Championship Odds

castle blue 1 roathy 0

If you are an idiot yeah

He's basically said the true odds of heads or tails isn't 50:50 in betting terms as it may land on its side

I thought you and roathy were two different people

take your time now

You thought right then. Congratulations.

Bold and big characters I'm impressed but none of it really answered the point, unless I take your comment that it's nearly impossible for a coin to land on it's side. This is progress slow progress but progress.

So in some Asian betting markets you can place a bet on the spin of a coin. The options are heads, tails or void if it's neither of those. Is that a 50/50 chance and are the odds evens.

To maintain that there is a 50/50 chance and that therefore the odds are evens on it being either heads or tails means that the process involved in tossing the coin is pure, without variation. In reality the stochastic or random process involved in tossing a coin with all it's built in variables means it cannot simply be considered a 50/50 chance.

This post has been made without the use of bold or larger characters because the logic of the arguement doesn't require further emphasis.

It was big and bold for purpose of clarity. If I replied in the same font you wouldn't be able to tell who wrote what, stop being so touchy,

Yes the odds are evens for heads and evens for tails, I don't understand what is confusing you. If you place your bet on heads there is a 50% chance you will win your bet. This is basic, basic stuff.

You soun a roulette wheel and the odds of landing on a number is 37-1 and you get 36-1 so you aren't getting the true probability odds.

Surely this can't continue to confuse you?

Touchy, me, never. But for clarity, lovely word clarity, what is it that makes the process you are clearly using so devoid of all variation that it would gaurantee a 50/50 chance of being heads or tails.

In reality a coin could land on it's side but to support your position you are saying no, in my process a coin on it's side is void. How does that work by admitting a coin can land on it's side immediately disproves your assertion that there is a 50/50 or even money odds of it being heads or tail.

Going back to my original question, what is a "True Probability". As true means based on fact or reality and we have now accepted a coin can land on it's side as a fact how can you still main it is a 50/50 chance of being heads or tails. By accepting that there is a third option, in reality, your 50/50 assertion is clear nonsense. Moving the goalposts by saying the third option is void doesn't work, unsustainable that one.

That is what your doing here isn't it moving goalposts.

Bold and big characters I'm impressed but none of it really answered the point, unless I take your comment that it's nearly impossible for a coin to land on it's side. This is progress slow progress but progress.

So in some Asian betting markets you can place a bet on the spin of a coin. The options are heads, tails or void if it's neither of those. Is that a 50/50 chance and are the odds evens.

To maintain that there is a 50/50 chance and that therefore the odds are evens on it being either heads or tails means that the process involved in tossing the coin is pure, without variation. In reality the stochastic or random process involved in tossing a coin with all it's built in variables means it cannot simply be considered a 50/50 chance.

This post has been made without the use of bold or larger characters because the logic of the arguement doesn't require further emphasis.

It was big and bold for purpose of clarity. If I replied in the same font you wouldn't be able to tell who wrote what, stop being so touchy,

Yes the odds are evens for heads and evens for tails, I don't understand what is confusing you. If you place your bet on heads there is a 50% chance you will win your bet. This is basic, basic stuff.

You soun a roulette wheel and the odds of landing on a number is 37-1 and you get 36-1 so you aren't getting the true probability odds.

Surely this can't continue to confuse you?

Touchy, me, never. But for clarity, lovely word clarity, what is it that makes the process you are clearly using so devoid of all variation that it would gaurantee a 50/50 chance of being heads or tails.

In reality a coin could land on it's side but to support your position you are saying no, in my process a coin on it's side is void. How does that work by admitting a coin can land on it's side immediately disproves your assertion that there is a 50/50 or even money odds of it being heads or tail.

Going back to my original question, what is a "True Probability". As true means based on fact or reality and we have now accepted a coin can land on it's side as a fact how can you still main it is a 50/50 chance of being heads or tails. By accepting that there is a third option, in reality, your 50/50 assertion is clear nonsense. Moving the goalposts by saying the third option is void doesn't work, unsustainable that one.

That is what your doing here isn't it moving goalposts.

My word. This is insane. There is no moving the goalposts, listen very carefully, ill even put some stuff in bold for clarity.

This thread is about BETTING ODDS and taking the CORRECT ODDS based on PROBABILITY.

