It's certainly a five setter.
Armstrong to serve. New balls please.
Morning Dave
I have adressed both of your points below. I prove both points to be incorrect.
I have dealt with the 2 points in order, quoting your point and then (after the underlining) proving it wrong. I have left a large space in between the analysis of the 2 points, for clarity
I have explained the context i.e. what low means, in the context of a volatile market.If you still haven't gathered that there is an alternative meaning to my comment other than the one that you chose, then you really are blinded by your own opinion.Now, here's the crux; I wasn't offering advice - I was stating a fact.
=================================
Dave, if you were stating a fact, why did you call it an “opinion” ?
What you wrote is :
“You can get 70/1 on Betfair.It's a volatile market though, with not a lot of money in it, so this is a low odd based on a market reaction, and will soon go up again, in my opinion.”
This statement can be broken down as follows :
“you cant get 70/1 on Betfair” = FACT (assuming it is correct)
“So this is a low odd” = OPINION
“and will soon go up again” = OPINION
The other statements could be facts or opinions.
The point is though that you have offered at least 2 opinions even in this one statement. These opinions represent advice.
The statement that “70/1…will soon go up again, in my opinion” can not be a fact for two reasons. Firstly it was an opinion (as stated) and secondly it did not happen. As we all know, the opposite happened.
You have repeatedly stated in this thread that your response to the poster’s enquiry about the price was to try to teach him the mechanics of betting markets. Indeed, as you have pointed out, your statement advised that the market was “volatile” and the odd was “based on a market reaction”. In other words you advised that the odd was being determined by the volatility of the market (not by other factors). You used this opinion (with the use of the word “so” ), to formulate your advice to the poster that the price was “low” and would “go up again”.
This issue though is not about whether markets are more volatile when they have less money in them. Neither does the issue concern whether markets TEND to “bounce” or ‘readjust’ following the aftermath of an initial shock. Having studied and invested in international currency exchanges, I can verify that this is actually true.
The issue though is that you have used this one factor to determine your advice to the poster as to a) what factor is driving the price b) whether the price represents good value c) whether the price will go up. Your advice was that the price is being determined by the aftershock following the goal (you neglected to realise or acknowledge that there were other factors), that that meant that the price was bad value (you neglected to realise or acknowledge that there were other factors), and that the price would go up, which it did not.
If you had said what you are claiming you had said, you should have written something like :
““You can get 70/1 on Betfair. There are a number of factors which are determining the price. I’m not giving you any advice on whether the price represents good value or on the direction the price will go in, but whilst you should remember that other factors are also likely to be relevant, one issue which you may wish to consider as being a factor in what has determined this price, is that there may have been a market reaction following the goal. The market does not appear to have much money in it and is therefore likely to be relatively volatile. If the factor which I have referred to is what is determining the price (and I offer no opinion or advice on this matter), then assuming that the underlying determinants of the likelyhood of him winning the competition do not change before the market has time to readjust (and this is not actually possible as the bet is in play), it might be considered that the price would be likely to rise (although I offer no opinion or advice on whether this will happen”
This is not what you have said though, as examined above.
If I was offering advice, you'd actually still be wrong. If I were to call a price bad value, and the bet went onto win, that doesn't mean that I was wrong.Well, not if you want to be profitable in betting, anyway. If I said that 70/1 for Shevchenko was too low to back, and then he scored again, that does not actually mean that my advice would have been wrong.
===============================
Well I have now proved that you did provide advice.
Your advice failed to take into account various factors such as that the price represented exceptional value notwithstanding the fact that it had shortened following the goal. You also failed to take into account that the market could not readjust because the bet was in play and its underlying determinants constantly changing.
As has been noted already, a few minutes after you advised that the 70/1 would lengthen, it shortened to 15/1.
70/1 represented the top of the market. It was the best value that was available to the poster. If he wanted to maximum his profit, he would have backed shev at 70/1. He could then have laid the bet off at a profit when the price crashed. You effectively advised him not to take the 70/1.
That therefore does mean that your advice was wrong.
Take it JPB is unemployed or on holiday today
This epic battle is like something out of 300!!!!
But with massive blocks of letters instead of fun stuff like axes......someone give these two axes!
Hopefully My England vs Sweden Match Thread will be of the same attractiveness!
I should have killed it off quicker than I did.
Sometimes it goes like that though.
Unlucky WKC
http://www.ja606.co.uk/articles/viewLiveArticle/127445
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
you'll never beat this thread.
this is the best match thread since the one for usain bolt's 100m race a couple of weeks ago.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
There's more than one interpretation of my comments
==========================
No there isnt Dave
http://www.ja606.co.uk/articles/viewLiveArticle/127524
Dave, Ive put your 3 comments in quotes and put my corrections below each one.
