Hammerfell
Full Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 7,778
You have no idea what you're talking about, as per.This is honestly like arguing with people who think climate change isn't real because it snowed last week. Tiresome and pointless.
You have no idea what you're talking about, as per.This is honestly like arguing with people who think climate change isn't real because it snowed last week. Tiresome and pointless.
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.I don't even know what to say to that. There was a non-zero possibility of Liverpool finishing below United before the start of the season and it has happened. United have something like a 33% chance of winning tomorrow and Liverpool something like 35% give or take. If United win tomorrow, will you also come back and say the odds were wrong (after a single trial)? What if United win 6-0? I can get 500/1 for that right now. Will that price then also have been wrong just because an unlikely outcome actually happened? Do you know how probability works?
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.United opened much shorter actually and Liverpool have been backed into favourites. Any major changes are unlikely at this point unless there are significant team news. The closing price is the most accurate of course. So if United kick-off shorter than Liverpool then this is the best reflection of the strength of the two sides at this point in time. Home advantage is factored in though and if this were on a neutral pitch, Liverpool would be clear favourites.
Backed in to favourites? I thought bookies didn’t base odds on the money being wagered.United opened much shorter actually and Liverpool have been backed into favourites. Any major changes are unlikely at this point unless there are significant team news. The closing price is the most accurate of course. So if United kick-off shorter than Liverpool then this is the best reflection of the strength of the two sides at this point in time. Home advantage is factored in though and if this were on a neutral pitch, Liverpool would be clear favourites.
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.United opened much shorter actually and Liverpool have been backed into favourites. Any major changes are unlikely at this point unless there are significant team news. The closing price is the most accurate of course. So if United kick-off shorter than Liverpool then this is the best reflection of the strength of the two sides at this point in time. Home advantage is factored in though and if this were on a neutral pitch, Liverpool would be clear favourites.
If United win tomorrow we’ll all be celebrating the gulf in quality between us and them. Not crying cause betfred have lost money.I don't even know what to say to that. There was a non-zero possibility of Liverpool finishing below United before the start of the season and it has happened. United have something like a 33% chance of winning tomorrow and Liverpool something like 35% give or take. If United win tomorrow, will you also come back and say the odds were wrong (after a single trial)? What if United win 6-0? I can get 500/1 for that right now. Will that price then also have been wrong just because an unlikely outcome actually happened? Do you know how probability works?
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.Backed in to favourites? I thought bookies didn’t base odds on the money being wagered.
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.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.
Closing prices have a perfect correlation with results? You’ve talked some shite, but this one takes the cake.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.
Closing prices have a perfect correlation with results? You’ve talked some shite, but this one takes the cake.
Weird, innit?https://www.pinnacle.com/en/betting-articles/Betting-Strategy/all-you-need-to-know-to-beat-the-bookies/MCQJ75NJB6L6RJZP said:The correlation between expected and observed returns is very strong and essentially 1:1. That is to say, when the expected return over a sample of matches is 90%, we actually return about 90% (or a loss of 10%). When the expected return is 105%, we actually return about 105% (or a profit of 5%)
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?
What the hell is going on here
This is amazing. You almost certainly have not read a word of the quoted article nor any idea what the graph signifies.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.
Well I don't know where to start with this.
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.
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.This is amazing. You almost certainly have not read a word of the quoted article nor any idea what the graph signifies.
Which is exactly what the graph and the article show.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.
Leicester were BiG faves too, closed at 1.89 to Southampton’s 4.16. “Perfect correlation”.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.
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.Which is exactly what the graph and the article show.
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.You can’t have perfect correlation in a world where a favourite doesn’t always win.
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.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.
Poster spouting shit, then doubling down on it.What the hell is going on here
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 hereI 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.
United are underdogs at home to Liverpool tomorrow for starters: Manchester Utd - Liverpool Betting Odds, Soccer - Premier League (oddsportal.com)
Stop undermining yourself.Stop thinking in terms of individual games (i.e. one trial of a simulation) or 0 vs 1.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Run and hide. If they taught English you might understand what perfect means.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.
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.If they win tonight theyre 6 points behind Chelsea with a game in hand. They play West Ham next when Chelsea play City.
Wheres the trolling?
Hang on, who did the bookies have as favourites? That’s how we know the result.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.
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.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?
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?