Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Out of the world cup, as a man city fan brilliant news.

England have feth all chance anyway.. so makes no odds surely?

A footballer, dont know, dont care.

Have they managed to coax Rooney down from his Rope Swing yet? Time is ticking and Monkey Boy is needed to ensure a last minute sending off to knock England out of the world cup...

I'm just annoyed that sky thought this story was worth interrupting my watching of the cricket with a fething newsflash! gakkers.

mattyrm wrote:England have feth all chance anyway.. so makes no odds surely?

then why are the betting odds so short. 6/1 third favourites. not even worth the effort.

No they have a decent chance. Rio Ferdinand is not the worst player they could have lost considering the quality of the reserves in that position.

And yeh I'd rather watch cricket any day J.Black but a bangladesh test, that's a practice match. And on a pitch that may aswell have been made from hardcore, it's a piss take.

I dunno, the pitch looks like it'll get pretty tasty in the next couple of days. Although it is in Manchester so it'll get rained off from sunday onwards....

...Was quite amusing how all the commentators, with the exception of David Lloyd, were bitching about the test being 'up north' and not next to their favourite restaurants in London

OT: MDG is right, we need to leave some fresh scottish corpses near the edges of Rooney's enclosure to get him properly gee'd up for the matches.

Hell yeah. Just leave us outside and we'll laugh ourselves to death

whatwhat wrote:

mattyrm wrote:England have feth all chance anyway.. so makes no odds surely?

then why are the betting odds so short. 6/1 third favourites. not even worth the effort.

No they have a decent chance. Rio Ferdinand is not the worst player they could have lost considering the quality of the reserves in that position.

The odds are short because of blindly patriotic idiots with money to spend.

6/1 is an absolute fething piss take.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Hell yeah. Just leave us outside and we'll laugh ourselves to death

Touche sir, touche...

But if you need any help with that, we'll gladly provide you with some mirrors

6/1 was the average starting price the bookies put up. They'd be doing pretty fethed up business if they offered odds that short when they thought England had no chance. That's called turning money down.

No, England have a good team. Not the best, but one of.

Mate im well into my betting, i dont know ANYBODY who would back England at 6/1.

Making them joint third favs is just ridiculous, do YOU know anybody who has backed them? (anybody who isnt an idiot)

Well into your betting yet don't understand why it would be incredibly stupid for a bookie to offer short odds when it could make money on long odds.

The world cup will be good crack. Football isn't my sport of choice, but there's nothing worse in my opinion than the 'i don't like football and I'm going to make sure you know it' attitude during a world cup.

And dismissing England as no chancers is just ignorant.

J.Black wrote:I'm just annoyed that sky thought this story was worth interrupting my watching of the cricket with a fething newsflash! gakkers.

You...

Watch...

Cricket. !!!!??!?!?!111ONE

Didn't you know that cricket was invented as a British government plan to promote the development of radio.

6:1 odds what a joke. Nice one bookies.

If they give England long odds it appears to be bad form letting the side down etc, so 'unfortuneately' their hands are tied and they have to offer narrow odds on England.

There is another side though, because England will get a lot of punters odds have to be short because if my some miracle the honest 20:1 odds come up and England wins the bookies are stuffed.

I hate football and dont gamble but I could see the atraction on putting a fiver on Eng-er-land, just to get in the spirit of things. However this is irregardless of the odds frankly.


...Just had an idea. Let me have a check, see if I can find a foreign online bookie and see what odds they are offering....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well thats strange, France odds varied a bit, England odds ranged only from 6:1 to 8:1.

Still I learned something, it pays to shop around. Odds on France varied from 15:1 to 22:1, huge difference in payout if they win.

What's the term piss take mean?

Mickey taking for you yanks

Back to this.

I couldnt give a hoot about the footy, but the social elements are interesting. I have been looking at online bookies and found a general treend of low odds for the home team, very likely for the reasons I gave above.

However the sites I saw still gave England more or less the same odds, so I wonder because i am in the Uk , even if I pretend to buy in euros in a French language website they might give me French odds for the France team, but still give my English odds for the England team because of my ISP tracker.

Anyone outside the UK willing to help out and look online or go to a local bokies at lunchtime and look for the England odds there. I suspect it might be different.

whatwhat wrote:Well into your betting yet don't understand why it would be incredibly stupid for a bookie to offer short odds when it could make money on long odds.

