uh, it didn't. I said it was probably bad for accounts, I didn't say it was a bad bet.

Poyet's said he'll play his strong side but who knows, Poyet says a lot of things. Might be some convenient 'injuries' to some key players come Saturday.

Palace are in a pretty good position with that point...they essentially need only a draw at the weekend to get into the top 6 (unless Bolton and Forest both rack up multi-goal wins).

Nah i know its not. But more to life than winning on your own etc. Nothing wrong with helping others out

I exchange bets with people all the time. Just happen to not do it here.

Apparently though anything that's posted is totally worthless unless it's a free tip or praise.

Do u think it's in the price that there may be players rested or not? If it is, and u think there won't be much/any resting, should we be backing Palace, not opposing, as they're mispriced the other way? Or do u think they're priced up 'normally', ie the worst that would happen is we have a bet against Palace at the correct price, with the upside we might bet them at an advantageous price to us? If that's the worst than can happen, not sure why there's negativity to what looks a well thought out proposal?

It's priced midway between Palace winning/not winning tomorrow. If you back them and they don't win the price will move lots towards Palace.

To be fair he did put up a bet late at night on Gotze going to Munich.

Although it had been announced he had signed , and I think it was with Paddy Power (might be wrong) so the 83pence everyone could have had at 4/1 would have just about bought a Big Mac, but it would have been a risk free Big Mac.

ha, just because I don't give away free bets all the time doesn't mean I never have bets. Just not really wise to give them away for free is it?

Doubt there'll be much resting going on if Palace win tomorrow as 4th is still an incentive (big advantage being at home 2nd leg as you get the potential ET at home without the normal disadvantage of away goals).

A couple of things struck my eye re some footy this week Tony.

If Villa v Sunderland was a game taking place in some continental leagues then the draw would be much shorter than it is tonight. A point for both teams puts them 3 and 6 points clear of the team third from bottom. In Italy it would be about 8/11 or 1/5 depending on how str8 it was.

There has to be some value in backing these related matches too. Does anyone spot a flaw in these?

A double on Crystal Palace to beat Millwall 2morrow and Peterboro to beat Palace on Saturday.

A little more related but still worth a bet might be a treble on Millwall to beat Palace 2morrow, Palace to beat Peterboro on Saturday and the draw in the Huddersfield v Barnsley game.( if Palace are beating Peterboro than that game could easily end up a carve up draw late on)

Obv both bets cannot win, could also just wait to see what the result is in the Millwall v Palace game 2morrow and then back any related doubles for Saturday( if Palace win then obv just a single on Peterboro on Saturday might be the call) but the markets will change a bit after the Millwall v Palace game tho. If the game 2morrow ends in a draw then both are losers.


Not really thread bets as such mate unless you did want to throw a small bet at them as dbles and trebs aren't really your thing but these are related contingencies ( I'm  surprised firms have the weekend Palace game out tbh) , the value is multiplied thru each game because if one happens then the odds on the next happening are wrong/shorter.

cheers

Isn't the big problem with backing related contingencies multiples that it will prob cost accounts?

Don't think draw is really a bigger runner in tonight's game - a pt is not amazing for Villa as Wigan have a game in hand (which if they won would put them over Villa). Villa have Norwich away, Chelsea at home and then Wigan themselves away on the final day. Tonight's game is by far the most winnable of the lot, you don't want to settle for a draw here and let Wigan in with a chance of catching up. Plus, draws are much more prevalent in Italy and other countries due to [football] cultural reasons, they need not necessarily apply here.

It is pretty silly how these bookies have far higher limits than the Asians/Pinnacle early in the week, go best price and then get annoyed when they get a flurry of bets on minor games.

'so you're letting me get more on this and at a better price? ok'

A madrid v R madrid

Atheltico have been well backed most of the week due to the team news

Madrid look very weak in defence with carvalho dragged out for a game alongside albiol with essien right back and a reserve left back.

Whilst the prices have moved in on atheltico ladbrokes have been late to move on some goalscorers.

Suggest Diego Costa £11 eway 8-1 with ladbrokes (usually is around a 5-1/11-2 shot at home starts upfront alongside falcao)

Suggest £8 eway Raul Garcia 14-1 with ladbrokes (4 from 13 this season attacking midfielder bit of a standout price)

Suggest £10 win Falcao 9/2 boylesports (win only) and £15 win falcao 11/10 vc bet or william hill anytime scorer

the above 3 would be fair prices against a full strength madrid side let alone this one

starts 7pm so be quick

Not sure about Costa, Garcia is prob EV+, Falcao is a pile on the win part (not keen on the anytime)

Would be careful. Academy side could mean anyone from the academy right? Which is 90% of the Crewe team!

edit: Certainly a bet but doesn't seem like it'll move it a whole goal or anything like that

If you don't mind your VC/Sky Bet accounts being killed after the bet...

http://www.oddschecker.com/football/football-specials/mario-gotze/club-after-summer-transfer-window

yep the league table often lies at this stage of the season

Assume you're being facetious but...

