What are the odds on that?

[adam1]

An interesting read on fake transfer news - where the money is.

 

http://sportwitness.co.uk/odds-wolves-fake-news-shows-easily-truth-overlooked/

 

I wonder how much has been traded on Maguire with each of the "he is having a medical on Tuesday".

[LinekersApples]

Dangerous game. Even with “100% guaranteed” info, things can go wrong.

 

I have won as much as I’ve lost on inside knowledge from reliable sources, colleagues, players and friends. 

 

Its called gambling for a reason and I’ve personally stopped, cos if you can’t win even when you have “facts”... you can’t win. Only one winner. 

[adam1]

1 hour ago, LinekersApples said:

Dangerous game. Even with “100% guaranteed” info, things can go wrong.

 

I have won as much as I’ve lost on inside knowledge from reliable sources, colleagues, players and friends. 

 

Its called gambling for a reason and I’ve personally stopped, cos if you can’t win even when you have “facts”... you can’t win. Only one winner. 

Its called a margin. You should only bet when you know the price is wrong. Ie you are 60% sure and its 1/1 to happen.

[LC/FC]

This would count as insider trading in the financial sector. Should totally be banned. 

[Chrysalis]

1 hour ago, LinekersApples said:

Dangerous game. Even with “100% guaranteed” info, things can go wrong.

 

I have won as much as I’ve lost on inside knowledge from reliable sources, colleagues, players and friends. 

 

Its called gambling for a reason and I’ve personally stopped, cos if you can’t win even when you have “facts”... you can’t win. Only one winner. 

Indeed the odds are massively unfavourable on most bets offered.

 

In a casino on roulette the house advantage is the 0 an extra outcome on 36 outcomes. So 2.7%.

 

In typical bookies its way way higher.  Or rather the player disadvantage is much worse.

 

So lets say e.g you have odds of 2/1, that would imply a one in two chance without a house advantage or maybe 1/3 chance but with house advantage of 33%.

 

If man city play at home to cardiff you expect them to win maybe 9 games out of 10.  So odds of something like 11/10 or 12/10.  Instead would get something like 1/5 a huge house advantage.  Meanwhile for cardiff to win I would expect at least 10/1 but would be more likely something like 3/1.

 

After our title win where they lost millions, they not like casinos taking it on the chin "lose some, win some", since that year they have been tighter on odds.  Now they trialling a system of not allowing bets on the most likely outcome as well with "player to stay" bets.

[adam1]

38 minutes ago, LC/FC said:

This would count as insider trading in the financial sector. Should totally be banned. 

It is. Daniel Sturridge got a ban.

 

 

[LC/FC]

7 minutes ago, adam1 said:

It is. Daniel Sturridge got a ban.

 

 

Considering the news of his stupid missing dog was more well known, the FA really need to make it more serious. 

And it was only 2 weeks, which is nothing when you consider he's out longer than that, tripping over his shoe laces. 

[Foxes04]

1 hour ago, LC/FC said:

Considering the news of his stupid missing dog was more well known, the FA really need to make it more serious. 

And it was only 2 weeks, which is nothing when you consider he's out longer than that, tripping over his shoe laces. 

His missing dog wasn’t stupid 

[treer]

2 hours ago, Chrysalis said:

If man city play at home to cardiff you expect them to win maybe 9 games out of 10.  So odds of something like 11/10 or 12/10.  Instead would get something like 1/5 a huge house advantage.  Meanwhile for cardiff to win I would expect at least 10/1 but would be more likely something like 3/1.

 

After our title win where they lost millions, they not like casinos taking it on the chin "lose some, win some", since that year they have been tighter on odds.  Now they trialling a system of not allowing bets on the most likely outcome as well with "player to stay" bets

I take it you have been in the sunshine all day

[adam1]

2 hours ago, LC/FC said:

Considering the news of his stupid missing dog was more well known, the FA really need to make it more serious. 

And it was only 2 weeks, which is nothing when you consider he's out longer than that, tripping over his shoe laces. 

What did pie gate get? 2 months ban?

[LC/FC]

1 hour ago, Foxes04 said:

His missing dog wasn’t stupid 

OK. Sorry. A stupid man and his dog. Better? 

[LC/FC]

3 minutes ago, adam1 said:

What did pie gate get? 2 months ban?

More than that... Cause I think he retired after that. 

[brucey]

5 hours ago, adam1 said:

It is. Daniel Sturridge got a ban.

