City Have Bookies Running for Cover

[inbetween]

I will be happy if we are still unbeaten by New Years Day. We won't go undefeated until the end of the season. I am just taking it in blocks of four games. We have to go to Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal, none of which are easy. We were given a fright at QPR so I am not getting too giddy after 11 games.

Didn't United have the same record after 11 games in 85/86 under Atkinson and they cocked it up royally.

United were unbeaten last year until February, lost 2-1 at Wolves.

 

[Scooby Blue]

I don't think you add odds up, or even multiply them because they are not unrelated probabilities, the odds of us being unbeaten for the 10th match GIVEN we were unbeaten for the first 9 would be considerably altered.

You multiply the odds to get the probability:

i.e. in a one-off game City are 90% chance to remain unbeaten.
for two successive games: 0.9 x 0.9 = 0.81 i.e. 80% chance
for ten successive games (assuming 90% chance in each game):0.9 x 0.9 x 0.9 x 0.9 ...etc etc for 10 times...= 0.35
(= 35% chance or 1 in 3 or odds of 2/1 against)

We have 27 games remaining...odds of us remaining unbeaten are:
0.95 (easy home game) x 0.9 (more difficult home game) x 0.85 (away game) x 0.65(difficult away game) x 0.9 x 0.95 x 0.8 etc etc (repeat for 27 games at whatever odds you want to put in for each game)

You will end up with at least 50/1 (more likely 100/1)...but bookies have to make a living...so will offer you 10/1.

Lots of confusion in this thread from people who clearly don't bet or understand odds.

It is true that if you bet on city not to lose in each game at a time and roll that bet forward ...you will make a lot more money than 10/1...but you are then faced with making very large bets at end of sequence at rubbish odds.

e.g. staking £500 at 16/1 on ...that City won't lose at home to West Brom.
The benefit of taking the "unbeaten" bet now is that you won't be faced with that decision...in fact the opposite...you would be able to hedge yourself at very favourable odds towards the end of the season.

 

[SWP's back]

^^
but it isn't a coin toss so probability doesn't work as with random sequencing.

 

[bernabias home shirt]

I don't think you add odds up, or even multiply them because they are not unrelated probabilities, the odds of us being unbeaten for the 10th match GIVEN we were unbeaten for the first 9 would be considerably altered.

You multiply the odds to get the probability:

i.e. in a one-off game City are 90% chance to remain unbeaten.
for two successive games: 0.9 x 0.9 = 0.81 i.e. 80% chance
for ten successive games (assuming 90% chance in each game):0.9 x 0.9 x 0.9 x 0.9 ...etc etc for 10 times...= 0.35
(= 35% chance or 1 in 3 or odds of 2/1 against)

We have 27 games remaining...odds of us remaining unbeaten are:
0.95 (easy home game) x 0.9 (more difficult home game) x 0.85 (away game) x 0.65(difficult away game) x 0.9 x 0.95 x 0.8 etc etc (repeat for 27 games at whatever odds you want to put in for each game)

You will end up with at least 50/1 (more likely 100/1)...but bookies have to make a living...so will offer you 10/1.

Lots of confusion in this thread from people who clearly don't bet or understand odds.

It is true that if you bet on city not to lose in each game at a time and roll that bet forward ...you will make a lot more money than 10/1...but you are then faced with making very large bets at end of sequence at rubbish odds.

e.g. staking £500 at 16/1 on ...that City won't lose at home to West Brom.
The benefit of taking the "unbeaten" bet now is that you won't be faced with that decision...in fact the opposite...you would be able to hedge yourself at very favourable odds towards the end of the season.

That theory is bollocks mate & it is you who clearly hasnt grasped the concept of how bookmakers operate or how margins work regarding odds!

 

[Scooby Blue]

I don't think you add odds up, or even multiply them because they are not unrelated probabilities, the odds of us being unbeaten for the 10th match GIVEN we were unbeaten for the first 9 would be considerably altered.

You multiply the odds to get the probability:

i.e. in a one-off game City are 90% chance to remain unbeaten.
for two successive games: 0.9 x 0.9 = 0.81 i.e. 80% chance
for ten successive games (assuming 90% chance in each game):0.9 x 0.9 x 0.9 x 0.9 ...etc etc for 10 times...= 0.35
(= 35% chance or 1 in 3 or odds of 2/1 against)

We have 27 games remaining...odds of us remaining unbeaten are:
0.95 (easy home game) x 0.9 (more difficult home game) x 0.85 (away game) x 0.65(difficult away game) x 0.9 x 0.95 x 0.8 etc etc (repeat for 27 games at whatever odds you want to put in for each game)

You will end up with at least 50/1 (more likely 100/1)...but bookies have to make a living...so will offer you 10/1.

Lots of confusion in this thread from people who clearly don't bet or understand odds.

It is true that if you bet on city not to lose in each game at a time and roll that bet forward ...you will make a lot more money than 10/1...but you are then faced with making very large bets at end of sequence at rubbish odds.

e.g. staking £500 at 16/1 on ...that City won't lose at home to West Brom.
The benefit of taking the "unbeaten" bet now is that you won't be faced with that decision...in fact the opposite...you would be able to hedge yourself at very favourable odds towards the end of the season.

