|
|
oh Ian, I'm waiting for you to tell me. The difference between us looking at odds and thinking they're attractive and understanding if they actually are. I'm all ears on that one.
In the meantime,I Bet I've done a hell of a lot better than you betting on motor racing in the past 30 years.
In those days you'd often walk in to the big chains and they'd have to "ring head office" before offering odds on the winner of a GP, let alone the top 3 or number of laps finished etc etc.
I'm sure you could go back another 15 years, and with your inside knowledge from "the horse's mouth" piled money on just before every Lotus victory.
My only really bad bet was when I ploughed £1K on Fisichella to win (33-1) the 2005 DC because I thought the 3/4/5-1 (whatever the odds were then) for Alonso to win were too tight.
Mistake.
Now back to this, the original person thought 300-1 was a good bet because the bookmaker's had got it wrong, he believed the outcome was FAR MORE LIKELY than 300-1 so it was worth a £10 punt.That was of course a chump bet hoping to attract a lot of pseudo experts and to make the bookmakers richer.
I contended that to get value, and therefore good odds for your money, the book makers had to be far more generous.Far from offering odds that were over the likely outcome they were considerably under the likely outcome.
Read the original good odds alonso blah blah post, that guy thought he was getting good value for his money; he wasn't! Demonstrated by the fact that very few took up those odds and as events unfolded they looked worse and worse.
By the way even the bookies agree and have had to relax the odds to get any money at all on Alonso.It's very easy to get 2000-1 on Alonso for the WDC now. And still that's a chump bet. Come on Ian, I know you said something about loathing bookies but you thought 300-1 was good, you've got 2000-1 now, what's stopping you putting the title deeds to your house on it now?
|
|
|
