Betting

[minijc]

Shots on target against last week's opposition correlates to the probability of winning this week against different opposition and the determination of the value of this week's odds?

 

Don't you see how stupid this sounds? They're lining you up to sell you an expensive piece of software that doesn't work. In a game (football) you don't punt in. There's one born every minute. Don't you be the one. Love & Peace.

Haha you are absolutely clueless, no one is trying to sell me anything, can you tell me how a bookmakers gets their price for the weekend?  I'll give you two clues, algorithms and ratings made up of stats.

[rocket_scientist]

Before you go, explain - in English - what you meant by my claiming a bet has no value and where you and I differed?

[rocket_scientist]

Haha you are absolutely clueless, no one is trying to sell me anything, can you tell me how a bookmakers gets their price for the weekend?  I'll give you two clues, algorithms and ratings made up of stats.

 

We already agree that the bookies use ratings and algorithms to set prices.

 

What you claimed was that pro punters had their own ratings and algorithms.

[minijc]

Before you go, explain - in English - what you meant by my claiming a bet has no value and where you and I differed?

It was when I said that bookies never give you the real true value of your bet in the cash out offer.

We already agree that the bookies use ratings and algorithms to set prices.

 

What you claimed was that pro punters had their own ratings and algorithms.

I'm not claiming, it's a fact.

[rocket_scientist]

You need to get a job mini.

[minijc]

You need to get a job mini.

And you need to realise that you don't know everything.

[rocket_scientist]

And you need to realise that you don't know everything.

 

I have always known this. It's just ugly watching the fools getting parted with their money and them being so stubborn and desperate to pretend that they can think properly that they won't listen to good counsel.

[minijc]

I have always known this. It's just ugly watching the fools getting parted with their money and them being so stubborn and desperate to pretend that they can think properly that they won't listen to good counsel.

Aye, aright bud, you know best.

[rocket_scientist]

Millions like me that have won enough money to not worry about doing a proper job for a few years whilst betting and watching sports every day, yup, millions.

 

I've not met any of you millions.

 

Out of interest, how much have YOU earned in profit from betting? It must be a lot. Hat off to you. You're the one who obviously knows best.

[RicoS321]

You'd lay a bit off, I done it with Gary Anderson when he won the worlds for the first time, effectively took my stake out but in general for football if you are waiting on one game and you want to get out you'd be best laying them off on the exchange you'll get more than you would from a cashout.

 

By "laying them off" and "effectively took my stake out" what do you mean?

 

If I have £10 on the dons who are winning 2-0 with 35 minutes to go. I'm projected to win £15, but cash out is offering me just £12.50 at this point. I'm convinced that Shinnie is going to get sent off and we'll capitulate as I'm at the game and in a position to judge it better (in my opinion, obviously).

 

Right now, I'm guaranteed £12.50 (by taking the offer), correct? (rhetorical)

 

I've made the decision to cash out so I need to get a better return than £12.50 by going elsewhere (and not cashing out)?

 

Or are you saying that if I put £0.50 on the dons to win then and £1.50 on the dons to draw elsewhere then I will very likely get better odds than 29/1 for the opposition win and 29/3 for the draw (obviously I'd have to make both bets)?

 

Do you have a formula for this type of calculation? I can do this, but it only tests my odds:

 

(-a+(a x Oa x Wa)) + (-b+(b x Ob x Wb)) +(-c+(c x Oc x Wc)) >= Z - a 

 

where a is stake 1, b is stake 2 and c is stake 3. Oa/b/c is odds and Wa/b/c is true or false win = 1 lose = 0

Z is cashout winnings

 

for my example:

 

Stake1 wins:

(-10+ (10 x 3/2 x 1)) + (-0.5 + (0.50 x  29/1 x 0)) + (-1.5 + (0 x 29/3 x 0)) = £3 > £2.50

 

Stake2 wins:

(-10+ (10 x 3/2 x 0)) + (-0.5 + (0.50 x  29/1 x 1)) + (-1.5 + (0 x 29/3 x 0)) = £2.50 >= £2.50

 

Stake3 wins:

(-10+ (10 x 3/2 x 0)) + (-0.5 + (0.50 x  29/1 x 0)) + (-1.5 + (0 x 29/3 x 1)) = £2.50 >= £2.50

 

 

Am I right in thinking that we never really look for certain odds, we simply test those odds? In the above, I simply add the odds for a draw and a win from all my bookies and if all 3 stakes return true then I put the additional two bets on the draw and the loss and leave my win bet with the existing bookie? Thus I have returned greater than or equal to my cashout regardless of result.

 

Interesting stuff min. I like it.

 

How likely is it that those odds will exist elsewhere though, is it even close? Or is cash out always easier because they base the cashout on other bookies' odds on the draw and loss? What I mean is, is the cash out just an enticement for the uneasy gambler (so gives a shite return) or a is it aimed at the professional by calculating the other odds in the market and straying little either side of that?

[minijc]

[rocket_scientist]

That video doesn't add anything to our debate... other to highlight what I've been saying all along;

 

You don't understand the basics of punting. Nor are you able to understand and communicate in plain English.

 

We (Rico and I) weren't talking about trading pre-event.

 

We were talking about punters cashing out in-play.