We are talking about a coin flip here. The options when betting on it are HEADS or TAILS. As you point out there is a minute chance of it landing on its side, it's almost impossible in fact hence why there will never be a market on it. If it does land on its side the bet is VOID.

SO...... the odds of you winning your bet are EXACTLY 50%, no more, no less. No freak flood, no landing on its side will ever change that. So the correct probability odds is EVENS.

If we take this to my other example of roulette. There are 37 numbers so the correct odds probability of the ball landing on a certain number is 37-1 yrpet bookies and casinos give you 36-1, this is incorrect odds probability and what we are discussing here.

Bold and big characters I'm impressed but none of it really answered the point, unless I take your comment that it's nearly impossible for a coin to land on it's side. This is progress slow progress but progress.

So in some Asian betting markets you can place a bet on the spin of a coin. The options are heads, tails or void if it's neither of those. Is that a 50/50 chance and are the odds evens.

To maintain that there is a 50/50 chance and that therefore the odds are evens on it being either heads or tails means that the process involved in tossing the coin is pure, without variation. In reality the stochastic or random process involved in tossing a coin with all it's built in variables means it cannot simply be considered a 50/50 chance.

This post has been made without the use of bold or larger characters because the logic of the arguement doesn't require further emphasis.

It was big and bold for purpose of clarity. If I replied in the same font you wouldn't be able to tell who wrote what, stop being so touchy,

Yes the odds are evens for heads and evens for tails, I don't understand what is confusing you. If you place your bet on heads there is a 50% chance you will win your bet. This is basic, basic stuff.

You soun a roulette wheel and the odds of landing on a number is 37-1 and you get 36-1 so you aren't getting the true probability odds.

Surely this can't continue to confuse you?

Touchy, me, never. But for clarity, lovely word clarity, what is it that makes the process you are clearly using so devoid of all variation that it would gaurantee a 50/50 chance of being heads or tails.

In reality a coin could land on it's side but to support your position you are saying no, in my process a coin on it's side is void. How does that work by admitting a coin can land on it's side immediately disproves your assertion that there is a 50/50 or even money odds of it being heads or tail.

Going back to my original question, what is a "True Probability". As true means based on fact or reality and we have now accepted a coin can land on it's side as a fact how can you still main it is a 50/50 chance of being heads or tails. By accepting that there is a third option, in reality, your 50/50 assertion is clear nonsense. Moving the goalposts by saying the third option is void doesn't work, unsustainable that one.

That is what your doing here isn't it moving goalposts.

My word. This is insane. There is no moving the goalposts, listen very carefully, ill even put some stuff in bold for clarity.

This thread is about BETTING ODDS and taking the CORRECT ODDS based on PROBABILITY.

We are talking about a coin flip here. The options when betting on it are HEADS or TAILS. As you point out there is a minute chance of it landing on its side, it's almost impossible in fact hence why there will never be a market on it. If it does land on its side the bet is VOID.

SO...... the odds of you winning your bet are EXACTLY 50%, no more, no less. No freak flood, no landing on its side will ever change that. So the correct probability odds is EVENS.

If we take this to my other example of roulette. There are 37 numbers so the correct odds probability of the ball landing on a certain number is 37-1 yrpet bookies and casinos give you 36-1, this is incorrect odds probability and what we are discussing here.

There you go moving the goalposts again.


I thought we were talking about "True Probability" and not Probability.

there are 37 numbers on a roulette wheel, the true odds are 36/1.

Anyway, you cannot compare sports betting to fixed odds as value is perceived, not true.

Bold and big characters I'm impressed but none of it really answered the point, unless I take your comment that it's nearly impossible for a coin to land on it's side. This is progress slow progress but progress.

So in some Asian betting markets you can place a bet on the spin of a coin. The options are heads, tails or void if it's neither of those. Is that a 50/50 chance and are the odds evens.

To maintain that there is a 50/50 chance and that therefore the odds are evens on it being either heads or tails means that the process involved in tossing the coin is pure, without variation. In reality the stochastic or random process involved in tossing a coin with all it's built in variables means it cannot simply be considered a 50/50 chance.

This post has been made without the use of bold or larger characters because the logic of the arguement doesn't require further emphasis.

