|
Post by nott1 on Nov 23, 2015 16:09:14 GMT
As a gambler he's in the same league as Ethers!
|
|
|
Post by sage on Nov 23, 2015 16:10:45 GMT
Well I just did a totally unbiased prediction of the rest of the season just now and had us finishing 4th ahead of the Shit on goals scored, so that's my tip
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Nov 23, 2015 16:24:57 GMT
A VALUE bet has to give you a glimmer of hope of collecting even if it's unlikely. Given that teams will probably (on current evidence) survive on little more than 30 points this season, anyone who sees Stoke as VALUE at ANY PRICE for relegation clearly has far more money than sense. They wouldn't be good value at 50/1 in my eyes.
An odds-on winner is massively better than a 1,000/1 loser.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Nov 23, 2015 16:35:28 GMT
So the racing post don't just cover donkeys running in a straight line then?
|
|
|
Post by stokerstayinup on Nov 23, 2015 20:31:42 GMT
A VALUE bet has to give you a glimmer of hope of collecting even if it's unlikely. Given that teams will probably (on current evidence) survive on little more than 30 points this season, anyone who sees Stoke as VALUE at ANY PRICE for relegation clearly has far more money than sense. They wouldn't be good value at 50/1 in my eyes. An odds-on winner is massively better than a 1,000/1 loser. That last line needs some context though.Betting(and winning) is all about the long game.It's all about finding value.Just because a bet loses doesn't mean it wasn't value.
|
|
|
Post by richardparker on Nov 23, 2015 20:37:57 GMT
A VALUE bet has to give you a glimmer of hope of collecting even if it's unlikely. Given that teams will probably (on current evidence) survive on little more than 30 points this season, anyone who sees Stoke as VALUE at ANY PRICE for relegation clearly has far more money than sense. They wouldn't be good value at 50/1 in my eyes. An odds-on winner is massively better than a 1,000/1 loser. That last line needs some context though.Betting(and winning) is all about the long game.It's all about finding value.Just because a bet loses doesn't mean it wasn't value. Think I'll stick to fruit machines, then.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2015 20:48:06 GMT
A VALUE bet has to give you a glimmer of hope of collecting even if it's unlikely. Given that teams will probably (on current evidence) survive on little more than 30 points this season, anyone who sees Stoke as VALUE at ANY PRICE for relegation clearly has far more money than sense. They wouldn't be good value at 50/1 in my eyes. An odds-on winner is massively better than a 1,000/1 loser. That last line needs some context though.Betting(and winning) is all about the long game.It's all about finding value.Just because a bet loses doesn't mean it wasn't value. Exactly right. A bet that wins can be a terrible bet and a bet that loses can be a great bet. All that matters in the longrun is whether it is +EV (expected value). As someone from a gambling background, I find myself realising just how huge the variance is in football which is why it's frustrating when this board goes into meltdown following just a few poor results. You can play well against a weaker team in football and still lose. As I've said before, the table DOES lie.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2015 20:49:46 GMT
Think I'll stick to fruit machines, then. There's no value in fruit machines, they're a house-edge game. Even if you win a million on a vegas machine you still made a bad bet, though in that scenario I'm not sure that would cause any of us to lose sleep.
|
|
|
Post by StokeAz on Nov 23, 2015 23:18:49 GMT
Palace are at 100/1 on the same points but if this guy says so we must be in deep peril! Palace have just lost at home to blunderland ffs! Not to mention that we bettered them last season - Watford were less likely to go down than us as well about a fortnight ago, even though we've been in this league for the 6 seasons longer with top 10 finishes in our last 2 seasons - anyway back on topic this guy must be clueless!
|
|
|
Post by pyrus on Nov 24, 2015 6:34:27 GMT
Relax. It's just someone filling space. You can make stats sound like anything you want. E.g. We're scoring 2points for every point sccored by the nearest relegation team and we are are scoring 1 point for every 1.25 points scored by the nearest top four team.
