|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2015 9:43:24 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by agingerstokie on Jul 29, 2015 9:46:20 GMT
Because they don't predict Everton to have such a shit season again when they haven't got Europe?
|
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Jul 29, 2015 9:46:41 GMT
Think about it, when was the last time Everton got relegated? |
|
|
|
Post by BraveSirRobin on Jul 29, 2015 9:46:57 GMT
Why are we above Swansea?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2015 9:46:50 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Jul 29, 2015 9:47:41 GMT
TBF mate, I think just about every football fan in the land would have Everton above us (bar Stoke fans). |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2015 9:50:51 GMT
TBF mate, I think just about every football fan in the land would have Everton above us (bar Stoke fans). I'm surrounded by them , but I can tell you there's quite a few who think Stoke will finish above them . |
|
|
|
Post by cousindupree on Jul 29, 2015 9:51:19 GMT
Well no Europa for Everton. They have so far strengthened their first XI and we have weakened ours. At it stands I would have Everton finishing above us actually as well as Palace.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Jul 29, 2015 9:52:33 GMT
Why are we above Swansea? Probably because, if we were both staring at relegation in January, we have more financial resources to throw at the problem than Swansea? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2015 9:55:13 GMT
Why have Bet365 got us at 25/1 !
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Jul 29, 2015 9:55:44 GMT
TBF mate, I think just about every football fan in the land would have Everton above us (bar Stoke fans). Stats suggest that being in the Europa League costs mid table English clubs 2 or 3 league places so, on that basis, Everton could be expected to be just above us in the league - so the odds are reasonable. |
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Jul 29, 2015 10:03:06 GMT
TBF mate, I think just about every football fan in the land would have Everton above us (bar Stoke fans). Stats suggest that being in the Europa League costs mid table English clubs 2 or 3 league places so, on that basis, Everton could be expected to be just above us in the league - so the odds are reasonable. Yeh I think so and, when you consider that we took all 6 points against them last season, only the most optimistic would predict a repeat of that. IMO Everton are absolute none starters for the relegation stakes. The odd Everton fan might well have us down to finish above them because (like most of us) they are a pessimistic bunch (I know loads of them). |
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Jul 29, 2015 10:07:22 GMT
Why have Bet365 got us at 25/1 ! Doesn't exactly inspire confidence! Do they know something we don't? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2015 10:11:11 GMT
Why have Bet365 got us at 25/1 ! Doesn't exactly inspire confidence! Do they know something we don't? I know has Peter decided enough is enough  |
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Jul 29, 2015 10:13:50 GMT
The odds on staying up are 25/1 ON. In other words bet £25 to win £1 - what wrong with those odds? As a punter you might want better odds - as a fan you should be delighted.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Jul 29, 2015 10:19:18 GMT
Everton are not only above us but are 750:1 with Bet365 as oppose to us at 25:1 with the same bookmaker.
In other words we are 30 times more likely to be relegated than Everton.
I guess in the end it is a way of the bookies saying there is no chance at all of Everton being relegated (well they never are) and despite the bookies believing we are far less likely to go down than we were when we first came up we remain one of the 12 teams (not the 3 London giants, not the 3 North West giants and not Everton or Southampton) who might.
