If feel after such a long war of words and this thread appearing in my recently commented long past its expiry. I too would like to second Mr C's congratulations.
Well done Dave!
Come on JPB... are you going to take this lying down?
Come on man! Hit him with another 5000 word dissertation on where you think he's going wrong.
Where's the Dunkirk Spirit.
It is over Paisley.
JPB has in a way conceded that Dave is victorious. To start it up again would be to undermine a hard earned victory.
Don't ask me, I haven't read any of it
I'm just amused by the various war and peace sized posts pushing this thread to the top of my article list.
I haven't read any of it
================
no has anyone else. that's why it's pointless.
I never read it either except the initial exchange.
Paisley,
In summary, the discussion concerned Dave’s reply to another poster’s enquiry about Shevchenko’s price for the golden boot, in which Dave stated,
“You can get 70/1 on Betfair…this is a low odd based on a market reaction, and will soon go up again, in my opinion.”
A few minutes later the price went down to 15/1 at which point I stated “you said it was going to out a minute ago ”
A conversation about the point then developed between us.
During the discussion, I have said that in his statement, Dave gives 2 pieces of advice :
1. that the price represented poor value (it was “a low odd” )
2. that the price would “soon go up again” anyway.
I have pointed out that there was no qualification in the statement about factors which might mean that the price might not go up, and no reference to any factors which may affect the price other than the factor which dave advises will actually determine the price (I have actually suggested as well that it was impossible for this factor to have determined the price, but this is not the focus of the debate).
On the contrary Dave expressly stated that in his opinion, “this is a low odd…and will soon go up again”.
The key point which I have made is that any prospective punter who followed the advice would not place a bet at 70/1, because no rational punter would take a price that he thought would drift.
Dave, has changed his argument a couple of times, but what he stuck to in the end was that he did give advice a few minutes later in relation to the 15/1, but he did not give advice in relation to the 70/1.
In his favour Dave argues that :
a) the purpose of his reply to the poster’s enquiry about the price, was solely to explain to the poster about tendancies in volatile betting markets, and not to advise the poster on the enquiry which he had actually made.
b) he should know what he meant to put
c) the other poster should have known what he meant to put (no matter what he actually put)
d) it is/was a “fact” (not an opinion) that the 70/1 would soon go out again/ did soon go out again, even though he expressly stated at the time that it was an “opinion”, and even though it didn’t actually happen.
d) im the sort of person who wont admit when I’m wrong, so I must be wrong.
That's about it really
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
What about the ground share?
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Dave, I missed some of your arguments off thelist
e) JPB has tried to tell everyone that he knows what I meant, better than me (I think this is the same as B though ?)
f) He has also shown a complete lack of knowledge of betting (DAVE - If you don't mind, can I add in a reference to your expertise in betting here as well ?)
g) JPB has made a claim somehwere (which dave would have found amusing if it was real or relevant or both or either) that if you claim a bet is bad value and it goes on to win, then you were wrong (I think this might be Dave burning to tell us the other thing he has learned about betting apart from the "bounce" ?)
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Quote 1 shows you trying explain why a bet is value... because Shevchenko is a good player.
Now that is funny. Quite the professional.
Quote 2 shows you calling my 'advice' poor, because the odds went down after Shevchenko scored again.
Let's leave aside the fact (that you're yet to pick up on) that it wasn't advice.
Let's say it was.
The fact that Shevchenko scored again and the odds went down to 15/1 does not mean that calling 70/1 bad value was definitely wrong.
Would you like me to explain why?
=========================
Dave,
Why do you put so many spaces between lines in your posts ?
Re your explanation of the the value point, I can guess what it’s going to be. It's going to be the same irrelevant explanation that you have given at least 10 times already.
It's going to be your specialist bit of information that you are so keen to show off to everyone. It's going to be the bit of information that everyone either knew already or could work out for themselved anyway. It's going to be the bit of information that no one had asked about in the first place. It’s going to be the bit of information you based your wrong and misleading advice upon, because you didnt take other factors into account, and because you applied it in an unsuitable situation.
Regarding your other points, I know you are trying to
drag me into an argument about betting markets when what is the subject at hand is the advice you have given.
Although it is not relevant to the discussion and is a red herring, I am prepared to discuss the issues with you though that you, just to dispel any linger doubts that you or others may have that you have made any valid relevant points.
I have actually disproved all of your relevant arguments twice now on this thread, and all of your irrelevant arguments at least once, but you have blustered through it with your vacuous and irrelevant responses, interlaced with personal insults in order to get this far.