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Nov 24, 2015 7:09:00 GMT
Relax. It's just someone filling space. You can make stats sound like anything you want. E.g. We're scoring 2points for every point sccored by the nearest relegation team and we are are scoring 1 point for every 1.25 points scored by the nearest top four team. Oooooh, Sexy Stats
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Nov 24, 2015 15:52:52 GMT
That last line needs some context though.Betting(and winning) is all about the long game.It's all about finding value.Just because a bet loses doesn't mean it wasn't value. Exactly right. A bet that wins can be a terrible bet and a bet that loses can be a great bet. All that matters in the longrun is whether it is +EV (expected value). As someone from a gambling background, I find myself realising just how huge the variance is in football which is why it's frustrating when this board goes into meltdown following just a few poor results. You can play well against a weaker team in football and still lose. As I've said before, the table DOES lie. Strange logic!....... A winning bet can be a terrible bet but a losing one can be a great bet.....errrrmmm??? There are loads of 'good value' bets that will give you a good run for your money and (if that turns you on) then great but my point was that Stoke City are, in no way shape or form, a good value bet for relegation. I get that you can enjoy 'going close' with a high value bet but a winning bet is NEVER a terrible bet. Better than expected is great but it's STILL a losing bet. The bookmakers must absolutely love this kind of logic.
|
|
|
Post by bringmesunshine on Nov 24, 2015 16:11:51 GMT
Palace are at 100/1 on the same points but if this guy says so we must be in deep peril! Palace have just lost at home to blunderland ffs! Not to mention that we bettered them last season - Watford were less likely to go down than us as well about a fortnight ago, even though we've been in this league for the 6 seasons longer with top 10 finishes in our last 2 seasons - anyway back on topic this guy must be clueless! OR, he has an agenda.
|
|
|
Post by stokerstayinup on Nov 24, 2015 16:32:25 GMT
Exactly right. A bet that wins can be a terrible bet and a bet that loses can be a great bet. All that matters in the longrun is whether it is +EV (expected value). As someone from a gambling background, I find myself realising just how huge the variance is in football which is why it's frustrating when this board goes into meltdown following just a few poor results. You can play well against a weaker team in football and still lose. As I've said before, the table DOES lie. Strange logic!....... A winning bet can be a terrible bet but a losing one can be a great bet.....errrrmmm??? There are loads of 'good value' bets that will give you a good run for your money and (if that turns you on) then great but my point was that Stoke City are, in no way shape or form, a good value bet for relegation. I get that you can enjoy 'going close' with a high value bet but a winning bet is NEVER a terrible bet. Better than expected is great but it's STILL a losing bet. The bookmakers must absolutely love this kind of logic. Au contraire.The bookies love the fact that punters think that any winning bet is a good bet.It's a punters biggest downfall. It's not about getting a run for your money,it's about backing a selection at a price that is bigger than it's actual chance. If you take an example of the roll of a die.Lets say we have 3 rolls of it and you back no.6 at 4/1 every time and I back no.1 at 8/1 every time. On each occasion it lands on a 6 and so you win each of those 3 bets and subsequently,I lose all 3.There's only going to be 1 winner in the long run and it isn't going to be you.
|
|
|
Post by StokeAz on Nov 24, 2015 16:39:13 GMT
Palace are at 100/1 on the same points but if this guy says so we must be in deep peril! Palace have just lost at home to blunderland ffs! Not to mention that we bettered them last season - Watford were less likely to go down than us as well about a fortnight ago, even though we've been in this league for the 6 seasons longer with top 10 finishes in our last 2 seasons - anyway back on topic this guy must be clueless! OR, he has an agenda. Well we've won 5 out of 7 conceding 3 goals in that time and diouf is even playing atmm
|
|
|
Post by bringmesunshine on Nov 24, 2015 16:46:28 GMT
Well we've won 5 out of 7 conceding 3 goals in that time and diouf is even playing atmm Exactly, hes probably a fan of you know who, A ARS ARSN them.
|
|
|
Post by phil38 on Nov 24, 2015 16:48:06 GMT
oooo
|
|
|
Post by crouchie on Nov 24, 2015 17:14:33 GMT
nice one phil say it how you see it
|
|
|
Post by Miles Offside on Nov 24, 2015 17:37:15 GMT
A little snippet from todays paper! Where is the value in the Premier League Relegation Battle? I'm intrigued by Stoke at 16/1. A 40% shot ratio is nothing to shout about and Mark Hughes' managerial approach is not exactly what you'd call hands-on. If they get themselves into a rot during the winter months, I'm not convinced they'd have the resolve to drag themselves out of trouble. It's this fella. Quite a respected journo! twitter.com/ratings_mikeThe reality is that relegation is a possibility for any club outside the top 5 or 6. But, looking at it as objectively as a lifelong Stoke fan can, I can't think of another squad from the other relegation candidates that I'd swap ours for. The signs on Saturday were that we've got a reasonably settled line-up (Hughes looks like he now knows his best team), a very strong bench and things are beginning to click. My money would be on a comfortable top half finish and, at least, the semi Final stage of the League Cup.
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Nov 24, 2015 18:01:08 GMT
Strange logic!....... A winning bet can be a terrible bet but a losing one can be a great bet.....errrrmmm??? There are loads of 'good value' bets that will give you a good run for your money and (if that turns you on) then great but my point was that Stoke City are, in no way shape or form, a good value bet for relegation. I get that you can enjoy 'going close' with a high value bet but a winning bet is NEVER a terrible bet. Better than expected is great but it's STILL a losing bet. The bookmakers must absolutely love this kind of logic. Au contraire.The bookies love the fact that punters think that any winning bet is a good bet.It's a punters biggest downfall. It's not about getting a run for your money,it's about backing a selection at a price that is bigger than it's actual chance. If you take an example of the roll of a die.Lets say we have 3 rolls of it and you back no.6 at 4/1 every time and I back no.1 at 8/1 every time. On each occasion it lands on a 6 and so you win each of those 3 bets and subsequently,I lose all 3.There's only going to be 1 winner in the long run and it isn't going to be you. Really??? That's pure guesswork as number 1 might NEVER come up. You also wouldn't get the price differential on two numbers that had EXACTLY the same chance of coming up (hence 36/1 for every individual Roulette number). Just how much would you be in front if you'd backed teams to be relegated at 16/1 or greater who were on 19 point at this stage of the past 20 seasons? And that's assuming you selected the RIGHT team. Great value? I think not.
|
|
|
Post by stokerstayinup on Nov 24, 2015 19:00:46 GMT
Au contraire.The bookies love the fact that punters think that any winning bet is a good bet.It's a punters biggest downfall. It's not about getting a run for your money,it's about backing a selection at a price that is bigger than it's actual chance. If you take an example of the roll of a die.Lets say we have 3 rolls of it and you back no.6 at 4/1 every time and I back no.1 at 8/1 every time. On each occasion it lands on a 6 and so you win each of those 3 bets and subsequently,I lose all 3.There's only going to be 1 winner in the long run and it isn't going to be you. Really??? That's pure guesswork as number 1 might NEVER come up. You also wouldn't get the price differential on two numbers that had EXACTLY the same chance of coming up (hence 36/1 for every individual Roulette number). Just how much would you be in front if you'd backed teams to be relegated at 16/1 or greater who were on 19 point at this stage of the past 20 seasons? And that's assuming you selected the RIGHT team. Great value? I think not. I was offering you an example of when a winning bet is a bad one and a losing bet was value. I've not said Stoke were good value at 16/1 btw.
|
|
|
Post by malteser68 on Nov 24, 2015 20:42:42 GMT
Looks like a guy who knows bugger all about football just looking at the statistics, how anyone can tip us for relegation when there's West Brom, Sunderland, Aston Villa, Bournemouth and Swansea all with bigger issues than us is beyond me and that's looking at the very worst case scenario, we're looking up, not down You forgot to mention watford, Newcastle and Norwich as well
|
|
|
Post by spiderpuss on Nov 24, 2015 21:34:53 GMT
You do read some pissed up drivel at times, but this is right up there with the most drunken statements in our history. The racing post really should stick to four legged athletes. I wonder what persuaded this bastion of football writing to such a prediction? Was it where we've recently beaten the reigning champions? Perhaps the fact that we've not conceded a goal since Sept 12th caused such consternation? I know, it was our simple win at the weekend at a fellow top-half team that must have swayed their thinking. Whatever the case, I'll have a 1/2 of whatever these liver-disease hacks are having back at RP.
