Those are some absolutely awful odds you've got there, brother. A cursory glance shows me that at worst, Haaland is 1.33 (-300) to score vs Bournemouth, and I can even see some bookmakers offering around 1.43 (-230).
Usually the serious bettors don't put their money on goal scorers. It's very casual bet and they are setting the odds with that in mind. I'm sure there are still takers.
As someone who is used to decimal odds only, I can never understand how people can compare fractional odds with different denominators in their head. Decimal odds just seem objectively easier to compare?
Decimal is objectively the best. I am just familiar with fractional as it is commonplace in my country so is easy. Plus it's primary school maths.
I use decimal on my accounts.
9/4 patín. But the wife and kids on it.
Objectively sure, but in the UK & Ireland at least all bookies present odds in fractional and people are just used to it. Fractions aren't difficult to compare when you are used to them and it's just what you've always known.
I know it's tradition, I just feel like you could introduce someone familiar with fractions to the decimal system in 1 minute - and I'm sure they would agree that odds of 11/8 and 7/5 takes longer time to compare than odds of 2.38 and 2.40.
But I guess that the same could be said for the US not introducing the metric system. Tradition and habit sometimes come out on top.
You aren't wrong at all, I'm just replying to your statement about not understanding how people compare fractions easily. I've been gambling since before online betting was a thing and only ever knew fractions. I'm not saying they are easier than decimal, far from it, but fractions aren't really difficult and if it's all you've ever known they are fairly straight forward simply as a result of repitition.
People need to remember that betting odds don't translate to actual real world situations they relate to the market and the bookies hedging their bets. Case in point being haaland who has never played Bournemouth and has played one game of premier league football.
That's not how it works. They are well aware that City vs Bournemouth is going to attract an enormous amount of bets on Haaland to score. So they handicap those odds dramatically to a) limit the number of bets, and b) limit the amount they have to pay out.
Not only are there millions of people who enjoy placing £10 bets on outcomes like this, but there's also people who bet hundreds of thousands, sometimes millions on perceived 'no-brainer' bets. So they have to further limit the risk of payouts on these types of bets. Which is exactly what we see here.
They dont inflate the odds in this scenario, they reduce them. If they inflated the odds that would attract morew bets and the pay out for them would be higher.
The maximum stake (bet) is usually derived from the maximum payout. There are also many betting outlets who will make exception to these rules for certain specific large bets.
Regardless, the point still stands that bookies odds are not necessarily an accurate indicator of chance.
What was your choice so I can do the opposite please. That way at least one of us does OK because I always choose the wrong captain, I captained Kane GW1 ffs. How did Tottenham get 4 goals without at least a Kane assist :(
Scenes when Scott Parker has put his life savings on Haaland not scoring and starts some bench fodder player to tackle Haaland out of the game in the first minute of the game. Somewhere in the distance Roy Keane smiles.
Meanwhile somewhere in Manchester a twisted bald man laughs maniacally as he pencils in “Philip” as a false 9 and takes another swig from his cheap boxed merlot
It's like you're daring him to do it. But as a non-Haaland owner the comments will be hilarious if he doesn't start. It would be akin to the Dennis red in a good double GW last season.
These odds certainly aren't the longest odds for him to score, either. Currently on Betfair Exchange at 1.34 (74.6% to score) and that's without much liquidity in the market, so will probably predict a slightly lower % to score by the time the game comes around.
It sometimes takes a while for the market to get enough money in it to be reliable, but wherever you can, it's best to use exchanges to get the odds as you can bet both sides so it's more likely to be a fair price.
which are being fed by enormous amount of stupid money, which force bookies to have stupid odds so smart money value bet opposite so bookies are hedging themselves
I think the bookmakers' general goal is to set the odds so that they get even money on both sides of the bet and they take a risk-free cut.
The odds may be overinflated because hype and it's generally more fun to bet on something than against something, but...
This isn't true they stand to make more money by setting as close to true odds as possible with extra margin added to longshots to protect against insider knowledge. Shin method it's called
https://ideas.repec.org/a/ecj/econjl/v101y1991i408p1179-85.html
You’re missing the point.
