|
Post by dozintheseventees on Nov 25, 2015 13:51:00 GMT
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. The odds are established BEFORE bets are laid based on all the prevailing factors prior to the event (including the likely betting). They change with the betting market, obviously. Also, you are talking about 'fluid' events where both the odds and the likely outcome can change. The odds on a 'static' situation such as a roulette wheel never change regardless of what bets are laid since the odds were formulated on statistical probability.
|
|
|
Post by WoodbineWright2@ on Nov 25, 2015 14:19:06 GMT
16/1 for us to go down is no value at all. Betting is all about likelihood, chances and probabilities. After 7 seasons of never being threatened by relegation, and improving year on year, and results so far this season, the likelihood of us going down is slim. The chances are that there are at least 9 or 10 teams who are probably worse than us. so the chances if us going down are very small. And with the quality of our squad, a tight defence and top keeper, the probabilities of us being relegated are almost non existent. With that, our odds must be closer to 80/1 like Chelsea's odds of going down the day after we beat them were 100/1. But bookies rarely offer real value, although they mess up from time to time, like our price to win at Southampton at 5/1 and 3/1 the draw - which were big prices given our away form. I took the win, like I snapped up the 10/1 for us to beat Chelsea 1-0 at home in the league... Again, likelihoods factor into everything, and we always looked good value to beat an out of sorts Chelsea at home by a single goal and keep a clean sheet. So, no.. Unless Mr Coates or Coral offer me 100/1 to console myself should we implode and drop, I won't bother.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2015 14:35:48 GMT
The betting market dictates the odds. The odds are established BEFORE bets are laid based on all the prevailing factors prior to the event (including the likely betting). They change with the betting market, obviously. Also, you are talking about 'fluid' events where both the odds and the likely outcome can change. The odds on a 'static' situation such as a roulette wheel never change regardless of what bets are laid since the odds were formulated on statistical probability. I agree - roulette odds are based on statistical probability. Not true for horses and football etc.
|
|
|
Post by stokerstayinup on Nov 25, 2015 14:46:03 GMT
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. You're completely missing the point.
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Nov 25, 2015 14:48:15 GMT
The odds are established BEFORE bets are laid based on all the prevailing factors prior to the event (including the likely betting). They change with the betting market, obviously. Also, you are talking about 'fluid' events where both the odds and the likely outcome can change. The odds on a 'static' situation such as a roulette wheel never change regardless of what bets are laid since the odds were formulated on statistical probability. I agree - roulette odds are based on statistical probability. Not true for horses and football etc. Absolutely mate because in live sporting events we are talking about a huge amount of variables that can influence the outcome. I said earlier that no losing bet is a good bet when compared to a winning bet. However, I AM wrong with the introduction of 'CASHOUT' which is a whole new ball game. I think bookmakers will increasingly find punters now placing bets, not on what they think the actual result will be, but on what MIGHT draw out the best Cashout offer during the event. I'm thinking of football of course where there are 90 minutes when an awful lot can change throughout the game. I admit, I've twice now picked up on losing bets because, at some stage of the games my bets looked 'very promising' and I was made good offers to cashout. It paid off in those instances but I've also cashed out when I'd have done better to let it ride. I confess I LOVE this option because (sadly) I get quite excited to see how things progress and what offers I can get. It's a wonderful feeling to collect your winnings from Corals on a bet that actually lost.
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Nov 25, 2015 14:51:53 GMT
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. You're completely missing the point. No, I completely get your point mate. I just don't agree with it.
|
|
|
Post by stokerstayinup on Nov 25, 2015 15:18:27 GMT
You're completely missing the point. No, I completely get your point mate. I just don't agree with it. Your posts don't indicate that. The chance of predicting a roll of a die is 5/1. Betting on it and winning despite only getting 4/1 is a bed bet and in the long run,you will lose. Betting on it and losing despite getting 8/1 is a value bet and in the long run,you will win. Which bit don't you agree with?
