The midweek/weekend games thread

[southstand1882]

For the rest of the season, I'll be betting so that the only way I lose money, is if Spurs maintain their Champions League spot

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

Right, so I thought I'd try out Moonlit Knight's tried 'n' tested system that if you backed the bottom 5 teams at home to win or draw(i.e. not to lose) to the top 5 teams at evens, that by the end of the season he'd be showering in money. His theory being that home advantage is so great(kind of like the anti-totman) that these teams will surely show a profit over the course of a season. Now the Top 5 for the majority of the year have been Utd, City, Arsenal, Spurs and Chelsea, fair? The bottom 5 have mainly been Wigan, QPR, Bolton, Blackburn and Wolves. Fair? Right, now because the Moonlit Knight is obviously very confident of this system, let's say he puts a grand on each of his selections. Here we go:

Wigan:
1-0 vs Utd +?ú1000
0-1 vs City -?ú1000
0-4 vs Arsenal -?ú1000
1-2 vs Spurs -?ú1000
1-1 vs Chelsea +?ú1000

Ok, so after our 1st selection, Moonlit is at -?ú1000, it's no biggy though, this system is foolproof.

QPR:
0-2 vs Utd -?ú1000
2-3 vs City -?ú1000
2-1 vs Arsenal +?ú1000
n/a vs Spurs
1-0 vs Chelsea +1000

All square here, Moonlit's system looks like it's about to take a turn for the good, let's keep going. Currently only a grand down.

Bolton:
0-5 vs Utd -?ú1000
2-3 vs City -?ú1000
0-0 vs Arsenal +?ú1000
n/a vs Spurs
1-5 vs Chelsea -?ú1000

Uh oh, we're now down to -?ú3000. Not to worry, two teams left and Moonlit can pull it back around.

Blackburn:
0-2 vs Utd -?ú1000
0-4 vs City -?ú1000
4-3 vs Arsenal +?ú1000
1-2 vs Spurs -?ú1000
0-1 vs Chelsea -?ú1000

Yowza, what's this? Current counter at minus ?ú6000, I'm sure Wolves can will rescue Moonlit, afterall this is a guaranteed-to-win system, there's no way the bookies can beat Moonlit.

Wolves:
0-5 vs Utd -?ú1000
n/a vs City
0-3 vs Arsenal -?ú1000
0-2 vs Spurs -?ú1000
1-2 vs Chelsea -?ú1000

What the? Moonlit is down ?ú10,000 over the season. This cannot be. It's surely just a blip to the system. Just wait for next season. Moonlit will not be beaten!

How does it feel to waste an hour of your life putting that together when it has no relevance to the argument? Not unless you knew what the optimum pre-match odds were. Also please can you point out where I said it was a tried and tested system?

You are all missing the point here. The point here is that the bookies will ensure they maximise their profit and minimise their losses.

I never said that the bottom teams WOULD win the majority of their games. We are talking about games in isolation. I'll bring it back to the specific case we are actually all arguing over and that is anyone who seriously thought that Chelsea didn't have a chance of winning tonight, based on the fact that they weren't the bookies favourite to win, is an idiot.

 

[Kingdawson]

That'll be the weight of Leeds Spurs money doing that...

That's a shame.

Through this utter farce of a thread i thought i stumbled across a goldmine. 3/1 on QPR draw no bet? knew it was too good to be true. Guess i'll stick to my arbitrage betting scheme to get rich. Cya bitches i'm off to make money and pour Tropicana juice on bitches asses.

 

[ringo]

Right, so I thought I'd try out Moonlit Knight's tried 'n' tested system that if you backed the bottom 5 teams at home to win or draw(i.e. not to lose) to the top 5 teams at evens, that by the end of the season he'd be showering in money. His theory being that home advantage is so great(kind of like the anti-totman) that these teams will surely show a profit over the course of a season. Now the Top 5 for the majority of the year have been Utd, City, Arsenal, Spurs and Chelsea, fair? The bottom 5 have mainly been Wigan, QPR, Bolton, Blackburn and Wolves. Fair? Right, now because the Moonlit Knight is obviously very confident of this system, let's say he puts a grand on each of his selections. Here we go:

Wigan:
1-0 vs Utd +?ú1000
0-1 vs City -?ú1000
0-4 vs Arsenal -?ú1000
1-2 vs Spurs -?ú1000
1-1 vs Chelsea +?ú1000

Ok, so after our 1st selection, Moonlit is at -?ú1000, it's no biggy though, this system is foolproof.

QPR:
0-2 vs Utd -?ú1000
2-3 vs City -?ú1000
2-1 vs Arsenal +?ú1000
n/a vs Spurs
1-0 vs Chelsea +1000

All square here, Moonlit's system looks like it's about to take a turn for the good, let's keep going. Currently only a grand down.

Bolton:
0-5 vs Utd -?ú1000
2-3 vs City -?ú1000
0-0 vs Arsenal +?ú1000
n/a vs Spurs
1-5 vs Chelsea -?ú1000

Uh oh, we're now down to -?ú3000. Not to worry, two teams left and Moonlit can pull it back around.