And if you read the articles about his ban, you realise that even the players themselves don't know where they're going half the time. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/jul/18/daniel-sturridge-ban-breaching-fa-betting-rules-appeal

[Leeds Fox]

18 hours ago, Chrysalis said:

If man city play at home to cardiff you expect them to win maybe 9 games out of 10.  So odds of something like 11/10 or 12/10.  Instead would get something like 1/5 a huge house advantage.  Meanwhile for cardiff to win I would expect at least 10/1 but would be more likely something like 3/1.

 

After our title win where they lost millions, they not like casinos taking it on the chin "lose some, win some", since that year they have been tighter on odds.  Now they trialling a system of not allowing bets on the most likely outcome as well with "player to stay" bets.

 

1. Why would the odds be almost evens if the likelihood has a 90% chance of occurring? 

 

2. The bookies didn’t lose millions on us winning the league. They won on every bet for Man City, Liverpool et al (and every accumulator they were in). 

 

From your post, it looks like maths and English aren’t your strongest subjects. 

 

PS - If you ever see Man City at 11/10 to be beat a team like Cardiff, let me know 

 

Edit - What bookies were you using to find Cardiff to beat Man City at 3/1. You said you’d expect 10/1. The odds will have been even bigger than that. After a quick check... Hudds were 25/1 to beat Man City last season. 

Edited 26 July 2019 by Leeds Fox

[adam1]

12 hours ago, Leeds Fox said:

 

1. Why would the odds be almost evens if the likelihood has a 90% chance of occurring? 

 

2. The bookies didn’t lose millions on us winning the league. They won on every bet for Man City, Liverpool et al (and every accumulator they were in). 

 

From your post, it looks like maths and English aren’t your strongest subjects. 

 

PS - If you ever see Man City at 11/10 to be beat a team like Cardiff, let me know 

 

Edit - What bookies were you using to find Cardiff to beat Man City at 3/1. You said you’d expect 10/1. The odds will have been even bigger than that. After a quick check... Hudds were 25/1 to beat Man City last season. 

3/1 denotes a 25% chance of winning. However there is a margin for the bookie, so you would be getting a 25% chance of winning price when actually the chance would be less ie 23.5%. 

 

Cardiff to win one in 4 times against man city?  One in 16 times is probably more accurate!  Thats 6.25 %. So 14/1 would give the bookie scope for a margin.

 

 

[Leeds Fox]

3 minutes ago, adam1 said:

3/1 denotes a 25% chance of winning. However there is a margin for the bookie, so you would be getting a 25% chance of winning price when actually the chance would be less ie 23.5%. 

 

Cardiff to win one in 4 times against man city?  One in 16 times is probably more accurate!  Thats 6.25 %. So 14/1 would give the bookie scope for a margin.

 

 

 

I’m aware of how the bookmakers use odds in their favour and how they relate to the probability of an outcome. 

 

My point was that Man City were never anywhere near Evs to beat Cardiff. The odds for  Cardiff to beat Man City will have been much longer than 3/1. 

 

I was calling the poster out on talking absolute drivel, which is exactly what it was. None of it was based on any evidence and the vast majority was completely false. 

[adam1]

2 minutes ago, Leeds Fox said:

 

I’m aware of how the bookmakers use odds in their favour and how they relate to the probability of an outcome. 

 

My point was that Man City were never anywhere near Evs to beat Cardiff. The odds for  Cardiff to beat Man City will have been much longer than 3/1. 

 

I was calling the poster out on talking absolute drivel, which is exactly what it was. None of it was based on any evidence and the vast majority was completely false. 

I agree with you. I forgot to make that part clear (rain man moment)!

[Leeds Fox]

1 hour ago, adam1 said:

I agree with you. I forgot to make that part clear (rain man moment)!

 

I thought you were disagreeing and didn’t read the post I was replying to. I think FoxesTalk has made me defensive 

[Chrysalis]

19 hours ago, Leeds Fox said:

 

1. Why would the odds be almost evens if the likelihood has a 90% chance of occurring? 

 

2. The bookies didn’t lose millions on us winning the league. They won on every bet for Man City, Liverpool et al (and every accumulator they were in). 

 

From your post, it looks like maths and English aren’t your strongest subjects. 

 

PS - If you ever see Man City at 11/10 to be beat a team like Cardiff, let me know 

 

Edit - What bookies were you using to find Cardiff to beat Man City at 3/1. You said you’d expect 10/1. The odds will have been even bigger than that. After a quick check... Hudds were 25/1 to beat Man City last season. 

