Can anyone beat this?

[csider]

well done. as for US...........

 

[Stinky Kat]

i have £2 Brighton win at 11-2 on bet 365

£11 big ones, lovely, now onto the Leeds book

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

let me guess - a PM of heartful apologies for going completely nuts and over board on what was meant to be a positive thread?

Anger management maybe U.S?

I think I may have a problem

 

[Brighton till i die]

I think I may have a problem

here u go Unc:

Anger Management Counselling In Brighton

 

[Brownstuff]

The actual scorecast odds Ladbrokes were offering on Sunday were 200/1 for Murray to score first and Brighton to win 3-1
These are extremely tight odds but that is why Mr Ladbroke is rich and i is poor.
It is not unusual for the online firms to offer prices double what the big 3 firms normally offer for this type of scorecast bet (as it is pretty much a novelty bet anyway). I was not surprised at the odds of 450/1 with Bet365

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

I apologise to Jerry and hope he has a great time spending his winnings. Well done.

 

[foul old ron]

William Hills online football prices are always better than their shop prices so if possible go online.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

wise words...my first win was a nag called Manchester Skytrain 50p at 7/2 on a hot July Goodwood day in 1984. Remember the thrill. As a wee thirteen year old I put the winning towards a new Fred Perry.

I well remember Manchesterskytrain. Won shitloads of money on that nag, and also on two others of the same era; Go Bananas and Provideo. Provideo, if memory serves, racked up about a dozen and a half wins on the trot and the price rarely dipped into odds-on. Hooked for life from that point on, me

 

[Gullywog]

11 year olds shouldn't be gambling, you could have technically voided your bets!!

 

[jezzer]

bet365 have always offered great odds on a first scorer-correct score double/scorecast whatever you want to call it, ive always been astounded at some of the prices, as us points out they should be much more reduced given their dependent on eachother, you try getting one up though, theres still one bugger who`ll pop up in injury time and cock it up, even if you do a couple of selections or your goalscorer scores the 2nd one!
the most profitable bet of my entire life though has been 1st goalscorers for the albion, when zamora and Knight were upfront it was unbelievable.

 

[Deleted User X18H]

Horse Manchesterskytrain | Racing Post

 

[Deleted User X18H]

I remember this old handicapper as well won me a nice few bucks in 1995 . 11 wins between April and July
Horse Vindaloo | Racing Post

 

[Nottseagull]

but 10/1 and 66/1 doubles up as 660-1, so 450/1 are reduced odds?

On Ladbrokes BHAFC ton win was around 40/1 and Murray scoring first 9/1 so that doubled is 360/1

These calculations are erroneous; doubles, trebles and accumulators are not worked out by simply multiplying the first figure. They are converted into probabilities before being multiplied, then converted back. Eg evens and 3-1 against are probabilities of ½ x ¼ which equals 1/8. This probability is equivalent to odds of 7-1 against (1 chance of happening to every 7 of not happening; get it?)
Thus in Kalimantan's example, 1/11 should have been multiplied by 1/67 to give a chance of 1 in 737, which is odds of 736-1 and not 660-1.

OK class-of-NSC, who will be the first to correctly calculate the odds of Uncle Spielberg's double?

 

[The Maharajah of Sydney]

It's 409/1
I calculate it a different formula to you .

40+1 x 9+1 - 1x1-1 = 409/1


It's simpler to do it when the odds are expressed in decimals ;
41.0 x 10.0 = 410.0

 

[Mtoto]

Well done Jerry, you may even get the ultimate accolade and persuade Bet365 to change their prices. 450-1 is very much the upper end of the range given those starting odds. Next time there's an 11-2 chance away from home with a 9-1 first scorer, the scorecast may well be 50 points less.

The bookies monitor these kind of prices constantly looking for any little ricks, as they are generated automatically from match and first scorer odds. Normally they build in more than enough margin, but this one may well have slipped through the net.

About 20 years ago I was working with a chap who knew a well-known racing tipster, who also took a close interest in football betting. He noticed that Ladbrokes always offered 80-1 about any match ending in a 3-3 draw, whereas every other bookie was 50-1 or 66-1.

He did some serious research, and decided this was a rick. The true odds, he decided, were around 60-1 and with 50-odd matches every weekend, that offered an opening.

The next Saturday he permed every single match in the country in 1p trebles, fourfolds and fivefolds (I saw a copy of the coupon, it cost over a a grand). He'd calculated that in nine of the previous 10 weeks, the bet would have either nearly trebled his money (three 3-3 draws), made him tens of thousands with four, or, on one occasion, hit the maximum payout with five.

That weekend, almost uniquely in the season, there were no 3-3 draws. And when he went into his local Ladbrokes the following Thursday, the odds on a 3-3 draw on the back of the coupon had changed to 66-1. Someone at head office had noticed his bet, done some maths and realised they were out of line.

 

[The Maharajah of Sydney]

It's 409/1
I calculate it a different formula to you .

40+1 x 9+1 - 1x1-1 = 409/1


It's simpler to do it when the odds are expressed in decimals ;
41.0 x 10.0 = 410.0

Should read ; 40+1 x 9+1 ÷ 1 x 1 - 1

 

[Nottseagull]

Should read ; 40+1 x 9+1 ÷ 1 x 1 - 1

Yes it's 409/1 but the formula is still wrong, I'm afraid - there's an error on both sides, too. And this is apart from the fact that it is devoid of the necessary brackets that determine which calculations are performed first.
So presuming you meant (40+1)x(9+1) / (1x1-1), the formula produces "odds" of 410/0. This is because 1x1-1 = 0 wherever you put the brackets.