Blackburn:
0-2 vs Utd -?ú1000
0-4 vs City -?ú1000
4-3 vs Arsenal +?ú1000
1-2 vs Spurs -?ú1000
0-1 vs Chelsea -?ú1000

Yowza, what's this? Current counter at minus ?ú6000, I'm sure Wolves can will rescue Moonlit, afterall this is a guaranteed-to-win system, there's no way the bookies can beat Moonlit.

Wolves:
0-5 vs Utd -?ú1000
n/a vs City
0-3 vs Arsenal -?ú1000
0-2 vs Spurs -?ú1000
1-2 vs Chelsea -?ú1000

What the? Moonlit is down ?ú10,000 over the season. This cannot be. It's surely just a blip to the system. Just wait for next season. Moonlit will not be beaten!

Not that I'd want to speak for him, but I imagine that MK will argue that you would have got a better price on the home team (although I orriginally thought that was he was arguing against that..still) and therefore the end result might be slightly different..although probably still down.

I'm assuming MK is a Genesis fan?

 

[mick cooper]

Have you got the painters in?

I believe that you are behaving in an immature and attention seeking manner, and you answer with a comment like that.

Kind of strengthens my point - wouldn't you say?


I'm baling out here, I really have better things to do

 

[Mumorn]

Pep asked if he feels "mugged": "If football is about counting possession we would win every game. The game is putting the ball in the net."

Thought he dealt with it well

 

[Rossi22]

Moonlit, I'd be happy to give you evens on every single bottom 5 club at home to a top 5 club for the rest of eternity, deal?

Evens includes the draw remember. Still confident?

This is what you said. It only took 10 minutes by the way, a result grid is a great invention. Keep back tracking though, you said you'd back the home side win/draw at evens, so their real price is irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[GrimsbyYid]

What a surprise. Dubai spurs was tossing over the Spanish league and most people saying bar a would teach Chelsea a lesson, I said no way will that happen and the Spanish is astonishingly weak. I still think Barca will go through, but hopefully this will stop all the masterbataing of Barca and Spanish football. They are amazing, just not THAT amazing, and thenspanish league is tinkle poor and makes them and real look better than they are

 

[southstand1882]

I believe that you are behaving in an immature and attention seeking manner, and you answer with a comment like that.

Kind of strengthens my point - wouldn't you say?

I'm baling out here, I really have better things to do

Pwned

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

This is what you said. It only took 10 minutes by the way, a result grid is a great invention. Keep back tracking though, you said you'd back the home side win/draw at evens, so their real price is irrelevant to this discussion.

You have to do it for every single team. Not just the bottom 5 and top 5. As I said on another thread somewhere.

Top six teams = Should always be favourite to win at home, regardless of league opposition
Seven to Fourteen = Should always be favourite to win against teams seven and below at home. Should be slight favourite if one team is to win against teams 6 to 1st, but draw should be most common result
Fifteen to last = Should always be favourite against teams fifteen and below. Should be slight favourite against teams seven to fourteen. Evens against teams sixth to first, with home wins and draws at least matching defeats.

 

[Rossi22]

The thing is. Chelsea are one of the top two sides in England and they're at home. Barca were NEVER favourites to win this game, even before a ball was kicked. A draw was the most likely outcome with Chelsea more likely to nick the win.

I don't give a toss what the bookies think. Their odds are based on betting patterns, not common sense. At this level the home team is always marginal favourite in my opinion.

No, it's what I have always believed. I have been preaching the same thing about the Premiership for years, and you can find my posts on here over the last few weeks. Bottom of the Premiership side plays top of the Premiership side. The game is at the bottom teams ground. Unders standard circumstances the away team is never favourite. I don't care if it's Wolves vs Man Utd. Wolves are at least evens.

The bookies set the odds via anticipation of the bets to come. There's no fudging way Barca were favourites for that game realistically. Did people learn nothing from the scum game last year? The away team is NEVER favourite.

Moonlit, I'd be happy to give you evens on every single bottom 5 club at home to a top 5 club for the rest of eternity, deal?

Evens includes the draw remember. Still confident?

How does it feel to waste an hour of your life putting that together when it has no relevance to the argument? Not unless you knew what the optimum pre-match odds were. Also please can you point out where I said it was a tried and tested system?

You are all missing the point here. The point here is that the bookies will ensure they maximise their profit and minimise their losses.

I never said that the bottom teams WOULD win the majority of their games. We are talking about games in isolation. I'll bring it back to the specific case we are actually all arguing over and that is anyone who seriously thought that Chelsea didn't have a chance of winning tonight, based on the fact that they weren't the bookies favourite to win, is an idiot.

Not that I'd want to speak for him, but I imagine that MK will argue that you would have got a better price on the home team (although I orriginally thought that was he was arguing against that..still) and therefore the end result might be slightly different..although probably still down.

I'm assuming MK is a Genesis fan?

Just so Moonlit doesn't try to worm his way out of this.

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

Just so Moonlit doesn't try to worm his way out of this.

I have nothing to worm my way out of. As you can see from the top, I always felt Chelsea were more likely to win tonight than Barca. Let's forget the Premiership for now and get this whole thing back O/T which is Chelsea vs Barca.