Taking off my red an white tinted glasses and respectful of the fact that the bookies are the hard nosed arbiters of sporting probability I strongly suspect they have it about right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2015 13:11:06 GMT
Well no Europa for Everton. They have so far strengthened their first XI and we have weakened ours. At it stands I would have Everton finishing above us actually as well as Palace. That's an interesting point . You think we are weaker this season . I'm not of that opinion because I think our style of play will make it more difficult for the opposition with even more ball possession . I do agree however that filling Begovics boots and NZonzis is a big ask and I slightly worried about Shawxcross's back problem and Wolsheids overall ability . Summarising , I think we are weaker in some areas and much stronger in others .....it could go either way . I'd be interested to know what others think on this . Weaker or stronger .? |
|
|
|
Post by baystokie on Jul 29, 2015 13:22:27 GMT
Everton are not only above us but are 750:1 with Bet365 as oppose to us at 25:1 with the same bookmaker. In other words we are 30 times more likely to be relegated than Everton. I guess in the end it is a way of the bookies saying there is no chance at all of Everton being relegated (well they never are) and despite the bookies believing we are far less likely to go down than we were when we first came up we remain one of the 12 teams (not the 3 London giants, not the 3 North West giants and not Everton or Southampton) who might. Taking off my red an white tinted glasses and respectful of the fact that the bookies are the hard nosed arbiters of sporting probability I strongly suspect they have it about right. Being ignorant of the ways of the bookies(!), presumably they would have an initial set of odds based on THEIR judgement of probability/possibility and, later, there would be periodic and changing odds based on where punters have put their money (ie reflecting the bookies trying to minimise their losses)? In that case, how do we know what the odds reflect at any given time?  |
|
|
|
Post by StokeAz on Jul 29, 2015 14:02:25 GMT
Everton shouldn't be that much higher than us... They weren't far away from relegation last as the season!
|
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Jul 29, 2015 14:13:54 GMT
Everton are not only above us but are 750:1 with Bet365 as oppose to us at 25:1 with the same bookmaker. In other words we are 30 times more likely to be relegated than Everton. I guess in the end it is a way of the bookies saying there is no chance at all of Everton being relegated (well they never are) and despite the bookies believing we are far less likely to go down than we were when we first came up we remain one of the 12 teams (not the 3 London giants, not the 3 North West giants and not Everton or Southampton) who might. Taking off my red an white tinted glasses and respectful of the fact that the bookies are the hard nosed arbiters of sporting probability I strongly suspect they have it about right. Being ignorant of the ways of the bookies(!), presumably they would have an initial set of odds based on THEIR judgement of probability/possibility and, later, there would be periodic and changing odds based on where punters have put their money (ie reflecting the bookies trying to minimise their losses)? In that case, how do we know what the odds reflect at any given time? I am no expert but I think what you describe is broadly correct. I suppose that you might argue that what the punters subsequently do adds to the intelligence of the bookmakers (since it nudges the odds in favour of more heavily backed outcomes as bookmakers hedge their bets to avoid heavy losses) and what you end up with is a finessed version of the bookmakers initial opinions. If they had anything way out of kilter it would rapidly correct itself since punters would drive a horse and coaches through it. For example everyone knows Everton never go down so whether they finished above or behind Stoke last season is of little consequence to the odds offered the fact is noone is backing it. I guess the question comes when is that simply public sentiment versus genuine input to sporting probability. Oh well there must be theses and computer algorithms on this subject. I must admit while I don't bet I do turn to the bookies more than most when trying to assess the likelihood of something happening. For example in the recent Scottish independence elections the pollsters called it neck and neck but the bookmakers never gave it a single earthly of happening. All the pollsters could do was ask people which way they intended to vote and report back. The bookies knew much more: That the "no" voters were less vocal about it than the "yes" voters for fear of being seen to be unpatriotic, that when you finally get in to the polling station people's natural conservatism kicks in etc. etc. Favour bookmakers over pollsters and you rarely go far wrong IMHO |
|
|
|
Post by stoke7leeds2 on Jul 29, 2015 14:51:05 GMT
