2017

Printable View

Show 10 post(s) from this thread on one page

08-03-2018, 12:15 AM
tarquinbeech

Quote:

Originally Posted by 60YearsAPie

There you go Steward. 10p more than I won. :s

Attachment 8795

.....which is what I have been trying to explain to people since we started.....the first 2 bets contradicted each other, so straight away you have lost money without the match having started.....luckily the corners made you 10p.....it is the same when people back 3 different results ie Notts to win, Chelters to win...then the draw....maybe we need a betting class from you know who?

Never ever back against yourself......it is a simple rule ie £2.50 on heads, then £2.50 on tails.....by the time the bookies have taken their 17% you are on an automatic loser
09-03-2018, 11:39 AM
Elite_Pie

Quote:

Originally Posted by tarquinbeech

.....which is what I have been trying to explain to people since we started.....the first 2 bets contradicted each other, so straight away you have lost money without the match having started.....luckily the corners made you 10p.....it is the same when people back 3 different results ie Notts to win, Chelters to win...then the draw....maybe we need a betting class from you know who?

Never ever back against yourself......it is a simple rule ie £2.50 on heads, then £2.50 on tails.....by the time the bookies have taken their 17% you are on an automatic loser

This "Never ever back against yourself......it is a simple rule" is a load of rubbish, in fact many professional gamblers do the exact opposite. It's all about what odds you can get. Take a tennis match as an example, where there are two possible outcomes. A pro will search the exchanges and if he sees both Player A and Player B at 11/10 with different bookies he will lump on both. He knows one bet is guaranteed to lose, but he also knows the winning bet will leave him in profit.
09-03-2018, 01:40 PM
tarquinbeech

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elite_Pie

This "Never ever back against yourself......it is a simple rule" is a load of rubbish, in fact many professional gamblers do the exact opposite. It's all about what odds you can get. Take a tennis match as an example, where there are two possible outcomes. A pro will search the exchanges and if he sees both Player A and Player B at 11/10 with different bookies he will lump on both. He knows one bet is guaranteed to lose, but he also knows the winning bet will leave him in profit.

Mr Know~it~all, we are not on the Exchanges, just in case you have not noticed.....we are on MAD, with a simple Golden Rule laid down on Day 1 by 60years......."all betting odds will be taken from BET365"...this was to STOP people doing exactly what you are advocating ie searching the Oddschecker or Exchanges for better prices.

On the basis that, as explained, 365 are taking 17% profit margins then my advice stands ie "never back against yourself". I could have course have added "...on here" but it seemed irrelevant as I was replying to a post about 10p profit, ON HERE, USING 365 ODDS ONLY.

If you had been a part of this thread from the beginning, you would have understood this, you were not a part because you did not like the "rules" if I remember....so my advise is to butt out and leave us to our little corner of Eliteless peace......thank you.
09-03-2018, 02:06 PM
Elite_Pie

Quote:

Originally Posted by tarquinbeech

On the basis that, as explained, 365 are taking 17% profit margins then my advice stands ie "never back against yourself". I could have course have added "...on here" but it seemed irrelevant as I was replying to a post about 10p profit, ON HERE, USING 365 ODDS ONLY.

So to prove your "never back against yourself" rule, you reference a bet that made a profit by ignoring it!

Clever.
09-03-2018, 02:41 PM
tarquinbeech

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elite_Pie

So to prove your "never back against yourself" rule, you reference a bet that made a profit by ignoring it!

Clever.

This is clearly quite difficult for you to comprehend ......he did not make a profit FROM THE CONTRADICTORY BET......he made the profit from backing the 6~8 corners.......I was merely advising him that his profits could, and should, have been more, if his opening 2 bets had not been against each other...it would have increased his chances of making a bigger profit.

