TheReds

The record for total sales in the past 10 years is the 5,056 sold in 2018/19 and the Gas are on track to beat that number.

Ooooooohhhhhhhh. No wonder why they keep saying they are coming for us.

Will listen to it in the next couple of weeks I expect.

Slightly off topic, I listened to the Steve Howey one a couple of weeks ago, the Eileen Drury bit was weird - unreal how she seemed to have so much influence over Hoddle. Did love the Ray Parlour and Gazza bits with her!

1 hour ago, KegCity said:

It’s hardly a Chris Brunt/Ashley Williams type signing though? Off the back of an excellent season, to me it’s low risk. If he was 29 and getting a 3 year deal the majority of people wouldn’t bat an eyelid.

Resale value is the only issue, but if wages are sensible and he can play like he did last season then we should be getting value for money on the pitch which makes it less of an issue.

Agree. Who else who has just had a great season like he has, is proven at this level, as versatile, seems to have the right attitude for Pearson, and is available for the same overall cost of Naismith?

8 hours ago, Harry said:

I think the 30+, 3 year contract is a valid argument. As I’ve said earlier, I think he’s a solid enough player and I don’t see many options in the left back slot this summer so it’s a sensible signing. 
Would I prefer he was 27 on a 3 year deal. Absolutely. I generally don’t like us giving 3 years to 30+ year olds. It’s the type of transfer strategy that has us where we are at the moment, because they tend to be on the upper end of the wage scale, no resale value and more prone to hitting injuries and/or losing their legs. A couple of bad signings of that ilk and things can quickly go very wrong financially. And we are effing tight financially right now! 
 

Not saying that’ll happen in this case, but 30+ on 3 years is always a bit more risky. So it’s a valid argument. 
 

For what it’s worth, I’m usually wholly against such deals, but knowing where we are at the moment and that we’ll really only be able to tap into free agents this summer, it’s as sensible a signing in a position of need as we’re likely to get. 

He also comes across as a winner and has that winning mentality, I at least love the fact we are getting the right 'types' of players in now and changing the mentality/culture overall. Hopefully a few more fans are seeing the bigger picture and longterm changes that are/were needed to happen, and why Pearson is the right person to do that. 

11 minutes ago, Betty Swallocks said:

I really hope you’ve stuck that £500 on. 

I offered to take his bet on the previous page and pay up front to someone to look after for the season, but haven't seen any reply as of yet....

59 minutes ago, bs3 said:

I’m sticking £500 for us to go down , easy money, there is no way we are staying up without investment in the squad. 

I'll lay you the 11/4 on that if you want. 

Happy for someone trustworthy on here to hold onto the money before the season kicks off if you are serious?

1 hour ago, INCRED said:

I wonder what odds Huddersfield were this time last year??

At the start of August they were:

Winner - lowest price of 50/1 & highest 66/1 (ew quarter odds first 3)

Promotion - lowest 12/1 highest 18/1

Relegation (3rd favs) - lowest 11/4 highest 100/30

27 minutes ago, spudski said:

This Club would have far more fans attending if it wasn't for parking and public transport issues.

Going to the Killers concert wtf.

Even to Cardiff for a concert..9 30 last train home for me.

System is broke.

10000%.

That is the trouble with all the parking restrictions with permits (not saying fans should stop people parking outside their own home btw), we have the Council extortion racket clean air zone, push for electric cars etc etc. There is never anything that has been setup properly and tested, which is even close to being anywhere close to satisfactory, let alone very good, and everyone just has to accept it. I know a fair few people who haven't renewed season tickets due to the clean air zone that will be in next season - if it hasn't been put back again.

6 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Might some of current players be Argyle players by the time this comes around???

Do Argyle have any potential Championship players? I seen Sheff Weds were after a Camara but Plymouth apparently won't sell to another League One club. I don't follow them at all tbh.

35 minutes ago, harrys said:

If I could be bothered, what if I am waiting on two or three teams, can’t lay off on all of them, sometimes people make it far too complicated but ultimately it’s all about personal choice, I used to lay off if it looked like I had a good thing was about to win which is basically the same as cashing out

Why throw a tenner away though? You could still lay 2/3 teams and still at a less cost than the cashout difference - because the cashout amount would be far less than with one selection waiting, so you would have more money to play with, and would even have the chance of a longshot to be more profitable if 2 actually scored late on against you. Of course it is personal choice, but why give bookies back money you don't need to, when it is actually costing yourself money? You wouldn't return an item back to a shop and ask for anything less than the price you paid, so why should you when it comes to betting? It really isn't far too complicated, and just a couple of clicks. Personally, I couldn't give money back to the bookies when there really isn't any need to, but each to their own I guess.

