|
Post by stokerstayinup on Dec 12, 2015 21:35:41 GMT
You're not wrong,we signed Shaqiri in the summer.Where you are wrong is thinking Pieters is our quickest player,that's just ridiculous. I'm telling you what the stats say from last season. Myself, I'd have thought diouf was our quickest player, but evidently not. What is more ridiculous is you insinuating he's the slowest player in our squad. So,now you're actually disagreeing with "the stat" that Pieters is our quickest player,just like I did,despite it being your point! Are you seriously suggesting that Diouf is our quickest player and Pieters is second or am I missing something? I've never heard anyone talk about Pieters and mention his pace. The suggestion that he's quick is absurd.
|
|
|
Post by stokerstayinup on Dec 12, 2015 21:19:00 GMT
Quickest player in our team? Yeah i'm sure a race between Pieters,Diouf and Shaqiri would be close.In fact I'm struggling to think of many Stoke players Pieters would beat in a race. The stats had him as our quickest player last season. I might be wrong but I don't think we had shaqiri in our ranks last season. You're not wrong,we signed Shaqiri in the summer.Where you are wrong is thinking Pieters is our quickest player,that's just ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by stokerstayinup on Dec 12, 2015 21:09:25 GMT
I've never really doubted Wollscheid(his nightmare v S'land apart).He got shoved in for his debut away to Arsenal despite not knowing any of the players and performed admirably. For some reason he got blamed for the dismal showing in the cup versus Blackburn(despite Muniesa playing as badly and getting away scot free from abuse)but Hughes got it badly wrong that day. Pieters,for me,is the player of the season so far.I thought we needed a left back more than a right back in the summer but he's been immense.His lack of pace will always leave him susceptible to a pacy right winger but his improvement this season has certainly proved me wrong. "lack of pace"? He was the quickest player in our team last season and the 11th quickest in the premier league according to the final "shoot magazine" of last seaon. 1v1 pieters rarely gets beat. He held up 4 of them on 1 west ham breakaway today. Quickest player in our team? Yeah i'm sure a race between Pieters,Diouf and Shaqiri would be close.In fact I'm struggling to think of many Stoke players Pieters would beat in a race.
|
|
|
Post by stokerstayinup on Dec 12, 2015 20:44:28 GMT
I've never really doubted Wollscheid(his nightmare v S'land apart).He got shoved in for his debut away to Arsenal despite not knowing any of the players and performed admirably. For some reason he got blamed for the dismal showing in the cup versus Blackburn(despite Muniesa playing as badly and getting away scot free from abuse)but Hughes got it badly wrong that day. Pieters,for me,is the player of the season so far.I thought we needed a left back more than a right back in the summer but he's been immense.His lack of pace will always leave him susceptible to a pacy right winger but his improvement this season has certainly proved me wrong.
|
|
|
Post by stokerstayinup on Dec 12, 2015 20:12:01 GMT
There was no chance Pulis winning would slip by you though was there even though you will have been devoting much of your spare time searching for articles predicting relegation for Mark Hughes' Stoke City that you could heartily commend. You seem to have backed off that thread somewhat?? I posted just because I found it as proposterous as you probably did but as usual, you didn't let courtesies such as reading what I'd said get in the way of your agendas and the truth. I backed off it because a lot of people were talking a lot of shit about gambling and I couldn't be arsed to correct them! Haha,just noticed this,please expand on your 2nd sentence!
|
|
|
Post by stokerstayinup on Dec 11, 2015 12:45:12 GMT
He was not the only one impressed with him. Spurs were so impressed they bought him for £12 million and put him on a 5.5 yr contract. According to the Spurs fans I know he was instrumental in getting Spurs in the Champions League. Nearly everyone in football was impressed with him. He was very, very good for 4/5 seasons. He was never that bad for us, its just become fashionable to make out that he was, but it never happened for him here and he never really had the opportunity to show one way or the other. So the manager who signed him was at fault on two counts then signing him then not playing him ?, how come Hughes hardly ever contemplated using him Hughes picked him in his first game in charge away to Liverpool,so he'd obviously shown something in pre season.Unfortunately he injured himself in the warm up.
|
|
|
Post by stokerstayinup on Dec 7, 2015 20:54:37 GMT
Not surprised by Wingie's words. Every player joined in with the celebrations after Bardsley's goal in the recent cup game.The second goal in a comfortable win against a team from a lower division,from a squad player who's a mile away from the first team and the celebrations wouldn't have looked out of place if it had been a last minute winner in the cup final.Great signs.
|
|
|
Post by stokerstayinup on Dec 1, 2015 23:15:21 GMT
Has got to be the midfield two.Geoff's been used sparingly in midfield so far but he,s always impressed.Quick and clever on the ball,i think he'd help our talented 3 in getting in better positions further forward.
|
|
|
Post by stokerstayinup on Nov 25, 2015 21:47:53 GMT
Haven't BT secured the rights for the next Ashes in Australia. Good point! 2 o'clock in the morning test matches won't get as much of an audience as a home tests, though. No of course not but it's another kick in the teeth for Sky and its customers.