The league table is worth not very much when assessing how good teams are. More than happy for you to go ahead and say it is though. 

Watford definitely not the best team in the division! Cardiff/Leicester far ahead of everyone else then Watford/Hull/Forest/Brighton > Palace > Bolton.

I think I made a mistake. I was so keen to say that we should take them all that I forgot some of the key points of that post.

 I started that one off by saying that the reason we can "know" that we are having value in these bets and therefore we should take them all blind is that the Cheltenham market is very mature and with perfect knowledge how can it be wrong?

 There are several reasons a market might not be perfect and in these situations we should be careful with priority offers.

 One of those reasons might be that the market is very new. It has not been beaten into shape by hundreds of thousands of annoying robots and 23 sharp minds, (sorry Betfair would assure you they still have plenty of pro punters knocking these prices into shape and trading millions to get positions either way).

 The horse that was backed at 7/1 recently was in a market that had traded less than 10% of what the ante-post Cheltenham markets had done at the time we did our bets. It was possible that once the price had been traded a bit more strongly, (with 99% of that trading happening on the day), it might drift or be backed massively. Using the thin, young Betfair market there to tell us blindly if we had a good bet, without recourse to the opinions of a judge like Chompy was wrong, whereas on the Champion Hurdle we don't need to bother consulting because the mature Betfair market has done all the work.


 It is possible occasionally that the mature Betfair market may have new news that is about to hit it, and we could, on consultation, realise that a priority price is not great because of that. It is unlikely that someone on this thread could know about Tiger spraining a wrist or being almost disqualified before the rest of the market but it is possible that the clever people here could be able to respond better than the market to the implications of that. A very mature market like the Gold Cup could change completely if it rained 20mills overnight and a priority price on the firm-ground loving 2nd favourite could be bad value as we "know" that that must surely drift once the market has really absorped the new information.

 It's possible that the mature Betfair market may contain an inherent bias. In the Masters players like Woods, Mickelson and Rory are massively overbet by the punters. The proportion of bets does not look like 25% of the money on the 3/1 chance and 8% on the 12/1 chances, it is more likely to look like 45% on the 3/1 chance and 14% on the 12/1 chances. Bookmakers are prepared to run a lopsided book because they like to gamble for a result and it is also a good way to gain new customers in a competitive market. However they may now push the prices of the three favourites in a bit because they know they'll still get backed.

 It's my old thing about the price that will split the handle against the one that will split the result. In the case of Tiger I think the 6/1 just HAD to be a great bet. In retrospect I don't think anyone who had that bet can complain. Tiger went off 4/1 and we had a big edge against a very mature Betfair market. Personally I took all the Hills priority prices and also the Ladbrokes enhancements.

 The ones that that are annoying me now are the 14/1 Mickelson and the 12/1 Rory. At the time Rory was "only" 11/1 on Betfair and I took 12/1. Mickelson was trading 12-12.5 and I took 14/1.  While it is generally true that Betfair can be your guide in established mature markets and if you can beat it you should bet blind I don't believe in either of these  I was getting enough. It is possible that there was an inherent favourite bias in the Betfair market and that the true price of all three at the off should have been slightly bigger. After all Tiger traded at 5.6-5.7 for 48-hours yet on the off he was 4.9-5.0. Did the market really learn new information about the chance of Tiger Woods winning in that time or was that all just weight of money, much of which, by definition, must be from recreational punters who had 2 days to bet him at 9/2 and who could have got 6/1 if they were shrewd?
 

 

<big post>

It might not be the case if the shrewds are already on for max stake (I'm not sure if this is true in events such as these or not) but in theory, if a price shortens in an efficient liquid market, then whilst the *actual* probability of the event doesn't change you are getting more information. Again, assuming an efficient market, it's probably overconfident to not reassess your probabilities as the odds change, unless you're Tony Bloom or something.

If Liverpool shorten up lots does that mean that their chance of winning has increased? Not necessarily (assuming there's no new team news), but it means that the ones with lots of money (i.e. the smart ones) think that their probability should be higher than it was.