1 hour ago, harrys said:

It all depends what the cash out is, if I’m on course to win £200 with five minutes to go and I’m offered £180 I’d take the £180 every time, far too many 95th minute equalisers in my bets

Which would cost you £20, and no doubt you could lay the same bet for the same return of the cashout for a cost of £10 on BF.

35 minutes ago, maxjak said:

Yawn 2 .........It seems quite obvious that you have an ongoing agenda with  bookies, possibly by them not accepting a bet or failing to pay out to you at some time?.  Even so there is no need to become personal, I'm sorry if you have had a bad experience.  But personally I have never had any problems with my bets, and i find using cash out to be very useful, especially when i have cashed out a £100 bet just before the winning team has conceded a 93rd minute equaliser?   (How is that to the bookies advantage?)  By the way the young ladies name is Tanya Hanley...and apparently the quadruple bet she put on was a special Betfair promotion.............but you are probably not interested, as it it does not fit with your rant?  Goodbye and Farewell.

I have always had issues with bookies as they pick and choose who to fleece, yet when they even think someone may outdo them the punter is banned, all while they are enticing problem gamblers to slot machines, roulette and online casinos - the most addictive forms of gambling with their free bets, free spins, bonus roulette etc etc. They are not bookmakers anymore in any sense of the word, they do not play the market in any sports, they play the person. Ask for a decent bet on a horse and they absolutely crap themselves!!

I have only got personal as you put it, after some of your comments on here were aimed at me. Everything I have said is true, yet you still deny some of the things (related contingency, voiding bets/Gambling Commission, rip off etc). Just because I say they are a rip off which can physically be proved by the actual cashouts offered in the huge majority of cases and true odds of the bet winning, then I am unsure why you think they are not a con. If anyone wants to make the most out of any running bet, then simply open up a Betfair account and lay the same bet off at a better price to a near 100% book, rather than the books price. Just basic maths.

As for the womans bet, if it was a Betfair promotion then there would literally be hundreds, if not thousands of punters (especially Liverpool fans) who would have done the same bet for varied amounts. It would have been all over Social media from hundreds of people cashing out from their small layout after the first/second leg. Or have they just let one random woman have it? The bet has got them all the exposure they needed, and regardless if I am wrong about it, it would still be about a 20/1 shot to be true imo.

7 minutes ago, maxjak said:

Yawn

I'm sure to work in a bookies you have to be over 18, are you an actual adult? Your responses are becoming more childish by the post because you are obviously incorrect, and have no facts at all, whilst calling me "stroppy"........ Why not simply point out exactly where I have been wrong in your opinion, on any single thing I have posted in this thread - you know like an adult who can actually have an adult discussion.

1. Cashouts are massively in the bookies favours, not just a little as you have said, a lot - as simply proved by a bet I placed yesterday. In turn, they are a rip off to any punter. If punters are happy to take them then that is their choice, but from an actual betting point of view they are a poor "bet", and will cost punters in the long run. If you want to make money gambling longterm, you play the odds and nothing else.

2. Bookies can, and do refuse to pay out on many bets, and claim all sorts of reasons. A lot of them they end up paying out after they are threatened with court action, press etc.

3. Many bets are voided without even telling the customer, even after the bet has lost - sleeper bets. Been happening for decades.

4. Bookies ban and restrict many punters for either winning, or simply just beating their price (you don't even need to be in profit with them and can be banned or restricted). I cannot get more than paltry amounts on online and have probably had around 60 online accounts closed or restricted to literally pennies, and all within the space of a couple of years - some of them were closed within 3 bets. This was a few years ago, it is even harder now due to all of their software and algorithms and isn't even worth the time and hassle anymore. The Betfair exchange is my only option nowadays. 

5. Unsure why you would even think the Liverpood bet is real for starters, and not some nonsense PR is beyond me. Add in the fact of the "related contingency" that you don't even think is strictly true in this case, then I will safely say I do in fact know more about the betting industry than yourself, but feel free to come back with an adult reply if you can, showing me where I am wrong on any of my points, and we can talk....

