Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

November 01, 2024, 10:28:26 am

Author Topic: Wimbledon anyone?  (Read 29746 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

TheFedExpress

  • Victorian
  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 199
  • Respect: +10
  • School: Nagle College
  • School Grad Year: 2012
Re: Wimbledon anyone?
« Reply #45 on: July 07, 2012, 07:36:34 pm »
0
Bet on Radwanska for tonight, $5.80, good as bet!

Wow! I knew she'd be underdog but didn't think she'd be paying that much.

Hope she gets up for your sake! She's got every chance. ....
2011: Psychology (46) P.E (46)
2012: English (47) Italian (29) Methods (36) Physics (39)
ATAR: 98.40

pi

  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 14348
  • Doctor.
  • Respect: +2376
Re: Wimbledon anyone?
« Reply #46 on: July 07, 2012, 07:37:56 pm »
0
Bet on Radwanska for tonight, $5.80, good as bet!

Not if she loses :P

datfatcat

  • Victorian
  • Forum Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 764
  • Respect: +76
Re: Wimbledon anyone?
« Reply #47 on: July 07, 2012, 07:55:51 pm »
0
Radwanska will get crunched in 2.
I put on Fed to win in 3 or 4 sets. - Not the greatest odds but i'm pretty sure he'll do it.

Totally agree.  And I would laugh if Radwanska still got her breathing problem.  Maybe 1 set and she would give up :)
[2011] Maths Methods CAS
[2012] English (EAL), Chemistry, Biology, Physics, Specialist Maths
[2013]-[2017] Monash University - Bachelor of Medicine/Bachelor of Surgery (Hons.) V

jmosh002

  • Guest
Re: Wimbledon anyone?
« Reply #48 on: July 07, 2012, 07:56:56 pm »
+1
Radwanska will get crunched in 2.
I put on Fed to win in 3 or 4 sets. - Not the greatest odds but i'm pretty sure he'll do it.

paulsterio

  • ATAR Notes Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 4803
  • I <3 2SHAN
  • Respect: +430
Re: Wimbledon anyone?
« Reply #49 on: July 07, 2012, 07:57:22 pm »
0
Not if she loses :P

Hahaha no, that's not how you bet, if you keep betting on who you think will win, you will end up losing money. It's because to be honest, bookies have done more research than you :P

You don't bet on who you think will win, you bet on what you think are good odds.

For example, let's take Federer v Murray - odds are around 2.80 for Murray - now what you have to ask yourself is this - is the probability of Murray winning greater than around about 1 in 3, because if it is, then it'll be a good bet, if not, then it will be a shit bet.

That's why when you have like Nadal v Rosol, which happenned in the 2nd round, Nadal was 1.01 to 1, meaning that he will win 99 out of 100 times, which clearly isn't true, Nadal is good, but he's not that good, which means that even though you think Nadal will win, this is still a bad bet.

pi

  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 14348
  • Doctor.
  • Respect: +2376
Re: Wimbledon anyone?
« Reply #50 on: July 07, 2012, 08:04:57 pm »
0
Nevertheless, if she loses, it's a shit bet coz you lost money :P

jmosh002

  • Guest
Re: Wimbledon anyone?
« Reply #51 on: July 07, 2012, 08:34:50 pm »
+2
Hahaha no, that's not how you bet, if you keep betting on who you think will win, you will end up losing money. It's because to be honest, bookies have done more research than you :P

You don't bet on who you think will win, you bet on what you think are good odds.

For example, let's take Federer v Murray - odds are around 2.80 for Murray - now what you have to ask yourself is this - is the probability of Murray winning greater than around about 1 in 3, because if it is, then it'll be a good bet, if not, then it will be a shit bet.

That's why when you have like Nadal v Rosol, which happenned in the 2nd round, Nadal was 1.01 to 1, meaning that he will win 99 out of 100 times, which clearly isn't true, Nadal is good, but he's not that good, which means that even though you think Nadal will win, this is still a bad bet.

The thing is though, there will never be good odds. The bookies work out what the probability is of each player winning (as you've said they've done more research), and put down the prices for each player so they will always come out on top, and the price you will get back will always be lower than what the real probability is. There will never be a good bet, if you think betting on Radwanska at $5.8 is good, the real probability might be 1 is 6 or 7.
In general, if you are a frequent better i strongly believe that you will lose money, unless you are extremely lucky. The stockmarket is a completely different scenario, because the odds aren't in the stock-trading services favour. You simply pay brokerage of about $20 to buy, then another $20 to sell as they have to pay the stockbrokers a salary, and then it is up to the company to perform. In the long run if you investing even the minimum (and your share is just doing decently) you will still be better off than in the sportsbetting, because $40 of the minimum 500 is not even that much commision (and most people invest quite a bit more), and if you hold your shares for a while you will easily get your $40 back (most likely more) in the form of dividends.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2012, 08:46:34 pm by jmosh002 »

paulsterio

  • ATAR Notes Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 4803
  • I <3 2SHAN
  • Respect: +430
Re: Wimbledon anyone?
« Reply #52 on: July 07, 2012, 08:39:15 pm »
0
Nevertheless, if she loses, it's a shit bet coz you lost money :P

You miss the point, betting isn't about winning every single bet you place - if you can do that then you are god pretty much, it's about placing tactical bets so that your long term result is a net gain.
For example, if you place ten $10 bets on odds that are $5 and you win 3, then that's a good bet, because your expenditure is $100 and you gain back $150, a $50 gain. And you only won 30% of the bets you placed.

