Has the championship been weak this season?

Yes you spouting nonsense, it continues too it seems Gary.

I haven't said I'm prepared to eat monkey meat. If I did then that would mean I expect my opinion to be wrong, which I obviously don't. As for primate meat being infected with disease, that's another mistruth. Some is infected. You do know what SFV is don't you, I mean you are the one making a song and dance about it.

As for the bookmaking. I have never, would never and continue not to discuss how a bookmaker makes ther books. It is irrelevant to any discussion I have ever had and is of no interest to me. It's a simoe concept anyway and one that really doesn't have to be discussed.

I said bookies offer lop sided odds so shouldn't be entertained when thinking if placing a bet, you decided to turn my viewpoint into something entirely different, and went on to explain why bookmakers make lop sided books. Which of course is of no relevance at all, the fact they are lop sided means they don't represent true value for the punter, which is why they shouldn't be dealt with..... As my point suggested.

You will get it eventually.

So when you said you would eat Monkey Meat you were in fact making that statement as an idiomatic expression like when people would normally say "I'll Eat My Hat" if something they consider so unlikely to happen were to actually happen. But you didn't say hat you said monkey meat. Why? is exchanging hat for monkey meat an embellishment intended to place emphasis on the unlikelyhood of Watford or Palace getting anywhere near the playoffs.

You see I'll eat my hat is a common figure of speech but I'll eat my monkey meat well thats well left field isn't it. Why do you feel the need to do that.

Anyway this bookmaking debate we have now moved the goalposts from cons and nonsense to a lop sided market. For clarity, a lovely word clarity, what is a lop sided market.


And who is this Kathy or Kathryn.

No, again you have seen a buzz word and gone off on some crazy google tangent.

I said I'd eat monkey meat and meant it. But I don't believe I will have to eat monkey meat because I don't think it will come to that as I firmly believe I'm right. I think it's a ridiculous notion to eat a hat, even more so than meat. Ill stick to monkey meat, I'm not into embellishing.

Again regarding bookmaking. No moving of goalposts have ever happened from my side. My opinion is exactly the same as my first post on the subject nearly 48 hours ago.

A lop sided market is one where Federer would be 1/10 to win and Andy murray would be 5/1 to win. If the punter, lovely word punter, accepts that Federer is a 1/10 shot to win and wants to back murray then he'd accept that murray should be a 10/1 shot. So why accept 5/1 that the bookie would offer. Simple and as basic as you can get.

A betting exchange offers true odds on perceived probability. In the scenario I gave you murray would be 10-1 and Federer the opposite at 1-10 basic maths, basic odds and basic probability.

Lets hope you get it this time.

You know full well who Kathy is Gary.

So lets get this straight you think bookmaking amounts to simple maths, basic odds and basic probability.

Let's put all this federer and murray stuff to one side the original debate was around if a bookmaker offering 10/11 odds on both players was nonsense. Your opinion was that the true odds were 50/50 or even money.


So if a bookmaker offers even money on both players and then accepts say £100 in bets split 50/50 which ever player wins his liability is £100. £100 received with a £100 liability no room whatsover for profit.

When a booker offers odds of 10/11 on both players whichever player wins his liability is £90.90. £100 received with a £90.90 liability giving a £9.10 profit.

The basic principal of gambling is to make money, either as the person who places the bet or the person who accepts of lays the bet. This principal applies on betting exchanges in the same way as it does in any betting shop or racecourse.

So when you claim that exchanges offer the punter the "True" odds it's nonsense because unlike with a punter who hopes to win, the person who accepts or lays the bet does so with the intention to make money. Money to cover ALL liabilities including on exchanges the transaction fee.

Still have no idea who Kathy or Kathryn is but as you have introduced these names to the debate and asking how would I feel if you were to show her what I'm writing. This suggests you think this person is important in my life and I would be embarressed if they found out.

Something about the schoolyard about that paxoman, you know the type of thing "I'll tell your mother about you". Is that the measure of you paxoman.


A Schoolyard snitch.

Yes you spouting nonsense, it continues too it seems Gary.

I haven't said I'm prepared to eat monkey meat. If I did then that would mean I expect my opinion to be wrong, which I obviously don't. As for primate meat being infected with disease, that's another mistruth. Some is infected. You do know what SFV is don't you, I mean you are the one making a song and dance about it.

As for the bookmaking. I have never, would never and continue not to discuss how a bookmaker makes ther books. It is irrelevant to any discussion I have ever had and is of no interest to me. It's a simoe concept anyway and one that really doesn't have to be discussed.

I said bookies offer lop sided odds so shouldn't be entertained when thinking if placing a bet, you decided to turn my viewpoint into something entirely different, and went on to explain why bookmakers make lop sided books. Which of course is of no relevance at all, the fact they are lop sided means they don't represent true value for the punter, which is why they shouldn't be dealt with..... As my point suggested.

You will get it eventually.

So when you said you would eat Monkey Meat you were in fact making that statement as an idiomatic expression like when people would normally say "I'll Eat My Hat" if something they consider so unlikely to happen were to actually happen. But you didn't say hat you said monkey meat. Why? is exchanging hat for monkey meat an embellishment intended to place emphasis on the unlikelyhood of Watford or Palace getting anywhere near the playoffs.