It was big and bold for purpose of clarity. If I replied in the same font you wouldn't be able to tell who wrote what, stop being so touchy,

Yes the odds are evens for heads and evens for tails, I don't understand what is confusing you. If you place your bet on heads there is a 50% chance you will win your bet. This is basic, basic stuff.

You soun a roulette wheel and the odds of landing on a number is 37-1 and you get 36-1 so you aren't getting the true probability odds.

Surely this can't continue to confuse you?

Touchy, me, never. But for clarity, lovely word clarity, what is it that makes the process you are clearly using so devoid of all variation that it would gaurantee a 50/50 chance of being heads or tails.

In reality a coin could land on it's side but to support your position you are saying no, in my process a coin on it's side is void. How does that work by admitting a coin can land on it's side immediately disproves your assertion that there is a 50/50 or even money odds of it being heads or tail.

Going back to my original question, what is a "True Probability". As true means based on fact or reality and we have now accepted a coin can land on it's side as a fact how can you still main it is a 50/50 chance of being heads or tails. By accepting that there is a third option, in reality, your 50/50 assertion is clear nonsense. Moving the goalposts by saying the third option is void doesn't work, unsustainable that one.

That is what your doing here isn't it moving goalposts.

My word. This is insane. There is no moving the goalposts, listen very carefully, ill even put some stuff in bold for clarity.

This thread is about BETTING ODDS and taking the CORRECT ODDS based on PROBABILITY.

We are talking about a coin flip here. The options when betting on it are HEADS or TAILS. As you point out there is a minute chance of it landing on its side, it's almost impossible in fact hence why there will never be a market on it. If it does land on its side the bet is VOID.

SO...... the odds of you winning your bet are EXACTLY 50%, no more, no less. No freak flood, no landing on its side will ever change that. So the correct probability odds is EVENS.

If we take this to my other example of roulette. There are 37 numbers so the correct odds probability of the ball landing on a certain number is 37-1 yrpet bookies and casinos give you 36-1, this is incorrect odds probability and what we are discussing here.

There you go moving the goalposts again.


I thought we were talking about "True Probability" and not Probability.

No goalposts are being moved my man. You are just failing to understand what debate you gate crashed in.

Did you miss the fact we were talking about betting and bookmakers? You replied to me talking about it so I'd find that strange.

The fact a coin can land in its side is irrelevant as the bet wouldn't stand, you would win and you wouldn't lose.

So the true odds of heads or tails is even. Simple as that.

Currently you are saying something akin to "the odds of a roulette number coming up isn't really 37-1 because the ball may crack in half and land on 2 numbers" - yes this is possible but not a betting option so affects the true probability odds zero, nothing nada.

there are 37 numbers on a roulette wheel, the true odds are 36/1.

Anyway, you cannot compare sports betting to fixed odds as value is perceived, not true.

If there is 37 numbers then the true odds are 37-1 not 36-1.

You are given 36-1 to ensure long term players are pretty much guaranteed to lose.

you are only given 35-1

you are only given 35-1

Even worse then.

there are 37 numbers on a roulette wheel, the true odds are 36/1.

Anyway, you cannot compare sports betting to fixed odds as value is perceived, not true.

If there is 37 numbers then the true odds are 37-1 not 36-1.

You are given 36-1 to ensure long term players are pretty much guaranteed to lose.

lol.

do the math

put £1 on all numbers 0-36, you have layed out £37 in total.

Now, strap yourself in here, as it gets complicated.

Lets assume number 36 comes up . With your odds, you keep the £1 on 36, and get given another 37, which means you are up £1.

At 36/1 you would be exactly even, as 36/1 is the correct odds!

The casino pays 35/1 on European Roulette, and thats where its gets its house advantage.

Consider me your educator.

there are 37 numbers on a roulette wheel, the true odds are 36/1.

Anyway, you cannot compare sports betting to fixed odds as value is perceived, not true.

If there is 37 numbers then the true odds are 37-1 not 36-1.

You are given 36-1 to ensure long term players are pretty much guaranteed to lose.

lol.

do the math

put £1 on all numbers 0-36, you have layed out £37 in total.

Now, strap yourself in here, as it gets complicated.

