|
for the 2010 world cup my friend was betting against england winning the whole thing, the odds of which allowed him a free buy on both spain AND the dutch, so by the time the finals rolled around he ended up with several thousand dollars guaranteed and all it took was betting england WOULDN'T win.
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2012 21:44 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2013 14:43 |
|
|
Now, I don't really understand betting or odds or anything, so I could well be wrong, but I'm going to hazard a guess that your mate is talking out of his arse.
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2012 21:55 |
|
|
c0burn posted:SSN are really upset. It's because they had visions of being able to speak to the England manager every single day at any time.
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2012 22:00 |
|
|
Blue Screen Error posted:Now, I don't really understand betting or odds or anything, so I could well be wrong, but I'm going to hazard a guess that your mate is talking out of his arse. well the odds of any one team winning it are low, so had to wager a large amount of money up front on the near-certainty of england not winning, the risk of which allowed him to buy both spain and the dutch winning it at high odds (for not much money) meaning that essentially he parlayed ENGLAND LOSE -> SPAIN/DUTCH WIN for a small multiple of his original wager. Had England won the world cup, he would have stood to lose a considerable amount of money, but instead he was guaranteed NOT to lose his money once England were knocked out and the risk he took betting they wouldn't win proved enough (because everyone overwagers on england, uk gambling addiction &c) to allow him to buy two great bets for high payouts on spain and the dutch. qed.
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2012 22:04 |
|
|
couldn't he have just bet on those two regardless of what he bet on england? also, betting a large amount on the near-certainty of something can be pretty dangerous (always betting on red as a strategy is similar, though there are differences in the situation).
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2012 22:06 |
|
|
dilbertschalter posted:also, betting a large amount on the near-certainty of something can be pretty dangerous look, england losing isn't a perfect example of a "hedge," but in financial markets this kind of coupling unlikely (but highly profitable) outcomes with nearly certain (but only marginally profitable) outcomes is called "hedging" and is done by investors to allow the possibility for highly lucrative returns with less risk than would be undertaken by him simply betting on spain/the dutch straight up. his mindset was that the odds of england were lower than the betting had indicated so far (again, because england fans tend to overbet on their teams success) and that the cost of spain and the dutch was low enough (and their outcomes likely enough) that it made sense to couple these conditions together. i'm not the one who came up with it, and i'm sure it's in his spreadsheets somewhere, i just thought it was an interesting anecdote. long story short, betting against the english can be a lucrative proposition.
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2012 22:12 |
|
|
Still sounds like bollocks to me
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2012 22:12 |
|
|
i've just put my house on England winning the euros this summer
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2012 22:12 |
|
|
but I put the hedge around the house on germany
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2012 22:13 |
|
|
England will win the euros.
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2012 22:15 |
|
|
Carrier posted:England will win the euros. This!
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2012 22:18 |
|
|
excuse me lady posted:lmao I love this literally the best utterance ITF. also absolutely love sky's meltdown
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2012 22:26 |
|
|
Blue Screen Error posted:Still sounds like bollocks to me It might make more sense with real numbers. Say you bet $2000 on England not winning, at a payout of 4:5, which is pretty low (the bookies know England are poo poo). That wins you an extra $500 when England inevitable don't win, but if they somehow pull it off you lose your $2000. Then you take the $500 that you assume you're almost guaranteed to win, and put $250 on each of Spain and Holland, at say 4:1 odds on each. If either of them wins, you get $1000 out of it, which pays off your lost bet on the other one plus some extra. If neither of them wins, you still didn't lose any money thanks to your sure-thing-England-are-poo poo bet. The only way you really lose money, as opposed to simply not making any profit, is if none of your bets come true (since there's no way to lose the $2000 without England actually winning, which invalidates the other two. As long as England don't win, you don't lose money. Then you only make money if one of your real bets comes true). It's not a bad technique if you have a large amount of disposable income that you're willing to risk on the off chance that it all comes together for England this time. Also, not saying that guy's story is necessarily true, but as long as you find the right bets and the right odds the bet he's describing is plausible. vyelkin fucked around with this message at Apr 29, 2012 around 22:29 |
| # ? Apr 29, 2012 22:26 |
|
|
vyelkin posted:It's not a bad technique if you have a large amount of disposable income that you're willing to risk on the off chance that it all comes together for England this time. this, and the guy in question is essentially a professional gambler to begin with so looks for opportunities like this with some regularity. you don't have to believe me, he already made the money doing it, i just wanted to share the story.
