August 9, 2019 at 08:05 #1450733
- Total Posts 3078
Mine was a single football win and the love affair was over.
Wow, looks like my theory has been blown out the water now Matron.August 9, 2019 at 08:30 #1450734
Ginger, the name of the programme is ‘can you beat bookies’ the way that you are going on you`d have thought it was called ‘How to beat the bookies’Don't Eat The Pie and Don't Buy The S*nAugust 9, 2019 at 09:13 #1450737
Those two sentences go hand in hand do they not? If you investigate the How then you will increase the chances of finding out if you Can. If you find out there isn’t a how, then you know you cannot. They didn’t do this.
I was going to watch this but once i read the synopsis i knew it was nothing more than a gamble aware/bookmakers abusing mugs programme. The title is wrong, not the programme, as the bookies in Britain most definitely do need to tighten up their targeting of addicts etc.August 9, 2019 at 09:27 #1450738
Can you beat the bookies has a question mark
How to beat the bookies would be a full stopDon't Eat The Pie and Don't Buy The S*nAugust 9, 2019 at 10:48 #1450742
- Total Posts 1872
I did laugh at the courtsider – “my motivation is beating the bookies” while realistically he’s taking money from anyone silly enough to try to trade in-play low-level tennis in-play on the exchange from home. You’d last less than 20 bets if you tried courtsiding with a firm.August 9, 2019 at 11:41 #1450745
Can you beat the bookies has a question mark
How to beat the bookies would be a full stop
Point is Nathan; in order to answer the former, you must explain the latter.
This programme had no intention of doing what its title and introduction told us.
Entirely fake.value is everythingAugust 9, 2019 at 11:58 #1450746
He doesn’t know the answer to the latter though hence the question in the title ‘can you beat the bookies’?
followed by chatting/betting with so called pro gamblers to perhaps find out if you can not how to
How come you were not on the program ginge, would have been so much more informative but the tv company wants a bit of entertainment and viewing figures not viewers falling asleep over the odds percentage tableDon't Eat The Pie and Don't Buy The S*nAugust 9, 2019 at 12:02 #1450747
I presumed he was betting with firms on the small-scale stuff LS and just churning through accounts like wildfire? Snatch and grab type stuff if that is his method.August 9, 2019 at 12:29 #1450751
The courtsider was paying to use students betting accounts.
Rules of betting say a “bet” is only valid if there is a chance of winning.
Is there no rule to say there must be a chance of the bookmaker winning too?
Can bookmakers get their money back from this courtsider?value is everythingAugust 9, 2019 at 12:46 #1450755
Only takes a couple of minutes to explain how bookmakers work, Nathan. In a programme of its length is not much to ask. To answer the programme’s title it must be fair to all parties and this was not.value is everythingAugust 9, 2019 at 13:07 #1450756
- Total Posts 2103
The answer was given at the end of the programme. You can beat the bookies either through hard work or cheating.
Can bookmakers get their money back from this courtsider?
Not sure but as stated in the programme courtsiding is not illegal. But it seems if caught doing it the powers that be will eject you from the facility and ban you from ever going to another tennis match. I was quite surprised he had never been caught despite his long hair.August 9, 2019 at 13:32 #1450757
- Total Posts 5602
That is probably why he goes to the smaller tournaments where security is a lot slacker.August 9, 2019 at 13:40 #1450758
There’s boys at the big snooker tournaments blatantly trading the games in the second row, was clear as day on the TV
Surprised they get away with it but with more darkness and a lower level of betting knowledge in snooker i suppose it’s a decent target.August 9, 2019 at 15:16 #1450764
- Total Posts 2257
The answer was given at the end of the programme. You can beat the bookies either through hard work or cheating
I hoped they were going to show this conclusion so was glad they did. I liked that they showed the university professor scorning the “trust your gut” ad and pointing out that “The Professor” mate, that they made out to be the uncool fun sponge, was the only one with half a hope of beating the bookies.
I did think, like Ginger, they should have explained what an overround is- even by pricing up a 100% book on a coin toss and explaining that the difference between the evens that heads and tails should be, and the 10/11 the bookies would offer you on either, pays for Denise Coates’ holidays and her odds compilers’ kids’ shoes.
Then taken the presenter through the process of compiling his own book on a race, comparing it with the bookies’ odds and seeing if he thought there was a value bet in there, like GT does on his DLAP thread.
I thought they needed to make more of the work- the greyhound guy said “videos and form” but they didn’t really show the work. The presenter placed a bet at Stratford near the start- I would have liked a horseracing pro to get him to study videos, form and pedigrees for one race in detail and think out loud with him- really delving in deep to every single aspect affecting a horse’s chances including potential future targets eg is it likely running for a mark? They could have shown that racingpost ad with all the people on the bus, and explained that the bookies have a bigger bus, with better people on it, as well as the overround in their favour.August 9, 2019 at 21:15 #1450784
- Total Posts 445
Embarrassing drivel aimed at the Love Island celebration of stupidity class and firmly and cynically ignoring the basic but crucial fact that trying to win money betting on events that you have no knowledge or interest in will almost certainly result in total failure.
Shame on the BBC for peddling this hackneyed rubbish that assumes viewers are idiots and that people who choose to bet are part of a dimwitted sub class.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.