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Nov 25, 2015 15:39:06 GMT
No, I completely get your point mate. I just don't agree with it. Your posts don't indicate that. The chance of predicting a roll of a die is 5/1. Betting on it and winning despite only getting 4/1 is a bed bet and in the long run,you will lose. Betting on it and losing despite getting 8/1 is a value bet and in the long run,you will win. Which bit don't you agree with? I dismissed the 'odds' bit of your example because (forgive me) it's pure fantasy since, in a 6 option fixed-odds scenario, (which is what rolling a die is), you'll get the SAME odds for each number. I totally agree with your assertion that you have a 1 in 6 chance of winning so (of course) you'd take the higher odds if anyone were stupid enough to offer them to you.......but they wouldn't. There's little point in trying to 'teach' me about the bigger odds paying off in the long run in a scenario that would never exist and, if it did WE'D ALL be on the 8/1 chance now wouldn't we? The thread is based on 'value bets' in real-life situations where we have to weigh up all the variables and decide what equates to the best 'value' bet. We probably agree that Stoke City are awful value to be relegated, given the prevailing cicumstances (in fact I wouldn't back them at 100/1 and I don't think that would be a 'value' bet since I think there is little to no chance of winning). I accept that with high odds bets you only have to win once or twice to do better than someone who regularly wins at odds-on. However, even then, there has to be a REALISTIC chance of winning to make that bet a 'Value Bet'. In reality, you could look for the 16/1 -20/1 option every season at this stage for teams in Stoke's position and back them to be relegated but, not only would they have to have a dramatic decline but you would have had to be lucky enough to pick the right one of several clubs. It MIGHT happen now and again but (IMO) THAT is not a 'Value Bet'. I think there's much more value in the much shorter prices for the Clubs we all KNOW will be involved.
|
|
|
Post by kustokie on Nov 25, 2015 16:08:25 GMT
Your posts don't indicate that. The chance of predicting a roll of a die is 5/1. Betting on it and winning despite only getting 4/1 is a bed bet and in the long run,you will lose. Betting on it and losing despite getting 8/1 is a value bet and in the long run,you will win. Which bit don't you agree with? I dismissed the 'odds' bit of your example because (forgive me) it's pure fantasy since, in a 6 option fixed-odds scenario, (which is what rolling a die is), you'll get the SAME odds for each number. I totally agree with your assertion that you have a 1 in 6 chance of winning so (of course) you'd take the higher odds if anyone were stupid enough to offer them to you.......but they wouldn't. There's little point in trying to 'teach' me about the bigger odds paying off in the long run in a scenario that would never exist and, if it did WE'D ALL be on the 8/1 chance now wouldn't we? The thread is based on 'value bets' in real-life situations where we have to weigh up all the variables and decide what equates to the best 'value' bet. We probably agree that Stoke City are awful value to be relegated, given the prevailing cicumstances (in fact I wouldn't back them at 100/1 and I don't think that would be a 'value' bet since I think there is little to no chance of winning). I accept that with high odds bets you only have to win once or twice to do better than someone who regularly wins at odds-on. However, even then, there has to be a REALISTIC chance of winning to make that bet a 'Value Bet'. In reality, you could look for the 16/1 -20/1 option every season at this stage for teams in Stoke's position and back them to be relegated but, not only would they have to have a dramatic decline but you would have had to be lucky enough to pick the right one of several clubs. It MIGHT happen now and again but (IMO) THAT is not a 'Value Bet'. I think there's much more value in the much shorter prices for the Clubs we all KNOW will be involved. I weighed in on this last night and I see you are still at it! You'll have to agree to differ - however, for what it's worth stayinup is correct.
