You have no idea what you're talking about, as per.
Top 4 race / race abandoned (or maybe not) / Leicester & Chelsea in the process of bottling it
- Thread starter Andycoleno9
- Start date
The point being that betting odds don’t tell you as fact that something is going to happen. Betting odds for a single match aren’t evidence of who is a better football team. Betting odds are not gospel or there would be no bookies because everyone would just back every favourite and make profit.
We're not favourites because our home form this season has been shaky (although recent home form has been very good). To call us "underdogs" when the odds are so close and our league position is much better than Liverpool's is just trolling.
Backed in to favourites? I thought bookies didn’t base odds on the money being wagered.
Theres many reasons why Liverpool are backed in. Utd are second and have nothing to play for, Liverpool had a week off, the EL semi final, second leg is 4 days away.
Do you know what it doesnt signify? How good Chelsea fecking football club are.
If United win tomorrow we’ll all be celebrating the gulf in quality between us and them. Not crying cause betfred have lost money.
Of course they do. The odds are entirely determined by the money being staked. We are talking millions here in the Asian markets, not some punter in a UK high street shop. Which is why the closing prices are so precise and have a perfect 1:1 correlation with actual results.
I count myself lucky that I've only noticed @Pagh Wraith now as oppose to 4000 posts ago
The point was that even Liverpool with the season they've had and the players they are missing are still rated the superior side because their performances have generally been better than their results even though they have dropped off significantly compared to last season. But there is really no point continuing this discussion. You're clearly one of the 'the table does not lie' faction which is short-sighted. For determining who wins the title or gets relegated after 38 games it is all that matters, sure. But for predicting future results (which is the entire point of this thread) it doesn't tell me much. But I really cannot be bothered at this point so let's leave it at that.
Last edited:
What the hell is going on here
Closing prices have a perfect correlation with results? You’ve talked some shite, but this one takes the cake.
https://www.pinnacle.com/en/betting-articles/Betting-Strategy/all-you-need-to-know-to-beat-the-bookies/MCQJ75NJB6L6RJZP said:
Weird, innit?
By only considering Premier League I only have to go as far back as last night to find a favourite not winning. That is not perfect correlation you clown.
Weird, innit?
A lot of waffle but I think that @Pagh Wraith suggested Chelsea were much better than Man United because the bookies have given them shorter odds through the season.
As the number one Chelsea hater on this site I think you should react.
This is amazing. You almost certainly have not read a word of the quoted article nor any idea what the graph signifies.
A lot of waffle but I think that @Pagh Wraith suggested Chelsea were much better than Man United because the bookies have given them shorter odds through the season.
As the number one Chelsea hater on this site I think you should react.
Well I don't know where to start with this.
Tell me it isn't true @Pagh Wraith?
It’s an article about winning by finding value. That means finding where the bookie has not priced something as well as they should and you more chance of winning than they think. What you said was that closing prices have a perfect correlation with results. You haven’t a fecking clue what you’re talking about.
Which is exactly what the graph and the article show.
Leicester were BiG faves too, closed at 1.89 to Southampton’s 4.16. “Perfect correlation”.
Nope, just odds, always affected by money. Bet enough on a favourites & you’ll win often enough, but you’ll lose too, and if the “favourite” has been backed to favourite by 0.2... well, you’re just picking black or red on a roulette wheel.
You can’t have perfect correlation in a world where a favourite doesn’t always win. If favourites always won there would be no bookies because punters would always win. Think about what you’re saying.
And I thought I was dull.
No, that does not make any sense. What perfect correlation means is that teams that are expected to win 36% of the time (according to closing prices) really end up winning 36% of the time. Stop thinking in terms of individual games (i.e. one trial of a simulation) or 0 vs 1. In the article they bet other bookmakers' prices vs Pinnacle's closing price and the expected returns matched the actual returns completely over a huge data sample because the closing price reflects true probability 1:1. Or in simpler words, if the closing price says United win 33% of the time against Liverpool but you think they will win 40% of the time and place a bet accordingly, then you are wrong and will lose the 7% margin on average.
Last edited:
Here, @Pagh Wraith Chelsea are shite and can count their lucky stars they've got as far as they have in cup competitions because Tuchel is a chancer and there's a reason he couldn't hack it at PSG.
I agree with your general points on the strength of odds as an indicator of team strength. However I don't think tomorrow's game specifically is a good example given the points made regarding Liverpool having a week's rest, their need to win the game etc.
Poster spouting shit, then doubling down on it.
That's fair enough. Though I don't think that is a huge factor or that United's motivation will be any less than Liverpool's. Just thankful for any support here
Stop undermining yourself.
Loving the last few pages here
Perfect correlation to price means the price is always right. You haven’t a clue. That article shows you how to beat bookies by finding bets where they haven’t given the correct odds. What you’re saying is, bookies are always right. The two can’t co-exist. Pick one.
Bookies don’t give perfect probabilities in their odds so can’t reflect true probability. The odds reflect United winning 37% of times, they have Liverpool winning it 40% of the time. The draw is at 28%. What isn’t right about that maths?
Last edited:
I wish they taught maths at school.
Anyway, on topic: I'm going with Aston Villa. They could make top four, or not. 50/50 really, same as the other sides.
Anyway, on topic: I'm going with Aston Villa. They could make top four, or not. 50/50 really, same as the other sides.
This Everton choke job has been a hilarious thing to watch. If any year was the year, it was this year. Won't even get Europa.
The toss of a coin is 50/50 but you could still flip heads 20 times in a row. It doesn't mean the odds of evens were wrong. Over millions of flips it will even out.
For the correlation to be close to 1 in the chart above the odds of football matches also must be pretty accurate. And those that can predict otherwise are far richer than I am.
Couldn't Liverpool just have better odds because more Liverpool fans have bet on it and, being a derby, with a bit more passion flying about, there are a few more weighty bets? Unless they changed betting since I quit?
Because that is always a 50/50 outcome with no variables to consider. A football match isn’t. That’s why saying bookies odds are always right is fecking stupid. If they were those that could predict otherwise wouldn’t exist.
Run and hide. If they taught English you might understand what perfect means.
Never fails to amaze me how many fall into the trap of going on supposed easy/hard games in a top 4 race. If us, Everton, Liverpool whoever were sweeping up in "easy" games we wouldn't be in a top 4 race.
Hang on, who did the bookies have as favourites? That’s how we know the result.
The money staked in the UK by fans is completely insignificant. They really don't even cause a blip in the price movements. But without going into betting syndicates and Asian bookies again, think about your scenario: Let's say Liverpool fans had indeed created this imbalance by betting on their team. This would mean the current price is wrong and United are undervalued. Any smart bettor would recognise this and stake United accordingly. The price would instantly correct itself. Betting markets are a see-saw and there can be volatile movements when staking limits are still low. The closer to kick-off you get, the more stable they become. Any significant movements at this point (talking about the United game tomorrow) are extremely unlikely and could only be caused by unforeseen events such as Scousers smashing the team bus and injuring Bruno.
Last edited:
I can no longer tell who is joking, who is wumming and who is stupid.
That link goes to what is essential an advert of how to beat the bookies using Pinnacle's system. As in the odds are set because people don't bet rationally, but emotionally and back the team they want to win, not who they think will win.
Weird, innit?