Association Football Betting Thread

[Jatz]

If you had so much luck with it back in January why didn't you continue with the French and Wimbledon?

That was in 2014 and 2015. I also just used it to point out that it's possible. I would never do it for the French Open (clay throws all kinds of weird results out).

 

[Jatz]

Out of interest how many of those shorter than $1.20 matches went to 5 sets?

No idea, was a couple of years back. Does that matter though? All that really counts is they won.

Bit like Geelong v Hawthorn this weekend. Hawthorn had a set shot to win it - but they missed and lost.

 

[jd2010]

No idea, was a couple of years back. Does that matter though? All that really counts is they won.

Bit like Geelong v Hawthorn this weekend. Hawthorn had a set shot to win it - but they missed and lost.

It definitely does matter because the element of luck involved in getting the result is higher in a close result. And for sub $1.20 odds the element of luck should be lower imo

 

[SM]

Out of interest how many of those shorter than $1.20 matches went to 5 sets?

Lol just realised those multis are from 2 and from 3 years ago..

 

[SM]

No idea, was a couple of years back. Does that matter though? All that really counts is they won.

Bit like Geelong v Hawthorn this weekend. Hawthorn had a set shot to win it - but they missed and lost.

Again, you're being silly by saying "It doesn't matter that the logic is flawed, they won" when those multis are from 2 and from 3 years ago not from last week for a reason. Either you've stopped doing it because you copped a few losses, or you're still doing it and copping losses. No other reason to pluck them from years back.

 

[SM]

That was in 2014 and 2015. I also just used it to point out that it's possible. I would never do it for the French Open (clay throws all kinds of weird results out).

Of course it's possible, anything is theoretically possible. If I'd chucked money on Leicester to win the title people would say I'm silly, but they won so it's possible. Does that mean I'll be loading up on Burnley to win the title this season? No.

 

[Jatz]

It definitely does matter because the element of luck involved in getting the result is higher in a close result. And for sub $1.20 odds the element of luck should be lower imo

I completely disagree. I don't give a s**t how they win, as long as they do.

 

[Jatz]

Again, you're being silly by saying "It doesn't matter that the logic is flawed, they won" when those multis are from 2 and from 3 years ago not from last week for a reason. Either you've stopped doing it because you copped a few losses, or you're still doing it and copping losses. No other reason to pluck them from years back.

I stopped doing it because I've mostly forgotten. I go through stages where I won't gamble. I'm gambling at the moment but I may not be in 3 months time.

I don't believe the logic is flawed at all. That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. I've had the discussion with others who agree with me - ultimately it doesn't matter. I'm raking in some huge profits at low risk to me.

 

[jd2010]

I completely disagree. I don't give a s**t how they win, as long as they do.

Bound to get burnt doing that imo. Even though Smith has missed twice late against Geelong that doesn't mean the element of luck in that result is lower than say the Demons win over us a couple of weeks ago

 

[Jatz]

Bound to get burnt doing that imo. Even though Smith has missed twice late against Geelong that doesn't mean the element of luck in that result is lower than say the Demons win over us a couple of weeks ago

Yeah sure. But you're bound to get burnt betting on anything. If the results were guaranteed, everyone would do it.

I'm not suggesting anything <$1.20 is definitely getting up. It's just a better chance to.

 

[jd2010]

Yeah sure. But you're bound to get burnt betting on anything. If the results were guaranteed, everyone would do it.

I'm not suggesting anything <$1.20 is definitely getting up. It's just a better chance to.

I know every bet type loses. But more my point is a 5 setter or an under 5 points in AFL involves a lot more luck than it should for the value of the bet. The point of short odds is "sure" things in my multis, would say that for every time I've got a lucky break with a close one i've probably had 3x the amount of unlucky breaks. That's fine when it's offering good value you expect it.

Lets say there's 20 things I back. I'd expect say 10 to be close either way (winning 3 losing 7), 10 to be "sure" things (winning 8 losing 2).

If the close either way has around $4 odds the 3 winners brings in $120 from $100. The 8 sure things at $1.20 brings in $96 from $100. If you went the full 20 sure things you need to get 20/20 you bring in $240 from $200 compared to $240 getting 6/20 the other way.

I think it's easier with research to get 6/20 at value than it is 20/20 on sure things.

 

[Jatz]

I know every bet type loses. But more my point is a 5 setter or an under 5 points in AFL involves a lot more luck than it should for the value of the bet. The point of short odds is "sure" things in my multis, would say that for every time I've got a lucky break with a close one i've probably had 3x the amount of unlucky breaks. That's fine when it's offering good value you expect it.

Lets say there's 20 things I back. I'd expect say 10 to be close either way (winning 3 losing 7), 10 to be "sure" things (winning 8 losing 2).

