Wimbledon anyone?

[paulsterio]

Got $100 worth of bets down for Wimbledon tonight and tomorrow night, better win

Anyways, thinking of putting money on Tsonga to win Wimbledon, odds are 9.50, good odds.

[jmosh002]

Got $100 worth of bets down for Wimbledon tonight and tomorrow night, better win

Anyways, thinking of putting money on Tsonga to win Wimbledon, odds are 9.50, good odds.

I put on both Tsonga and Djokovic, since Djokovic is at $2, so if he wins i at least break even.

[paulsterio]

Yeah, that's probably what I'll do, but the risk is, if someone else wins then you'll be losing a lot of money

[Starlight]

if someone else wins then you'll be losing a lot of money

Hence why I never bet

[WhoTookMyUsername]

if someone else wins then you'll be losing a lot of money

Hence why I never bet

but by NOT betting, you're betting that you'll get more money from NOT betting than betting! Hence you are betting! There is no escape

[paulsterio]

Hence why I never bet

If you bet intelligently, you will end up with a net gain always. You just have to bet intelligently and research what you're betting. Generally if you're out there to bet to make money, you can, but your stakes have to be big (like I'm talking around $100+ per day)

[jmosh002]

What does everybody think about tonights match, Del Potro vs Ferrer

[Starlight]

Hence why I never bet

If you bet intelligently, you will end up with a net gain always. You just have to bet intelligently and research what you're betting. Generally if you're out there to bet to make money, you can, but your stakes have to be big (like I'm talking around $100+ per day)

I still wouldn't want to risk it.

[paulsterio]

I still wouldn't want to risk it.

Well it's risk reward, like it comes down to whether you're willing to put your money out to gain money, exactly like buying shares on the stock exchange.

What does everybody think about tonights match, Del Potro vs Ferrer

Del Potro because it's grass, which is a faster game. Ferrer relies too much on his court speed and "hanging in there", whereas Del Potro has more big weapons.

[jmosh002]

I still wouldn't want to risk it.

Well it's risk reward, like it comes down to whether you're willing to put your money out to gain money, exactly like buying shares on the stock exchange.

What does everybody think about tonights match, Del Potro vs Ferrer

Del Potro because it's grass, which is a faster game. Ferrer relies too much on his court speed and "hanging in there", whereas Del Potro has more big weapons.

Ye same. I reckon 5 sets. Hbu?

[WhoTookMyUsername]

I still wouldn't want to risk it.

Well it's risk reward, like it comes down to whether you're willing to put your money out to gain money, exactly like buying shares on the stock exchange.

What does everybody think about tonights match, Del Potro vs Ferrer

Del Potro because it's grass, which is a faster game. Ferrer relies too much on his court speed and "hanging in there", whereas Del Potro has more big weapons.

Well over a extended period of time the Average value of stocks increases, whereas in betting over time (assuming a "standard stock persona and standard better) the average return for the consumner is less than the average output

[Phantom-II]

yes indeed, a djokovic-tsonga final is likely as federer has some back issues and murray isnt exactly playing excellent tennis
ferrer is a better clay court player with his defensive style, but the same goes for del potro who has had more success off grass, plus he doesnt seem to cope that well with the weather. Given grass is a faster surface ferrers speed could win him the match. Difficult bet, 4 sets?

$100 is quite abit paulsterio, ethics aside i presume you are often successful?

personally im disappointed that roddick is out already, and on the womens side sharapova, ivanovic and the former #1 clijsters, +respect for winning grand slams after becoming a mother

[paulsterio]

Well over a extended period of time the Average value of stocks increases, whereas in betting over time (assuming a "standard stock persona and standard better) the average return for the consumner is less than the average output

Average value of stocks increases, ummm, where in the world did you get that from?
And no, with betting if you are good, you will win, if you are bad, you will lose, it's more of a skill game, just like with stocks, it's skill + probability.

$100 is quite abit paulsterio, ethics aside i presume you are often successful?

Hmmm, well I don't bet it all in one go, I make ten $10 bets, of which I either break even or win. Well as of these two nights, I bet $100 and ended up with $102.50, so i.e. I won $2.50, which isn't good enough!

But yeah, pretty much, I win and break even far more often than I lose, in fact, I rarely lose, but I do spend a lot of time researching and following tennis.

[TrueTears]

Well over a extended period of time the Average value of stocks increases, whereas in betting over time (assuming a "standard stock persona and standard better) the average return for the consumner is less than the average output

Average value of stocks increases, ummm, where in the world did you get that from?

This is completely off topic and just interesting to note but it can be shown that in well-developed countries such as the US/Australia, stock prices as a whole (as measured by some market index) will increase in the long run.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dow_Jones_Industrial_Average.png

However this is merely in theory and only occurs over the long long long run, so unless you're holding your stocks for 100+ years then you're in big trouble if you simply have a buy and hold strategy

PS: even if you did hold your stock for 100+ years, you better be sure that the company you hold will last that long! Even then, inflation will have probably wiped out your entire real profit!

[datfatcat]

Well over a extended period of time the Average value of stocks increases, whereas in betting over time (assuming a "standard stock persona and standard better) the average return for the consumner is less than the average output

Average value of stocks increases, ummm, where in the world did you get that from?

This is completely off topic and just interesting to note but it can be shown that in well-developed countries such as the US/Australia, stock prices as a whole (as measured by some market index) will increase in the long run.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dow_Jones_Industrial_Average.png

However this is merely in theory and only occurs over the long long long run, so unless you're holding your stocks for 100+ years then you're in big trouble if you simply have a buy and hold strategy

PS: even if you did hold your stock for 100+ years, you better be sure that the company you hold will last that long! Even then, inflation will have probably wiped out your entire real profit!

Lol it is really off topic   But interesting info.