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2012 22:36 |
|
|
Reminder that Roy has won ~13 trophies, has international experience in Euros and World Cups and also club European experience in the Europa League. Compare to Harry one season in European competition & 1 FA Cup. Having said that, I don't want him to go for 2 reasons; 1. because he's been great for us and I want him to carry on building and also 2. I don't think he's the right man to manage that ego-filled England team, he doesn't really have enough charisma.
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2012 22:37 |
|
|
I suppose it could be true, after all Pissflaps wins his daft bets with alarming regularity.
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2012 22:39 |
|
|
I want to bet against England winning but it's currently 11-1 and I don't have enough money to cover a loss to make it worth betting on. Hopefully it will come in to like 6-1 between now and the tournament.
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2012 22:44 |
|
|
Psybro posted:I want to bet against England winning but it's currently 11-1 and I don't have enough money to cover a loss to make it worth betting on. Hopefully it will come in to like 6-1 between now and the tournament. places are offering down to 8-1 and 9-1.
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2012 22:45 |
|
|
more topically, if someone wants to bet me IN THIS THREAD that england will win, i'll take either the spaniards, the deutsche or the dutch heads up for, idk, $50 to a charity?
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2012 22:47 |
|
|
Take it to the gambling thread addiction havers
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2012 22:54 |
|
|
I hope Woy wins the Euros without once picking Steven Gerrard just so I can watch half of RAWK go off like that bloke in Scanners. In all seriousness I think he's got all the attributes to do a good job (not to actually win anything, mind, but that's hardly his fault) but there's no way the media lets him. He's going to have the spectre of Redknapp hanging over him like Dalglish at Liverpool and the media circus that made him go to pieces there is going to be totally eclipsed by what he'd face as England boss. The Sun have probably already knocked together a photoshop of him in a dementia ward getting wheeled around by Scott Parker.
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2012 23:01 |
|
|
I'm ambivalent on Woy but thank God it's not Stuart Pearce, I'd assumed it was going to be his job by default
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2012 23:03 |
|
|
I said ages ago that England's best bet in the short-term is to accept that we're not that good and we need to try and play to our strengths even if this isn't "joga bonito mate!" or "tika taka mate!". This means building from the back - we DO have a selection of good defenders, defend deep (gently caress playing a "high-line"), get them organised, stick a couple of hard-working cloggers (Parker and someone else, Milner?) in front of them and work from there. If you can keep it tight at the back you always have a chance, especially in knock-out football. Then break out at pace down the wings (we have enough quality and pace at full-back and on the wing) and get crosses in for Rooney and whoever else up-front. Organised at the back, hard-working, counter-attack at pace, no fannying about - that is our best bet for now. Then obviously in the background we need to lay the long-term foundations for a future where we produce actual footballers instead of having to rely on plodders like Parker, Barry, Milner etc and brainless speed-merchants like Walcott, Lennon etc. Just copy Spain, Holland and Germany basically - it's not rocket science. Yeah this might mean going against our gut and turning our young footballers into a bunch of emasculated fannies poncing about with a tennis ball on a 5-a-side pitch (and the result doesn't even matter!) but it seems to work so we might as well try it. I genuinely wouldn't be surprised if the FA's thinking is along similair lines to mine and if so, I can understand why they've gone for Hodgson. It might not be pretty but he can get us organised in the short term and at least give us a chance of getting the semis or whatever and I'm sure he's open-minded enough to go along with these "reforms" in youth football etc. What I will say is that I witnessed West Brom tearing us a new arsehole at the Hawthorns a couple of months ago when the MON Effect was in full swing. They played good, decisive football, raped us down the wings all game and were solid at the back. At Liverpool he was hated by the fans from day one, had to work under fuckwit owners and was hounded out before he'd really got started. I don't think he'll win us anything but I doubt he'll be a complete disaster either - there's only so much you can do with this England team anyway and I'd rather have an English manager just for pride reasons more than anything. Our focus should be on winning something in 20 years time not now.