Being ignorant of the ways of the bookies(!), presumably they would have an initial set of odds based on THEIR judgement of probability/possibility and, later, there would be periodic and changing odds based on where punters have put their money (ie reflecting the bookies trying to minimise their losses)? In that case, how do we know what the odds reflect at any given time? I am no expert but I think what you describe is broadly correct. I suppose that you might argue that what the punters subsequently do adds to the intelligence of the bookmakers (since it nudges the odds in favour of more heavily backed outcomes as bookmakers hedge their bets to avoid heavy losses) and what you end up with is a finessed version of the bookmakers initial opinions. If they had anything way out of kilter it would rapidly correct itself since punters would drive a horse and coaches through it. For example everyone knows Everton never go down so whether they finished above or behind Stoke last season is of little consequence to the odds offered the fact is noone is backing it. I guess the question comes when is that simply public sentiment versus genuine input to sporting probability. Oh well there must be theses and computer algorithms on this subject. I must admit while I don't bet I do turn to the bookies more than most when trying to assess the likelihood of something happening. For example in the recent Scottish independence elections the pollsters called it neck and neck but the bookmakers never gave it a single earthly of happening. All the pollsters could do was ask people which way they intended to vote and report back. The bookies knew much more: That the "no" voters were less vocal about it than the "yes" voters for fear of being seen to be unpatriotic, that when you finally get in to the polling station people's natural conservatism kicks in etc. etc. Favour bookmakers over pollsters and you rarely go far wrong IMHO Usually yes....by they did have the Tories at a massive 16/1 to gain full control just before polling this year...so occasionally they do get it wrong...in regards to relegation sometimes there is a shock..sometimes teams like a Stoke or a Newcastle may just have a bad start and never recover..it had happened before and it will again it's just hard to pick out hence the bigger odds |
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Jul 29, 2015 14:57:11 GMT
I am no expert but I think what you describe is broadly correct. I suppose that you might argue that what the punters subsequently do adds to the intelligence of the bookmakers (since it nudges the odds in favour of more heavily backed outcomes as bookmakers hedge their bets to avoid heavy losses) and what you end up with is a finessed version of the bookmakers initial opinions. If they had anything way out of kilter it would rapidly correct itself since punters would drive a horse and coaches through it. For example everyone knows Everton never go down so whether they finished above or behind Stoke last season is of little consequence to the odds offered the fact is noone is backing it. I guess the question comes when is that simply public sentiment versus genuine input to sporting probability. Oh well there must be theses and computer algorithms on this subject. I must admit while I don't bet I do turn to the bookies more than most when trying to assess the likelihood of something happening. For example in the recent Scottish independence elections the pollsters called it neck and neck but the bookmakers never gave it a single earthly of happening. All the pollsters could do was ask people which way they intended to vote and report back. The bookies knew much more: That the "no" voters were less vocal about it than the "yes" voters for fear of being seen to be unpatriotic, that when you finally get in to the polling station people's natural conservatism kicks in etc. etc. Favour bookmakers over pollsters and you rarely go far wrong IMHO Usually yes....by they did have the Tories at a massive 16/1 to gain full control just before polling this year...so occasionally they do get it wrong...in regards to relegation sometimes there is a shock..sometimes teams like a Stoke or a Newcastle may just have a bad start and never recover..it had happened before and it will again it's just hard to pick out hence the bigger odds Yes but to be fair it is not their job to always call what actually happens as the most likely event. It is their role to call out the probability of any event, unlikely things will always happen. |
|
|
|
Post by riccyfuller93 on Jul 30, 2015 2:31:28 GMT
Well no Europa for Everton. They have so far strengthened their first XI and we have weakened ours. At it stands I would have Everton finishing above us actually as well as Palace. That's an interesting point . You think we are weaker this season . I'm not of that opinion because I think our style of play will make it more difficult for the opposition with even more ball possession . I do agree however that filling Begovics boots and NZonzis is a big ask and I slightly worried about Shawxcross's back problem and Wolsheids overall ability . Summarising , I think we are weaker in some areas and much stronger in others .....it could go either way . I'd be interested to know what others think on this . Weaker or stronger .? Lost N'zonzi and Bego. Gained Bojan, Afellay, Joselu, Johnson, Van Ginkel, Given. Seems a lot stronger to me. |
|
|
|
Post by pearo on Jul 30, 2015 5:16:12 GMT
I think Leicester may have a bit of second season syndrome and the Tinkerman hasn't got a lot to tinker with, so at 3/1 I'm having a flutter
|
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Jul 30, 2015 5:47:02 GMT
