for World Cups because so many people put money on them, and these offer opportunities too.

Mick Mac

Mick Mac

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Small bets on Mickleson and Leonard for the Masters as they seem both in reasonable form. Leaonard is 125/1 as he presumably has apoor masters record.



Declan - Woods is 4/1 for the Masters. I'm amazed at this. If you want to lay something this may be your chance.


I'm very tempted to lay this myself. In my view he is a broken man - but then he's proven to be unpredictable so who knows.


Rory Mc is 55 on betfair - worth a few quid but no recent form.

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
 Share
Go to topic listing
  • Advertise Here

  • Latest Discussions

    • camberwell57
      Checking refs of these builders

      By camberwell57 · Posted

      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 
    • malumbu
      Will Mandelson be accepted across the pond.

      By malumbu · Posted

      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.  
    • enya
      John Marx (Top Marx Kitchens): highly recommended kitchen fitter

      By enya · Posted

      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.
    • Suggsy
      Councillor McAsh defects to the Greens

      By Suggsy · Posted

      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. 

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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