Betting Thread

[Col city fan]

18 hours ago, Unabomber said:

First of all I hate VAR. However with your logic surely if you had won those bets before VAR you would have just been lucky as the decisions were wrong. Also seems you bet on some random leagues? 

The point I’m making (badly?) is that these were all decisions given as goals

No linesman’s flags, no nothing

It was then VAR that over-turned them. All of them.

Therefore (whether rightly or wrongly.. that’s not the argument), pre-var they would have stood and I’d have won. In each case, simply having VAR and it being in use, over-turned every one of these decisions. And I didn’t win

Simply equates to the existence of VAR, at least in THESE cases, resulting in betting losses that would have been betting wins

This isn’t good for people who bet on goals to be scored because VAR seems to over-turn goals that have been scored (ie to disallow) more than it grants goals that HAVENT been allowed by the officials

At least that’s my perception

Going forward, I’m going to target matches that don’t use VAR more than those that do, as VAR seems to give a competitive disadvantage to the number of goals allowed. I also wonder if other people betting are finding the same thing?

Hope that makes sense

I’m not talking about all the rights and wrongs of VAR, I’m looking at it purely in gambling terms.

Edited 10 December 2019 by Col city fan

[lildave3]

40 minutes ago, Col city fan said:

The point I’m making (badly?) is that these were all decisions given as goals

No linesman’s flags, no nothing

It was then VAR that over-turned them. All of them.

Therefore (whether rightly or wrongly.. that’s not the argument), pre-var they would have stood and I’d have won. In each case, simply having VAR and it being in use, over-turned every one of these decisions. And I didn’t win

Simply equates to the existence of VAR, at least in THESE cases, resulting in betting losses that would have been betting wins

This isn’t good for people who bet on goals to be scored because VAR seems to over-turn goals that have been scored (ie to disallow) more than it grants goals that HAVENT been allowed by the officials

At least that’s my perception

Going forward, I’m going to target matches that don’t use VAR more than those that do, as VAR seems to give a competitive disadvantage to the number of goals allowed. I also wonder if other people betting are finding the same thing?

Hope that makes sense

I’m not talking about all the rights and wrongs of VAR, I’m looking at it purely in gambling terms.

How do you know they wouldn’t have been flagged without VAR? 😅 They are told to keep the flags down. 
Also, if you target games without VAR I fully expect a post in two weeks where you’ve had goals given offside when they were well onside...

[shawy2510]

This is why you never cash out with 1 minute normal time to go

just missed out on £1100

 

 

[Col city fan]

Last nights Championship 0-0 lost me a few quid 

[SAFC1]

 

 

 

[Royston.]

If i had an accumulator on say, 6 matches all ending in draws.

Would i be able to cash out after 5 mins when its highly likely all matches would be drawing?

[Otis]

3 hours ago, Royston. said:

If i had an accumulator on say, 6 matches all ending in draws.

Would i be able to cash out after 5 mins when its highly likely all matches would be drawing?

Yes

[Steve_Walsh5]

4 hours ago, Royston. said:

If i had an accumulator on say, 6 matches all ending in draws.

Would i be able to cash out after 5 mins when its highly likely all matches would be drawing?

Yes but I doubt it would be anywhere near the stake you put on. 

[whoareyaaa]

On ‎29‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 17:56, SAFC1 said:

 

 

 

there is some bloke on twitter 'the betting village' wins a lot of these card bet builders

[whoareyaaa]

23 hours ago, Royston. said:

If i had an accumulator on say, 6 matches all ending in draws.

Would i be able to cash out after 5 mins when its highly likely all matches would be drawing?

the bigger the stake the bigger the cash out, after 5 minutes there wouldn't be that much ROI 

 

I've always thought about betting and cashing out when the bet goes into profit early on but it would take a lot of luck still I think and profits would be small

 

[ScouseFox]

does anyone know how on god's green earth liverpool are the same price as spurs to win the fa cup? 

 

6/1 on a team that is so much better than all the other teams in the competition. seems a bit, er, massive. 

[walkerleeds]

31 minutes ago, ScouseFox said:

does anyone know how on god's green earth liverpool are the same price as spurs to win the fa cup? 

 

6/1 on a team that is so much better than all the other teams in the competition. seems a bit, er, massive. 

 

Mourinho innit (not that I would be going anywhere near backing it)

Edited 2 January 2020 by walkerleeds

[lildave3]

13 hours ago, ScouseFox said:

does anyone know how on god's green earth liverpool are the same price as spurs to win the fa cup? 