We will never see those odds because as I said the bookies dont accept same house advantage as casinos.  They a bad place to spend money which was my point.

 

I will rephrase.  On they lost millions.  They still would have made a profit (since they continuously adjust odds to make sure they never lose), but they made millions less profit than if we didnt win the league.

 

P.S. I dont care about grammar, this is a forum not a university essay, and I am good at maths.

 

In reference to this quick check how are you checking past odds?

 

Also given you been defensive of the bookies, as is apparent by your post, do you think they good places to spend money?

Edited 26 July 2019 by Chrysalis

[Chrysalis]

6 hours ago, Leeds Fox said:

 

I’m aware of how the bookmakers use odds in their favour and how they relate to the probability of an outcome. 

 

My point was that Man City were never anywhere near Evs to beat Cardiff. The odds for  Cardiff to beat Man City will have been much longer than 3/1. 

 

I was calling the poster out on talking absolute drivel, which is exactly what it was. None of it was based on any evidence and the vast majority was completely false. 

 

I am awaiting your evidence that you think its drivel to say bookies set themselves up with an advantage on odds to ensure they make a profit.

[Leeds Fox]

1 hour ago, Chrysalis said:

We will never see those odds because as I said the bookies dont accept same house advantage as casinos.  They a bad place to spend money which was my point.

 

I will rephrase.  On they lost millions.  They still would have made a profit (since they continuously adjust odds to make sure they never lose), but they made millions less profit than if we didnt win the league.

 

P.S. I dont care about grammar, this is a forum not a university essay, and I am good at maths.

 

In reference to this quick check how are you checking past odds?

 

Also given you been defensive of the bookies, as is apparent by your post, do you think they good places to spend money?

 

1 hour ago, Chrysalis said:

 

I am awaiting your evidence that you think its drivel to say bookies set themselves up with an advantage on odds to ensure they make a profit.

 

You quoted odds that would never have been offered, and used them to back up a point which became misleading as a result. 

 

I don’t disagree odds are set to favour the bookies, that’s a fact. 

 

I don’t think they did make less of a profit because we won the league, I think they’ll have made a much bigger profit because of it. I can’t prove this but I’m sure someone on here can prove me right/wrong. Happy to be corrected. 

 

I don’t think placing a bet if you see good value in a market is necessarily a bad idea, as long as it’s a sensible amount and within an individuals limits. 

 

You can check past odds on Apps like Live Score and FlashScore, it shows you the best pre-game odds on matches that have been played if you check back far enough. 

 

*Sorry for mentioning your writing in my OP. 

Edited 26 July 2019 by Leeds Fox

[brucey]

1 hour ago, Chrysalis said:

I will rephrase.  On they lost millions.  They still would have made a profit (since they continuously adjust odds to make sure they never lose), but they made millions less profit than if we didnt win the league.

They made tens of millions more profit because of us winning the league. They collected all of the vast piles of money put on by big 6 teams fans, and only needed to pay out the tiny handful of LCFC fans, which was a miniscule amount in comparison.

 

Favourites winning = good for punters

Underdogs winning = good for bookies

 

Pretty sure that’s common knowledge in the industry.

[Sly]

At some point, surely someone has got to crack down on the “transfer rumours”, spun by SkyNews / SkySports to manipulate the betting odds for SkyBet? 

[Collymore]

On 25/07/2019 at 16:39, Chrysalis said:

Indeed the odds are massively unfavourable on most bets offered.

 

In a casino on roulette the house advantage is the 0 an extra outcome on 36 outcomes. So 2.7%.

 

In typical bookies its way way higher.  Or rather the player disadvantage is much worse.

 

So lets say e.g you have odds of 2/1, that would imply a one in two chance without a house advantage or maybe 1/3 chance but with house advantage of 33%.

 

If man city play at home to cardiff you expect them to win maybe 9 games out of 10.  So odds of something like 11/10 or 12/10.  Instead would get something like 1/5 a huge house advantage.  Meanwhile for cardiff to win I would expect at least 10/1 but would be more likely something like 3/1.

 

After our title win where they lost millions, they not like casinos taking it on the chin "lose some, win some", since that year they have been tighter on odds.  Now they trialling a system of not allowing bets on the most likely outcome as well with "player to stay" bets.

I don't think I've ever read a post with so many errors in it but some how get the impression you might be on the wind up!