Lets assume number 36 comes up . With your odds, you keep the £1 on 36, and get given another 37, which means you are up £1.

What?

If there are 37 numbers then it will land one one particular number once every 37 spins theoretically. That is simply 1 in 37 chance. The probability is 37-1 the odds should be 36-1 (because of the £1) and the odds you are given is 35-1.

there are 37 numbers on a roulette wheel, the true odds are 36/1.

Anyway, you cannot compare sports betting to fixed odds as value is perceived, not true.

If there is 37 numbers then the true odds are 37-1 not 36-1.

You are given 36-1 to ensure long term players are pretty much guaranteed to lose.

lol.

do the math

put £1 on all numbers 0-36, you have layed out £37 in total.

Now, strap yourself in here, as it gets complicated.

Lets assume number 36 comes up . With your odds, you keep the £1 on 36, and get given another 37, which means you are up £1.

What?

If there are 37 numbers then it will land one one particular number once every 37 spins theoretically. That is simply 1 in 37 chance. The probability is 37-1 the odds should be 36-1 (because of the £1) and the odds you are given is 35-1.

What on earth do schools teach these days.

there are 37 numbers on a roulette wheel, the true odds are 36/1.

Anyway, you cannot compare sports betting to fixed odds as value is perceived, not true.

If there is 37 numbers then the true odds are 37-1 not 36-1.

You are given 36-1 to ensure long term players are pretty much guaranteed to lose.

lol.

do the math

put £1 on all numbers 0-36, you have layed out £37 in total.

Now, strap yourself in here, as it gets complicated.

Lets assume number 36 comes up . With your odds, you keep the £1 on 36, and get given another 37, which means you are up £1.

What?

If there are 37 numbers then it will land one one particular number once every 37 spins theoretically. That is simply 1 in 37 chance. The probability is 37-1 the odds should be 36-1 (because of the £1) and the odds you are given is 35-1.

What on earth do schools teach these days.

No idea, this thread is amazing.

3 cups with one ball under one cup.

The chances of it being under cup number one is 3-1. Same with roulette, 37 numbers, chances of landing on a specific number is 37-1.

Really is simple stuff

http://www2.ohlone.edu/people2/bbradsha ... xt_ch4.pdf

So anyway, back to the thread before it was taken wildly off topic.

If the bookies are offering 200-1 for Watford to win the title it should be 1-200 for them not to, and I'd be taking that all day.

so 3/1, converted to decimal odds is 4

you are going to pay me 3/1 to play a game (your hats) with 3 possible outcomes

dont ever open a bookmakers, and if you do, please tell me so I can come for my free money.

so 3/1, converted to decimal odds is 4

you are going to pay me 3/1 to play a game (your hats) with 3 possible outcomes

dont ever open a bookmakers, and if you do, please tell me so I can come for my free money.

Why would I pay you 3-1?

so 3/1, converted to decimal odds is 4

you are going to pay me 3/1 to play a game (your hats) with 3 possible outcomes

dont ever open a bookmakers, and if you do, please tell me so I can come for my free money.

Why would I pay you 3-1?

3+1 is 4 4 outcomes 3 hats

so 3/1, converted to decimal odds is 4

you are going to pay me 3/1 to play a game (your hats) with 3 possible outcomes

dont ever open a bookmakers, and if you do, please tell me so I can come for my free money.

Why would I pay you 3-1?

3+1 is 4 4 outcomes 3 hats

What?

I think you are desperately confused with whats being discussed here. You seem to be making up an argument and arguing with yourself masked with a ridiculous amount of smileys.

Back to roulette. True probability to land on a number is 37-1, odds you should get 36-1, odds you do get 35-1.

Which is confusing you here?

so 3/1, converted to decimal odds is 4

you are going to pay me 3/1 to play a game (your hats) with 3 possible outcomes

dont ever open a bookmakers, and if you do, please tell me so I can come for my free money.

Why would I pay you 3-1?

3+1 is 4 4 outcomes 3 hats

What?

I think you are desperately confused with whats being discussed here. You seem to be making up an argument and arguing with yourself masked with a ridiculous amount of smileys.

Back to roulette. True probability to land on a number is 37-1, odds you should get 36-1, odds you do get 35-1.

Which is confusing you here?

