Man bets £4400 on Angola to win with 15 minutes to go

ntlbell

making 44e in 12 minutes is not to be sniffed at.

the bet is fine.

Looks a bit stupid now tho.

mike65

With any bet you have to look at what you stand to loose, not what you stand to gain - doubly so when betting in-game.

If you are Harry Findlay then its a triffle but most of us need to be very circumspect.

Iago

mike65 wrote: »

With any bet you have to look at what you stand to loose, not what you stand to gain - doubly so when betting in-game.

If you are Harry Findlay then its a triffle but most of us need to be very circumspect.

yeah but, no but, yeah but....

The over-riding principle of any bet should always be whether or not you're getting the better of it. Even if your edge is just a fraction of a percentage point the bet is a good one.

There is (or should) absolutely be a consideration for the whole risk/reward element, but fundamentally if you're getting better odds than you should be then the bet itself is sound.

Risking significant sums of money on a 1/100 shot doesn't make sense when there is far better value to be had elsewhere, but the fundamentals of thinking behind the bet in isolation are fine.

ntlbell

mike65 wrote: »

With any bet you have to look at what you stand to loose, not what you stand to gain - doubly so when betting in-game.

If you are Harry Findlay then its a triffle but most of us need to be very circumspect.

As someone pointed out in the original thread.

In how many international matches has a team come back scored 4 goals with 12 minutes to go?

The bettor had the best of it.

Spiritoftheseventies

Iago wrote: »

yeah but, no but, yeah but....

The over-riding principle of any bet should always be whether or not you're getting the better of it. Even if your edge is just a fraction of a percentage point the bet is a good one.

There is (or should) absolutely be a consideration for the whole risk/reward element, but fundamentally if you're getting better odds than you should be then the bet itself is sound.

Risking significant sums of money on a 1/100 shot doesn't make sense when there is far better value to be had elsewhere, but the fundamentals of thinking behind the bet in isolation are fine.

Again will come back to the winnings. Was it worth losing that much over so little?

ShooterSF

While the odds were fine given the likelihood of the outcome there is still alot to be said for the whole "not putting all your eggs in one basket" thing.

ntlbell

bayviewclose wrote: »

Again will come back to the winnings. Was it worth losing that much over so little?

It's pretty irrelevant IMO.

You can't say if he was a billionaire the bet was fine.

or if he bet less the bet was fine.

the bet either makes sense or it doesn't

with 12 minutes to go 4 - 0 in an international match.

the bettor had the edge.

the bet was fine.

NewApproach

It was a good bet, he got unfortunate. Thats just the way it goes. As a few posters above have said, the real odds of them coming back from 4 0 down with 15 minutes to go are far less than 1%, making this a good bet imo.

However bankroll management appears to be an issue :rolleyes:

Spiritoftheseventies

NewApproach wrote: »

It was a good bet, he got unfortunate. Thats just the way it goes. As a few posters above have said, the real odds of them coming back from 4 0 down with 15 minutes to go are far less than 1%, making this a good bet imo.

However bankroll management appears to be an issue :rolleyes:

Wonder was he taking the piss when he said thats my uni place gone?

ntlbell

NewApproach wrote: »

However bankroll management appears to be an issue :rolleyes:

As Iago said, the problem here wasn't the bet, it was the guy placing it.

ntlbell

bayviewclose wrote: »

Wonder was he taking the piss when he said thats my uni place gone?

Wouldn't doubt it :pac:

bayviewclose

bayviewclose wrote: »

Wonder was he taking the piss when he said thats my uni place gone?

He was an accountant student :pac:

Spiritoftheseventies

rarnes1 wrote: »

He was an accountant student :pac:

Say the chat with the parents will be good. good luck to him.

abouttobebanned

You live by the sword, you die by the sword.

Just because the odds are in someone's favour, doesn't mean that the bet is a good one.

There are other variables. For the punter, the number one question is, if I lose this money, is it going to be a disaster? If the answer is yes, then the bet should not have been placed.

This is greed, pure and simple. The very fact that you can still bet on the outcome of the match means that there's a chance that you'll lose, regardless of how slim that chance is, 1.01 shots get done over a couple of times a month whethere it's a horse falling before a line, getting chinned by something coming from the back like pegasus...or a team throwing away a 4 goal lead in ten minutes.

I agree that that's a very rare happening, but it is still a happening. The bet was a silly one and the better needs to get some help soon as.

ntlbell

abouttobebanned wrote: »

You live by the sword, you die by the sword.

Just because the odds are in someone's favour, doesn't mean that the bet is a good one.

It's the only thing that makes a bet a good one.

everything else is external noise.

Spiritoftheseventies

ntlbell wrote: »

It's the only thing that makes a bet a good one.

everything else is external noise.

question is should he have laid off on another bet when it was becoming apparent that other team had a bit of momemtum going.