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Nov 25, 2015 16:15:20 GMT
I dismissed the 'odds' bit of your example because (forgive me) it's pure fantasy since, in a 6 option fixed-odds scenario, (which is what rolling a die is), you'll get the SAME odds for each number. I totally agree with your assertion that you have a 1 in 6 chance of winning so (of course) you'd take the higher odds if anyone were stupid enough to offer them to you.......but they wouldn't. There's little point in trying to 'teach' me about the bigger odds paying off in the long run in a scenario that would never exist and, if it did WE'D ALL be on the 8/1 chance now wouldn't we? The thread is based on 'value bets' in real-life situations where we have to weigh up all the variables and decide what equates to the best 'value' bet. We probably agree that Stoke City are awful value to be relegated, given the prevailing cicumstances (in fact I wouldn't back them at 100/1 and I don't think that would be a 'value' bet since I think there is little to no chance of winning). I accept that with high odds bets you only have to win once or twice to do better than someone who regularly wins at odds-on. However, even then, there has to be a REALISTIC chance of winning to make that bet a 'Value Bet'. In reality, you could look for the 16/1 -20/1 option every season at this stage for teams in Stoke's position and back them to be relegated but, not only would they have to have a dramatic decline but you would have had to be lucky enough to pick the right one of several clubs. It MIGHT happen now and again but (IMO) THAT is not a 'Value Bet'. I think there's much more value in the much shorter prices for the Clubs we all KNOW will be involved. I weighed in on this last night and I see you are still at it! You'll have to agree to differ - however, for what it's worth stayinup is correct. I'm still at it because some of you are still talking rubbish (IMO) However, I'm sure every single one of the bookmakers will agree with you both.
|
|
|
Post by Skankmonkey on Nov 25, 2015 16:16:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Nov 25, 2015 16:20:18 GMT
I'm guessing Mr Rozanov spotted the 'value bet' there. Does he make his living from gambling I wonder???????
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2015 16:48:33 GMT
There seems to be an assumption being made by a lot on here, that everyone who bets ultimately loses - based on the fact that bookies ultimately win.
Not true.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Nov 25, 2015 16:54:31 GMT
There seems to be an assumption being made by a lot on here, that everyone who bets ultimately loses - based on the fact that bookies ultimately win. Not true. Nah, but there aren't many poor bookies are there?
|
|
|
Post by stokerstayinup on Nov 25, 2015 16:55:18 GMT
Your posts don't indicate that. The chance of predicting a roll of a die is 5/1. Betting on it and winning despite only getting 4/1 is a bed bet and in the long run,you will lose. Betting on it and losing despite getting 8/1 is a value bet and in the long run,you will win. Which bit don't you agree with? I dismissed the 'odds' bit of your example because (forgive me) it's pure fantasy since, in a 6 option fixed-odds scenario, (which is what rolling a die is), you'll get the SAME odds for each number. I totally agree with your assertion that you have a 1 in 6 chance of winning so (of course) you'd take the higher odds if anyone were stupid enough to offer them to you.......but they wouldn't. There's little point in trying to 'teach' me about the bigger odds paying off in the long run in a scenario that would never exist and, if it did WE'D ALL be on the 8/1 chance now wouldn't we? The thread is based on 'value bets' in real-life situations where we have to weigh up all the variables and decide what equates to the best 'value' bet. We probably agree that Stoke City are awful value to be relegated, given the prevailing cicumstances (in fact I wouldn't back them at 100/1 and I don't think that would be a 'value' bet since I think there is little to no chance of winning). I accept that with high odds bets you only have to win once or twice to do better than someone who regularly wins at odds-on. However, even then, there has to be a REALISTIC chance of winning to make that bet a 'Value Bet'. In reality, you could look for the 16/1 -20/1 option every season at this stage for teams in Stoke's position and back them to be relegated but, not only would they have to have a dramatic decline but you would have had to be lucky enough to pick the right one of several clubs. It MIGHT happen now and again but (IMO) THAT is not a 'Value Bet'. I think there's much more value in the much shorter prices for the Clubs we all KNOW will be involved. High odds doesn't make a bet value. I've tried to explain what value is by giving you a hypothetical situation because you wrongfully claimed that every winning bet was a good bet etc. Finding value in real life situations is the hard bit but fortunately I've been able to make it pay. To clarify I suggested Swansea were the value bet in that market at 16/1.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2015 16:56:19 GMT
There seems to be an assumption being made by a lot on here, that everyone who bets ultimately loses - based on the fact that bookies ultimately win. Not true. Nah, but there aren't many poor bookies are there? Non as far as I know, but that doesn't prove that ALL punters ultimately lose.