37+1 = 38 I crying with laughter here

its not 37/1 its 1 in 37

My word this is incredible

http://www.smartgaming.com/html/article ... o_odds.htm


"The probability of a given event is a measure of the likelihood of its occurrence. Take roulette for instance. The probability that the ball will land on number 7 in a typical 38 numbered roulette wheel is can be expressed as the ratio of 1 over 38 (ie.1/38). The ratio represents the chance that the ball will land in number 7 compared to it landing in all of the possible numbers (38 of them). In casino gambling, it is a common practice to refer to the “odds for something happening” and the “odds against something happening”. In our roulette example, the odds against the 7 winning is 37 to 1. You have 37 chances to lose for every 1 chance to win."

Obviously they are using the double zero so the 1/37 becomes 1/38.

Last edited by Paxman on Tue Apr 16, 2013 2:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

No goalposts are being moved my man. You are just failing to understand what debate you gate crashed in.

Did you miss the fact we were talking about betting and bookmakers? You replied to me talking about it so I'd find that strange.

The fact a coin can land in its side is irrelevant as the bet wouldn't stand, you would win and you wouldn't lose.

So the true odds of heads or tails is even. Simple as that.

Currently you are saying something akin to "the odds of a roulette number coming up isn't really 37-1 because the ball may crack in half and land on 2 numbers" - yes this is possible but not a betting option so affects the true probability odds zero, nothing nada.

I haven't gate crashed anything simply trying to debate a point. That's ok isn't it.

I do understand we are talking about bookmakers but do you that's the question. Within this thread you have said that bookmakers are

"Yes they will give odds on an all manner of impossible things if they think some fool will stick a speculative fiver on it. They would give 100-1 on price William divorcing Kate and Kate getting with Harry if they thought someone would do it.

Bookies are such cons its ridiculous, I don't understand why people go in them. The other day two tennis players playing each other were both 10/11 favourites. Nonsense stuff."

Bookmakers are essentially a business where the aim is to make a profit. To do this bookmakers offer odds which are designed to create a profit on whatever event they are operating a book on. The "overround" on a book is where a bookmaker makes profit, but in terms of gambling where you either make a lay a bet the question exists why do either? To make money

Bookmakers or indivuals placing or laying bets on exchanges do so to make money and odds are set when ALL relative probabilities of outcomes are considered. Failure to do so would almost certainly result in making loses.

Your example of bookermakers offering 10/11 odds on both players in a tennis match as nonsense. Why is it nonsense. Offering odds of 10/11 on both players gives the bookmaker an overround of 104.6% on the market. Or expressed as a relative probability of 52.3% that either player will win. You suggest that bookmakers are cons absolutely rediculous assertion, bookermakers run a business and are not looking simply to cover costs.

Of course the bookmakers could offer odds of even money or a relative probability of 50% on each player, but the overround would be 100%. What happens if more money is placed on one player than the other the bookmaker or individual on a betting exchange is likely to lose. That's nonsense.

When setting a book any bookmaker would consider ALL probabilities when setting odds, when it comes to tossing a coin this would include the coin landing on it's edge. What ever odds, which lets face it will be opinion based, they will effect the relative probability of odds.

If I were making a book I would offer you odds of 41/40 on either heads or tails and 50/1 on it landing on it's edge. This would give a relative probability of 50.6% on either heads or tails and 1.9% on the edge giving an overround 103.1% which allows for a 3% profit.

You believe it's rediculous to offer anything other than evens or a 50% relative probability.

Next time you fancy making a bet give us a shout I'd lay it for you.

My word this is incredible

http://www.smartgaming.com/html/article ... o_odds.htm


"The probability of a given event is a measure of the likelihood of its occurrence. Take roulette for instance. The probability that the ball will land on number 7 in a typical 38 numbered roulette wheel is can be expressed as the ratio of 1 over 38 (ie.1/38). The ratio represents the chance that the ball will land in number 7 compared to it landing in all of the possible numbers (38 of them). In casino gambling, it is a common practice to refer to the “odds for something happening” and the “odds against something happening”. In our roulette example, the odds against the 7 winning is 37 to 1. You have 37 chances to lose for every 1 chance to win."

Obviously they are using the double zero so the 1/37 becomes 1/38.