“My comment was merely to say that the odds were 70/1, but not to take that as a fixed amount because it will go up shortly. That's a fact, because I know how the markets work. There was nothing about whether he should take the bet or not... no advice whatsoever.Get your head around that fact.”
Dave, because you think you know how markets work does not mean that your advice on markets will automatically be correct. It is very important that you understand this. The markets will not perform to comply with your advice. I have written further on this in response to your next comment.
Again this comment of yours highlights that you are unable to appreciate how simplistic the information is that you are trying to or claiming to provide. Do you really think that someone who asks what the price is on something does not understand that the current price might change ? It’s not likely to be a 5 year old who asked what the price was Dave. Even though we are dealing with the most basic of principles here though, you still manage to get that wrong, in spite of your claim that you “know how the markets work”.
Even ignoring your express advice that the price was “low”, can you really not understand how advising that the price will drift is related to “whether he should take the bet or not”. Do you think anyone in their right mind would take a price if they new it would drift ? If you do not understand this then you understand NOTHING about betting at all, yet still you’ve got the brass neck to tell me that I don’t understand it !!
“Onto the betting point. You've just shown how little you know. If I had have called the 70/1 bad value, was I not necessarily wrong.Bad bets sometimes win.The key to being successful in betting is understanding value. It's quite funny that you wrote what you did, because it shows that you don't have a clue about betting... no wonder you don't have a clue about the initial statement either. “
This is just meaningless flannel. I’ve explained the point logically and in detail. You are just making baseless claims about your supposedly advanced knowledge of betting as if that means anything to anyone.
You seem to have the impression that if you give some advice, it has to be right, because your job involves betting. Unfortunately Dave, you will learn before too long, that that is not the case unfortunately. Professional advice has to be given carefully and accurately; it will not be right just because you claim to be some sort of professional when you give it. If you think that professionals are not capable of giving bad advice, then it only highlights how wet behind the ears you are, which is what I have suspected since your very first post.
In fact your irrelevant claims about having a superior knowledge of betting is fairly ironic, as I have literally schooled you throughout this thread. You do not have an expertise in the matter. You have possession of some very basic pieces of information that any teenager could learn in about 5 minutes, and you are applying it to situations which you don’t understand and giving advise without even understanding the nature of the advice which you are giving, let alone being able to understand whether that advice is accurate.
If I were you, I would be tempted to give up and do something else rather than continue to waste other people’s time and money while you go through what will inevitably be a long drawn out process of learning the basics.
“There's more than one interpretation of my comments. You chose the wrong one, and whether that's my fault for not being clear enough is irrelevant... you were wrong.”
There isnt more than one way of interpreting your advice, as I have clearly demonstrated in my previous post. It’s not a case of it being your fault for not being clear enough, it’s a case of it being your fault for getting it wrong. I haven’t chosen anything, and I havent been wrong about anything. This isnt about what I’ve got wrong, it’s about what you’ve got wrong. And youve got wrong just about everything you have said from your first post to your last.
just drop it. it doesnt matter.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Dave,
You are just saying the same thing over and over again now even though I have proved that all of your points are wrong.
It is pointless trying to discuss things with you as you have shown that either you do not wish to learn where you are going wrong, or are incapable of learning. Either way it should be of some concern at this fledging stage of your work life.
It makes no difference to me, and your latest post has made me loss the sympathy that I had for you, however you should consider the points I have made in my last post as they might be of benefit in your apprentice career.
It would also do you well to remember the schooling ive given you on this thread, in regards to fundamental basics of betting, and fundamental principles of how to provide professional advice and information.
I dont blame you for not winning the argument, or for having to evade each of the substantive points that I have made to demonstrate your mistakes, as you were always going to be in the wrong based on the facts which underlie the discussion. However, all that you have demonstrated in this post is that you are currently not cabaple of acknoleding your mistakes, and you do not have even an elementary level of competence in the matters which you profess to be expert in.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
is this still running ,doh>
i hadnt seen that one
cant be assed any more though.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Sign in if you want to comment
England 1-1 France: Official Match Thread
Page 104 of 108
104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108
posted on 15/6/12
It's certainly a five setter.
Armstrong to serve. New balls please.
posted on 15/6/12
posted on 15/6/12
Morning Dave
I have adressed both of your points below. I prove both points to be incorrect.
