For The Gamblers

[The Batman]

I know it means nothing now unless you bet on a 0-0, but just need someone's opinion on the following cuz i dont bet on matches too often.

I stayed up in Newcastle on Friday night and on Saturday morning i went for a walk around the town to get our bearings for the evening's activities.

Me and my mate (newcastle fan) walked passed a bookies and in the window it had their "offer of the day", which was Newcastle 3-0, £10 wins £110. So him being a git went in and put it on.

Thinking about it, and with him pestering me to put one on, i gave in and thought of the most realistic scoreline and scorer. I handed the girl £10 and said "Bristol City win 1-0, Maynard with the goal" and I got my form back, the odds i was given

.

.

.

60/1

Now are we thought of that badly by bookies or were we just not exected to get anything from the game, or does that sound about right?

Your thoughts please

[21. Marcham]

I know it means nothing now unless you bet on a 0-0, but just need someone's opinion on the following cuz i dont bet on matches too often.

I stayed up in Newcastle on Friday night and on Saturday morning i went for a walk around the town to get our bearings for the evening's activities.

Me and my mate (newcastle fan) walked passed a bookies and in the window it had their "offer of the day", which was Newcastle 3-0, £10 wins £110. So him being a git went in and put it on.

Thinking about it, and with him pestering me to put one on, i gave in and thought of the most realistic scoreline and scorer. I handed the girl £10 and said "Bristol City win 1-0, Maynard with the goal" and I got my form back, the odds i was given

.

.

.

60/1

Now are we thought of that badly by bookies or were we just not exected to get anything from the game, or does that sound about right?

Your thoughts please

The fact that they're top of the league, haven't failed for score at home (before Saturday) and we haven't won away since February plays a big part. And because the bookies is Newcastle there bound to be more biased.

[SJC]

To bet on the most realistic {first} goalscorer and most realistic scoreline, depending on the liklihood of the game, never gives you fantastic value.

For example, and this is just plucking from thin air - Man Utd to beat Bolton 2-0 or 3-0 with Rooney scoring first will probably only be about 20/1 - 25/1.

Another example, Villa vs Man City tonight - Adebayor is 6.00 (or 5/1 in 'old money') favourite {with 'bet365' - other betting companies are available . . . .} to score first, while the most likely result is deemed 1-1 at 6.50 (11/2). Combining the two gives you odds of 30/1 which id suggest, given the competitiveness of the fixture, reflects the bookies uncertainties;

Villa - 2.75, Draw - 3.25, City - 2.60, in other words the bookies dont have a clue.

So in regard to your Newcastle bet; given that they were reasonably heavy favourites, had not failed to score all season, were at home, we havent won away from home all season, 60/1 on a Maynard 1-0 was a very fair reflection.

[CheltenhamCityFan]

60-1, regardless of the evidence is a good price.

It only takes one swing of a boot to score 1 goal and lets face it stranger things have happened.

I can only assume the bookie expected to take no money on the away team. I love a bet and i try and work out what the price should be in my opinon, and if my price is lower than the odds on offer i take the odds on offer.

In my book - 25/1 would have been about right, and i probably would have had a bet if had been 25/1 plus.

[SJC]

Sorry you've got me intrigued now!

Hull 2 - 1 Wigan (Our old friend JVoH scores the opener),

Wolves 0 - 1 Pompey (Yebda),

Bolton 2 - 2 Spurs (Gardner),

Burnley 2 - 1 Birmingham (Fletcher)

Man Utd 2 - 2 Sunderland (Bent)

Arsenal 6 - 2 Blackburn (Nzonzi)

Everton 1 - 1 Stoke (Huth)

West Ham 2 - 2 Fulham (Cole)

Chelsea 2 - 0 Liverpool (Anelka)

The only games of the above that, bar divine inspiration, you would have had any hope in predicting would be Burnley, Chelsea, West Ham and possibly Hull. Yet even in those many would have favoured Wigan off the back of their Chelsea result, Chelsea vs Liverpool is never easy to call - although a narrow home win with one of Anelka, Drogba or Lampard scoring first was a reasonable shout and West Ham vs Fulham did have draw written all over it and, to be fair, Carlton Cole would have been the favoured scorer.