That's an interesting point . You think we are weaker this season . I'm not of that opinion because I think our style of play will make it more difficult for the opposition with even more ball possession . I do agree however that filling Begovics boots and NZonzis is a big ask and I slightly worried about Shawxcross's back problem and Wolsheids overall ability . Summarising , I think we are weaker in some areas and much stronger in others .....it could go either way . I'd be interested to know what others think on this . Weaker or stronger .? Lost N'zonzi and Bego. Gained Bojan, Afellay, Joselu, Johnson, Van Ginkel, Given. Seems a lot stronger to me. If you count Bojan as a gain then all bets are off and we are stronger. But he was available to us for all but 3 months of last season although we didn't choose to play him at the start and this season he may or may not be back from injury. If you don't then I wouldn't trade the "in" list for N'Zonzi and Bego. Overall I would say it is marginal. As things stand I would say top half is just possible but unlikely, I don't see the likes of Everton, Newcastle and West Ham flunking it again like they did last season. |
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Jul 30, 2015 10:53:19 GMT
Everton are not only above us but are 750:1 with Bet365 as oppose to us at 25:1 with the same bookmaker. In other words we are 30 times more likely to be relegated than Everton. I guess in the end it is a way of the bookies saying there is no chance at all of Everton being relegated (well they never are) and despite the bookies believing we are far less likely to go down than we were when we first came up we remain one of the 12 teams (not the 3 London giants, not the 3 North West giants and not Everton or Southampton) who might. Taking off my red an white tinted glasses and respectful of the fact that the bookies are the hard nosed arbiters of sporting probability I strongly suspect they have it about right. Bookies don't pick odds on form or anything like that. Odds are based on betting trends so if more are betting that Stoke are relegated than Everton then our odds will be higher. At least I think that's how it works and it explains why some betting companies quote different odds than others. |
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Jul 30, 2015 11:09:18 GMT
Everton are not only above us but are 750:1 with Bet365 as oppose to us at 25:1 with the same bookmaker. In other words we are 30 times more likely to be relegated than Everton. I guess in the end it is a way of the bookies saying there is no chance at all of Everton being relegated (well they never are) and despite the bookies believing we are far less likely to go down than we were when we first came up we remain one of the 12 teams (not the 3 London giants, not the 3 North West giants and not Everton or Southampton) who might. Taking off my red an white tinted glasses and respectful of the fact that the bookies are the hard nosed arbiters of sporting probability I strongly suspect they have it about right. Bookies don't pick odds on form or anything like that. Odds are based on betting trends so if more are betting that Stoke are relegated than Everton then our odds will be higher. At least I think that's how it works and it explains why some betting companies quote different odds than others. Yes I guess but you have to start somewhere though don't you? And then tweak your initial odds according to betting trends to protect your potential losses. |
|
|
|
Post by happyending on Aug 2, 2015 19:08:03 GMT
Bookies don't pick odds on form or anything like that. Odds are based on betting trends so if more are betting that Stoke are relegated than Everton then our odds will be higher. At least I think that's how it works and it explains why some betting companies quote different odds than others. Yes I guess but you have to start somewhere though don't you? And then tweak your initial odds according to betting trends to protect your potential losses. Most bookmakers use Betfair as a guide to start with then adjust the odds when they take money on them. Betfair odds are offered by individual people, you could give somebody 50/1 on Chelsea beating Stoke at Stamford Bridge if you wanted..the point being that you wouldn't, you would give crap odds because you think there's a good chance you'll lose....also, odds compilers are very good at having a rough idea what odds people are likely to offer and settle for anyway. Bottom line is the odds are a reflection of whatever people are chucking their money at, and very little to do with expert bookmakers opinion...and punters can often overreact. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2015 19:15:59 GMT
Surely we should be 1-100 favourites?
I mean we haven't spent any money for ages now so surely we will get relegated?
I'm going straight round the bookies tomorrow to put my house on us getting relegated.
We are fucked.
|
|
|
|
Post by happyending on Aug 2, 2015 19:36:22 GMT
Surely we should be 1-100 favourites? I mean we haven't spent any money for ages now so surely we will get relegated? I'm going straight round the bookies tomorrow to put my house on us getting relegated. We are fucked. If all the wrist cutters do precisely that with Bet365 and take all their money they could become our new sugar daddy. The oatcake doom mongers can sort all the transfers and appointments and Scholes and co can come on here and moan about what a bunch of useless tits they are. |
|