I have dealt with the 2 points in order, quoting your point and then (after the underlining) proving it wrong. I have left a large space in between the analysis of the 2 points, for clarity
I have explained the context i.e. what low means, in the context of a volatile market.If you still haven't gathered that there is an alternative meaning to my comment other than the one that you chose, then you really are blinded by your own opinion.Now, here's the crux; I wasn't offering advice - I was stating a fact.
=================================
Dave, if you were stating a fact, why did you call it an “opinion” ?
What you wrote is :
“You can get 70/1 on Betfair.It's a volatile market though, with not a lot of money in it, so this is a low odd based on a market reaction, and will soon go up again, in my opinion.”
This statement can be broken down as follows :
“you cant get 70/1 on Betfair” = FACT (assuming it is correct)
“So this is a low odd” = OPINION
“and will soon go up again” = OPINION
The other statements could be facts or opinions.
The point is though that you have offered at least 2 opinions even in this one statement. These opinions represent advice.
The statement that “70/1…will soon go up again, in my opinion” can not be a fact for two reasons. Firstly it was an opinion (as stated) and secondly it did not happen. As we all know, the opposite happened.
You have repeatedly stated in this thread that your response to the poster’s enquiry about the price was to try to teach him the mechanics of betting markets. Indeed, as you have pointed out, your statement advised that the market was “volatile” and the odd was “based on a market reaction”. In other words you advised that the odd was being determined by the volatility of the market (not by other factors). You used this opinion (with the use of the word “so” ), to formulate your advice to the poster that the price was “low” and would “go up again”.
This issue though is not about whether markets are more volatile when they have less money in them. Neither does the issue concern whether markets TEND to “bounce” or ‘readjust’ following the aftermath of an initial shock. Having studied and invested in international currency exchanges, I can verify that this is actually true.
The issue though is that you have used this one factor to determine your advice to the poster as to a) what factor is driving the price b) whether the price represents good value c) whether the price will go up. Your advice was that the price is being determined by the aftershock following the goal (you neglected to realise or acknowledge that there were other factors), that that meant that the price was bad value (you neglected to realise or acknowledge that there were other factors), and that the price would go up, which it did not.
If you had said what you are claiming you had said, you should have written something like :
““You can get 70/1 on Betfair. There are a number of factors which are determining the price. I’m not giving you any advice on whether the price represents good value or on the direction the price will go in, but whilst you should remember that other factors are also likely to be relevant, one issue which you may wish to consider as being a factor in what has determined this price, is that there may have been a market reaction following the goal. The market does not appear to have much money in it and is therefore likely to be relatively volatile. If the factor which I have referred to is what is determining the price (and I offer no opinion or advice on this matter), then assuming that the underlying determinants of the likelyhood of him winning the competition do not change before the market has time to readjust (and this is not actually possible as the bet is in play), it might be considered that the price would be likely to rise (although I offer no opinion or advice on whether this will happen”
This is not what you have said though, as examined above.
If I was offering advice, you'd actually still be wrong. If I were to call a price bad value, and the bet went onto win, that doesn't mean that I was wrong.Well, not if you want to be profitable in betting, anyway. If I said that 70/1 for Shevchenko was too low to back, and then he scored again, that does not actually mean that my advice would have been wrong.
===============================
Well I have now proved that you did provide advice.
Your advice failed to take into account various factors such as that the price represented exceptional value notwithstanding the fact that it had shortened following the goal. You also failed to take into account that the market could not readjust because the bet was in play and its underlying determinants constantly changing.
As has been noted already, a few minutes after you advised that the 70/1 would lengthen, it shortened to 15/1.
70/1 represented the top of the market. It was the best value that was available to the poster. If he wanted to maximum his profit, he would have backed shev at 70/1. He could then have laid the bet off at a profit when the price crashed. You effectively advised him not to take the 70/1.
That therefore does mean that your advice was wrong.
posted on 15/6/12
posted on 15/6/12
Take it JPB is unemployed or on holiday today
posted on 15/6/12
This epic battle is like something out of 300!!!!
But with massive blocks of letters instead of fun stuff like axes......someone give these two axes!
posted on 15/6/12
Hopefully My England vs Sweden Match Thread will be of the same attractiveness!
posted on 15/6/12
I should have killed it off quicker than I did.
Sometimes it goes like that though.
posted on 15/6/12
Unlucky WKC
http://www.ja606.co.uk/articles/viewLiveArticle/127445
posted on 15/6/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 15/6/12
you'll never beat this thread.
this is the best match thread since the one for usain bolt's 100m race a couple of weeks ago.
posted on 15/6/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 15/6/12
There's more than one interpretation of my comments
==========================
No there isnt Dave
posted on 15/6/12
http://www.ja606.co.uk/articles/viewLiveArticle/127524
posted on 15/6/12
Dave, Ive put your 3 comments in quotes and put my corrections below each one.
