rocket_scientist

You didn't post up the odds? Nobody's this stupid.

If you really wanted to dig yourself out of the hole, you would show the facts. Facts are better than lies, every day of the week. I've not said anything to make a cunt of. All I did was expose your stupidity Unless you can show otherwise?

Yes you did. You said that £500 would've turned into a specific number, to the penny. An intelligent man, being accused of lying, would invoke the doctrine of veritas and show the odds and the teams. Jesus christ. Play dirty and call names? What is this, primary school? You are lying and I can show you why I know you are. I am wrong on a myriad of things on multiple occasions. You however haven't proved that I'm wrong because you don't even know what I'm saying, as you don't have the intellectual capacity to understand the debate. On the contrary, this is all about me proving you wrong as it was your original post on another thread that sparked it all, yet another lie to try and come across as smarter than you are, which isn't very. I'm not the one being challenged, you are. The reason why we know you're making it up this time is due to your mathematical idiocy. You said £9855.80 was what the £500 fourfold would've paid. And yet the cash out was £5600? That's less than 57%. That's NOT possible. It makes zero sense. By way of example, I stuck on a £25 treble on PSV (1/3), Atletico Madrid (3/5) and Spurs next Sunday at 2/9. They flashed up that there was 4 minutes injury time when Atletico were 1-0 up and given that it was a tight game with both teams already reduced to 10 men, I cashed out for £49.55. (I can prove this if you want to challenge it, but only a total imbecile would). 49.55/25 = 1.982 = my stake back plus 0.982 of my stake as profit. Simple maths to a betting industry expert like you. But here's the rub. A double on those two teams, placed at exactly the same odds would have paid 2.13. My game was entering injury time so there was still a chance that it would lose and so the cash out after the game would've been more than £49.55. But let's take the 1.982 I did cash out at. 1.982 represents 92.9% of the 2.13 completed double payout and as everybody knows, you just don't get payouts less than 80% of what's already been won, let alone less than 70%, let alone the absurdly nonsensical less than 60% as you claim. You've been found out son. Again. Accept it and for fuck sake, change your behaviour. You can't fabricate shit to cover up your lies. It will ALWAYS bite you on the arse.

I like you mini. You're a fucking fool but I like you. I even half admire your obstinacy but take some life advice, would you? I'm probably more than double your age and if I don't know it all then chances are that you don't either. You MUST be on solid ground if you're prepared to push an argument all the way. It's utterly imbecilic to post something, it gets challenged and you fail to reflect and make a judgement as to the accuracy of your disputed post. Then, in an attempt to mitigate the disaster of your making, you invent stuff.

When you show how £500 turned into the exact amount you said it did, you prove that you didn't make it up. But we both know you did. You have TEN YEARS of producing mutant-like posts and lying and trying to cover up your stupidity. I would've thought by now you might have learned your lesson. Repeating the same mistakes over and over again ain't right. The rock must've had a monkey died recently if there's an opening for the likes of you.

I just cashed out a £25 treble for double my money. Was that wrong? Did the bookies win? PSV came in, Atletico are 1-0 up with 4 minutes injury time, cba waiting on Spurs at 2/9 next Sunday v. Newcastle.

I went to the cinema the earliest I'd ever been this week. 11 a.m. screening of Once upon a time in Hollywood on the day of release. Loved it. Tremendous acting by Brad Pitt and Leo DiCaprio.

I've got a single on Shef U @ 31/20. Should I cash out at 1.82 currently or wait for the full 2.55? And this option benefits the bookies how?

What were the odds for Metz?

The example you gave, the bookies lost £4600. Who were the fifth team? Edit: misread. £5600 cashed out, £5100 profit. Still waiting for back up details of this mythical deal...

Share your calculations.

That's not true either. Why would he post what the fourfold would've returned? He didn't. You just invented it to attempt to suit your nonsensical argument. You have years of lying to cover up your stupidity.

In the history of the world, there's never been a cash out offer on a fivefold when 4 are already up which represents just over half of what the 4 would've earned. Unless you're going to show otherwise and prove you didn't make shit up again?

I'm having a great day thanks. The sun has just come out at Galgorm Castle. It's been worth checking my phone to expose your lies and stupidity yet again.

You said you knew what a fourfold would've paid. To the penny. I know you just made it up.

Prove it. What were the teams? And what pro punter is stupid enough to hunt 20/1 shots, let alone 60/1 shots as you lamented?

If you knew anything about anything, you wouldn't push such a dumb argument. You hadn't even worked out that the cashed in £5.1k was riding on a 7/2 shot, minimum. Even the draw was more likely than the final bet winning. If it was a serious punter who included a 7/2 shot in a fivefold, he's obviously worked out that the cash out is slightly more than the fourfold return.

Our nailed on double scraped home, Cove Rangers scoring in the 92nd to go with my longer shot, Liverpool at 1/2. We decided to put on 3 selections each in a 6 fold but as my mate also picked Borussia Dortmund, our fivefold was 4 up before the final game kicked off as Cove, Liverpool and Falkirk all won. After my work, I dropped the wife off at the apartment and headed over to the village pub in deepest rural Ulster for the last 10 minutes of the Man City match. A notification came through that Valencia had scored, which accelerated the cash out to almost 90% of the total, with half an hour to go. Met a couple of Mick's (actual names) for a mini-sesh (well, 3 rapid pints) and forgot all about the bet. I would've cashed it out in the 85th minute onwards by which time the cash out would've been approaching 95% and 5.5 but then Sociedad equalised in the ridiculously late minute. For every cash out that goes on to win, there are cash outs that go on to lose. Without data, we don't know the true position.

You really don't have a fucking clue about the betting industry. Do you know the odds of the final game? Are you saying that you would've let a £5k profit ride?

^ yeah that's right, we can't go blaming the manager for everything. But there is another school of thought that says managers are in charge and that they should be judged by results. And there is also a school of thought - held by those who know things - who can see the future. In order to see this, knowledge of history, human beings and football helps. McInnes is a fucking charlatan user cunt and anyone trying to defend him is a thick useless cunt in denial.

This has been going on for almost a year. It's pathos in excelsis watching pride and stupidity in action.

Rico, The ONLY calculation here is twofold: - 1. How much they earn when the bet is cashed out and it would have gone on to win, and 2. How much they lose when the bet is cashed out and it goes on to fail. That is it. C'est tout. Nothing else matters. Only then can it be determined whether it favours the bookies or not. You seem to have not made up your mind on this question? Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci. One bookie started it and the rest had to follow suit. You originally said it was a punter's option and a punter benefit. You were right the first time!

So you don't have any data? You don't know how much they win or lose from the cash out function? The argument you so vehemently maintain is based on; 1. They wouldn't offer it if it didn't benefit them, and 2. People told you. Your "short term gain" etc. is where the real evidence is here. This is concrete proof of your failure to understand the issue. There is only short term benefit if the bet goes on to win. There is only a long term loss if the cashed out bet goes on to win. You're ignoring the cashed out bets that go onto lose, like my mate's on Tuesday, like thousands of others every day.

Rico, I've crystallised a months-long argument in the simplest question and you jump in to complicate matters with some obscure points that makes little sense and adds nothing but confusion. Thanks.

You say that the cash out function favours the bookies because they profit due to punters cashing out on bets that go on to win anyway. How do you know that the money they earn from bets cashed out that go on to win exceeds the money they lose for bets cashed out that go on to fail?