Betting

[RicoS321]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outcome_bias

 

It's not really relevant as to whether or not the cash out function favours the bookies though is it?

 

Regardless of the outcome, you're 100% more likely to win money with the cashout than without it. In other words, if it wasn't in existence (which I believe was the original argument - perhaps not this one), then there would have been no avenue for Rocket's boozer-chum to have recieved any winnings. In all cases where a cash out is offered, then, it is clearly 100% better for the punter to have had the option of cashing out than not. The decision to use it is another argument, which you'd have to know other factors (much much would he have won, was he party to the game etc).

[tintin]

Would have grabbed a cash out yesterday, was available when one team was winning however when three teams in my treble were all winning, cash out option was suspended. Teams were Brora, Hearts 21s, Montrose treble was paying 1181.00 and would have taken cash out of 300.00

 

Also had in running double on Celtic and Sunderland, would have paid 312.00 and cashed out for 98.00 3-2 and 1-2 at the time but Sunderland have cost me so many times in doubles / trebles that I thought just be happy with something back (was also pissed off as Brora were 1-2 down by then....

[rocket_scientist]

In all cases where a cash out is offered, then, it is clearly 100% better for the punter to have had the option of cashing out than not. The decision to use it is another argument, which you'd have to know other factors (much much would he have won, was he party to the game etc).

 

Correct. I can't get my head around how anybody with even a quarter of a brain could argue otherwise. Of course I try, to understand how their pathetic critical thinking capacity got so warped and I even try to imagine the motivations of the people planting such misinformation to any thick gullible cunt.

 

The only argument I can come up with is this;

 

If you cash out for £100 instead of waiting for £150 and invest that £100 on the outcome of the in-play market, you won't get back £150. Obviously. Say you have 2 legs of a treble up and the third is 2-1 up in a tight match with 20 minutes to go. Your £20 stake might be worth £100 cash out now but if you cash out and invest £100 now, in-play, you'll only get £130 or £133 (if the odds were 3/10 or 1/3).

 

But that's not even relevant either. It's not about current odds of an in-play speculation. It's only about cashing in a past speculation for profit rather than risking the loss. That judgement rests purely with the punter, although I've never heard of suspended cash-outs, certainly not on the websites I use the most.

[tintin]

Ladbrokes they had the Hearts game suspended for best part of ten minutes which in turn meant the cashout was suspended. They real are one of the worst bookies, guess I should change my account.

[rocket_scientist]

I've never used either Ladrokes or Willie Hills online for many years, mainly cos their odds weren't competitive. The only times we get suspensions in the cash out option normally is when something material is happening in the game e.g. penalty, dangerous free kick, possible red card etc. I've noticed after 42.5 minutes the cash out disappears on bets with HT/FT and I think in the last minute or so of matches.

[minijc]

Several cases on social media every week where people have cashed out which in turn has benefitted the bookies by thousands, one from the weekend where some guy cashed out his £10 fgs bet for less than £10 after an own goal was scored thinking the bookie had made an error, his selection then went on to score the next goal which is the first goal and he done himself out of £300+.  Rocket you seriously overrate the common man that uses the cash out feature, more will get it wrong than right every day of the week, if it was costing the bookies they wouldn't offer it.

[rocket_scientist]

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?

[tintin]

Dons 6/4 tonight or 3/1 ht/ft (both with cashout options  )

[RicoS321]

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?

 

I expect that the bookies have a very good idea, and they constantly "improve" the cash out to catch you out at specific times and with an optimum rate that is just enough to get you to cash out or not.

 

It's a very crude measurement though, because every single bet won without cashout is as a result of the punter not using the cashout option in theory. If your local chap had seen and decided not to accept the cashout and MK Dons hadn't scored then that is a failure for the cashout too if your analysing its success in getting punters to sabotage their own winnings.

[rocket_scientist]

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.

[minijc]

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?

Because the bookies wouldn't be offering it if it didn't benefit them, we've been over this a few times and it's pointless as you've got your opinion which you'll never shift from and I have mines and I won't be changing mines mainly because I've spoken at length with people that worked high up in bookmakers and from what they've said (some left those position now to gamble full time and never use cash out) it's a bookies benefit, short term gain, long term loser.

[rocket_scientist]

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.

[RicoS321]

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.