Maybe you should read the relevant part of the thread before jumping in with your inflated ego......man makes a 3~part bet, parts 1 and 2 are against each other, a minimum of 1 bet is a loser before the match kicks off, cashier takes money with smug smile, bet 1 was already lost but result of match comes in with bet 2 also having lost, bet 3 wins yippee, cashier pays out 10p to puzzled punter, puzzled punter asks to see manager, manager explains how betting works, punter uses 10p to ring his mate Tarkers who gives brief lesson.....Mr Snobbers overhears part of phone conversation and decides to intervene even though he dislikes betting in said bookies and gives everyone his thoughts on different bookies.....customers get bored and walk away.....Snobbers continues to talk to himself about how he surely must be right.....manager turns off lights and locks Snobbers in his own echo chamber.
09-03-2018, 03:30 PM
Elite_Pie

Quote:

Originally Posted by tarquinbeech

This is clearly quite difficult for you to comprehend ......he did not make a profit FROM THE CONTRADICTORY BET.......

I understand it perfectly. He made a profit on the WHOLE bet, despite it including CONTRADICTORY selections. Easily done if the odds are in your favour, and further proof that your "never back against yourself" rule is a load of bollox. If you could get 9/4 for all 3 possible results for us v FGR, only an idiot wouldn't "back against themselves".
09-03-2018, 06:39 PM
ancientpie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elite_Pie

I understand it perfectly. He made a profit on the WHOLE bet, despite it including CONTRADICTORY selections. Easily done if the odds are in your favour, and further proof that your "never back against yourself" rule is a load of bollox. If you could get 9/4 for all 3 possible results for us v FGR, only an idiot wouldn't "back against themselves".

EP my old mate have you ever considered seeking professional help for what seems to be your mental problem? many posters on here obviously enjoy a good argument but you take it to extremes especially with posters you dislike. I like most I suspect would agree with tarqs point given that this is a bit of fun limited to a "pretend" £5 bet that must abide by bet 365 odds, but obviously if you can have an unlimited stake & trawl the net for the best odds then the game changes, obviously you are "nit picking" because you don't like the poster & it is interesting that you yet again end your post with an insult "only an idiot wouldn't back against themselves" presumably to keep the argument alive. A couple of years ago when you were stalking TT & his gang over various mad forums I honestly believed that they were the weird ones & you were trying to "out" them, but having seen your obsessive behavior since I am not so sure. PS.
I still think that Stanley Aborah was underestimated.. :zzz:;)
09-03-2018, 06:42 PM
Elite_Pie

Quote:

Originally Posted by ancientpie

EP my old mate have you ever considered seeking professional help for what seems to be your mental problem? many posters on here obviously enjoy a good argument but you take it to extremes especially with posters you dislike. I like most I suspect would agree with tarqs point given that this is a bit of fun limited to a "pretend" £5 bet that must abide by bet 365 odds, but obviously if you can have an unlimited stake & trawl the net for the best odds then the game changes, obviously you are "nit picking" because you don't like the poster & it is interesting that you yet again end your post with an insult "only an idiot wouldn't back against themselves" presumably to keep the argument alive. A couple of years ago when you were stalking TT & his gang over various mad forums I honestly believed that they were the weird ones & you were trying to "out" them, but having seen your obsessive behavior since I am not so sure. PS.
I still think that Stanley Aborah was underestimated.. :zzz:;)

I was going to take your post seriously until the last line!
09-03-2018, 07:16 PM
caj85

£4 notts to win
£1 grant too score 2 or more goals
09-03-2018, 07:21 PM
navypie

Quote:

Originally Posted by ancientpie

EP my old mate have you ever considered seeking professional help for what seems to be your mental problem? many posters on here obviously enjoy a good argument but you take it to extremes especially with posters you dislike. I like most I suspect would agree with tarqs point given that this is a bit of fun limited to a "pretend" £5 bet that must abide by bet 365 odds, but obviously if you can have an unlimited stake & trawl the net for the best odds then the game changes, obviously you are "nit picking" because you don't like the poster & it is interesting that you yet again end your post with an insult "only an idiot wouldn't back against themselves" presumably to keep the argument alive. A couple of years ago when you were stalking TT & his gang over various mad forums I honestly believed that they were the weird ones & you were trying to "out" them, but having seen your obsessive behavior since I am not so sure. PS.
I still think that Stanley Aborah was underestimated.. :zzz:;)

One of the best posts I ever read until the last line.

Show 10 post(s) from this thread on one page