You see I'll eat my hat is a common figure of speech but I'll eat my monkey meat well thats well left field isn't it. Why do you feel the need to do that.

Anyway this bookmaking debate we have now moved the goalposts from cons and nonsense to a lop sided market. For clarity, a lovely word clarity, what is a lop sided market.


And who is this Kathy or Kathryn.

No, again you have seen a buzz word and gone off on some crazy google tangent.

I said I'd eat monkey meat and meant it. But I don't believe I will have to eat monkey meat because I don't think it will come to that as I firmly believe I'm right. I think it's a ridiculous notion to eat a hat, even more so than meat. Ill stick to monkey meat, I'm not into embellishing.

Again regarding bookmaking. No moving of goalposts have ever happened from my side. My opinion is exactly the same as my first post on the subject nearly 48 hours ago.

A lop sided market is one where Federer would be 1/10 to win and Andy murray would be 5/1 to win. If the punter, lovely word punter, accepts that Federer is a 1/10 shot to win and wants to back murray then he'd accept that murray should be a 10/1 shot. So why accept 5/1 that the bookie would offer. Simple and as basic as you can get.

A betting exchange offers true odds on perceived probability. In the scenario I gave you murray would be 10-1 and Federer the opposite at 1-10 basic maths, basic odds and basic probability.

Lets hope you get it this time.

You know full well who Kathy is Gary.

So lets get this straight you think bookmaking amounts to simple maths, basic odds and basic probability.

Let's put all this federer and murray stuff to one side the original debate was around if a bookmaker offering 10/11 odds on both players was nonsense. Your opinion was that the true odds were 50/50 or even money.

So if a bookmaker offers even money on both players and then accepts say £100 in bets split 50/50 which ever player wins his liability is £100. £100 received with a £100 liability no room whatsover for profit.

When a booker offers odds of 10/11 on both players whichever player wins his liability is £90.90. £100 received with a £90.90 liability giving a £9.10 profit.

The basic principal of gambling is to make money, either as the person who places the bet or the person who accepts of lays the bet. This principal applies on betting exchanges in the same way as it does in any betting shop or racecourse.

So when you claim that exchanges offer the punter the "True" odds it's nonsense because unlike with a punter who hopes to win, the person who accepts or lays the bet does so with the intention to make money. Money to cover ALL liabilities including on exchanges the transaction fee.

Still have no idea who Kathy or Kathryn is but as you have introduced these names to the debate and asking how would I feel if you were to show her what I'm writing. This suggests you think this person is important in my life and I would be embarressed if they found out.

Something about the schoolyard about that paxoman, you know the type of thing "I'll tell your mother about you". Is that the measure of you paxoman.


A Schoolyard snitch.

My word what are you droning on about?

Why does the punter care if the bookmaker makes a profit, ney, why does the punter want to give the bookmaker potentially half his potential profit (my murray and Federer example). You aren't making any sense what so ever.

I'm not even sure you know what your argument is any more as it gets more and more ridiculous with every post. I'm also not sure how many more times you can be told how bookmakers make their books and the reasons they do it aren't being discussed, aren't being disputed and are well known. Why you keep going on about it makes no sense what so ever.

You are currently saying people should continue to buy their televisions from a place who charge £500 more than another place simply because the company in question wants to make money, it's beyond ridiculous.,

As I've said you know full well who Kathy is. Schoolyard snitch or not Gary, you sound like a raving mentalist. I didnt say I'd show her anyway, I said does she know the absolute moronic stuff you type here.

Maybe you will understand THIS time

I know we can only draw or beat whats put in front of us, but many are saying its been very weak this season.

In previous years teams promoted from league 1 have gone straight through the championship, so that could point to a poor league. This year they've been ordinary / poor. The fact relegated prem sides have struggled despite keeping a core of their squad could mean the league is strong this year. I'd love to know the proof as to why prior years have been stronger. Just because many teams can beat each other doesn't make the league weak. A team storming the league by 15-20 points indicates a weak league. Or does it?

It's all opinion and difficult to prove either way. Dave Jones was on the radio last week saying how the league gets stronger every year, but no doubt some on here will know a lot better, even those who don't even go to games, and get off on being a wum.

mixture of both imo, teams that came down last season aint set the league a light but its still its competitive self with any team can beat any team

Debatable. You could argue its been weak this year with some of the teams at the top a surprise inclusion and not rated as good as teams in previous seasons. However you can't argue that Wolves, Bolton and Blackburn have weak sides. Bolton have recovered and could possibly get play-offs, but the fact that Wolves and Blackburn are near the bottom, with the majority of their players good championship level and some of a decent premier league level, all have experience, but aren't performing.

it shows how difficult this season has been across the board, with more teams on a similar level...

at the start of the season, bolton, blackburn and wolves were all tipped to bounce straight back up... all 3 have struggled, with bolton only showing an improvement in results since feb/march. ..

brighton and forest have improved since last yr, hull also...