However, I am prepared to entertain you on these latest irrelevant points again, so, taking your points in order :
Re Your Q1 -
You've got this wrong as well Dave. Your suggestion that it is unprofessional to think that the likelihood of the bet winning in comparison with the price available, is not what determines whether the bet represents value, is total bunkem. Again it smacks of someone misapplying something they have been taught, because they do not properly understand its context, and because they do not have any experience in what they are trying to teach others. In fact, your point is just further evidence that you are misapplying the lessons you have been taught about betting markets. To make it worse, you are trying to preach your misconstrued notions to others, and worse still you are doing this when they had not even asked for the information.
For the avoidance of doubt Dave, and whilst it may sound simplistic to you, what determines whether a bet is good value, is whether the price is a reasonable reflection of the likelyhood of the bet winning. It’s as simple as that.
There may be other reasons for placing a bet, ie because you may consider that whilst the bet wont win, the price will contract at which point you will be able to lay it off or hedge the bet. This does represent a factor which a potential punter might consider as being relevant when assessing whether to place a bet, however this point does not detract in anyway from the definition of good value as provided above.
It may also be the case that a whole market may be under valued or over valued (rather than just an individual price within that market). That though is even less relevant than the other points.
Bringing this back in context, the point is totally irrelevant anyway. The only way this would be relevant is if you are arguing that you did advise the poster not to take the 70/1 but that that was actually good advice. It was not god advice dave, not least because 70/1 was a high price compared to the likelihood at that time of the bet winning. Furthermore, this has nothing whatsoever to do with your false and incorrect claim that the 70/1 would “soon go out again” in your “opinion”.
Re Quote 2
As stated above Dave, you have previously advised on this point with your elementary and blatantly obvious observation that a market will be more elastic with less money in it, and also that a price TENDS to readjust after an initial shock. This is not in debate. What you have done though as already pointed out several times on this thread, is fail to take any other factors into account and to base your advice solely upon this tendancy. As also pointed out, this factor becomes relevant where a bet is not in play. Because the bet was in play, the market would not or may not have time to adjust before another shock. Whether it did or not, by the time it had adjusted the underlying probability of the bet would have changed, so the new odds would never have reflected the same scenario as was reflected in the original 70/1. Notwithstanding all of this however, and as spelled out to you countless times already, your statement was not that this market readjustment was a factor to take into account; your statement was that the price would go out. This amounted to advice not to take the price, because no rational punter would take a price which he knew would drift. In fact though, the price did not go out, it went in. It’s as simple as that.
I would also refer you back to my previous comments of a few days ago regarding the recklessness of you continuing to provide professional advice which you do not understand yourself, and based upon principles which you are unable to relate to appropriate or relevant practical contexts.
i couldnt be asssed to edit that one
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
JPB - another essay.
=====================
No, another reprisal of the explanation of why your irrlevant points are incorrect. Explanation of why your relevant points are incorrect have already been posted seperately and are so unarguable that they appear to no longer be under discussion.
The point about value has nothing to do with the original point - because I wasn't discussing value. It's you that claims (incorrectly) that I was discussing value.
============================
Yes you did. You also expreslsy advised that the price would "go out" which is the main subject at hand, but you did also state that the price was bad value when you said it was "low".
I mocked your assertion that it was good value because 'Shevchenko is a good player' - anyone who thinks that value is that easy to gauge does not know what they're talking about.That's you, by the way. I question whether you know what value, in betting terms actually means.
==========================
I have specifically adress this point in detail in my previous post. Once again, you have been unable to adress this point because you do not understand what you are talking about. You have had countless chances throughout this thread to state what your point of view is, but you are repeatdely forced to come back to statements such as "its obvious you're wrong" "i know more than you" etc. And this is even on the non relevant points which you have tried to use as a smokescreen.
Here's a brief explanation:
========================
Where ? Where is your explanation ? All you hace done is quoted my factually correct analysis, and then add the words, "That paragraph is truly laughable....And how did you calculate that, JPB. Do share."
How is that proving your point ? It's just more flannel and nonsense. Even on this irrelvant smokescreen you have nothing to say of any worth.
"Quote 2
Do you, or do you not, understand that if I were to claim a bet at 70/1 was not good value, and it subsequently then moved to 15/1, I was not necessarily wrong?"
====================
This has been adressed in detail in my previous posts including the most recent one. Again, your words are vacuous flannel.