And dismissing England as no chancers is just ignorant.

WW, id love to go for a pint with you mate, i bet your a proper good laugh with your sunny disposition and your zany good natured one liners. Do you actually speak to people like this constantly in real life? Im curious as to how many times you have been assaulted.

I was clearly not dismissing them utterly when i said they have "feth all chance" what i meant was "a very slim chance but nothing like the ridiculous furore the press seem to be intent on creating"

And i clearly stated why the odds were 6/1, but why nobody would with any sense would back them at such a short price.

They have a slim outside chance, but it aint a 6/1 chance.

Orlanth.. im curious as the that myself.. although with online gambling people would just go there for better odds wouldnt they? I use betfair and they are 15/2 on there, which is just ridiculous, ahead of Argentina, France and the Netherlands.

You can get 21/1 for the French, and i fancy them ahead of England as well.

Rio Ferdinand once sprained his ankle while putting his leg up on his coffee table.
How the FETH did he manage that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:What's the term piss take mean?

Ha lol the yank doesn't know. now i'm piss-taking the yank. lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:

J.Black wrote:I'm just annoyed that sky thought this story was worth interrupting my watching of the cricket with a fething newsflash! gakkers.

You...

Watch...

Cricket. !!!!??!?!?!111ONE

Didn't you know that cricket was invented as a British government plan to promote the development of radio.

Cricket is so boring. end of. full stop.

Orlanth wrote:Back to this.

I couldnt give a hoot about the footy, but the social elements are interesting. I have been looking at online bookies and found a general treend of low odds for the home team, very likely for the reasons I gave above.

However the sites I saw still gave England more or less the same odds, so I wonder because i am in the Uk , even if I pretent toto buy in euros in a Fench language website they might give me French odds for the Feranceteam, but still give my English odds for the England team.

Anyone outside the UK willing to help out and look online or go to a local bokies at lunchtime and look for the England odds there. I suspect it might be different.

The concept of 'bookmaking' is that as punters place bets, the bookmaker adjusts the odds to reflect the money staked, to ensure that whatever the result, his payouts will leave him in profit.

The reason for low odds on the home team is probably because for obvious reasons, home fans are supporters and place bets on emotional grounds not rational assessment of the chance of winning. In other words, a lot of English men place bets on England and the odds go down.

He injured it in practice.

Damn embarrasing to loose the captain a week pretournament in practice.

Then replace him with a player who has never played for England before.


England will fall out in the quarter finals.
Australia will too.

England have odds of 6-1 because most bets in this country will be made to back England. This is more due to patriotism than a rational assessment of their chances. Because of the vast sums that will be wagered on England, the bookies have to take a safety first approach to England bets, as if they offered up honest odds and then we somehow won it, lots of bookies would wipe out their entire profits for the year.

Remember, when you going into a bookies, you are betting, but when the bookies take your money, they are not betting. They have done long, drawn out analyses of exactly how much money will be staked on each participant in the World Cup, and what losses they will take if they somehow win it, and compared this to how likely that is. They base their odds as much on how much money they can lose if someone wins the tournament as on how much money they can win if that team loses. The ideal result in the World Cup for bookies is that no-one wins the tournament. (Although, then they might be forced to return all bets as he best might count as void, so maybe not).

This is why it is actually newsworthy when bookies take a spanking on a major horse-race when a long-shot, or very heavily backed medium-odds horse wins, as it is such a rare thing to happen. Bookies rarely take big hits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and Rio is proably our most over-rated defender anyway. Despite Capello saying when he took the job that only regular starters who are in good form for their club will be picked, he not only took Ferdinand, but a whole bunch of other serial sicknotes and under-achievers too.

Frankly, Ferdinand at his peak a few years ago was very very good, but off his peak, he has a very fast drop-off compared to other players due to his lack of concentration, lazy distribution, tendency towards showboating and general lack of application. Having only started 13 games this year, he is far from at his best.

Fifty wrote:England have odds of 6-1 because most bets in this country will be made to back England. This is more due to patriotism than a rational assessment of their chances. Because of the vast sums that will be wagered on England, the bookies have to take a safety first approach to England bets, as if they offered up honest odds and then we somehow won it, lots of bookies would wipe out their entire profits for the year.