I think the moral of the story is that scorecast's are incredibly difficult to predict on a consistent basis and, if won, involve a great deal more fortune than other types of bets - of course, not to state the obvious, that is reflected in the odds!

One thing I will say, if you had a tenner on Nzonzi to score first and Arsenal to win 6-2 you'd probably just be regaining conciousness about now!

[SJC]

In my book - 25/1 would have been about right.

In that case, what odds would you have given for, say, Harewood to score first and Newcastle to win 1-0 / 2-0 ?

[punnett]

In that case, what odds would you have given for, say, Harewood to score first and Newcastle to win 1-0 / 2-0 ?

Harewood to score 1st would of been about 5/1 and a 1-0 or 2-0 victory would of been about 6s so i'd expect the bookies to offer about 25s on that double outcome (they do not multiply the 2 prices in these instances) personally i think 60/1 about Maynard and city to win 1-0 is a cracking price, if you did that bet for every City game this season you would be quids in allready, admittingly the price would not of been 60/1 for the three times this has already happened

[Portland Bill]

I know it means nothing now unless you bet on a 0-0, but just need someone's opinion on the following cuz i dont bet on matches too often.

I stayed up in Newcastle on Friday night and on Saturday morning i went for a walk around the town to get our bearings for the evening's activities.

Me and my mate (newcastle fan) walked passed a bookies and in the window it had their "offer of the day", which was Newcastle 3-0, £10 wins £110. So him being a git went in and put it on.

Thinking about it, and with him pestering me to put one on, i gave in and thought of the most realistic scoreline and scorer. I handed the girl £10 and said "Bristol City win 1-0, Maynard with the goal" and I got my form back, the odds i was given

.

.

.

60/1

Now are we thought of that badly by bookies or were we just not exected to get anything from the game, or does that sound about right?

Your thoughts please

I had the same bet on with william hills, you had good odds because mine was 40/1.

[Scrumpy Dziek]

For info, City to win 1-0 was 9/1 in the Ladbrokes near the ground

[CheltenhamCityFan]

In that case, what odds would you have given for, say, Harewood to score first and Newcastle to win 1-0 / 2-0 ?

I didnt look at the prices for Saturday's games.

I would expect to see the bookies quoting:

Harewood Score Newcastle 1-0: 8/1

Harewood to score first Newcastle 2-0: (12/1 - 16/1

[kachina]

Harewood was 9/2 first goal, Newcastle 1-0 was 5/1

Therefore 5 * 4.5 = 22.5

so it would have been 21/1 most likely, prob rounded up to 22s.

Maynard first goal was 7/1, whilst city 1-0 was 9/1 as someone said.

Therefore 63/1 was the accurate double price with Ladbrokes.

[Guest]

Harewood was 9/2 first goal, Newcastle 1-0 was 5/1

Therefore 5 * 4.5 = 22.5

so it would have been 21/1 most likely, prob rounded up to 22s.

Maynard first goal was 7/1, whilst city 1-0 was 9/1 as someone said.

Therefore 63/1 was the accurate double price with Ladbrokes.

No chance would you get 22/1 for that. If harewood scores first 1-0 is no more a 5-1 shot, its around a 9/4-11/4 shot if not scored in first minute. I reckon you would be getting around 14/1 for that. Betting is all about value, you just have to know when the price is wrong - if you dont know that (which takes years of learning) just have a friendly punt and never bet money what you cannot afford to lose.

[kachina]

I can assure you the double price was 22/1.

[Webzcas]

60/1 is a ridiculously long price. I doubt you would have got anyone to lay it that long on Betfair, regardless how Newcastle have started the season.

[kachina]

The facts are these were the prices.

A scorecast double is based on the price of the scorer and the price of the score.