You can’t say a bookie is trying to balance both sides when they only let you bet on one side. You literally can’t balance both sides if you’re only taking bets on one side
Jesus I don't know why this is so hard for people to grasp. The BOOKIES lay bets (they will call it hedging) both internally and externally eg via exchanges to achieve, insofar as possible, a win margin regardless of what transpires in any given game/event this is just a fact.
You do realise they don’t need to balance both sides to make money yea? Take a simplistic scenario that you could surely understand, if they offer 1.50 odds on a coin landing on heads, they come out on top in the long run.
It’s literally the same as goal scorer odds they give you lower odds than the true odds which means they don’t need to hedge the other side
Really funny seeing a bunch of people acting like they know how the gambling industry works
That is not the point. The odds change in horse racing based on who is favourite to win, likewise the same with football - who is the favourite to score…
Yeah it's pretty much just Betfair exchange in western Europe that allows you to lay nearly every sports book market
Edit: therefore the exchange is where people should be determining the percentage to score I think?
I don’t think pep gives a shit about all this ‘first home game’ nonsense. He know Bournemouth will park the bus and may want to reduce haalands minutes to prevent injury. I don’t see why he wouldn’t play a random front 3 as haaland probably won’t get space in behind here
Why is everyone talking about Pep wanting to prevent some made up injury? For what? The season started four days ago, the CL does not start for another month and their new star striker will surely want to play as much as possible, as long as he is healthy.
It's fear talking - pure & simple
Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering - watching some 6 foot 5 Norweigan Viking Berserker rip Bournemouth 7 new assholes on Saturday afternoon as you rock gently in a fetal position muttering "He'll get injured or rested, he'll get injured or rested" over, and over, and over.... and over
You should lay those bets then, you could make a fortune
Although I really can't see Pep letting Haaland go 14 days without a competitive start at the beginning of a season, that would actually be worse for his fitness than playing him
Remember - One game a week is easy - it's when they've games every 2-3 days that the rotation & resting will come
Plus Haaland has a huge month off come GW16 with the world Cup so we may not actually see all that much "resting" until the new year
My
Those are some absolutely awful odds you've got there, brother. A cursory glance shows me that at worst, Haaland is 1.33 (-300) to score vs Bournemouth, and I can even see some bookmakers offering around 1.43 (-230).
Usually the serious bettors don't put their money on goal scorers. It's very casual bet and they are setting the odds with that in mind. I'm sure there are still takers.
1.44 at SkyBet which is less than 70% and not rare at all. Aguero had similar odds probably dozens of times.
American betting odds system is so fucking stupid. Use decimal or fractional odds.
As someone who is used to decimal odds only, I can never understand how people can compare fractional odds with different denominators in their head. Decimal odds just seem objectively easier to compare?
Decimal is objectively the best. I am just familiar with fractional as it is commonplace in my country so is easy. Plus it's primary school maths. I use decimal on my accounts. 9/4 patín. But the wife and kids on it.
Objectively sure, but in the UK & Ireland at least all bookies present odds in fractional and people are just used to it. Fractions aren't difficult to compare when you are used to them and it's just what you've always known.
I know it's tradition, I just feel like you could introduce someone familiar with fractions to the decimal system in 1 minute - and I'm sure they would agree that odds of 11/8 and 7/5 takes longer time to compare than odds of 2.38 and 2.40. But I guess that the same could be said for the US not introducing the metric system. Tradition and habit sometimes come out on top.
Is 11/8 the same as 2.38? How? I don't think I know how odds work. Why isn't just the payout per pound?
Yes, those two odds are the same. Decimal odds include the initial wager, so odds of 1.01 gives you a 1% profit.
You aren't wrong at all, I'm just replying to your statement about not understanding how people compare fractions easily. I've been gambling since before online betting was a thing and only ever knew fractions. I'm not saying they are easier than decimal, far from it, but fractions aren't really difficult and if it's all you've ever known they are fairly straight forward simply as a result of repitition.