Remember, when you going into a bookies, you are betting, but when the bookies take your money, they are not betting. They have done long, drawn out analyses of exactly how much money will be staked on each participant in the World Cup, and what losses they will take if they somehow win it, and compared this to how likely that is. They base their odds as much on how much money they can lose if someone wins the tournament as on how much money they can win if that team loses. The ideal result in the World Cup for bookies is that no-one wins the tournament. (Although, then they might be forced to return all bets as he best might count as void, so maybe not).

This is why it is actually newsworthy when bookies take a spanking on a major horse-race when a long-shot, or very heavily backed medium-odds horse wins, as it is such a rare thing to happen. Bookies rarely take big hits.

Yeah thats about the size of it mate, we all get it, ww was just trying to be belligerant.

shrike wrote:
Cricket is so boring. end of. full stop.

Whereas football is some mystical drug that keeps our eyes open?

Try actually going to a cricket game before you open your mouth

Cricket is great.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Back to this.

I couldnt give a hoot about the footy, but the social elements are interesting. I have been looking at online bookies and found a general treend of low odds for the home team, very likely for the reasons I gave above.

However the sites I saw still gave England more or less the same odds, so I wonder because i am in the Uk , even if I pretent toto buy in euros in a Fench language website they might give me French odds for the Feranceteam, but still give my English odds for the England team.

Anyone outside the UK willing to help out and look online or go to a local bokies at lunchtime and look for the England odds there. I suspect it might be different.

The concept of 'bookmaking' is that as punters place bets, the bookmaker adjusts the odds to reflect the money staked, to ensure that whatever the result, his payouts will leave him in profit.

The reason for low odds on the home team is probably because for obvious reasons, home fans are supporters and place bets on emotional grounds not rational assessment of the chance of winning. In other words, a lot of English men place bets on England and the odds go down.

This is my point. Are you in Japan, or is your flag just fethed up?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:He injured it in practice.

Damn embarrasing to loose the captain a week pretournament in practice.

Then replace him with a player who has never played for England before.


England will fall out in the quarter finals.
Australia will too.

Hey, someone I can ask. Gonads can you go to a local Aussie bookies and ask for odds on England please. If that will not get you too many funny looks. Its for science.

mattyrm wrote:

whatwhat wrote:Well into your betting yet don't understand why it would be incredibly stupid for a bookie to offer short odds when it could make money on long odds.

And dismissing England as no chancers is just ignorant.

I was clearly not dismissing them utterly when i said they have "feth all chance" what i meant was "a very slim chance but nothing like the ridiculous furore the press seem to be intent on creating"

And i clearly stated why the odds were 6/1, but why nobody would with any sense would back them at such a short price.

They have a slim outside chance, but it aint a 6/1 chance.

Orlanth.. im curious as the that myself.. although with online gambling people would just go there for better odds wouldnt they? I use betfair and they are 15/2 on there, which is just ridiculous, ahead of Argentina, France and the Netherlands.

You can get 21/1 for the French, and i fancy them ahead of England as well.

Well, we scored more goals in qualifying than pretty much all of those teams. England have a good team and a good manager, and have a decent chance.

Also, betting odds do not just reflect the probability of winning (or whatever), they also reflect the high volume of bets as well as the probability of a high volume of bets to some degree. It's not just a simple case of 'England have a 6-1 chance of winning the World Cup', although looking at the other teams, and the form they're in, I'd say it wasn't a BAD shout.

That aside, most of you naysayers make me sick - get behind your fething team already! What's the matter with you? What a bunch of fething miserable, negative whingers our country is home to. Being negative about anything British or English all the time is not being 'realistic' - the reality is England are a good team, who consistently perform relatively well on the world stage. The same could be said about pretty much all British/English sports teams. Most country's fans would LOVE to be in our position.

I couldn't care less about Ferdinand's departure. Never liked him much as a person and he's overrated as a player.

Missed a drugs test to go shopping. Got banned and sat on his arse for a year doing sod all and getting paid £100K a year for it. And THEN has the audacity to ask for a wage increase or he will sod off to Chelsea.

Ugly fether too.

Yeah, he's overrated, like.