 

6/1 on a team that is so much better than all the other teams in the competition. seems a bit, er, massive. 

Not saying I’d agree with it but I would assume it’s based on third round opponents and Klopp’s love for resting players around this time.

 

Wouldn't be touching either of them at 6/1 tbh. 

[ScouseFox]

4 hours ago, lildave3 said:

Not saying I’d agree with it but I would assume it’s based on third round opponents and Klopp’s love for resting players around this time.

 

Wouldn't be touching either of them at 6/1 tbh. 

they played most their reserves at home against everton in the league and could’ve scored double figures. 

 

by the time the fa cup gets to the quarter finals they will have already won the league. think they will want to win all 3 just to outdo united’s 99 efforts. 

 

either way i can’t see any justification for them not being favourites. 

[lildave3]

9 minutes ago, ScouseFox said:

they played most their reserves at home against everton in the league and could’ve scored double figures. 

 

by the time the fa cup gets to the quarter finals they will have already won the league. think they will want to win all 3 just to outdo united’s 99 efforts. 

 

either way i can’t see any justification for them not being favourites. 

In my head Man City were favourites because of the fact the league would be done with...hadn’t considered it from a Liverpool point of view if I’m honest. 
 

Man City if healthy though are on par, perhaps only slightly worse than Liverpool - throw in the fact they will spend in January I’m not surprised they’re favourites for this and the Champions League. 

[HowardsBulletHeader]

Had Harvey Barnes first goal at 17/2 tonight which was nice.

 

Had the brace at 18/1 as well, not quite. 

[ScouseFox]

yeah same, had anytime, first, last, two or more and a hat trick. i assumed he was playing up front when i backed it then debated laying it off when everyone on twitter said gray would be up front. but didn’t. 

 

pretty profitable. he owes me tbf. for the last 18 months of me backing him most games and him literally never scoring. 

[Suzie the Fox]

19 hours ago, HowardsBulletHeader said:

Had Harvey Barnes first goal at 17/2 tonight which was nice.

 

Had the brace at 18/1 as well, not quite. 

I was going to bet on Harvey scoring 1st aswell but didnt want to curse it  

[ScouseFox]

On 03/01/2020 at 15:34, ScouseFox said:

they played most their reserves at home against everton in the league and could’ve scored double figures. 

 

by the time the fa cup gets to the quarter finals they will have already won the league. think they will want to win all 3 just to outdo united’s 99 efforts. 

 

either way i can’t see any justification for them not being favourites. 

already had a great time with this bet tbf. 

 

backed them cos i couldn’t work out why they were 6/1 because they would be odds on in every game. started the first round at home at about 5/2. 

 

slightly stronger team next time pls klopp. 

[Dan LCFC]

Am I missing something here? He didn't score first?

 

Does it just not count own goals at all no?

[ScouseFox]

8 minutes ago, Dan LCFC said:

Am I missing something here? He didn't score first?

 

Does it just not count own goals at all no?

yeah own goals don’t count because the market is “first goalscorer” and own goal isn’t a goalscorer. so it’s one of them lucky ones where you back first scorer and last scorer and the same goal pays out both bets. 

Edited 5 January 2020 by ScouseFox

[Dan LCFC]

2 minutes ago, ScouseFox said:

yeah own goals don’t count because the market is “first goalscorer” and own goal isn’t a goalscorer. so it’s one of them lucky ones where you back first scorer and last scorer and the same goal pays out both bets. 

Hahaha that's decent. Never even knew that but I rarely back first goalscorer as a general rule anyway.

[Bert]

On 05/01/2020 at 23:38, Dan LCFC said:

Hahaha that's decent. Never even knew that but I rarely back first goalscorer as a general rule anyway.

That’s why if you ever fancy a bet on 0-0 back “no goalscorer” at normally the same price because if the game ends 1-0 with an OG you still get paid. 

 

Happened to us one time away at Barnsley. 

[Dan LCFC]

3 hours ago, Bert said:

That’s why if you ever fancy a bet on 0-0 back “no goalscorer” at normally the same price because if the game ends 1-0 with an OG you still get paid. 

 

Happened to us one time away at Barnsley. 

Hadn't even thought of that.

 

I remember that game as well that you're on about. One of my favourite ever games.

[Bert]

9 hours ago, Dan LCFC said:

Hadn't even thought of that.

 

I remember that game as well that you're on about. One of my favourite ever games.

Was a great game. Remember it fondly. Also remember that at my pool game the Thursday night before we were having his same chat, something I didn’t know about at the time either. 

 

Backed the no goalscorer didn’t I.