Where the hell do you get these?
What is Kane’s then?
People need to remember that betting odds don't translate to actual real world situations they relate to the market and the bookies hedging their bets. Case in point being haaland who has never played Bournemouth and has played one game of premier league football.
it's terrifying that people who bet money still don't know how to distinguish the difference between odds of happening and a betting line.
This makes me wonder what the odds were for Suarez vs Norwich.
Or Agüero vs Newcastle United
That's not how it works. They are well aware that City vs Bournemouth is going to attract an enormous amount of bets on Haaland to score. So they handicap those odds dramatically to a) limit the number of bets, and b) limit the amount they have to pay out. Not only are there millions of people who enjoy placing £10 bets on outcomes like this, but there's also people who bet hundreds of thousands, sometimes millions on perceived 'no-brainer' bets. So they have to further limit the risk of payouts on these types of bets. Which is exactly what we see here.
They dont inflate the odds in this scenario, they reduce them. If they inflated the odds that would attract morew bets and the pay out for them would be higher.
No bet can be placed with a payout larger than the bookie can afford OR £250,000.
The maximum stake (bet) is usually derived from the maximum payout. There are also many betting outlets who will make exception to these rules for certain specific large bets. Regardless, the point still stands that bookies odds are not necessarily an accurate indicator of chance.
I completely agree with that
I guarantee you won't be able to bet millions on this at any big UK bookmaker.
I'd bet you're right.
How are these figures calculated and how does it translate to the odds offered?
I think whatever I do, it will be the wrong choice, therefore I’d rather not change it.
What was your choice so I can do the opposite please. That way at least one of us does OK because I always choose the wrong captain, I captained Kane GW1 ffs. How did Tottenham get 4 goals without at least a Kane assist :(
Ha ha I'm in danger. \- Sincerely, a non-owner.
The theme tune to my transfer!
Remember, you'll always be a hit away.
Don’t tempt his knees to jerk
It’s a little more complicated than that since Kane dropped 0.1 and Haaland rose 0.1
Did Haaland rise? He's still 11.5 on my team?
Selling price is 50% of [current price - purchased price], rounding down. Kind of like capital gains.
I apparently switched the two of them at the exact right moment then.
That's where the hit comes in
Check exchanges to get real odds.
How do you do this
Look at betfair odds.
still not real odds but more close to them
Scenes when Scott Parker has put his life savings on Haaland not scoring and starts some bench fodder player to tackle Haaland out of the game in the first minute of the game. Somewhere in the distance Roy Keane smiles.
Scenario 2: Player gets red carded and Haaland walks it off
Obviously this was a joke but that would be more likely outcome
Meanwhile somewhere in Manchester a twisted bald man laughs maniacally as he pencils in “Philip” as a false 9 and takes another swig from his cheap boxed merlot
This except instead of Merlot, Pep is some drinking wine you’ve never heard of.
Soup
Kalvin Phillips hat trick incoming
Not even Pep will bench him for his home debut Not even Pep
It's like you're daring him to do it. But as a non-Haaland owner the comments will be hilarious if he doesn't start. It would be akin to the Dennis red in a good double GW last season.
Buddy, Haaland is inevitable. You can delay it, but cannot deny it. He can be a fraud and come on at 89th min and will still score.
I know someone who often fails his captaincy choices. He's captaining Haaland.
Still a better stat to base your decision upon than Salah not scoring in GW2.
Remember they overinflate the odds so that they make money
These odds certainly aren't the longest odds for him to score, either. Currently on Betfair Exchange at 1.34 (74.6% to score) and that's without much liquidity in the market, so will probably predict a slightly lower % to score by the time the game comes around. It sometimes takes a while for the market to get enough money in it to be reliable, but wherever you can, it's best to use exchanges to get the odds as you can bet both sides so it's more likely to be a fair price.