I'm all ears. 

9 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Lovely cash out 

Lovely? That proves my point perfectly. Ripped off!

Just now, maxjak said:

You seem very stroppy and opinionated?.......anyhow i am bored now, as for all your bluster, you don't seem know everything..............;even though it's obvious you think you do?

Stroppy and opinionated? It seems you just don't like to be wrong. I haven't said a single thing that isn't a fact, they are not just my own opinions I have plucked out of my mind, they are actual facts - but feel free to point out anything that I have said is incorrect. You can believe or think what you wish, that's your prerogative. As for whether or not you managed a bookie for 7 years, you have been incorrect on multiple points you have made on this thread, but it seems you are unable to accept you are incorrect! 

5 minutes ago, maxjak said:

If the bookie takes a bet, and it was advertised as such, then they have to pay out or explain to the Gambling Commission why not? 

They certainly don't. They can claim multiple things including palpable error, related contingency, claim syndicate betting, can claim you are betting for someone else and make you jump through hoops before paying out, or still refuse and you have to take them to court to get paid. Plenty of nonsense they have tried on over the years as well with voiding bets after they have won but keeping the cash from the voided ones (sleepers) without telling the customers, I have been on the receiving end myself, along with Betfair withholding funds and telling complete lies for over a year.

As for Betfair compilers they will just play along with the PR machine for any made up nonsense from their PR people. Every year we hear how someone has had 50 grand on a horse in the National, 75 grand on the Gold Cup etc etc etc, yet plenty of people cannot get a tenner on with them if they are not mugs. 

As for the GC, they are a laughable Organisation who basically do nothing.

1 minute ago, maxjak said:

That is a valid point...re: Related contingency.  But it is not technically R. C., but even so it seems strange that a bookies would take 4 individual prices as opposed to providing a one off price for the Quadruple to be achieved........so it could be a shaggy dog story?  I will ask Betfair if it is true?

Of course it is related contingency. Try and do the same bet in a few weeks when the prices are up individually, and if it gets taken I would bet money you won't be getting paid out in full if it wins - but you will only get told after it has won, because that is how the bookies operate.

Do you honestly think Betfair are now suddenly going to say they were telling porkies? Not a chance in hell.

7 minutes ago, maxjak said:

Before the advent of the the cash out option, if you had a four timer, and the first three were winners, you would have to cross your fingers and hope the fourth selection won.  If it ended up losing  then it is     farewell to your stake.  However, as in the instance of the young lady and her bet,   if she so wished she could cash out a percentage of the bet, if she felt lacking in confidence  or felt 95k was a tidy sum to put in her pocket.....I fail to see how that is the bookies taking advantage?  How is she being ripped off, it is all based on risk assessment

Forget about before cashouts etc, as that means nothing, don't know why you keep mentioning things that haven't been said before. You would also have to cross your fingers on every multi bet, that's what betting is, and if you are waiting on the 4th leg of an acca to collect and the first 3 have won then you have the full odds of the acca on one last selection - you have all of the value, so never give it back at a rip off price.

She could have cashed out whatever she wanted to, that still doesn't mean it was a good bet, just because it lost it doesn't mean it was a bad bet. If you managed a bookies for 7 years I am unsure how you don't know how odds and value work in the betting industry. I still stand by that her bet wasn't even real in the first place due to related contingency. If it was indeed real she would be lucky to get paid out in full due to that anyway - although maybe had a slight chance due to it hitting the press.

6 minutes ago, The Horse With No Name said:

If Villa had been timewasting when they were 2-0 up, which they probably did, why should they then benefit from added on time for their own timewasting when they are losing at the end ? I have always believed that in these instances the ref should be allowed to cancel the extra minutes so that the guilty team can't get their minutes back. 

This 100%. Villa were time wasting (as they all do), yet once a comeback has happened they strangely want to hurry up, they shouldn't even have any chance to then benefit whatsoever with added time because they have wasted time, stopped the game flowing etc etc. 

51 minutes ago, richwwtk said:

It's not a ripoff though. The bookies are in it to make a profit, they're not a charity.

By saying to the customer "you can cash out for a little under market value if you're not so confident on your remaining bets" then they are merely providing an option that, in the long run, would work out best for them but may also be appreciated by the customer in an individual situation.

It's no more of a ripoff than the fact that they would never offer you evens on a 50/50 bet. The odds are always stacked in the bookies favour.