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Nov 25, 2015 16:58:24 GMT
There seems to be an assumption being made by a lot on here, that everyone who bets ultimately loses - based on the fact that bookies ultimately win. Not true. Who are these 'lots' that assume that? What I would say is that it is extremely difficult to gamble regularly (for the majority) and to be 'in front'. If it weren't and we could all find the formula for beating the bookies....there would be no such thing as they would all be operating at a loss. Unless you think it's only the very clever bastards that win and the rest of us are the idiots that keep the industry going.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2015 17:00:10 GMT
I dismissed the 'odds' bit of your example because (forgive me) it's pure fantasy since, in a 6 option fixed-odds scenario, (which is what rolling a die is), you'll get the SAME odds for each number. I totally agree with your assertion that you have a 1 in 6 chance of winning so (of course) you'd take the higher odds if anyone were stupid enough to offer them to you.......but they wouldn't. There's little point in trying to 'teach' me about the bigger odds paying off in the long run in a scenario that would never exist and, if it did WE'D ALL be on the 8/1 chance now wouldn't we? The thread is based on 'value bets' in real-life situations where we have to weigh up all the variables and decide what equates to the best 'value' bet. We probably agree that Stoke City are awful value to be relegated, given the prevailing cicumstances (in fact I wouldn't back them at 100/1 and I don't think that would be a 'value' bet since I think there is little to no chance of winning). I accept that with high odds bets you only have to win once or twice to do better than someone who regularly wins at odds-on. However, even then, there has to be a REALISTIC chance of winning to make that bet a 'Value Bet'. In reality, you could look for the 16/1 -20/1 option every season at this stage for teams in Stoke's position and back them to be relegated but, not only would they have to have a dramatic decline but you would have had to be lucky enough to pick the right one of several clubs. It MIGHT happen now and again but (IMO) THAT is not a 'Value Bet'. I think there's much more value in the much shorter prices for the Clubs we all KNOW will be involved. High odds doesn't make a bet value. I've tried to explain what value is by giving you a hypothetical situation because you wrongfully claimed that every winning bet was a good bet etc. Finding value in real life situations is the hard bit but fortunately I've been able to make it pay. To clarify I suggested Swansea were the value bet in that market at 16/1. Putting it very simply, can we just say that a value bet is when the odds are higher than the probability. The higher the odds in such a case, being the higher value bet.
|
|
|
Post by stokerstayinup on Nov 25, 2015 17:02:20 GMT
There seems to be an assumption being made by a lot on here, that everyone who bets ultimately loses - based on the fact that bookies ultimately win. Not true. Nah, but there aren't many poor bookies are there? There's plenty of online bookies that have gone bust.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2015 17:03:14 GMT
There seems to be an assumption being made by a lot on here, that everyone who bets ultimately loses - based on the fact that bookies ultimately win. Not true. Who are these 'lots' that assume that? This subject comes up quite regularly, and the majority seem to believe that betting is a mugs game, and that there is only one winner - the bookie. They are more often than not correct - but there are punters who wouldn't bet if they ultimately lost.
|
|
|
Post by stokerstayinup on Nov 25, 2015 17:04:36 GMT
High odds doesn't make a bet value. I've tried to explain what value is by giving you a hypothetical situation because you wrongfully claimed that every winning bet was a good bet etc. Finding value in real life situations is the hard bit but fortunately I've been able to make it pay. To clarify I suggested Swansea were the value bet in that market at 16/1. Putting it very simply, can we just say that a value bet is when the odds are higher than the probability. The higher the odds in such a case, being the higher value bet. Yes that's right,I've already said that,days ago now!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2015 17:05:31 GMT
Putting it very simply, can we just say that a value bet is when the odds are higher than the probability. The higher the odds in such a case, being the higher value bet. Yes that's right,I've already said that,days ago now! I know I agree with you. It just seems that one or two are having difficulty grasping the concept. I was just "putting it another way"
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Nov 25, 2015 17:15:14 GMT