JPA

bayviewclose wrote: »

question is should he have laid off on another bet when it was becoming apparent that other team had a bit of momemtum going.

How could have laid off? Whatever he made back would have been minuscule compared to what he bet and it actually seems like he emptied his account with that bet.

Spiritoftheseventies

JPA wrote: »

How could have laid off? Whatever he made back would have been minuscule compared to what he bet and it actually seems like he emptied his account with that bet.

the bet showed little imagination to be fair. Much better to read a game the other way. Ie where a team is starting to panic or coming strong would assume their more money to make and with little risk ie greater odds to the bettor

JPA

bayviewclose wrote: »

the bet showed little imagination to be fair. Much better to read a game the other way. Ie where a team is starting to panic or coming strong would assume their more money to make and with little risk ie greater odds to the bettor

Well that's why it's getting all this attention. Because it was so ridiculous.

Spiritoftheseventies

JPA wrote: »

Well that's why it's getting all this attention. Because it was so ridiculous.

granted but some are claiming that there was nothing wrong with the bet.

Warper

TBH the person that took the 100-1 that Angola would not win is more of a tool than the fella that layed the bet. It was just one of those freak results. There are plenty of people out there that lay these sort of bets professionally though I would never get into these sort of bets myself - too much work.

ntlbell

bayviewclose wrote: »

granted but some are claiming that there was nothing wrong with the bet.

There is nothing wrong with it.

Christ all mighty.

He had the best of it, he got very unlucky.

There's nothing more to it.

The fact he lost his college fee's etc etc has no relevance on the bet being a good one or not.

How can we make it clearer for you?

JPA

ntlbell wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with it.

Christ all mighty.

He had the best of it, he got very unlucky.

There's nothing more to it.

The fact he lost his college fee's etc etc has no relevance on the bet being a good one or not.

How can we make it clearer for you?

4400 to make 44 is a good bet? It's practically not even worth the bother of placing the bet. Anyway I'm not going to argue with you about it but a bet you can't afford to make is not a good bet no matter what.

RasTa

Iago wrote: »

The bet is sound, the person placing it wasn't.

This. Only issue with the bet is he couldn't afford to lose.

ntlbell

JPA wrote: »

4400 to make 44 is a good bet? It's practically not even worth the bother of placing the bet. Anyway I'm not going to argue with you about it but a bet you can't afford to make is not a good bet no matter what.

The stake is irrelevant.
The fact he couldn't afford it is irrelevant.

He put the money on when everything was in his favor.

The bet was spot on.

People make a living from putting large sums on these bets because they're sound.

sometimes they go sour, this was one of them times, he was very very unlucky.

Nothing more to it.

RasTa

ntlbell wrote: »

The fact he couldn't afford it is irrelevant.

People make a living from putting large sums on these bets because they're sound.

Of course it's relevant, the people who make a living don't risk their bankroll on one bet.

ShooterSF

ntlbell wrote: »

The stake is irrelevant.
The fact he couldn't afford it is irrelevant.

He put the money on when everything was in his favor.

The bet was spot on.

People make a living from putting large sums on these bets because they're sound.

sometimes they go sour, this was one of them times, he was very very unlucky.

Nothing more to it.

Agreed the bet was sound. However the betting strategy wasn't. People who make big money doing this make sure they can absorb a freak hit like that.

Bubs101

I like the bet as well. It's not as hard as you'd think to double up on stupid bets like that if you accumulate each one

ntlbell

RasTa wrote: »

Of course it's relevant, the people who make a living don't risk their bankroll on one bet.

risking one's bankroll is stupid, that doesn't have any baring on the bet odds tho.

two different issues.

ntlbell

ShooterSF wrote: »

Agreed the bet was sound. However the betting strategy wasn't. People who make big money doing this make sure they can absorb a freak hit like that.

Yup bad bankroll management != bad odds

Paul Tergat

Its always funny how when it comes to 'gambling' there are always 2 really clear and opposing stances.

Fighting Irish

It sorta depends how mush money you have

I'd do the same just for the laugh with €4.40 but someone in Africa would think i'm fooking mental

ntlbell

p_larkin99 wrote: »

Its always funny how when it comes to 'gambling' there are always 2 really clear and opposing stances.

people get dragged into the emotion of it, "oh noes he lost all his money" etc etc

instead of just taken it from a purely mathematical point of view

Spiritoftheseventies

ntlbell wrote: »

people get dragged into the emotion of it, "oh noes he lost all his money" etc etc

instead of just taken it from a purely mathematical point of view

the question is was the bet good business. I think there are easier ways to make £44 euro. A simple treble for even a tenner would have got him back that and over as well

Paul Tergat

ntlbell wrote: »

people get dragged into the emotion of it, "oh noes he lost all his money" etc etc

instead of just taken it from a purely mathematical point of view

yup.