Just went on PP and placed 4 random horses in a yankee. Staked £11, cashout within a second of placing it a whopping, humungous £5.71 (and no price changes which would effect the cashout). That definitely isn't a little bit under market value.

Assume this screenshot will work:

1 minute ago, richwwtk said:

It's not a ripoff though. The bookies are in it to make a profit, they're not a charity.

By saying to the customer "you can cash out for a little under market value if you're not so confident on your remaining bets" then they are merely providing an option that, in the long run, would work out best for them but may also be appreciated by the customer in an individual situation.

It's no more of a ripoff than the fact that they would never offer you evens on a 50/50 bet. The odds are always stacked in the bookies favour.

Sorry but that is wrong. 

A 50:50 bet would/should be priced up at 10/11 each of 2. That is fair enough as they do have to make money, pay staff, shops etc etc. If you think they are having the same takeout of cashout bets then i'm afraid you are completely wrong, as they certainly don't offer a "little under market value". 

3 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

Mathematically over time for the bookies maybe, as they have millions of bets placed, but not necessarily for the punter.

It'll take the woman above a LOT of her £100 bets to make up that £93k cash out she turned down. In exceptional circumstances like that she'd be up, even if she "lost value" on the bet. People aren't betting out to infinity here!

She is still being ripped off whether it wins or loses. This is also one extreme case - if it is even actually true.

8 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

Well not everything.  If the girl yesterday had taken the £93,000 the bookies would have been that amount down.  Obviously a cash out is to the bookies advantage if the bet would have gone on to win, but not if the bet would go on to lose.  So in the case of the individual, it’s swings and roundabouts.  Of course the bookies will expect to come out on top overall, but that’s the betting game for you.

I would doubt that bet in the first place due to its "related contingency" angle. In a few weeks time try adding that same bet (or with man city/United etc) to a betslip and see what price you get, then try and place it. You will not be allowed to place the bet, you maybe able to get a "special" price for a quadruple/treble etc, but you won't get the prices advertised as singles and then all multiplied up as that bet is showing.

Of course it is in the bookies favour, they know by giving a cashout (whatever the amount) they will be making a huge amount of money from them because they are basically betting the punter below the actual odds (which they have already taken a percentage out of). No different than Casinos with their edge due to percentages of the true odds, it is all about turnover, whether that be high rollers or small fish, they will not, and cannot lose longterm (not including cheats/card counters etc). It's all about the Maths.

2 minutes ago, maxjak said:

Sorry, we will have to agree to disagree.  Bookies are not a charity, it is up to the individual to take advantage of any situation, if they see fit, and have the intelligence.  You do not HAVE to cash out....it is an option.  I have used cashing out many times to my advantage, it is far from a con.  I managed a bookies for 7 years..........and their are many ways bookies take advantage of the punters naivety .........IMHO cashing out is not one of them.

I never said they were a charity. I never said it wasn't up to any individual whether they use a cashout facility or not, or whether you HAVE to cashout, and it isn't just an option. I have told you exactly why they are a con, you are getting paid way under the true odds - that is a fact, not made up, an actual fact.

If cashing out is not taking advantage, then why don't they pay out a cashout at the price you actually have whether your other selection wins or loses, or even with a small takeout rather than taking a huge slice from it?

Maybe con is strong word, but they are only offering a cashout because it makes THEM money and not the customer. Bookies are after mug/losing punters, they don't want people who can beat them, cashout is a prime example of free money for them week in, week out.

13 minutes ago, maxjak said:

I don't understand your POV.........why is it a con ,  If it allows individuals to take out their bet early?       Some years back the option did not exist, and It is a facility that i have often used.  So I end up winning 70% of the bet, instead of losing everything. Please explain?

Because they pay you a price for the bet, and they pay you way under the actual price it should be. A huge con.

For instance if you now had an accumulator running onto Liverpool for the Champs Leagues for £1100, and Liverpool are 4/7 (effectively you have £700 running at 4/7 to get back £1100), the true value of the cashout would be where your bet is now so it would be £700. The actual cashout would probably be £550.

As for all of the cashouts you have taken where a selection has lost (so you have won), it comes down to turnover/amount of bets etc. Longterm you would be far better off by letting every bet run its' course rather than taking a bookies cashout, as you are not giving back money at a reduced price. Everything is in the bookies favour.