|
|
|
Post by kustokie on Nov 24, 2015 22:00:11 GMT
Au contraire.The bookies love the fact that punters think that any winning bet is a good bet.It's a punters biggest downfall. It's not about getting a run for your money,it's about backing a selection at a price that is bigger than it's actual chance. If you take an example of the roll of a die.Lets say we have 3 rolls of it and you back no.6 at 4/1 every time and I back no.1 at 8/1 every time. On each occasion it lands on a 6 and so you win each of those 3 bets and subsequently,I lose all 3.There's only going to be 1 winner in the long run and it isn't going to be you. Really??? That's pure guesswork as number 1 might NEVER come up. You also wouldn't get the price differential on two numbers that had EXACTLY the same chance of coming up (hence 36/1 for every individual Roulette number). Just how much would you be in front if you'd backed teams to be relegated at 16/1 or greater who were on 19 point at this stage of the past 20 seasons? And that's assuming you selected the RIGHT team. Great value? I think not. Actually, in the LONG RUN you are dead wrong. The actual odds of rolling each number on a dice are 1 in 6 or 5-1. So unless there's something wring with the dice, you roll the dice enough time each number must come up exactly the same number of times (try it). So anything less than 5-1 is a bad bet and anything more than 5-1 is a good bet. At 5-1 you'll break even.
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Nov 25, 2015 4:40:22 GMT
Really??? That's pure guesswork as number 1 might NEVER come up. You also wouldn't get the price differential on two numbers that had EXACTLY the same chance of coming up (hence 36/1 for every individual Roulette number). Just how much would you be in front if you'd backed teams to be relegated at 16/1 or greater who were on 19 point at this stage of the past 20 seasons? ;) And that's assuming you selected the RIGHT team. Great value? I think not. Actually, in the LONG RUN you are dead wrong. The actual odds of rolling each number on a dice are 1 in 6 or 5-1. So unless there's something wring with the dice, you roll the dice enough time each number must come up exactly the same number of times (try it). So anything less than 5-1 is a bad bet and anything more than 5-1 is a good bet. At 5-1 you'll break even. Pretty sure that's exactly what Stokerstayinup was saying :|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2015 9:00:02 GMT
Strange logic!....... A winning bet can be a terrible bet but a losing one can be a great bet.....errrrmmm??? There are loads of 'good value' bets that will give you a good run for your money and (if that turns you on) then great but my point was that Stoke City are, in no way shape or form, a good value bet for relegation. I get that you can enjoy 'going close' with a high value bet but a winning bet is NEVER a terrible bet. Better than expected is great but it's STILL a losing bet. The bookmakers must absolutely love this kind of logic. Completely agree that 16/1 is a terrible price for us to go down. Disagree with the gambling theory.
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Nov 25, 2015 13:08:13 GMT
Actually, in the LONG RUN you are dead wrong. The actual odds of rolling each number on a dice are 1 in 6 or 5-1. So unless there's something wring with the dice, you roll the dice enough time each number must come up exactly the same number of times (try it). So anything less than 5-1 is a bad bet and anything more than 5-1 is a good bet. At 5-1 you'll break even. Pretty sure that's exactly what Stokerstayinup was saying This is exactly why bookmakers and casino owners make the money they do. Punters try to apply logic to a system that is completely RANDOM. Yes the odds are 1 in 6 for each number so you have a 1 in 6 chance of your number coming up. However the odds are 1 in 6 each time you roll and whatever has been rolled previously is completely irrelevant so there's no more chance of your number coming up because it hasn't in the previous 20 rolls........you STILL only have a 1 in 6 chance every time you roll. The chances of your number coming up are 1 in 6 and the chances of your number NOT coming up are 5 in 6. Your odds don't get better the longer you play. I had a 'millions' to one chance of winning the lottery when it started and guess what?....my odds still aren't any better the longer I play. I've no more chance this week (after 20 odd years of trying) than I had on the first day I played.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2015 13:22:19 GMT
Odds and Statistical Probability are two different things.
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Nov 25, 2015 13:40:04 GMT
Odds and Statistical Probability are two different things. Well the former is usually based on the latter. Of course you'd expect your number to come in (in a 1 in 6 scenario) sooner or later but that doesn't mean that it WILL. You start every roll with the same 1 in 6 chance no matter how many times you roll. You might expect to win occasionally but you'd be completely bonkers to rely on that to win you money since it's possible your number will hardly EVER come up.........it's totally random for each roll regardless of what's gone before.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2015 13:43:03 GMT
Odds and Statistical Probability are two different things. Well the former is usually based on the latter. Of course you'd expect your number to come in (in a 1 in 6 scenario) sooner or later but that doesn't mean that it WILL. You start every roll with the same 1 in 6 chance no matter how many times you roll. You might expect to win occasionally but you'd be completely bonkers to rely on that to win you money since it's possible your number will hardly EVER come up.........it's totally random for each roll regardless of what's gone before. The betting market dictates the odds.
|
|