Exactly, not 37/1 !

Even you are saying you are wrong.

No goalposts are being moved my man. You are just failing to understand what debate you gate crashed in.

Did you miss the fact we were talking about betting and bookmakers? You replied to me talking about it so I'd find that strange.

The fact a coin can land in its side is irrelevant as the bet wouldn't stand, you would win and you wouldn't lose.

So the true odds of heads or tails is even. Simple as that.

Currently you are saying something akin to "the odds of a roulette number coming up isn't really 37-1 because the ball may crack in half and land on 2 numbers" - yes this is possible but not a betting option so affects the true probability odds zero, nothing nada.

I haven't gate crashed anything simply trying to debate a point. That's ok isn't it.

I do understand we are talking about bookmakers but do you that's the question. Within this thread you have said that bookmakers are

"Yes they will give odds on an all manner of impossible things if they think some fool will stick a speculative fiver on it. They would give 100-1 on price William divorcing Kate and Kate getting with Harry if they thought someone would do it.

Bookies are such cons its ridiculous, I don't understand why people go in them. The other day two tennis players playing each other were both 10/11 favourites. Nonsense stuff."

Bookmakers are essentially a business where the aim is to make a profit. To do this bookmakers offer odds which are designed to create a profit on whatever event they are operating a book on. The "overround" on a book is where a bookmaker makes profit, but in terms of gambling where you either make a lay a bet the question exists why do either? To make money

Bookmakers or indivuals placing or laying bets on exchanges do so to make money and odds are set when ALL relative probabilities of outcomes are considered. Failure to do so would almost certainly result in making loses.

Your example of bookermakers offering 10/11 odds on both players in a tennis match as nonsense. Why is it nonsense. Offering odds of 10/11 on both players gives the bookmaker an overround of 104.6% on the market. Or expressed as a relative probability of 52.3% that either player will win. You suggest that bookmakers are cons absolutely rediculous assertion, bookermakers run a business and are not looking simply to cover costs.

Of course the bookmakers could offer odds of even money or a relative probability of 50% on each player, but the overround would be 100%. What happens if more money is placed on one player than the other the bookmaker or individual on a betting exchange is likely to lose. That's nonsense.

When setting a book any bookmaker would consider ALL probabilities when setting odds, when it comes to tossing a coin this would include the coin landing on it's edge. What ever odds, which lets face it will be opinion based, they will effect the relative probability of odds.

If I were making a book I would offer you odds of 41/40 on either heads or tails and 50/1 on it landing on it's edge. This would give a relative probability of 50.6% on either heads or tails and 1.9% on the edge giving an overround 103.1% which allows for a 3% profit.

You believe it's rediculous to offer anything other than evens or a 50% relative probability.

Next time you fancy making a bet give us a shout I'd lay it for you.

Oh my, this just gets crazier.

Yes you have definately gate crashed a thread and completely decided to argue a point not even being discussed a bit like Eric here. I've not once said bookies are not profitable, I've not once said they are a bad business, I've not once said anything like this. You seem to have made an argument so you can type out bookmakers a-z.

Over rounds have sod all to do with anything being discussed, other than the profitability of a bookmaking company.

Listen again.

There are two main places to make a bet, bookies or betting exchange.

If two players are dead even for arguments sake and can not be split by anyone. The bookies would have them both at 10/11, even though we know they both can't be the favourites.

On a betting exchange they would both be evens, minus a small commission depending on your deduction rate. So if you know something should be an evens shot and you are betting on them at odds on then in the long run you will lose. Simple.

The Watford bet for example, they had Watford at 200-1 to win the league, by that info we should expect o be able to back Watford not to win the league at 1-200 or laying it essentially as the odds for something to happen should be the direct opposite for it not to happen. This wouldn't happen in a bookies however they either wouldn't take the opposite bet or offer it at 1-2000.

So my point was why do people back these stupid odds when they can get the true odds on a betting exchange. Simple stuff really.