I dismissed the 'odds' bit of your example because (forgive me) it's pure fantasy since, in a 6 option fixed-odds scenario, (which is what rolling a die is), you'll get the SAME odds for each number. I totally agree with your assertion that you have a 1 in 6 chance of winning so (of course) you'd take the higher odds if anyone were stupid enough to offer them to you.......but they wouldn't. There's little point in trying to 'teach' me about the bigger odds paying off in the long run in a scenario that would never exist and, if it did WE'D ALL be on the 8/1 chance now wouldn't we? The thread is based on 'value bets' in real-life situations where we have to weigh up all the variables and decide what equates to the best 'value' bet. We probably agree that Stoke City are awful value to be relegated, given the prevailing cicumstances (in fact I wouldn't back them at 100/1 and I don't think that would be a 'value' bet since I think there is little to no chance of winning). I accept that with high odds bets you only have to win once or twice to do better than someone who regularly wins at odds-on. However, even then, there has to be a REALISTIC chance of winning to make that bet a 'Value Bet'. In reality, you could look for the 16/1 -20/1 option every season at this stage for teams in Stoke's position and back them to be relegated but, not only would they have to have a dramatic decline but you would have had to be lucky enough to pick the right one of several clubs. It MIGHT happen now and again but (IMO) THAT is not a 'Value Bet'. I think there's much more value in the much shorter prices for the Clubs we all KNOW will be involved. High odds doesn't make a bet value. I've tried to explain what value is by giving you a hypothetical situation because you wrongfully claimed that every winning bet was a good bet etc. Finding value in real life situations is the hard bit but fortunately I've been able to make it pay. To clarify I suggested Swansea were the value bet in that market at 16/1. I've re-read my last post and it's a but direspectful so I apologide for that (most unlike me). I have a problem with your explaination of what value is mate because you used an example that simply doesn't and could never exist. You'll have to forgive me but trying to tell me that.......in a six number, fixed game of chance, you'll do better than me in the long run if you get 8/1 and I get 4/1 (where we have exactly the same statistic chance of our numbers coming up) is akin to talking to a 4 year old. I didn't WRONGLY claim that every winning bet is a good bet, I said that an odds on winner is better than a 1,000/1 loser which, in the context of those two particular bets is absolutely the case. I understand that you are trying to 'educate' me that value bets per se can be the winner in the long run but I never argued with that. Why would I, I've been a gambler for over 40 years and I would always look for the 'value' but the 'value' might well be in the odds on favourit in any particular situation. I'm well aware that a value bet doesn't have to be a big price. If I'm honest, I took exception to you comments about me winning a few throws of the dice at 4/1 and you telling me that there would only be one winner in the long run if you got a bigger price for your number. Well I never!
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Nov 25, 2015 17:17:54 GMT
High odds doesn't make a bet value. I've tried to explain what value is by giving you a hypothetical situation because you wrongfully claimed that every winning bet was a good bet etc. Finding value in real life situations is the hard bit but fortunately I've been able to make it pay. To clarify I suggested Swansea were the value bet in that market at 16/1. Putting it very simply, can we just say that a value bet is when the odds are higher than the probability. The higher the odds in such a case, being the higher value bet. See, here's my fuzzy logic kicking in again..... Isn't a VALUE bet one where the probability is higher than is reflected in the odds. Or is it just me? NOTE: I'll answer that for you...........I'm a fucking idiot and totally misread that. I wouldn't delete....I'm not proud.
|
|
|
Post by stokerstayinup on Nov 25, 2015 17:19:56 GMT
There seems to be an assumption being made by a lot on here, that everyone who bets ultimately loses - based on the fact that bookies ultimately win. Not true. Who are these 'lots' that assume that? What I would say is that it is extremely difficult to gamble regularly (for the majority) and to be 'in front'. If it weren't and we could all find the formula for beating the bookies....there would be no such thing as they would all be operating at a loss. Unless you think it's only the very clever bastards that win and the rest of us are the idiots that keep the industry going. Bookies shut down winning accounts nowadays.