|
|
|
Post by stokerstayinup on Nov 25, 2015 21:45:26 GMT
I've had accounts in different peoples names-mum,dad,sister,girlfriends from last 3 relationships.I've been doing this since 1999 and back then bookies would lay you a bet.Nowadays they even shut losing accounts if it looks like you know what you're doing.They don't want to know now,they make their profits from FOBT's and online casinos.I went into a William shop before the recent Eng/Pak test series and asked for £150 on Rashid to be top bowler at 4/1,the cashier had to ring up and check before laying the bet.She got off the phone and said I could have £75 at 7/2!! They don't know me from Adam in there. Probably more cost effective for them than paying clever fuckers who are experts in their fields and who'd suss the odds offering exceptional value the professionals like yourself are seeking out. It was around '88/89 my mate was doing it, obviously no online betting then, did his either in the bookies or at the racecourse, went with him and matched his bets for a couple of weeks, won £600 each in the first week and lost £450 each in the second, if the second week had been the same as the first my life could well have been very different Big advantage back in those days of actually going to the races was that you didn't have to pay tax on your bets. That losing second week probably did you a favour then.Don't get me wrong I love what I do but not knowing when you're getting paid certainly isn't for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by stokerstayinup on Nov 25, 2015 21:25:19 GMT
I'm genuinely amazed that any more than aany (relative) handful of people were ever signed up for Sky Sports just for the CL. Who cares? I'm more interested in their various European domestic league football coverage and their monopoly on live cricket. Haven't BT secured the rights for the next Ashes in Australia.
|
|
|
Post by stokerstayinup on Nov 25, 2015 20:49:11 GMT
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 I've had accounts in different peoples names-mum,dad,sister,girlfriends from last 3 relationships.I've been doing this since 1999 and back then bookies would lay you a bet.Nowadays they even shut losing accounts if it looks like you know what you're doing.They don't want to know now,they make their profits from FOBT's and online casinos.I went into a William shop before the recent Eng/Pak test series and asked for £150 on Rashid to be top bowler at 4/1,the cashier had to ring up and check before laying the bet.She got off the phone and said I could have £75 at 7/2!! They don't know me from Adam in there.
|
|
|
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 stokerstayinup on Nov 21, 2015 21:34:14 GMT
Ely too busy traveling from the game to read their board il do my learning in the ground . Yeah,you keep learning,you clown.
|
|
|
Post by stokerstayinup on Nov 21, 2015 14:15:34 GMT
With respect,that's utter bollocks! Anyone who bets a penny is a complete and utter idiot. Don't try and defend the indefensible. Betting is stupid - end of story. I make a living out of it,so thanks for that!
|
|
|
Post by stokerstayinup on Nov 21, 2015 14:13:28 GMT
He is not actually saying he thinks we will go down. He is looking for bets with "value" in them as the Racing Post does. 16/1 suggests we have a 6.25% chance of going down. If your hunch or your formula tells you Stoke have say an 8% chance of going down then there is "value" in that bet. That's how I read it anyway. There is no value in any bet, mate. That is why Peter Coates is a billionaire. With respect,that's utter bollocks!
|
|
|
Post by stokerstayinup on Nov 21, 2015 13:58:11 GMT
Ok,no worries,thought it might have been that half time team talk that they do,but on second thoughts it's a bit early for that. Yeah he's been asked for an opinion on a market he most likely hadn't considered recently and you cant argue with him picking Stoke as potential value, I suppose. His reasoning though seems shockingly flawed. To an outsider looking in,looking at how few shots we've had and how many saves our keeper has made,I agree it's not the worst shout.
|
|
|
Post by stokerstayinup on Nov 21, 2015 13:44:10 GMT
Is that paragraph you've put on here all he wrote.If not,any chance of putting the full article up? No mate that was it. It was the talking heads bit where they ask them a series of questions. One said Swansea, three said Norwich and he said the above. His other tips were; Best Bet for weekend - Walsall Most vulnerable Fav - Millwall View on tonights big game - Man City by a goal El Clasico - Real Madrid Bet for midweek - Draw Zenit V Valencia Ok,no worries,thought it might have been that half time team talk that they do,but on second thoughts it's a bit early for that.
|
|
|
Post by stokerstayinup on Nov 21, 2015 13:37:47 GMT
He is not actually saying he thinks we will go down. He is looking for bets with "value" in them as the Racing Post does. 16/1 suggests we have a 6.25% chance of going down. If your hunch or your formula tells you Stoke have say an 8% chance of going down then there is "value" in that bet. That's how I read it anyway. Yeah but he then try's to justify where that value actually stems from and that bit appears to be rubbish. Is that paragraph you've put on here all he wrote.If not,any chance of putting the full article up?
|
|
|
Post by stokerstayinup on Nov 21, 2015 11:04:34 GMT
More of a journalist than a tipster if it's the same bloke that I used to converse with on the Betfair forum(back in the day when people tried to help each other). Tried his hand at tipping with Sporting Life few years ago but think he only lasted a season due to poor results. Nice bloke despite being a Man Citeh fan! Not seen the article but surprised Swansea at 16/1 wasn't mentioned. I first posted on the Oatcake after he emailed me telling me we were signing Kevin Hurlock. Mike Bowers (Betfair odds compiler) tipped Swansea @ 16s in the same column, stoker. Cheers Sheikh,my faith in tipsters is restored! Remember reading an interesting stat re Swansea (think it was in R.Post pre season pull out) that although they finished 8th last season,historical trends suggested they should have finished 16th. 16/1 is too big.
|
|