That theory is bollocks mate & it is you who clearly hasnt grasped the concept of how bookmakers operate or how margins work regarding odds!

Clearly...having run a spread-betting firm....and being a semi-professional sports gambler...means I don't know what I'm talking about.

I'm all ears...please explain which bit is "bollocks".

 

[york away to this!]

a mate of mine works in the food industry and told me that anchor foods were going to be taken over by Lurpack. went to ladbrooks to put a fiver on but was told that they didn't accept spread betting.....

 

[ste.sully]

Don't waste your money, the refs will be told to find us a defeat. We have avoided it so far because we are scoring goals for fun, the first tight 0-0 and we'll face a last minute pen.

^^^ This. You need LUCK as well as skill stay unbeaten.

The Wolves game when Attwell was effectively on Wolves side was one example. Even against QPR, a free kick which was clearly not a free kick led to a goal.

 

[Scooby Blue]

^^
but it isn't a coin toss so probability doesn't work as with random sequencing.

^^ I don't understand your point.

Are you saying probability works in other aspects of life but is "suspended" when applied to football matches ?

The THEORY of what I am saying is a mathematical fact...the actual answer you will achieve will depend on a series of assumptions about the likelihood of a particular football team winning or drawing a series of matches...where such issues as injuries / form /suspensions ...will affect the actual odds in each match.

e.g. I cannot predict NOW what the odds will be for City not to lose the home game vs Utd...but I was just making the point that plugging in some "reasonable" odds for a series of 27 games...will give you an idea of how difficult it is for a team to remain unbeaten over such a sequence.
i.e. once every 40 years type frequency.

 

[bernabias home shirt]

You multiply the odds to get the probability:

i.e. in a one-off game City are 90% chance to remain unbeaten.
for two successive games: 0.9 x 0.9 = 0.81 i.e. 80% chance
for ten successive games (assuming 90% chance in each game):0.9 x 0.9 x 0.9 x 0.9 ...etc etc for 10 times...= 0.35
(= 35% chance or 1 in 3 or odds of 2/1 against)

We have 27 games remaining...odds of us remaining unbeaten are:
0.95 (easy home game) x 0.9 (more difficult home game) x 0.85 (away game) x 0.65(difficult away game) x 0.9 x 0.95 x 0.8 etc etc (repeat for 27 games at whatever odds you want to put in for each game)

You will end up with at least 50/1 (more likely 100/1)...but bookies have to make a living...so will offer you 10/1.

Lots of confusion in this thread from people who clearly don't bet or understand odds.

It is true that if you bet on city not to lose in each game at a time and roll that bet forward ...you will make a lot more money than 10/1...but you are then faced with making very large bets at end of sequence at rubbish odds.

e.g. staking £500 at 16/1 on ...that City won't lose at home to West Brom.
The benefit of taking the "unbeaten" bet now is that you won't be faced with that decision...in fact the opposite...you would be able to hedge yourself at very favourable odds towards the end of the season.

That theory is bollocks mate & it is you who clearly hasnt grasped the concept of how bookmakers operate or how margins work regarding odds!

Clearly...having run a spread-betting firm....and being a semi-professional sports gambler...means I don't know what I'm talking about.

I'm all ears...please explain which bit is "bollocks".

There are now tens of thousands of bookies more than 10 years ago due to the exchanges me being 1 of them(i'm saying a layer is a bookie or trying to be one )i should imagine you are on betfair or betdaq as its a lot more generous,but some of them percentage games will be even worse we will be touching 1/33 at home to be unbeaten in some matches.
My whole point was working off a £1 stake i would take the 25/1 (long gone) rather than double up on every match. ....to be honest i miss read some of your post so i was a bit unfair with the bollocks bit....

 

[SWP's back]

^^
but it isn't a coin toss so probability doesn't work as with random sequencing.

^^ I don't understand your point.

Are you saying probability works in other aspects of life but is "suspended" when applied to football matches ?

The THEORY of what I am saying is a mathematical fact...the actual answer you will achieve will depend on a series of assumptions about the likelihood of a particular football team winning or drawing a series of matches...where such issues as injuries / form /suspensions ...will affect the actual odds in each match.

e.g. I cannot predict NOW what the odds will be for City not to lose the home game vs Utd...but I was just making the point that plugging in some "reasonable" odds for a series of 27 games...will give you an idea of how difficult it is for a team to remain unbeaten over such a sequence.
i.e. once every 40 years type frequency.

Mate, are you being serious? Your theory is bollocks in practice. Your theory would give the same odds for City, Norwich or Nantwich Town.

Your theory is perfectly reasonable for things such as a coin toss where the outcome is random. A football match is not. Your theory suggests that to continue "not losing" gets tougher as opposed to the real world where by variables such as confidence/opposition quality etc get in the way.

There is nothing wrong with the mechanics of your maths in the above, it is simply the fact that you have tried to attach it to a real world situation that is more complex than your model allows for.