My word this is incredible

http://www.smartgaming.com/html/article ... o_odds.htm


"The probability of a given event is a measure of the likelihood of its occurrence. Take roulette for instance. The probability that the ball will land on number 7 in a typical 38 numbered roulette wheel is can be expressed as the ratio of 1 over 38 (ie.1/38). The ratio represents the chance that the ball will land in number 7 compared to it landing in all of the possible numbers (38 of them). In casino gambling, it is a common practice to refer to the “odds for something happening” and the “odds against something happening”. In our roulette example, the odds against the 7 winning is 37 to 1. You have 37 chances to lose for every 1 chance to win."

Obviously they are using the double zero so the 1/37 becomes 1/38.

Exactly, not 37/1 !

Even you are saying you are wrong.

I assume you didnt read the last line?

The example the link used was a wheel with the double zero, meaning 38 numbers not 37.

Surely nobody can be this thick?

My word this is incredible

http://www.smartgaming.com/html/article ... o_odds.htm


"The probability of a given event is a measure of the likelihood of its occurrence. Take roulette for instance. The probability that the ball will land on number 7 in a typical 38 numbered roulette wheel is can be expressed as the ratio of 1 over 38 (ie.1/38). The ratio represents the chance that the ball will land in number 7 compared to it landing in all of the possible numbers (38 of them). In casino gambling, it is a common practice to refer to the “odds for something happening” and the “odds against something happening”. In our roulette example, the odds against the 7 winning is 37 to 1. You have 37 chances to lose for every 1 chance to win."

Obviously they are using the double zero so the 1/37 becomes 1/38.

Exactly, not 37/1 !

Even you are saying you are wrong.

I assume you didnt read the last line?

The example the link used was a wheel with the double zero, meaning 38 numbers not 37.

Surely nobody can be this thick?

You are funny.

My word this is incredible

http://www.smartgaming.com/html/article ... o_odds.htm


"The probability of a given event is a measure of the likelihood of its occurrence. Take roulette for instance. The probability that the ball will land on number 7 in a typical 38 numbered roulette wheel is can be expressed as the ratio of 1 over 38 (ie.1/38). The ratio represents the chance that the ball will land in number 7 compared to it landing in all of the possible numbers (38 of them). In casino gambling, it is a common practice to refer to the “odds for something happening” and the “odds against something happening”. In our roulette example, the odds against the 7 winning is 37 to 1. You have 37 chances to lose for every 1 chance to win."

Obviously they are using the double zero so the 1/37 becomes 1/38.

Exactly, not 37/1 !

Even you are saying you are wrong.

I assume you didnt read the last line?

The example the link used was a wheel with the double zero, meaning 38 numbers not 37.

Surely nobody can be this thick?

You are funny.

Funny and correct it seems.

My word this is incredible

http://www.smartgaming.com/html/article ... o_odds.htm


"The probability of a given event is a measure of the likelihood of its occurrence. Take roulette for instance. The probability that the ball will land on number 7 in a typical 38 numbered roulette wheel is can be expressed as the ratio of 1 over 38 (ie.1/38). The ratio represents the chance that the ball will land in number 7 compared to it landing in all of the possible numbers (38 of them). In casino gambling, it is a common practice to refer to the “odds for something happening” and the “odds against something happening”. In our roulette example, the odds against the 7 winning is 37 to 1. You have 37 chances to lose for every 1 chance to win."

Obviously they are using the double zero so the 1/37 becomes 1/38.

Exactly, not 37/1 !

Even you are saying you are wrong.

I assume you didnt read the last line?

The example the link used was a wheel with the double zero, meaning 38 numbers not 37.

Surely nobody can be this thick?

You are funny.

Funny and correct it seems.

You are

Mr Wrong
10 Wrong St
Wrong Town
Wrongingshire
WR1 0NG

http://www.smartgaming.com/html/article ... o_odds.htm

37-1 as stated.

no amount of last words will make you any less wrong

I am still waiting for you to work out a way to invoke double zero into your 3/1 hat example

1 in 3 you berk!

No goalposts are being moved my man. You are just failing to understand what debate you gate crashed in.

Did you miss the fact we were talking about betting and bookmakers? You replied to me talking about it so I'd find that strange.

The fact a coin can land in its side is irrelevant as the bet wouldn't stand, you would win and you wouldn't lose.

So the true odds of heads or tails is even. Simple as that.

Currently you are saying something akin to "the odds of a roulette number coming up isn't really 37-1 because the ball may crack in half and land on 2 numbers" - yes this is possible but not a betting option so affects the true probability odds zero, nothing nada.

