"100/1 On"

[Griff]

2 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

So he's the voice of reason for saying pretty much the same thing I did?

You didn't say what he said.  He mentioned the odds on Wigan which was relevant to the OP.   You said how much you won on your bet on Sheffield Eagles, which wasn't relevant at all..

[Griff]

5 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

Er, it was the odds on the Sheffield-Wigan CC Final 1998. Maybe re read it. 

What - 19/2 is shorter than 1/100?

Come, come......

[ricky]

Going to the other side of the world to play a game your opponents are 100/1 on is like travelling down to London to have a KFC

[The Masked Poster]

3 minutes ago, Griff said:

You didn't say what he said.  He mentioned the odds on Wigan which was relevant to the OP.   You said how much you won on your bet on Sheffield Eagles, which wasn't relevant at all..

I mentioned the odds that I got at the time. 

But you're obviously spoiling for some sort of weird fight here, so I'll leave you to it. 

Not sure why the confused emoji, it's pretty weird how you interpret what I said, so I'll pass on trying to being reasonable.

Edited February 26 by The Masked Poster

[sentoffagain2]

13 minutes ago, Griff said:

Ah - the voice of reason.

  I was working as a Betting Shop manager in Sheffield at the time so should have remembered.No odds quoted for Wigan because at that time betting tax of 10% was paid on with stake or taken off winnings.So punters backing Wigan at odds more thgan 1/10 could not get more back than they put on.ie £!0 +tax £1 == £11 return would also be £11.

[The Masked Poster]

Just now, Griff said:

What - 19/2 is shorter than 1/100?

Come, come......

As I said, look elsewhere for your fight. I was addressing his assertion that the Eagles were 200/1 for that particular game. But then you could have just read the post properly.

[RigbyLuger]

1 hour ago, muckymunksy said:

About right Aus are really good England are terrible. 

Half right.

[Griff]

5 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

As I said, look elsewhere for your fight. I was addressing his assertion that the Eagles were 200/1 for that particular game. But then you could have just read the post properly.

So could you.  He said Wigan were 1/200.  Which is not the same thing as Sheffield being 200/1.

[Father Gascoigne]

31 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

Not sure that makes sense. Leicester had next to no chance of winning the PL, only their most dedicated fans would even entertain the idea of putting £2 on them. However they did win it and the bet was well worth it. 
Likewise betting on the English women's team would be like sticking £1 on fully expecting it to be wasted.

 

17 minutes ago, Eddie said:

What??? 

Imagine unironically interpreting what I wrote... Could never be me.

[The Masked Poster]

2 minutes ago, Father Gascoigne said:

 

Imagine unironically interpreting what I wrote... Could never be me.

 Your post wasn't exactly clear though, it implies you would be sticking £5k on the England side.

[Father Gascoigne]

2 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

 Your post wasn't exactly clear though, it implies you would be sticking £5k on the England side.

Because it's what I implied. 

That you chose to interpret it as anything other than bonafide sh1tposting is on you. 

Edited February 26 by Father Gascoigne

[OriginalMrC]

Sorry to refer to the other code but Japan were 80-1 when they beat South Africa in the world cup. 

The 100-1 odds here seem a bit long but reflect that one team is pro players and the other is amateur/semi pro

[Eddie]

9 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

 Your post wasn't exactly clear though, it implies you would be sticking £5k on the England side.

Thats what I read it as too. 

[Father Gascoigne]

Just now, Eddie said:

Thats what I read it as too. 

Blimey. I didn't realise that saying putting 5k on godawful odds would be misconstrued as anything but nonsense.

So I'll reword it: I find gambling abhorrent. Wouldn't put a cent on it in any circumstance, and that would be my advice to anyone who asks. 

[Eddie]

11 minutes ago, Father Gascoigne said:

Blimey. I didn't realise that saying putting 5k on godawful odds would be misconstrued as anything but nonsense.

So I'll reword it: I find gambling abhorrent. Wouldn't put a cent on it in any circumstance, and that would be my advice to anyone who asks. 

There’s nothing wrong with a flutter for entertainment, as long as you’re prepared to lose everything that you stake. I understand why some people completely avoid it though. 

[OriginalMrC]

1 hour ago, ricky said:

Going to the other side of the world to play a game your opponents are 100/1 on is like travelling down to London to have a KFC

More like going to London for a KFC when you know the KFC is almost certainly going to be shut when you get there.

[Griff]

2 hours ago, OriginalMrC said:

Sorry to refer to the other code but Japan were 80-1 when they beat South Africa in the world cup. 

The 100-1 odds here seem a bit long but reflect that one team is pro players and the other is amateur/semi pro

What odds were offered for South Africa?

[Alan Robertson]

As a potential 'consolation prize', does anyone think that England can 'put up a decent fight' for (at least) the first 20 minutes?

Three or four Jillaroos tries in the first 15 or 20 minutes would (almost certainly) get the casual fans searching for the remote control.

[OriginalMrC]

11 minutes ago, Griff said:

What odds were offered for South Africa?

1/200 i believe 

[unapologetic pedant]

3 hours ago, Alan Robertson said:

 Combine this with the speed, power and skill of the Jillaroos and it could be a 'very long' 80 minutes.

NRLW rules, so the game will be 70 minutes.

AFAIK, this will also mean 40-30 kicks and no set restarts.

[The Masked Poster]

2 hours ago, Father Gascoigne said:

Because it's what I implied. 

That you chose to interpret it as anything other than bonafide sh1tposting is on you. 

Where on planet earth are you likely to find anyone who is going to put £5k on the England women RL to beat Australia? It's an absolutely ridiculous suggestion - and that is on you. 

[The Masked Poster]

2 hours ago, Eddie said:

There’s nothing wrong with a flutter for entertainment, as long as you’re prepared to lose everything that you stake. I understand why some people completely avoid it though. 

Yep, I went to Las Vegas and spent $20 on gambling. It's just the Grand National or the odd cup final for me. 

[Alan Robertson]

21 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

NRLW rules, so the game will be 70 minutes.

 

Good point, I appreciate the pedantry.

[unapologetic pedant]

2 minutes ago, Alan Robertson said:

Good point, I appreciate the pedantry.

Been some comment in the media about the duration of the game. None I've seen regarding the other, arguably more consequential, rule variations. Let's hope an English winger doesn't allow an Aussie kick to cross the side-line between the 20 and 30-metre lines. Brain fades under pressure are not unknown.

If you truly appreciate pedantry, NRLW rules also reward 20-50 kicks. Unlikely we'll see any of those attempted in Vegas.

[RBKnight]

1 hour ago, OriginalMrC said:

More like going to London for a KFC when you know the KFC is almost certainly going to be shut when you get there.

So what are you suggesting - "Sorry NRL, we don't want to play the Jillaroos in Vegas, you're too good" ?