[Football] Question for you betting people

[Dick Swiveller]

As I haven't got around to putting my iPod back in the car after its hiatus, I endured Talksport for a short trip to the shops. One of the ads was an Acca deal (Paddy Power I think) where you miss one and get a free bet. I am sure in the T&Cs at the end, they said that every leg had to be a minimum of 1/5 on. I always thought 1/5 was 5 to 1 on. Is 1/5 technically 1/5 on or just 1/5? Stupid things like this bugging me are on of the reasons I am sure I am a bit OCD but thought I would check if I am right to be annoyed.

 

[Normal Rob]

I think somebody who understands gibberish best answer this.

 

[Swansman]

Sorry. I bet a lot but fractional odds ****s my mind.

 

[Dick Swiveller]

I think somebody who understands gibberish best answer this.

I just remember the old horse racing results in Grandstand and I am sure if a horse was 4/11 then they would say Eleven to Four On. That would make 1/5 Five to One On. The ad says One to Five On which in my head is wrong. And is petty and insignificant enough to bug me!

 

[Deano's Right Foot]

As I haven't got around to putting my iPod back in the car after its hiatus, I endured Talksport for a short trip to the shops. One of the ads was an Acca deal (Paddy Power I think) where you miss one and get a free bet. I am sure in the T&Cs at the end, they said that every leg had to be a minimum of 1/5 on. I always thought 1/5 was 5 to 1 on. Is 1/5 technically 1/5 on or just 1/5? Stupid things like this bugging me are on of the reasons I am sure I am a bit OCD but thought I would check if I am right to be annoyed.

I think that "5/1 on" is 1/5. "5/1 against" is 5/1. Sounds like the advert is incorrect.

 

[The Andy Naylor Fan Club]

Written as 1/5, spoken as 5 to 1 on ( reverse the numbers ).

1/5 on is incorrect when said. In my book.

 

[Bozza]

Yeah, I'd say "5 to 1 on" if I was verbalising odds of 1/5.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

I think that "5/1 on" is 1/5. "5/1 against" is 5/1. Sounds like the advert is incorrect.

The terminology has changed.

The concept of 5/1 against/on has long gone.
Back in the day I seem to remember that 100/30 was also offered as an acceptable way of displaying odds.
Seemed weird to me that it wasn't 10/3

With the use of online bookies and the algorithms supporting them, decimal odds are often preferred.
5/1 against becomes 6 and 5/1 on becomes 1.2.

 

[Mackenzie]

5/1 on is 1/5.....so I expect each part of your accumulator must be 1/5 or bigger.

 

[Dick Swiveller]

5/1 on is 1/5.....so I expect each part of your accumulator must be 1/5 or bigger.

Yeah - but I am sure they said it needs to be higher than 1 to 5 on. After all of this, I probably misheard but I am sure that is what they said. So either say 1 to 5 or 5 to 1 on.

 

[neilbard]

Yeah - but I am sure they said it needs to be higher than 1 to 5 on. After all of this, I probably misheard but I am sure that is what they said. So either say 1 to 5 or 5 to 1 on.

Higher than 1/5 would be 1/4, 1/3,1/2

 

[Dick Swiveller]

View attachment 126153

Higher than 1/5 would be 1/4, 1/3,1/2

I get the odds, it is the use of the word on after 1/5 I don't get. BTW, I have no interest in an Acca or this deal. My football betting history is woeful.

 

[beorhthelm]

probably writen by someone unfamilar with betting terminology, mixed up.

 

[Dick Swiveller]

probably writen by someone unfamilar with betting terminology, mixed up.

Very probably - just a bit worrying that they work for Paddy Power!

 

[Swansman]

View attachment 126153

Higher than 1/5 would be 1/4, 1/3,1/2

Those beautiful decimals. Join us! Its easier.

£100 x 13/8 = **** you do I look like a rocket scientist
£100 x 2.62 = £262

 

[neilbard]

I get the odds, it is the use of the word on after 1/5 I don't get. BTW, I have no interest in an Acca or this deal. My football betting history is woeful.

For this instance, I would suggest what they are saying is you cannot put a team in your ACCA that is shorter than 1/5. They have probably just made a mistake with the language.

What they should have said is five to one on and not one to five on.

 

[neilbard]

Those beautiful decimals. Join us! Its easier.

£100 x 13/8 = **** you do I look like a rocket scientist
£100 x 2.62 = £262

But what if you only have £87.33 to put on.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Lost me. So glad I don’t bet

 

[pasty]

For this instance, I would suggest what they are saying is you cannot put a team in your ACCA that is shorter than 1/5. They have probably just made a mistake with the language.

What they should have said is five to one on and not one to five on.

You can include a team in the acca that is shorter than 1/5, BUT if the acca misses by one, you will not get the stake back as a free bet. That only applies if every match is longer 1/5.

I know this from experience. I wasn't aware of that rule, and had an acca before lockdown that missed by one. I queried why I didn't get the free bet and it was pointed out to me that one match in my acca was 1/6 so it didn't qualify for the free bet.

 

[Swansman]

But what if you only have £87.33 to put on.

Ehe... winners only bet round numbers though, because otherwise the betting companies algorithms will suspect you of arbing. Its difficult enough to keep them from limiting you as it is, no need to give them a reason to take a look at you.