In all instances, you will get most scores between 5s and 6s, until they become unlikely scores. Newcastle 1-0 was a bigger price than Newcastle 2-0 mainly because of how they had been doing. With Maynard 7s to score first, and City 9/1 to win 1-0, the scorecast double averaged at 63/1. you have to remember you are embanking on two scenarios. It's all well and good those who don't work in betting orientated venues saying silly price and that, but first of all you have to analyse the chances of a 1-0 scoreline against a team who are scoring for run and a team who have infrequently scored but have defended well to the point. Secondly you must consider the chances of that player being the first goalscorer.

Most f/g goalscorer correct scores start around 20/1 +, its the standard starting point.

Remember you are banking on two outcomes, hence why it's a double.

To establish the double price, you multiply the two prices to get an accurate price. Also people seem to forget a market is formed to an over round of 109%, using mathematics, there are many scenarios of betting, a 12/1 shot is around 8% of the market, so in a market with at least 60 - 70 scenarios, there will never be an 8% haul of the market, as the over prices would need to be exaggerated to fit the over round.

[lugger]

The facts are these were the prices.

A scorecast double is based on the price of the scorer and the price of the score.

In all instances, you will get most scores between 5s and 6s, until they become unlikely scores. Newcastle 1-0 was a bigger price than Newcastle 2-0 mainly because of how they had been doing. With Maynard 7s to score first, and City 9/1 to win 1-0, the scorecast double averaged at 63/1. you have to remember you are embanking on two scenarios. It's all well and good those who don't work in betting orientated venues saying silly price and that, but first of all you have to analyse the chances of a 1-0 scoreline against a team who are scoring for run and a team who have infrequently scored but have defended well to the point. Secondly you must consider the chances of that player being the first goalscorer.

Most f/g goalscorer correct scores start around 20/1 +, its the standard starting point.

Remember you are banking on two outcomes, hence why it's a double.

To establish the double price, you multiply the two prices to get an accurate price. Also people seem to forget a market is formed to an over round of 109%, using mathematics, there are many scenarios of betting, a 12/1 shot is around 8% of the market, so in a market with at least 60 - 70 scenarios, there will never be an 8% haul of the market, as the over prices would need to be exaggerated to fit the over round.

Just out of interest, do they just multiply the 2 for the double or do they take into account the amount of games where Newcastle (or whoever) scored first and went on to score again and stats like that or is that over complicating it?

[Ixion]

Not wishing to appear pedantic, however the methods of calculation here are incorrect.

9/2 (5.50 Decimal.) X 5/1 (6.0 dec) pays 32/1 (33.0 dec) £32 profit plus stake returned.

and 7/1 (8.0 dec.) X 9/1 (10.0 dec) pays 79/1 (80.0 dec). £79 profit plus stake returned.

The discrepancies in the previous figures are due to the fact that they do not account for the profit plus the original stake going forward onto the second part of the double.

Odds are so good because the likelihood of either result were relatively unlikely given City's previous form going into the game. The bookies are not going to give anything away, so if it looks too good to be true with those guys then in all probability then it generally is.

edit: lost Net connection before validating post - bloody BT again! Grrrr

[Onthefence]

I Think it was a very realistic price. As someone has already said the scorecast odds are the odds of the first goalscorer and final score multiplied together.

60/1 may seem like high odds, but Newcastle were top of the league and playing at home against a team who had not won away from home. Maynard would have been around 6/1 to be first goal scorer and the 0-1 result to city about 10/1.

[kachina]

Just out of interest, do they just multiply the 2 for the double or do they take into account the amount of games where Newcastle (or whoever) scored first and went on to score again and stats like that or is that over complicating it?

They won't look into things like that, as those would have been analysed in the initial process of pricing. They won't give u the exact double odds, as they don't allow separate scorecast and scorer doubles, so they combine the two to get a actual return and knock a bit off, usually about 10%.

[Whites]

Just for you gamblers out there, i came across a betting slip in Hill's on saturday which seems a little bit too good to be true.