"In summary, you're proving my point. Under no circumstances can you ever admit that you might have made a mistake. It's a fact that you're wrong. I know it's hard for you to take, but it's a fact nonetheless.."
=======================
More vacuous flannel.
Dave,
both the relevant arguments, and your irrelevant smokecreens have all now been discussed to death. No matter how many times we go through it, you are unable to make any relevant points which do anything to substantiate your position. That position is abjectly futile, as is the advice which you try to provide in the matters which you profess expertise in.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
"Here's a brief explanation: value a bet that is priced higher than you think it should be."
Just read this bit, and realised you don;t have the intelligence to understand.
Here's some more:
What I 'think' an odd should be is based on several factual elements of research and knowledge.Not whether I 'think' a player is 'good'.Hope that helps.
========================
It doesnt help in the least Dave. It is a total misrepsresntation of everything that has been discussed. It is also no defence whatsoever to the valid criticisms which have been made of the unsolicited advice which you gave. You based this advice solely on your understanding that markets tend to react after an initial shock. You did not take any other factors into account, include those which you have just described. For the avoidance of doubt, nobody has said that advice should be given solely on the basis that a player is good, however even if it had been, it would have been significantly better reasoned than the advice which you actually did provided.
I dont know where you have got that "quote" from, or what bearing you think it has on the discussion. Whereever it has come from, it has no bearing. As with a lot of your irrelevant ocmments it just seems to be a paraphrasing of what I have already taught you elsewhere on this thread, and which you clearly did not understand at the start of the ddisucssion.
Your insult about intelligence is again just more pointless meaningless flannel which does nothing to detract from the fact that none of your points have had any substance whatsoever.
Please refer to my previous posts which provide accurate assesment of the quality of the advice which you have offered and the quality of the advice which your comments have indicated you are capable of providing.
Please refer to my previous posts which deal comprehensively with all of the comments you have made on the previous occasions that you made them.
Sign in if you want to comment
England 1-1 France: Official Match Thread
Page 105 of 108
104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108
posted on 20/6/12
Mr C - You trouble maker
posted on 20/6/12
If feel after such a long war of words and this thread appearing in my recently commented long past its expiry. I too would like to second Mr C's congratulations.
Well done Dave!
posted on 20/6/12
Come on JPB... are you going to take this lying down?
Come on man! Hit him with another 5000 word dissertation on where you think he's going wrong.
Where's the Dunkirk Spirit.
posted on 20/6/12
what's the point ?
posted on 20/6/12
It is over Paisley.
JPB has in a way conceded that Dave is victorious. To start it up again would be to undermine a hard earned victory.
posted on 20/6/12
Don't ask me, I haven't read any of it
I'm just amused by the various war and peace sized posts pushing this thread to the top of my article list.
posted on 20/6/12
I haven't read any of it
================
no has anyone else. that's why it's pointless.
posted on 20/6/12
I never read it either except the initial exchange.
posted on 20/6/12
Paisley,
In summary, the discussion concerned Dave’s reply to another poster’s enquiry about Shevchenko’s price for the golden boot, in which Dave stated,
“You can get 70/1 on Betfair…this is a low odd based on a market reaction, and will soon go up again, in my opinion.”
A few minutes later the price went down to 15/1 at which point I stated “you said it was going to out a minute ago ”
A conversation about the point then developed between us.
During the discussion, I have said that in his statement, Dave gives 2 pieces of advice :
1. that the price represented poor value (it was “a low odd” )
2. that the price would “soon go up again” anyway.
I have pointed out that there was no qualification in the statement about factors which might mean that the price might not go up, and no reference to any factors which may affect the price other than the factor which dave advises will actually determine the price (I have actually suggested as well that it was impossible for this factor to have determined the price, but this is not the focus of the debate).
On the contrary Dave expressly stated that in his opinion, “this is a low odd…and will soon go up again”.
The key point which I have made is that any prospective punter who followed the advice would not place a bet at 70/1, because no rational punter would take a price that he thought would drift.
Dave, has changed his argument a couple of times, but what he stuck to in the end was that he did give advice a few minutes later in relation to the 15/1, but he did not give advice in relation to the 70/1.
In his favour Dave argues that :
a) the purpose of his reply to the poster’s enquiry about the price, was solely to explain to the poster about tendancies in volatile betting markets, and not to advise the poster on the enquiry which he had actually made.
b) he should know what he meant to put
c) the other poster should have known what he meant to put (no matter what he actually put)
d) it is/was a “fact” (not an opinion) that the 70/1 would soon go out again/ did soon go out again, even though he expressly stated at the time that it was an “opinion”, and even though it didn’t actually happen.
d) im the sort of person who wont admit when I’m wrong, so I must be wrong.