The thing is though, there will never be good odds. The bookies work out what the probability is of each player winning (as you've said they've done more research), and put down the prices for each player so they will always come out on top, and the price you will get back will always be lower than what the real probability is. There will never be a good bet, if you think betting on Radwanska at $5.8 is good, the real probability might be 1 is 6 or 7.

There are rarely good odds, you're right, but usually a crap player vs. a very good player will be good odds for the crap player and rarely good odds for the good player, just from experience...etc.

jmosh002

  • Guest
Re: Wimbledon anyone?
« Reply #53 on: July 07, 2012, 10:09:51 pm »
0
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.

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.

Yes I agree with you that the average of stocks don't always increase, at times they do and at times they don't. But the difference with investing in stocks and betting on sports, is that the stock market isn't trying to make money out of you, whereas the bookies are, setting odds to always favor themselves. You are far more likely to make money off stocks as opposed to betting, since you are paying a commission for stocks and are buying them at the price you want to, also dividends are another factor. There is a lot more skill in investing in stocks, then betting. There are many factors to include such as p.e growth, div yield, and also listening to analysts with their advice. Betting you can not do all those. Sure you can research about the players history, head to head records, although the tab takes this into account and sets the according to this and in favor of them

Phantom-II

  • Victorian
  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 88
  • Respect: 0
Re: Wimbledon anyone?
« Reply #54 on: July 07, 2012, 10:20:58 pm »
+3
defs hoping federer to win. my guess in 3 sets

you guys make this sound so much more complex than it needs to be; so you're willing to bet on someone who you honestly dont believe will win, but is a favourable choice of investment option due to probability/odds ratio? Why not just bet on the players with good odds when you actually think they have a good chance of winning? Is making profit thru probability satisfying or something..?

datfatcat

  • Victorian
  • Forum Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 764
  • Respect: +76
Re: Wimbledon anyone?
« Reply #55 on: July 07, 2012, 11:57:11 pm »
+4
I can see Paul is looooooooosinggggg his moneyyyyyyyyy  :o

Edited:  Paul did lose his money  8)
« Last Edit: July 08, 2012, 02:42:36 pm by drfatcat »
[2011] Maths Methods CAS
[2012] English (EAL), Chemistry, Biology, Physics, Specialist Maths
[2013]-[2017] Monash University - Bachelor of Medicine/Bachelor of Surgery (Hons.) V

pi

  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 14348
  • Doctor.
  • Respect: +2376
Re: Wimbledon anyone?
« Reply #56 on: July 08, 2012, 02:33:26 pm »
0
Bet on Radwanska for tonight, $5.80, good as bet!

Not if she loses :P

There we go :P

Good win too for Serena :)
« Last Edit: July 08, 2012, 02:35:52 pm by VegemitePi »

paulsterio

  • ATAR Notes Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 4803
  • I <3 2SHAN
  • Respect: +430
Re: Wimbledon anyone?
« Reply #57 on: July 08, 2012, 04:22:54 pm »
0
defs hoping federer to win. my guess in 3 sets

you guys make this sound so much more complex than it needs to be; so you're willing to bet on someone who you honestly dont believe will win, but is a favourable choice of investment option due to probability/odds ratio? Why not just bet on the players with good odds when you actually think they have a good chance of winning? Is making profit thru probability satisfying or something..?

Yes, that is exactly right - the probability/odds ratio is absolutely critical in betting. Because if you think they have a good chance of winning, so will the bookies and hence your odds won't be good. It's like this, say Nadal vs. Random guy (ranked lowly) - the odds are usually $17 or $21 for the random guy, depending on how shit he is. But the truth is, that shit guy will probably win more than 1/17 or 1/21 times, as seen in the 2nd Round of Wimbledon - Nadal lost to Rosol - no one expected Nadal to lose, neither did anyone expect Rosol to have a chance, I would have never thought that Rosol would win (I didn't bet on that match because I was on holidays) - but the fact that whether something is a good bet or not actually has NOTHING to do with whether you think Rosol will win or not, it's the PROBABILITY of Rosol winning, not the fact that Rosol is FAVOURED over Nadal.

Look, you can bet for fun, but if you're in it to make serious money, you have to research it and place bets tactically, like I look at analysis on players, I have a spreadsheet and table all calculated to keep track of my bets and my winnings and where my revenue is coming from...etc.

I can see Paul is looooooooosinggggg his moneyyyyyyyyy  :o

Edited:  Paul did lose his money  8)

No, I actually won, because I won two bets and lost two bets, with the winning two being good odds

- Lost $30 on Radwanska winning
- Won $22 on Men's Doubles
- Lost $10 on Women's Doubles
- Won $24 on Radwanska v Williams - Over 19.5 games

Phantom-II

  • Victorian
  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 88
  • Respect: 0
Re: Wimbledon anyone?
« Reply #58 on: July 08, 2012, 05:26:11 pm »
0
Fair nuff. Just a random thought on probability, but could u ensure no loss by betting on both players of the same match? ;p

If fed wins he gets back his #1, go federe!

jmosh002

  • Guest
Re: Wimbledon anyone?
« Reply #59 on: July 08, 2012, 05:38:22 pm »
0
Fair nuff. Just a random thought on probability, but could u ensure no loss by betting on both players of the same match? ;p

If fed wins he gets back his #1, go federe!

No, there will always be 1 player, with his/her odds below $2 in a head to head match in order so you can't break even or win