[minijc]

That video doesn't add anything to our debate... other to highlight what I've been saying all along;

 

You don't understand the basics of punting. Nor are you able to understand and communicate in plain English.

 

We (Rico and I) weren't talking about trading pre-event.

 

We were talking about punters cashing out in-play.

It can be applied to in play as well Rocket, as Caan says it's not rocket science.

[rocket_scientist]

It can be applied to in play as well Rocket, as Caan says it's not rocket science.

 

Nobody has ever disputed that the exchanges are far superior to the punter bookies for value. It's the concept of a punter using the cash out to take profit to end the contingency that you got tripped up on as you failed to appreciate the fundamental difference between traders and punters when arguing about the nature of cashing out.

[minijc]

Nobody has ever disputed that the exchanges are far superior to the punter bookies for value. It's the concept of a punter using the cash out to take profit to end the contingency that you got tripped up on as you failed to appreciate the fundamental difference between traders and punters when arguing about the nature of cashing out.

you're average run of the mill punter can still use an exchange, regardless it shows that the bookies always keep a bit to themselves on the cash out like I said months ago and the other day.

 

AIL Rocket.

[rocket_scientist]

you're average run of the mill punter can still use an exchange, regardless it shows that the bookies always keep a bit to themselves on the cash out like I said months ago and the other day.

 

AIL Rocket.

 

This is very true however you failed to state the case.

 

On the other hand, your argument was confused. You argued that the cash out should never be used. You did not make the fundamental argument that exchanges normally always provide better value than the bet365's of this world, whom you described as the "king".

[minijc]

This is very true however you failed to state the case.

 

On the other hand, your argument was confused. You argued that the cash out should never be used. You did not make the fundamental argument that exchanges normally always provide better value than the bet365's of this world, whom you described as the "king".

Rocket, you'll find that I've been saying that all along it's just that you've been help bent on picking a fight with me and belittling me, it's ok though I'm past all that.

 

 

All is love.

[rocket_scientist]

Rocket, you'll find that I've been saying that all along it's just that you've been help bent on picking a fight with me and belittling me, it's ok though I'm past all that.

 

 

All is love.

 

On the contrary, your weakness was your argument and your failure to communicate properly. Had you understood what we were saying and had you a full grasp of the mechanics of the debate, you wouldn't have let a fight develop.

 

Cash out on a bookies is ALWAYS the punter's friend when the bet goes on to lose.

[RicoS321]

Rocket, you'll find that I've been saying that all along

 

Nah, not really min. You did say that nobody should use cash out. Pretty much word for word. It's that assertion that made me take note in the first place. I thought you were going to be able to tell me some alternative that I could use instead of cash out after already placing my bet on 365/PP or wherever. Mainly because, as only an occasional gambler, I feel like I could be taken for the mug that I am on an exchange as I'm not adequately knowledgeable.

 

 

It's okay though, I don't care.

 

[minijc]

If you think it's the punters friend then you are a mug, rocket.

[rocket_scientist]

Cash out on a bookies is ALWAYS the punter's friend when the bet goes on to lose.

 

Please don't try and dispute this FACT once again.

 

Nobody's arguing that the cash out would be bigger on the exchange. You failed to see how cash outs work in the punter's favour and went off on tangents (algorithms, ratings - the tools for assessing risks and values - and "never use them") that had nothing to do with the central debate and you even went so far as saying that the bookies make profit on cash out whereas the fact is, they lose less on punters exercising the cash out.

 

Traders use bigger volumes (of stakes) to net incremental marginal gains. Punters use odds to win a return, win a smaller return or lose their stake.

[minijc]

Please don't try and dispute this FACT once again.

 

Nobody's arguing that the cash out would be bigger on the exchange. You failed to see how cash outs work in the punter's favour and went off on tangents (algorithms, ratings - the tools for assessing risks and values - and "never use them") that had nothing to do with the central debate and you even went so far as saying that the bookies make profit on cash out whereas the fact is, they lose less on punters exercising the cash out.

 

Traders use bigger volumes (of stakes) to net incremental marginal gains. Punters use odds to win a return, win a smaller return or lose their stake.

Aye nae bother, you're the laughing stock in one of the gambling chats I'm in, two traders at major bookies in that, laughing at your take on cahs out, 'bookies friend'.

[rocket_scientist]

If you think it's the punters friend then you are a mug, rocket.

 

You STILL don't understand the argument!

 

Let me help you.

 

The stake is 1. The odds are 2/1. The outcomes are -1 or 3.0.

 

With in-play cash out, the punter has more options. He can cash out at 1.5 or 2.0. This option, never available in the high street in yesteryears doesn't help the bookies, it helps the punters.

[rocket_scientist]

Aye nae bother, you're the laughing stock in one of the gambling chats I'm in, two traders at major bookies in that, laughing at your take on cahs out, 'bookies friend'.

 

If that's true then I could guess that your use of the English language would be as similarly ineffective with them as it has been on here, you have failed to understand what Rico and I were saying and you were unable to make certain key distinctions between trading and punting, and between exchanges and bookies.

 

The other possibility, that anyone else is as stupid as you, would not be possible.

[minijc]

ah see you can't help but snipe, you really over estimate the powers of the average punter to use cash out properly like you claim is easy to do, anyways I'm done, I've got several bets to run around and place today, no cash out will be used.