That's about it really
posted on 20/6/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 20/6/12
What about the ground share?
posted on 20/6/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 20/6/12
Dave, I missed some of your arguments off thelist
e) JPB has tried to tell everyone that he knows what I meant, better than me (I think this is the same as B though ?)
f) He has also shown a complete lack of knowledge of betting (DAVE - If you don't mind, can I add in a reference to your expertise in betting here as well ?)
g) JPB has made a claim somehwere (which dave would have found amusing if it was real or relevant or both or either) that if you claim a bet is bad value and it goes on to win, then you were wrong (I think this might be Dave burning to tell us the other thing he has learned about betting apart from the "bounce" ?)
posted on 20/6/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 20/6/12
Ok, bye Dave
posted on 20/6/12
posted on 20/6/12
Quote 1 shows you trying explain why a bet is value... because Shevchenko is a good player.
Now that is funny. Quite the professional.
Quote 2 shows you calling my 'advice' poor, because the odds went down after Shevchenko scored again.
Let's leave aside the fact (that you're yet to pick up on) that it wasn't advice.
Let's say it was.
The fact that Shevchenko scored again and the odds went down to 15/1 does not mean that calling 70/1 bad value was definitely wrong.
Would you like me to explain why?
=========================
Dave,
Why do you put so many spaces between lines in your posts ?
Re your explanation of the the value point, I can guess what it’s going to be. It's going to be the same irrelevant explanation that you have given at least 10 times already.
It's going to be your specialist bit of information that you are so keen to show off to everyone. It's going to be the bit of information that everyone either knew already or could work out for themselved anyway. It's going to be the bit of information that no one had asked about in the first place. It’s going to be the bit of information you based your wrong and misleading advice upon, because you didnt take other factors into account, and because you applied it in an unsuitable situation.
Regarding your other points, I know you are trying to
drag me into an argument about betting markets when what is the subject at hand is the advice you have given.
Although it is not relevant to the discussion and is a red herring, I am prepared to discuss the issues with you though that you, just to dispel any linger doubts that you or others may have that you have made any valid relevant points.
I have actually disproved all of your relevant arguments twice now on this thread, and all of your irrelevant arguments at least once, but you have blustered through it with your vacuous and irrelevant responses, interlaced with personal insults in order to get this far.
However, I am prepared to entertain you on these latest irrelevant points again, so, taking your points in order :
Re Your Q1 -
You've got this wrong as well Dave. Your suggestion that it is unprofessional to think that the likelihood of the bet winning in comparison with the price available, is not what determines whether the bet represents value, is total bunkem. Again it smacks of someone misapplying something they have been taught, because they do not properly understand its context, and because they do not have any experience in what they are trying to teach others. In fact, your point is just further evidence that you are misapplying the lessons you have been taught about betting markets. To make it worse, you are trying to preach your misconstrued notions to others, and worse still you are doing this when they had not even asked for the information.
For the avoidance of doubt Dave, and whilst it may sound simplistic to you, what determines whether a bet is good value, is whether the price is a reasonable reflection of the likelyhood of the bet winning. It’s as simple as that.
There may be other reasons for placing a bet, ie because you may consider that whilst the bet wont win, the price will contract at which point you will be able to lay it off or hedge the bet. This does represent a factor which a potential punter might consider as being relevant when assessing whether to place a bet, however this point does not detract in anyway from the definition of good value as provided above.
It may also be the case that a whole market may be under valued or over valued (rather than just an individual price within that market). That though is even less relevant than the other points.
Bringing this back in context, the point is totally irrelevant anyway. The only way this would be relevant is if you are arguing that you did advise the poster not to take the 70/1 but that that was actually good advice. It was not god advice dave, not least because 70/1 was a high price compared to the likelihood at that time of the bet winning. Furthermore, this has nothing whatsoever to do with your false and incorrect claim that the 70/1 would “soon go out again” in your “opinion”.