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Nov 25, 2015 17:23:00 GMT
Who are these 'lots' that assume that? What I would say is that it is extremely difficult to gamble regularly (for the majority) and to be 'in front'. If it weren't and we could all find the formula for beating the bookies....there would be no such thing as they would all be operating at a loss. Unless you think it's only the very clever bastards that win and the rest of us are the idiots that keep the industry going. Bookies shut down winning accounts nowadays. I know they do mate and they also refuse to take larger bets from those who win regularly. I wouldn't argue that there aren't regular winners.
|
|
|
Post by stokerstayinup on Nov 25, 2015 17:26:31 GMT
High odds doesn't make a bet value. I've tried to explain what value is by giving you a hypothetical situation because you wrongfully claimed that every winning bet was a good bet etc. Finding value in real life situations is the hard bit but fortunately I've been able to make it pay. To clarify I suggested Swansea were the value bet in that market at 16/1. I've re-read my last post and it's a but direspectful so I apologide for that (most unlike me). I have a problem with your explaination of what value is mate because you used an example that simply doesn't and could never exist. You'll have to forgive me but trying to tell me that.......in a six number, fixed game of chance, you'll do better than me in the long run if you get 8/1 and I get 4/1 (where we have exactly the same statistic chance of our numbers coming up) is akin to talking to a 4 year old. I didn't WRONGLY claim that every winning bet is a good bet, I said that an odds on winner is better than a 1,000/1 loser which, in the context of those two particular bets is absolutely the case. I understand that you are trying to 'educate' me that value bets per se can be the winner in the long run but I never argued with that. Why would I, I've been a gambler for over 40 years and I would always look for the 'value' but the 'value' might well be in the odds on favourit in any particular situation. I'm well aware that a value bet doesn't have to be a big price. If I'm honest, I took exception to you comments about me winning a few throws of the dice at 4/1 and you telling me that there would only be one winner in the long run if you got a bigger price for your number. Well I never! I've not found anything you said disrespectful. Anyway,you said on an earlier post that it was strange logic calling a winning bet a bad one,hence the continued discussion and hypothetical situations.
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Nov 25, 2015 17:34:16 GMT
I've re-read my last post and it's a but direspectful so I apologide for that (most unlike me). I have a problem with your explaination of what value is mate because you used an example that simply doesn't and could never exist. You'll have to forgive me but trying to tell me that.......in a six number, fixed game of chance, you'll do better than me in the long run if you get 8/1 and I get 4/1 (where we have exactly the same statistic chance of our numbers coming up) is akin to talking to a 4 year old. I didn't WRONGLY claim that every winning bet is a good bet, I said that an odds on winner is better than a 1,000/1 loser which, in the context of those two particular bets is absolutely the case. I understand that you are trying to 'educate' me that value bets per se can be the winner in the long run but I never argued with that. Why would I, I've been a gambler for over 40 years and I would always look for the 'value' but the 'value' might well be in the odds on favourit in any particular situation. I'm well aware that a value bet doesn't have to be a big price. If I'm honest, I took exception to you comments about me winning a few throws of the dice at 4/1 and you telling me that there would only be one winner in the long run if you got a bigger price for your number. Well I never! I've not found anything you said disrespectful. Anyway,you said on an earlier post that it was strange logic calling a winning bet a bad one,hence the continued discussion and hypothetical situations. No probs mate....hope you keep skinning the buggers. Talking of strange logic.......enjoy my post about 4/5 up..........Dipshit or what!
|
|
|
Post by stokerstayinup on Nov 25, 2015 17:40:14 GMT
I've not found anything you said disrespectful. Anyway,you said on an earlier post that it was strange logic calling a winning bet a bad one,hence the continued discussion and hypothetical situations. No probs mate....hope you keep skinning the buggers. Talking of strange logic.......enjoy my post about 4/5 up..........Dipshit or what! Haha,I did see it and was about to bang my head against the wall! It's almost impossible to get a bet on anymore,I have to place my bets on Betfair.
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Nov 25, 2015 18:47:42 GMT
No probs mate....hope you keep skinning the buggers. Talking of strange logic.......enjoy my post about 4/5 up..........Dipshit or what! :D Haha,I did see it and was about to bang my head against the wall! It's almost impossible to get a bet on anymore,I have to place my bets on Betfair. Out of interest, how do the bookies identify you and stop you betting with them? IP address or bank details or summat? Is there no way of circumnavigating it using different peoples accounts or something? I had a mate a long time ago that left the mob and made a living betting on the horses, he did pretty well for 3 years and then had a run where 20 consecutive horses he'd bet on over the jumps took a tumble, wiped his bank out and he had to get a job :( Also met a bloke at a poker tournament in Walsall who made his living betting on women's tennis of all things :)
|
|