Its called both teams to score and some of you will have already spotted this one. It basically does exactly what it says on the tin. All you have to do is pick games you think both teams will score!!!

But this is the good thing, when i took a few minutes to look at the prices available, i was presently surprised. all games were 5/6, 8/11 or Evs. A quick bit of math tells you that a evens treble pays 7/1!!! so £10 on £80 returned, 4/1 on a 8/11 treble and 5/1 on a 5/6 treble.

Ok, so my selection on sunday (Rangers vs Celtic, West Ham vs Fulham and Chelsea vs Liverpool) didnt come in, thanks to Liverpool (and mainly Benayoun) failing to score.

if i remember correctly, 5 selections was 19/1 and seven was 33/1.

But the treble bet for me is just too good to miss.

Anyway i am off down to hills to see if they have a coupon fot the FLT games tonight. Some form teams playing away, (norwich etc).

Let me know if any of you decide to have a flutter, be interesting to se what games you lot pick!!

Cheers,

Whites.

[punnett]

I can assure you the double price was 22/1.

As wood red they do not multiply the 2 prices (as in this case 4 1/2 x 5) as they see it as one result affects the other so they take a bit off 14 or 16 to one would be the more likely price, trust me i was a betting shop manager for 10 years and had many a debate with angry punters about this very thing,

[punnett]

As wood red they do not multiply the 2 prices (as in this case 4 1/2 x 5) as they see it as one result affects the other so they take a bit off 14 or 16 to one would be the more likely price, trust me i was a betting shop manager for 10 years and had many a debate with angry punters about this very thing,

Looking at it again, if these were the correct prices, (5s and 9/2), then 22/1 would be probably right as the true double price is 32/1

[Ashton Great]

Slightly off topic, but still on the gambling theme...

Does anyone know if those computerised roulette/blackjack machines you see in most bookies are random or whether they are just a stitch up like fruit machines which are programmed to only pay out 78% of what is put in? My gut feeling is they have to be fixed in the bookies favour - but then again is that legal as there don't appear to be any signs saying this like the ones you get on fruities?

I only ask as I pop into the bookies on the centre most lunchtimes and I see people putting hundreds of pounds into the things. Are they stupid or lucky/unlucky or what?

Punnet - maybe you have some inside info?

[redredrobin21]

Slightly off topic, but still on the gambling theme...

Does anyone know if those computerised roulette/blackjack machines you see in most bookies are random or whether they are just a stitch up like fruit machines which are programmed to only pay out 78% of what is put in? My gut feeling is they have to be fixed in the bookies favour - but then again is that legal as there don't appear to be any signs saying this like the ones you get on fruities?

I only ask as I pop into the bookies on the centre most lunchtimes and I see people putting hundreds of pounds into the things. Are they stupid or lucky/unlucky or what?

Punnet - maybe you have some inside info?

Interesting question. As far as the roulette goes I reckon that's probably just random because you get roulette wheels in casinos and they still make money even though they're random - because the odds still favour the casino/machine. However for blackjack etc I don't know.

As for the scorecast thing, the odds for Maynard 1-0 did seem quite excessive (a favourite result and scorer would normally be more like 20/1) but given the current Championship promotion odds have Newcastle as favourites and us as 10th or 11th favourites, they're probably about right.

[punnett]

Slightly off topic, but still on the gambling theme...

Does anyone know if those computerised roulette/blackjack machines you see in most bookies are random or whether they are just a stitch up like fruit machines which are programmed to only pay out 78% of what is put in? My gut feeling is they have to be fixed in the bookies favour - but then again is that legal as there don't appear to be any signs saying this like the ones you get on fruities?

I only ask as I pop into the bookies on the centre most lunchtimes and I see people putting hundreds of pounds into the things. Are they stupid or lucky/unlucky or what?

Punnet - maybe you have some inside info?

These machines are keeping many bookies open as they make a fortune on them and lile all machines the punter eventually loses.