 

No problem. It made perfect sense to me, and I think you're wrong. I think you miss a large part of the calculation (of whether cash out is of value to the bookie or the punter) by just looking at best that go on to win versus bets that go on to lose. Given that the data of those that cashed and went on to lose would be easily as available as the data for those that go on to win, I would think it extremely likely that the bookie would know the answer to your question. It would be exceptionally negligent not to.

 

Cashout is an enticement. It's basically a form of advertising. It's like a whole new bet. If you don't take into account those that don't play (i.e. refuse the cashout) then you're missing a huge chunk of opportunity. I suspect the bookies don't have a great handle on that as I think it might be difficult to measure accurately.

[rocket_scientist]

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!

[rocket_scientist]

The ONLY data that matters is saved v. lost on bets where the option was exercised. This isn't long or short term. It's an instant decision and an additional risk assessment option for the punter.

 

This has been going on for almost a year.

 

It's pathos in excelsis watching pride and stupidity in action.

[RicoS321]

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?

 

I have no idea the answer to the question (cashout&win vs cashout&lose)  as I'm not a bookie, but I have absolutely no doubt that a company using complicated maths to generate odds will definitely know the answer, because it's extremely simple to define in their existing databases (unless they've made a right cunt of it). Not just in total, but for every single punter.

 

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci.

 

Because it might be sophisticated to be simple in a single instance, but that won't help the bookie going forward.

 

One bookie started it and the rest had to follow suit.

 

Probably, but that they just stopped there is unlikely. The reason that I mentioned enticement was because of the large area that can be utilised (by the bookie) by knowing about cashouts not accepted/taken. If cashout is losing money based on your 1 vs 2 formula then this area is where that a bookie can reduce that deficit or turn it round. Cashout is effectively an advertising tool that directly draws the customer into the transaction. I can look at your cashout and say "I lost/you won", but I can also look at the number of times that you checked your bet, any previous cashouts that you ignored during those visits and the amount or the odds that it took for you to "break" and accept the cashout. Across a number of bets, I could probably make a semi-accurate prediction of what it would take to accept a cashout, how it varies from others and . I can then start personalising your betting and the odds I'd offer. I couldn't get to this point just by analysing the times you cashed out, I'd need to analyse the times you didn't cash out.

 

 

You originally said it was a punter's option and a punter benefit. You were right the first time!

 

I stand by that - obviously - but that is in relation to Minijc's point that we shouldn't ever use the cashout. I think that's ridiculous.

 

However, if he'd said that his mates would never use cashout because they didn't want to reveal data to a betting company that could be used against him in future cashout settings then I'd probably have been interested. Because every time you do or don't cash out you give the bookie something more to work on.

 

The key for me is not basing your decisions on what the bookie is offering. Going back to your original MK Dons mate, I'd be interested to know his thinking behind using the cashout? If it was because he had a feeling that they'd score then he's probably equally as likely to be wrong on any given occasion than he is right and so he'd be a prime target for the bookies to offer cashouts if their odds/predictions suggest a likely opportunity for them to reduce exposure. If he'd done his own calculations, had targetted a specific return or was actually watching the live game and could see that things were changing then using cashout is likely a great option for him.

[minijc]

I see a guy on twitter cashed out his £500 5 fold for £5600 before the final game had kicked off, his final selection went on to win, saved the bookies £25000

[rocket_scientist]

I see a guy on twitter cashed out his £500 5 fold for £5600 before the final game had kicked off, his final selection went on to win, saved the bookies £25000

 

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?

[rocket_scientist]

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.

[minijc]

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?

Worked in it for 2 years and was just approached about a job in Gibraltar but yeah I don't know fuck all about the industry.

[rocket_scientist]

Worked in it for 2 years and was just approached about a job in Gibraltar but yeah I don't know fuck all about the industry.

 

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.

[minijc]

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.

£500 on the 4 fold would've returned £9655.80, goes back to what I said a while back that you never get the true value on a cash out, it's the bookies friend not the punters.

[rocket_scientist]

£500 on the 4 fold would've returned £9655.80, goes back to what I said a while back that you never get the true value on a cash out, it's the bookies friend not the punters.

 

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?

[minijc]

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?

I never said it was a pro punter did I?  It was something that flashed up on twitter and I thought it was interesting.  Plenty of pro punters back big odds, stupid to think otherwise.

[rocket_scientist]

I never said it was a pro punter did I?  It was something that flashed up on twitter and I thought it was interesting.  Plenty of pro punters back big odds, stupid to think otherwise.

 

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