“My comment was merely to say that the odds were 70/1, but not to take that as a fixed amount because it will go up shortly. That's a fact, because I know how the markets work. There was nothing about whether he should take the bet or not... no advice whatsoever.Get your head around that fact.”
Dave, because you think you know how markets work does not mean that your advice on markets will automatically be correct. It is very important that you understand this. The markets will not perform to comply with your advice. I have written further on this in response to your next comment.
Again this comment of yours highlights that you are unable to appreciate how simplistic the information is that you are trying to or claiming to provide. Do you really think that someone who asks what the price is on something does not understand that the current price might change ? It’s not likely to be a 5 year old who asked what the price was Dave. Even though we are dealing with the most basic of principles here though, you still manage to get that wrong, in spite of your claim that you “know how the markets work”.
Even ignoring your express advice that the price was “low”, can you really not understand how advising that the price will drift is related to “whether he should take the bet or not”. Do you think anyone in their right mind would take a price if they new it would drift ? If you do not understand this then you understand NOTHING about betting at all, yet still you’ve got the brass neck to tell me that I don’t understand it !!
“Onto the betting point. You've just shown how little you know. If I had have called the 70/1 bad value, was I not necessarily wrong.Bad bets sometimes win.The key to being successful in betting is understanding value. It's quite funny that you wrote what you did, because it shows that you don't have a clue about betting... no wonder you don't have a clue about the initial statement either. “
This is just meaningless flannel. I’ve explained the point logically and in detail. You are just making baseless claims about your supposedly advanced knowledge of betting as if that means anything to anyone.
You seem to have the impression that if you give some advice, it has to be right, because your job involves betting. Unfortunately Dave, you will learn before too long, that that is not the case unfortunately. Professional advice has to be given carefully and accurately; it will not be right just because you claim to be some sort of professional when you give it. If you think that professionals are not capable of giving bad advice, then it only highlights how wet behind the ears you are, which is what I have suspected since your very first post.
In fact your irrelevant claims about having a superior knowledge of betting is fairly ironic, as I have literally schooled you throughout this thread. You do not have an expertise in the matter. You have possession of some very basic pieces of information that any teenager could learn in about 5 minutes, and you are applying it to situations which you don’t understand and giving advise without even understanding the nature of the advice which you are giving, let alone being able to understand whether that advice is accurate.
If I were you, I would be tempted to give up and do something else rather than continue to waste other people’s time and money while you go through what will inevitably be a long drawn out process of learning the basics.
“There's more than one interpretation of my comments. You chose the wrong one, and whether that's my fault for not being clear enough is irrelevant... you were wrong.”
There isnt more than one way of interpreting your advice, as I have clearly demonstrated in my previous post. It’s not a case of it being your fault for not being clear enough, it’s a case of it being your fault for getting it wrong. I haven’t chosen anything, and I havent been wrong about anything. This isnt about what I’ve got wrong, it’s about what you’ve got wrong. And youve got wrong just about everything you have said from your first post to your last.
posted on 15/6/12
just drop it. it doesnt matter.
posted on 15/6/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 15/6/12
Dave,
You are just saying the same thing over and over again now even though I have proved that all of your points are wrong.
It is pointless trying to discuss things with you as you have shown that either you do not wish to learn where you are going wrong, or are incapable of learning. Either way it should be of some concern at this fledging stage of your work life.
It makes no difference to me, and your latest post has made me loss the sympathy that I had for you, however you should consider the points I have made in my last post as they might be of benefit in your apprentice career.
It would also do you well to remember the schooling ive given you on this thread, in regards to fundamental basics of betting, and fundamental principles of how to provide professional advice and information.
I dont blame you for not winning the argument, or for having to evade each of the substantive points that I have made to demonstrate your mistakes, as you were always going to be in the wrong based on the facts which underlie the discussion. However, all that you have demonstrated in this post is that you are currently not cabaple of acknoleding your mistakes, and you do not have even an elementary level of competence in the matters which you profess to be expert in.
posted on 19/6/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 19/6/12
posted on 19/6/12
is this still running ,doh>
posted on 19/6/12
i hadnt seen that one
cant be assed any more though.
posted on 19/6/12
Eff it all!
posted on 20/6/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 20/6/12
DAVE YOU WIN!!!!
Page 104 of 108
104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108