: Wed May 27, 2009 3:26 pm  

dixie wrote:

..

TBH anything over say 15/1 is pretty pointless betting on, unless it's a few quid.

...

TBF that's a pretty meaningless, arbitrary and actually slightly bonkers claim. If I am going to have a winner I'd much rather it was at 33/1 than 1/3. Wouldn't you?

Would you reckon a bet on Mon Mome (100/1) in this year's Grand National would have been pointless? (You could have got upwards of 500/1 on the exchanges).

My most recent "pointless" bet over 15/1 was the Bulls to beat Saints


So I reckon you need to re-assess your strategy.

: Wed May 27, 2009 4:44 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

TBF that's a pretty meaningless, arbitrary and actually slightly bonkers claim. If I am going to have a winner I'd much rather it was at 33/1 than 1/3. Wouldn't you?

Would you reckon a bet on Mon Mome (100/1) in this year's Grand National would have been pointless? (You could have got upwards of 500/1 on the exchanges).

My most recent "pointless" bet over 15/1 was the Bulls to beat Saints


So I reckon you need to re-assess your strategy.

What idiot wouldn't want 33/1 than 1/3?

My point is simply that ..... God i can't even be bothered.

Lets just say for every one bet over 15/1 that comes in i could give you 50 that don't.

: Wed May 27, 2009 9:36 pm  

dixie wrote:

What idiot wouldn't want 33/1 than 1/3?

My point is simply that ..... God i can't even be bothered.

Lets just say for every one bet over 15/1 that comes in i could give you 50 that don't.

You've just invited FA to post, say, twenty 15/1 chances that came in, in which circumstance you'll have to respond with one thousand that didn't.

: Wed May 27, 2009 9:42 pm  

af wrote:

You've just invited FA to post, say, twenty 15/1 chances that came in, in which circumstance you'll have to respond with one thousand that didn't.

Anyway to prove me wrong. If that happens, believe me that i'm bored, but i'm not that bored at the moment.

: Thu May 28, 2009 1:48 am  

dixie wrote:

What idiot wouldn't want 33/1 than 1/3?

Er, you? As you wouldn't have bet on it, such a bet being, to use your word, "pointless"

dixie wrote:

My point is simply that ..... God i can't even be bothered.

Or, you realise you don't have one.

dixie wrote:

Lets just say for every one bet over 15/1 that comes in i could give you 50 that don't.

Whahey - mobile goalposts! Why change to bets "over" 15/1 now?

On average, and excluding the bookies' margin (which you can avoid on the exchanges as there are no bookies, and you can ask for your own price) you'd expect one 15/1 shot to win for every 15 that lose. That's the meaning of being "a 15/1 chance", y'see?

: Thu May 28, 2009 5:46 am  

Just out of interest, does anyone recall how long our odds got in 2005?

: Thu May 28, 2009 12:00 pm  

af wrote:

Just out of interest, does anyone recall how long our odds got in 2005?

50/1 after loss to Wakefield away.

Not gonna say who put a bet on it.