Re Quote 2
As stated above Dave, you have previously advised on this point with your elementary and blatantly obvious observation that a market will be more elastic with less money in it, and also that a price TENDS to readjust after an initial shock. This is not in debate. What you have done though as already pointed out several times on this thread, is fail to take any other factors into account and to base your advice solely upon this tendancy. As also pointed out, this factor becomes relevant where a bet is not in play. Because the bet was in play, the market would not or may not have time to adjust before another shock. Whether it did or not, by the time it had adjusted the underlying probability of the bet would have changed, so the new odds would never have reflected the same scenario as was reflected in the original 70/1. Notwithstanding all of this however, and as spelled out to you countless times already, your statement was not that this market readjustment was a factor to take into account; your statement was that the price would go out. This amounted to advice not to take the price, because no rational punter would take a price which he knew would drift. In fact though, the price did not go out, it went in. It’s as simple as that.
I would also refer you back to my previous comments of a few days ago regarding the recklessness of you continuing to provide professional advice which you do not understand yourself, and based upon principles which you are unable to relate to appropriate or relevant practical contexts.
posted on 20/6/12
posted on 20/6/12
i couldnt be asssed to edit that one
posted on 20/6/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 20/6/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 20/6/12
JPB - another essay.
=====================
No, another reprisal of the explanation of why your irrlevant points are incorrect. Explanation of why your relevant points are incorrect have already been posted seperately and are so unarguable that they appear to no longer be under discussion.
The point about value has nothing to do with the original point - because I wasn't discussing value. It's you that claims (incorrectly) that I was discussing value.
============================
Yes you did. You also expreslsy advised that the price would "go out" which is the main subject at hand, but you did also state that the price was bad value when you said it was "low".
I mocked your assertion that it was good value because 'Shevchenko is a good player' - anyone who thinks that value is that easy to gauge does not know what they're talking about.That's you, by the way. I question whether you know what value, in betting terms actually means.
==========================
I have specifically adress this point in detail in my previous post. Once again, you have been unable to adress this point because you do not understand what you are talking about. You have had countless chances throughout this thread to state what your point of view is, but you are repeatdely forced to come back to statements such as "its obvious you're wrong" "i know more than you" etc. And this is even on the non relevant points which you have tried to use as a smokescreen.
Here's a brief explanation:
========================
Where ? Where is your explanation ? All you hace done is quoted my factually correct analysis, and then add the words, "That paragraph is truly laughable....And how did you calculate that, JPB. Do share."
How is that proving your point ? It's just more flannel and nonsense. Even on this irrelvant smokescreen you have nothing to say of any worth.
"Quote 2
Do you, or do you not, understand that if I were to claim a bet at 70/1 was not good value, and it subsequently then moved to 15/1, I was not necessarily wrong?"
====================
This has been adressed in detail in my previous posts including the most recent one. Again, your words are vacuous flannel.
"In summary, you're proving my point. Under no circumstances can you ever admit that you might have made a mistake. It's a fact that you're wrong. I know it's hard for you to take, but it's a fact nonetheless.."
=======================
More vacuous flannel.
Dave,
both the relevant arguments, and your irrelevant smokecreens have all now been discussed to death. No matter how many times we go through it, you are unable to make any relevant points which do anything to substantiate your position. That position is abjectly futile, as is the advice which you try to provide in the matters which you profess expertise in.
posted on 20/6/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 20/6/12
"Here's a brief explanation: value a bet that is priced higher than you think it should be."
Just read this bit, and realised you don;t have the intelligence to understand.
Here's some more:
What I 'think' an odd should be is based on several factual elements of research and knowledge.Not whether I 'think' a player is 'good'.Hope that helps.
========================
It doesnt help in the least Dave. It is a total misrepsresntation of everything that has been discussed. It is also no defence whatsoever to the valid criticisms which have been made of the unsolicited advice which you gave. You based this advice solely on your understanding that markets tend to react after an initial shock. You did not take any other factors into account, include those which you have just described. For the avoidance of doubt, nobody has said that advice should be given solely on the basis that a player is good, however even if it had been, it would have been significantly better reasoned than the advice which you actually did provided.
I dont know where you have got that "quote" from, or what bearing you think it has on the discussion. Whereever it has come from, it has no bearing. As with a lot of your irrelevant ocmments it just seems to be a paraphrasing of what I have already taught you elsewhere on this thread, and which you clearly did not understand at the start of the ddisucssion.
Your insult about intelligence is again just more pointless meaningless flannel which does nothing to detract from the fact that none of your points have had any substance whatsoever.
Please refer to my previous posts which provide accurate assesment of the quality of the advice which you have offered and the quality of the advice which your comments have indicated you are capable of providing.
posted on 20/6/12
Please refer to my previous posts which deal comprehensively with all of the comments you have made on the previous occasions that you made them.
Page 105 of 108
104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108