 

[southstand1882]

To be fair Moonlit has a decent point

Bookies do set their odds based on maintaining their profits

They'll completely ignore form, reputation, home advantage etc to maximise their profits

 

[braineclipse]

What a surprise. Dubai spurs was tossing over the Spanish league and most people saying bar a would teach Chelsea a lesson, I said no way will that happen and the Spanish is astonishingly weak. I still think Barca will go through, but hopefully this will stop all the masterbataing of Barca and Spanish football. They are amazing, just not THAT amazing, and thenspanish league is tinkle poor and makes them and real look better than they are

Barca outplayed Chelsea throughout the game, they created the most chances by far and were unlucky to not win. That was at Stamford Bridge with Chelsea playing one of the more defensive games I've seen from any team. If anything this match just confirmed the difference in ability between Barca and teams like Chelsea.

Yeah, that tinkle poor Spanish league, with poor teams like Athletico Bilbao in 8th - they would get crushed by most English teams...

 

[Mumorn]

At least teams try and play Barcelona in the Spanish league. Sure, they get battered by trying it but at least they TRY, it makes for a much more entertaining game than Chelsea sitting back and trying to win on the counter. Premier League, the best league in the world? It isn't even the second best.

 

[braineclipse]

To be fair Moonlit has a decent point

Bookies do set their odds based on maintaining their profits

They'll completely ignore form, reputation, home advantage etc to maximise their profits

Their profits are mainly based on two things.

1. A substantial vig.

2. Professional sports/football analysts setting odds that are better at predicting the outcome of football matches than the vast majority of punters.

They will not ignore form, reputation or home advantage at all. Actually they will look at those and analyze those factors better than most of their customers.

They will adjust their odds, but mainly to match the odds of competitors and to lower their variance. With a well set odds any amount of betting on one result over an other doesn't affect the long term profitability for the bookmaker, but to offset how much they risk to lose on one single game they adjust their odds.

 

[southstand1882]

Their profits are mainly based on two things.

1. A substantial vig.

2. Professional sports/football analysts setting odds that are better at predicting the outcome of football matches than the vast majority of punters.

They will not ignore form, reputation or home advantage at all. Actually they will look at those and analyze those factors better than most of their customers.

They will adjust their odds, but mainly to match the odds of competitors and to lower their variance. With a well set odds any amount of betting on one result over an other doesn't affect the long term profitability for the bookmaker, but to offset how much they risk to lose on one single game they adjust their odds.

Sorry, I didn't mean they ignore it completely

More, they become secondary in calculating the odds

i.e. if all their customers choose to back 1 team, then regardless of form, home advantage etc, the bookies odds will reflect how much they stand to lose, rather than anything else

 

[braineclipse]

Sorry, I didn't mean they ignore it completely

More, they become secondary in calculating the odds

i.e. if all their customers choose to back 1 team, then regardless of form, home advantage etc, the bookies odds will reflect how much they stand to lose, rather than anything else

I don't think it's secondary at all. It's one of the primary factors they use.

Compare it to roulette at a casino, each bet is a losing bet in the long run. Even if a customer wanted to bet ?ú100.000 (or more) on one number and the casino could lose ?ú3.6m they would feel no need to change the odds, or refuse the bet if they could afford that kind of variance. Similarly, as long as the odds they have in place are good odds for the bookmaker more action means more profit long term. Of course if the bets being places on one team are getting big enough that they stand to lose money they can't afford to lose they will have to adjust their odds, but that adjustment comes at a drop in long term profitability though so unless the bets are big they won't do it.

Bookmakers will adjust odds to align themselves with other bookmakers though, especially the major ones who have reputations for setting good odds (for the bookmakers).

PS: I'm talking about larger bookmaker chains, online betting etc. There might be local or smaller bookmakers somewhere that must adjust their odds quicker as they have a low tolerance for variance.

 

[Raziel]

hahaha .. greatest side ever beaten by Cheat$ki ..

shouldn't be, but very amused

 

[southstand1882]

I don't think it's secondary at all. It's one of the primary factors they use.

Compare it to roulette at a casino, each bet is a losing bet in the long run. Even if a customer wanted to bet ?ú100.000 (or more) on one number and the casino could lose ?ú3.6m they would feel no need to change the odds, or refuse the bet if they could afford that kind of variance. Similarly, as long as the odds they have in place are good odds for the bookmaker more action means more profit long term. Of course if the bets being places on one team are getting big enough that they stand to lose money they can't afford to lose they will have to adjust their odds, but that adjustment comes at a drop in long term profitability though so unless the bets are big they won't do it.

Bookmakers will adjust odds to align themselves with other bookmakers though, especially the major ones who have reputations for setting good odds (for the bookmakers).

PS: I'm talking about larger bookmaker chains, online betting etc. There might be local or smaller bookmakers somewhere that must adjust their odds quicker as they have a low tolerance for variance.

Not sure roulette is a good comparison... The odds are fixed

Here is a scenario:

Wolves (4/1) are playing Everton (6/5) at home

10000 punters back wolves to win

There are no bets on Everton

What happens to the odds...?