If the close either way has around $4 odds the 3 winners brings in $120 from $100. The 8 sure things at $1.20 brings in $96 from $100. If you went the full 20 sure things you need to get 20/20 you bring in $240 from $200 compared to $240 getting 6/20 the other way.

I think it's easier with research to get 6/20 at value than it is 20/20 on sure things.

I really don't think about it that in depth. I pick what I know best (the Panthers NSW Cup lines - they won 48-6 and the line was -12.5 haha) and then add in extra legs off that. I was confident about every one of those legs and that proved to be correct.

Fwiw, if you two want an easy $1.90 leg, check out those NSW cup lines. The Panthers leg should be way unders again this week.

 

[SM]

I completely disagree. I don't give a s**t how they win, as long as they do.

Surely how they win matters for future bets.

If I bet on something thinking it's a sure thing and the result is only determined in the final few seconds, vs something I bet on that is all but over by HT, the latter gives me more confidence in my methodology.

 

[SM]

I really don't think about it that in depth. I pick what I know best (the Panthers NSW Cup lines - they won 48-6 and the line was -12.5 haha) and then add in extra legs off that. I was confident about every one of those legs and that proved to be correct.

Fwiw, if you two want an easy $1.90 leg, check out those NSW cup lines. The Panthers leg should be way unders again this week.

And I guess that's where the critique of your method comes from, simple as that. You can get "lucky" and still end up winning as much as a more careful punter, but in the long run skill and research beats the odd bit of good luck.

 

[Jatz]

Surely how they win matters for future bets.

If I bet on something thinking it's a sure thing and the result is only determined in the final few seconds, vs something I bet on that is all but over by HT, the latter gives me more confidence in my methodology.

I wasn't talking about future bets there though. I was talking about the existing bet.

Next week's bet is determined on who they're playing as well as their form. For instance, I'm not just picking Richmond again this week because they won and I had money on them.

 

[Jatz]

And I guess that's where the critique of your method comes from, simple as that. You can get "lucky" and still end up winning as much as a more careful punter, but in the long run skill and research beats the odd bit of good luck.

It's not lucky when $1.20 legs get up. If that was luck, they'd be $1.80 +.

 

[SM]

It's not lucky when $1.20 legs get up. If that was luck, they'd be $1.80 +.

It's lucky having 17 $1.20 legs win. Whether you think so or not.

We're going around in circles here. You've admitted you don't put much thought in and that's fine if you're happy winning the odd lucky multi.

 

[Jatz]

It's lucky having 17 $1.20 legs win. Whether you think so or not.

Of course, that's why the odds are bigger. But that's not what I was talking about. I was talking my bet from this weekend.

None of Federer/Richmond/Port Adelaide were lucky to win.

 

[SM]

Of course, that's why the odds are bigger. But that's not what I was talking about. I was talking my bet from this weekend.

None of Federer/Richmond/Port Adelaide were lucky to win.

Were those the only legs in your multi?

Federer won in straight sets but two of them went to TBs. Flip the results in those TBs and who knows. I think you're doing what you usually do now and using hindsight when it comes to a result that happens to have gone your way, as you did with tipping back at the start of the season. Funnily enough the previous weekend when I had this discussion with someone else, two of his "sure things" backfired on him and I was the one sitting there being able to talk from a position of authority.

 

[Jatz]

Were those the only legs in your multi?

Under $1.20. You weren't questioning the legs in my multi that were over that though?

 

[jd2010]

Under $1.20. You weren't questioning the legs in my multi that were over that though?

You've missed the point it's when it's with other the legs they're an increased probability

 

[Jatz]

You've missed the point it's when it's with other the legs they're an increased probability

But they aren't. You keep looking at them as an overall multi. If you break them down as the individual legs they are, anything less than $1.20 really isn't very risky.

I'll just accept that we place different bets haha.

 

[jd2010]

But they aren't. You keep looking at them as an overall multi. If you break them down as the individual legs they are, anything less than $1.20 really isn't very risky.

I'll just accept that we place different bets haha.

If you guess heads or tails in an isolated event it's 50/50 heads to win. The more events you add to it the chances of hitting heads each time decreases each time. That's the point I'm making. The more legs in a multi the decreased chance of winning regardless of the odds on offer for said leg.

Like my point earlier 3x $1.40-2.50 is statistically more likely than 10x $1.20

 

[SM]

But they aren't. You keep looking at them as an overall multi. If you break them down as the individual legs they are, anything less than $1.20 really isn't very risky.

I'll just accept that we place different bets haha.

You still haven't answered my question about if it's such a sure thing why you don't make your own lines and do a 17 leg multi with all AFL and NRL? Or do you accept that just because something has odds of < $1.20 that it's not really a sure thing?

 

[typeclub]

Belotti needs to join Milan already so I can put the winnings in Mayweather TKO on Conor McGregor before the odds drop too much, already at 1.67.