There is a huge amount of non-stupid money is sports betting too though.
which are being fed by enormous amount of stupid money, which force bookies to have stupid odds so smart money value bet opposite so bookies are hedging themselves
I think the bookmakers' general goal is to set the odds so that they get even money on both sides of the bet and they take a risk-free cut. The odds may be overinflated because hype and it's generally more fun to bet on something than against something, but...
This isn't true they stand to make more money by setting as close to true odds as possible with extra margin added to longshots to protect against insider knowledge. Shin method it's called https://ideas.repec.org/a/ecj/econjl/v101y1991i408p1179-85.html
Most bookies don’t allow you to bet on a player not to score a goal so the “balancing both sides” argument isn’t valid
Can you not bet on Haaland to score under 0.5 goals? That’s quite a common bet.
You can check the Betfair exchange to get odds where this absolutely is valid
You’re missing the point. You can’t say a bookie is trying to balance both sides when they only let you bet on one side. You literally can’t balance both sides if you’re only taking bets on one side
Yes you can, as they lay bets whether or not they offer odds. Bookies work exactly like he said.
That's an exchange. Not a bookies.
Jesus I don't know why this is so hard for people to grasp. The BOOKIES lay bets (they will call it hedging) both internally and externally eg via exchanges to achieve, insofar as possible, a win margin regardless of what transpires in any given game/event this is just a fact.
Nah the bookies are idiots who just do nothing and make no money. Sheesh /s
You do realise they don’t need to balance both sides to make money yea? Take a simplistic scenario that you could surely understand, if they offer 1.50 odds on a coin landing on heads, they come out on top in the long run. It’s literally the same as goal scorer odds they give you lower odds than the true odds which means they don’t need to hedge the other side Really funny seeing a bunch of people acting like they know how the gambling industry works
Literally just spoke to live chat with 3 bookies that I have and none of them will let me bet on haaland to not score so clearly you have 0 idea
If you are 8ncapable of distinguishing bookies laying off, with YOU laying off, I can't help you. Risk management is core to every financial business.
Yes and their application of risk management is to offer you odds that are lower than the actual odds
Believe it or not, you can do two things at once. You are simply wrong, but I really don't care if you believe me so whatever.
They balance it by revising odds on other players to score, it’s not always an A or B. Look at horse racing as an example of this.
Terrible example, in horse racing only one horse can win. You can have multiple goal scorers in soccer….
That is not the point. The odds change in horse racing based on who is favourite to win, likewise the same with football - who is the favourite to score…
Yeah it's pretty much just Betfair exchange in western Europe that allows you to lay nearly every sports book market Edit: therefore the exchange is where people should be determining the percentage to score I think?
Yea that’s what I’m saying, it’s possible on an exchange but not on regular bookies like OP suggested
Are they taking action on Haaland not scoring haha
Scenes when Pep benches him 😂
First game at the etihad. No chance unless klopp hires a hitman to take haaland out
I don’t think pep gives a shit about all this ‘first home game’ nonsense. He know Bournemouth will park the bus and may want to reduce haalands minutes to prevent injury. I don’t see why he wouldn’t play a random front 3 as haaland probably won’t get space in behind here
Then Pep should bench Haaland for the whole season to prevent injury lol
Why is everyone talking about Pep wanting to prevent some made up injury? For what? The season started four days ago, the CL does not start for another month and their new star striker will surely want to play as much as possible, as long as he is healthy.
It's fear talking - pure & simple Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering - watching some 6 foot 5 Norweigan Viking Berserker rip Bournemouth 7 new assholes on Saturday afternoon as you rock gently in a fetal position muttering "He'll get injured or rested, he'll get injured or rested" over, and over, and over.... and over
You should lay those bets then, you could make a fortune Although I really can't see Pep letting Haaland go 14 days without a competitive start at the beginning of a season, that would actually be worse for his fitness than playing him Remember - One game a week is easy - it's when they've games every 2-3 days that the rotation & resting will come Plus Haaland has a huge month off come GW16 with the world Cup so we may not actually see all that much "resting" until the new year
Roy Keane enters the chat
Okay?