I haven't gate crashed anything simply trying to debate a point. That's ok isn't it.

I do understand we are talking about bookmakers but do you that's the question. Within this thread you have said that bookmakers are

"Yes they will give odds on an all manner of impossible things if they think some fool will stick a speculative fiver on it. They would give 100-1 on price William divorcing Kate and Kate getting with Harry if they thought someone would do it.

Bookies are such cons its ridiculous, I don't understand why people go in them. The other day two tennis players playing each other were both 10/11 favourites. Nonsense stuff."

Bookmakers are essentially a business where the aim is to make a profit. To do this bookmakers offer odds which are designed to create a profit on whatever event they are operating a book on. The "overround" on a book is where a bookmaker makes profit, but in terms of gambling where you either make a lay a bet the question exists why do either? To make money

Bookmakers or indivuals placing or laying bets on exchanges do so to make money and odds are set when ALL relative probabilities of outcomes are considered. Failure to do so would almost certainly result in making loses.

Your example of bookermakers offering 10/11 odds on both players in a tennis match as nonsense. Why is it nonsense. Offering odds of 10/11 on both players gives the bookmaker an overround of 104.6% on the market. Or expressed as a relative probability of 52.3% that either player will win. You suggest that bookmakers are cons absolutely rediculous assertion, bookermakers run a business and are not looking simply to cover costs.

Of course the bookmakers could offer odds of even money or a relative probability of 50% on each player, but the overround would be 100%. What happens if more money is placed on one player than the other the bookmaker or individual on a betting exchange is likely to lose. That's nonsense.

When setting a book any bookmaker would consider ALL probabilities when setting odds, when it comes to tossing a coin this would include the coin landing on it's edge. What ever odds, which lets face it will be opinion based, they will effect the relative probability of odds.

If I were making a book I would offer you odds of 41/40 on either heads or tails and 50/1 on it landing on it's edge. This would give a relative probability of 50.6% on either heads or tails and 1.9% on the edge giving an overround 103.1% which allows for a 3% profit.

You believe it's rediculous to offer anything other than evens or a 50% relative probability.

Next time you fancy making a bet give us a shout I'd lay it for you.

Oh my, this just gets crazier.

Yes you have definately gate crashed a thread and completely decided to argue a point not even being discussed a bit like Eric here. I've not once said bookies are not profitable, I've not once said they are a bad business, I've not once said anything like this. You seem to have made an argument so you can type out bookmakers a-z.

Over rounds have sod all to do with anything being discussed, other than the profitability of a bookmaking company.

Listen again.

There are two main places to make a bet, bookies or betting exchange.

If two players are dead even for arguments sake and can not be split by anyone. The bookies would have them both at 10/11, even though we know they both can't be the favourites.

On a betting exchange they would both be evens, minus a small commission depending on your deduction rate. So if you know something should be an evens shot and you are betting on them at odds on then in the long run you will lose. Simple.

The Watford bet for example, they had Watford at 200-1 to win the league, by that info we should expect o be able to back Watford not to win the league at 1-200 or laying it essentially as the odds for something to happen should be the direct opposite for it not to happen. This wouldn't happen in a bookies however they either wouldn't take the opposite bet or offer it at 1-2000.

So my point was why do people back these stupid odds when they can get the true odds on a betting exchange. Simple stuff really.

There you go moving the goalposts again you said, in this thread, that it is a nonsense for bookmakers to offer oddss of 10/11 on both players in a tennis match. Why?

Hold the front pages "There are two places to make a bet, the bookies or a betting exchange" Duh Hello.

So for arguements sake we now have two evenly matched tennis players. More moving goalposts First time I've heard that mentioned but I suppose that little ditty has been added for clarity They can actually both be favourites it's called being "Joint Favourites" and the price is based on the amount of money being placed on each player and as this is not a "fixed odds" market will change. Always with one aim with the business or person laying bets. To make money.


The latest comment about getting "True" odds on betting exchanges shows you really have no idea what your talking about. More realistic odds almost certainly yes but "True" give me a break.


Keep it going my man this is really entertaining. Try moving the goalposts a bit to the left this time or better still just make them bigger.