45 replies to this topic

[Old Frightful]

I just wish I had gone with my gut and put a sneaky tenner on them

You are David Solomona and I claim, etc, etc...

[Trojan]

If Wire are favourites then it's justly so. But will they bottle it is the question? Leeds have been there and done it 4 times since 2007. That must count for something. I think it could be very tight.

[back to the future]

having won the CC they are the ONLY team who can do the double,bookies aint daft punters are

[Bulliac]

But they are 8/15 - doesn't that mean 'odds on'? Excuse my ignorance if not, always thought that's what the term meant.

Nothing wrong with your working out Dave.

It's just the expression "odds on", which, to me at least suggests 'very unlikely to lose', As I said, I put Wire down as favourites, but I think it will probabaly be a bit closer than "odds on" suggests. Just watch, it'll be a ruddy blow-out...

[Amber Avenger]

having won the CC they are the ONLY team who can do the double,bookies aint daft punters are

Which bookies are offering clubs other than Warrington doing the double then?! I assume the implication is a bet would be on "Will Warrington do the double, yes or no" rather than "Which club will do the double with one game left of the season"...

[Dave T]

Nothing wrong with your working out Dave.

It's just the expression "odds on", which, to me at least suggests 'very unlikely to lose', As I said, I put Wire down as favourites, but I think it will probabaly be a bit closer than "odds on" suggests. Just watch, it'll be a ruddy blow-out...

I agree with you, I think it is not far off 50/50 tbh with all things factored in.

I think the term 'odds on' suggests that something is a banker, when that's not really what it means.

[Black Country Wire]

Odds on in a two horse race is a strong statement!

I'd have Wire as favourites, but odds on? Perhaps not.

Wigan were 8-1 ON in 1998 so I'm taking nothing for granted.

If you offered both sides at odds against - i.e. bigger than even money - then punters couldn't possibly lose. E.g. Leeds at 11/10, Warrington at 11/10, place a tenner on both and you'd be guaranteed to win a pound.

Except that you'd be £9 DOWN overall.

Typical Warrington arrogance.

How is it "typical Warrington arrogance"? The club have no control over what odds the bookies choose to offer.

[Dave T]

Except that you'd be £9 DOWN overall.

Nope - you'd have put a total stake of £20 on and be guaranteed to get £21 (£11 plus £10 stake on winning bet) in winnings (unless there was a draw)

[barrowraiderskid]

If you offered both sides at odds against - i.e. bigger than even money - then punters couldn't possibly lose. E.g. Leeds at 11/10, Warrington at 11/10, place a tenner on both and you'd be guaranteed to win a pound.

In percentage terms, Warrington being 8/15 suggests they have a 65% chance of winning.

And that Ryan Hall price is clearly a typo. He's 10/1 with William Hill (but better available elsewhere).

You put a tenner on leeds and a tenner on wire thats £20. Lets say Wire win you get £11 back, so you've lost money.

I think the odds on Leeds winning are worth a go, I wouldn't put Wire as clear favourites by any stretch of the imagination. If its soaking wet i think Leeds will likely win as Wire will drop lots of ball.

Whoever is winning at half time is a big factor for me, if Wire are behind they'll start forcing the ball and making silly errors in the second half, and Leeds have enough attacking threat to punish them anywhere on the pitch. But if Wire are winning they'll likely settle down in the second half complete their sets and Briers will guide them to victory. Hopefully it'll be a good game regardless.

[barrowraiderskid]

Nope - you'd have put a total stake of £20 on and be guaranteed to get £21 (£11 plus £10 stake on winning bet) in winnings (unless there was a draw)

No you wouldn't.

[Dave T]

No you wouldn't.

11/10 - you would win £11 for every £10 you put on. You would then get your £10 stake back - therefore £21 back.

Where have I got that wrong? BTW - prepared to be wrong as this isn't an area I am great on!!!

[Kenny Bania]

11/10 - you would win £11 for every £10 you put on. You would then get your £10 stake back - therefore £21 back.

Where have I got that wrong? BTW - prepared to be wrong as this isn't an area I am great on!!!

You are exactly right.

To go over the example again:

£10 on Leeds at 11/10. They lose, so you're down £10
£10 on Warrington at 11/10. They win, so you get your £10 stake back and £11 of winnings
You're £1 up on the deal.

As for the phrase 'odds-on' it usually refers to a very well fancied favourite, but strictly speaking it means anything shorter than even money, i.e. a greater than 50% chance.

[barrowraiderskid]

Right so there's a union match on tonight and you can get odds of 11/10 for argentina to win but can get 17/16 for australia to win. Would smart money put half my wage on Argentina and the other half on Australia?

[Old Frightful]

Right so there's a union match on tonight and you can get odds of 11/10 for argentina to win but can get 17/16 for australia to win. Would smart money put half my wage on Argentina and the other half on Australia?

Absolutely.

You've done well to spot that. The draw is your only failing but, given the long odds a draw would produce, you could have a covering bet.

(Waits patiently to explain what one of those is...)

[barrowraiderskid]

Absolutely.

You've done well to spot that. The draw is your only failing but, given the long odds a draw would produce, you could have a covering bet.

(Waits patiently to explain what one of those is...)

There's no need to blatantly patronise, betting clearly isn't going to be my strong point. It just didn't sound logical in my head.

[Old Frightful]

There's no need to blatantly patronise, betting clearly isn't going to be my strong point. It just didn't sound logical in my head.

Without trying to blatantly patronise, a pal who's rather more into gambling than my good self advises that it's only a good bet if you're willing to wager thousands on it, including a decent covering bet.

So, whilst it was a good spot to find bookies with odds against differing teams in a two horse race, the odds weren't given to it being that good a bet.

Hope that post wasn't too demeaning.

[barrowraiderskid]

Without trying to blatantly patronise, a pal who's rather more into gambling than my good self advises that it's only a good bet if you're willing to wager thousands on it, including a decent covering bet.

So, whilst it was a good spot to find bookies with odds against differing teams in a two horse race, the odds weren't given to it being that good a bet.

Hope that post wasn't too demeaning.

No worries, I realised it straight after I posted. Its fine I do understand it too an extent, just had abit of a brain lapse and got embarassed how simply you put it out.

I should know more really, considering betting pays for the roof above my head

[1976PMJwires]

Without trying to blatantly patronise, a pal who's rather more into gambling than my good self advises that it's only a good bet if you're willing to wager thousands on it, including a decent covering bet.

So, whilst it was a good spot to find bookies with odds against differing teams in a two horse race, the odds weren't given to it being that good a bet.

Hope that post wasn't too demeaning.

No worries, I realised it straight after I posted. Its fine I do understand it too an extent, just had abit of a brain lapse and got embarassed how simply you put it out.

I should know more really, considering betting pays for the roof above my head

Get a room

[Bulliac]

Right so there's a union match on tonight and you can get odds of 11/10 for argentina to win but can get 17/16 for australia to win. Would smart money put half my wage on Argentina and the other half on Australia?

But your winnings won't (anywhere near) cover the cost of your losing bet, assuming you put the same stake on each bet.

[Old Frightful]

But your winnings won't (anywhere near) cover the cost of your losing bet, assuming you put the same stake on each bet.

The winnings won't but you're forgetting you get your stake back with a winning bet.

So if he puts £10 on each bet, that's a £20 outlay.

If the first bet wins at 11/10 he gets £21 back.

If the second bet wins at 17/16 he gets £20.62 back.

Hence why it's only worth putting a large amount on each and having a covering bet on the draw.