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2012 23:05 |
|
|
it's a shame the current generation of english football is like "the lost decade" in the midst of france, italy, germany and spain but while the quality is there, tactically it's been a step slow for some time now. why don't you start playing anti-football?
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2012 23:08 |
|
|
I think our focus should be winning things now not in 20 years time but maybe thats just me
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2012 23:16 |
|
|
Breath Ray posted:I think our focus should be winning things now not in 20 years time but maybe thats just me It's a good thing that England are going to win Euro 2012, then.
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2012 23:18 |
|
|
yeah and the olympics
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2012 23:20 |
|
|
Team GB wins olympic gold, team england flames out in round one of the euro 2012, how will the media spin it?
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2012 23:26 |
|
|
Mickolution posted:Isn't Hodgson well known for having really primitive and boring training sessions? his training sessions are too boring. not the liverpool way imo. didn't even spend a single morning on stepover training or The Sort Of Hilarious Shenanigans That Might Take Place In A Nike Advert. really gutless of England to approach someone who doesn't train the right way.
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2012 00:53 |
|
|
Liverpool should have their own national team. Win-win for both parties.
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2012 00:54 |
|
|
please respond posted:Liverpool should have their own national team. Win-win for both parties. Who would make it from Everton?
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2012 04:42 |
|
|
Pissflaps posted:So what do Liverpool fans think of Roy Hodgson? I was really annoyed with him while he was at Liverpool but Dalglish's failures this season have given me some perspective about the whole Hodgson period. He was the wrong manager at the wrong club at the wrong time. I don't think a lot of his tactical choices helped him in the least and certain transfer decisions did not get savaged in the press the way they should have, but when you're dealing with international football, where easily-digested organizational approaches usually yield good results when you're working with an unbalanced pool of players like England's, that's a different story. Hodgson is the kind of guy I would trust in that situation and I think he will be good for England.
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2012 05:05 |
|
|
EAT FASTER!!!!!! posted:Team GB wins olympic gold, team england flames out in round one of the euro 2012, how will the media spin it? Olympic football is meaningless.
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2012 07:27 |
|
|
Whitey Snipes posted:Olympic football is meaningless. It's meaningless unless team gb win it and then it'll be rated above the world cup
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2012 09:18 |
|
|
Nah, it'll still only be a footnote after England win the Euros a month before.
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2012 09:21 |
|
|
Babby Thatcher posted:really gutless of England to approach someone who doesn't train the right way. agreed, Robert Enke in
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2012 09:43 |
|
|
Loving Africa Chaps posted:It's meaningless unless team gb win it and then it'll be rated above the world cup Do you honestly believe this?
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2012 10:22 |
|
|
Sky Sports News @SkySportsNews Want to hear from the man the FA chose NOT to speak to today? Harry Redknapp interview coming up shortly on #SSN This should be good.
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2012 10:24 |
|
|
Woy to be replaced by Alf Ramsey's ghost. England crash out in the group stages but Liverpudlians still offer their support and claim him to be the superior manager as he has the 'proper England spirit'.
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2012 10:25 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2013 14:43 |
|
|
I'm looking forward to Richards playing at right back for england again is anyone else
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2012 10:33 |
|