As you and a couple of others have said before its down to bankroll management. There's a reason the odds were so huge and as long as he can take the hit then meh.

ntlbell

bayviewclose wrote: »

the question is was the bet good business. I think there are easier ways to make £44 euro. A simple treble for even a tenner would have got him back that and over as well

It doesn't matter if there's easier ways to make money.

he could have stuck his arse out of a tree in the phoenix park for 50e.

If the odds are right the odds are right, nothing else matters.

He could do this again and again and again and he'll bang on, he got unlucky.

Maybe lucky lyod can come along and give you a lesson in results orientated thinking

eagle eye

The only thing thats amazing is that he actually got 1/100 at that stage. It was a super bet. Do that 1000 times and you will win it 999 times, this was the odd one out.

Spiritoftheseventies

ntlbell wrote: »

It doesn't matter if there's easier ways to make money.

he could have stuck his arse out of a tree in the phoenix park for 50e.

If the odds are right the odds are right, nothing else matters.

He could do this again and again and again and he'll bang on, he got unlucky.

Maybe lucky loyd can come along and give you a lesson in results orientated thinking

I'm not the one down £4,400 to be honest so thanks but no thanks

ntlbell

bayviewclose wrote: »

I'm not the one down £4,400 to be honest so thanks but no thanks

That's because your so clever. Obviously.

EI111

There are people who risk a lot more than 4400 to make 44 euro in 15 minutes. Anybody involved in say drug trafficking or dangerous jobs like active army duty risk their lives, their bodies etc. for less of a return than 44 euro for 15 minutes.
The fact that they can repeat the action over and over means they make good livings off it.
When a bomb disposal expert dies because the bomb he tries to disarm goes off would there be a thread saying how stupid he was to attempt to detonate that bomb? Probably not because that's the job he chose and he had determined in his mind that the risks were worth the reward. He knew that he could make a living by taking the risks, i.e. he had an edge. There was no news report on each of the previous bombs he disarmed successfully either, just the one that went wrong, similar to what's happening here.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8338220.stm

segadreamcast

eagle eye wrote: »

The only thing thats amazing is that he actually got 1/100 at that stage. It was a super bet. Do that 1000 times and you will win it 999 times, this was the odd one out.

Yep, that'd be my feeling on it too. Hence 1/100, as EI111 and ntlbell both feel, was a fine price!

Easy enough to pick out the betters on this thread!

Spiritoftheseventies

NoelRock wrote: »

Yep, that'd be my feeling on it too. Hence 1/100, as EI111 and ntlbell both feel, was a fine price!

Easy enough to pick out the betters on this thread!

Indeed.

A Primal Nut

I'm shocked that he would have even won 44 euro. Wouldn't they just stop taking bets at that stage? 1/100 odds is like the odds of Spain beating San Marino before the match starts. So to get those odds at 4-0 is quite good. He was very, very unlucky tbh.

Does this mean if I bet 1000 euro the next 100 times a team is 4-0 up with 15 minutes to go; I would finally be up a 1000. Because lets face it, this game was a once-off haha.

Spiritoftheseventies

I think we should forget about Nama and just place all the money on any team who is 4-0 up with twelve minutes to go. Problem solved.
Brian Lenihan to son.
"You're not going to university and thats it"

Smegball

It sounds a reasonable bet most of the time, 44 quid for 12 mins work is handy money, if you got that for everytime a team like Chelsea or United were cruising you'd be making a handy bit of money.

Spiritoftheseventies

Smegball wrote: »

It sounds a reasonable bet most of the time, 44 quid for 12 mins work is handy money, if you got that for everytime a team like Chelsea or United were cruising you'd be making a handy bit of money.

think it takes a lot of patience to be a gambler. You have to be able to take the hits like this one here. Is this plan used by yer man 80 per cent ninety per cent fool proof. Has anyone tried it on a regular basis.

EI111

I wonder how much was bet on Malawi at 1/100?

fkt

Wasn't there a Milan fan who put 15 grand on them at half time in Istanbul? Some ridicilous sum of money like that anyway.

EI111

bayviewclose wrote: »

think it takes a lot of patience to be a gambler. You have to be able to take the hits like this one here. Is this plan used by yer man 80 per cent ninety per cent fool proof. Has anyone tried it on a regular basis.

I'd be willing to try it with a tenner. I could keep a log on the gambling forum. See how long it takes to double up

eagle eye

fkt wrote: »

Wasn't there a Milan fan who put 15 grand on them at half time in Istanbul? Some ridicilous sum of money like that anyway.

The only thing that amazes me is that its always reported that he was a fan of the club thats winning or losing. :pac: