1. Hi and welcome to Betnod. If you would like to view the forum without adverts then please register.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. slick

    slick Administrator

    Messages:
    9,628
    What blue writing on a blue background? you mean the faded bit?

    Also welcome to Betnod Yorkie, enjoy your stay.
  2. ONEDUNME

    ONEDUNME Administrator

    Messages:
    9,303
    well I've never noticed it before. it's hardly obvious is it?
  3. rcgills

    rcgills Moderator

    Messages:
    3,450
    :lol
  4. Yorkieacer

    Yorkieacer BEST GAMBLER IN WORLD

    Messages:
    2,257
    Just looked at your rules you've write out seems simple enough to do not much difference so it would be the profit only taken into account yeah?
  5. ONEDUNME

    ONEDUNME Administrator

    Messages:
    9,303

    I think that's the best way, yes.
  6. rcgills

    rcgills Moderator

    Messages:
    3,450
    Just seen there's no mention of the minimum or maximum odds in the new rules, are we taking that out?
  7. ONEDUNME

    ONEDUNME Administrator

    Messages:
    9,303

    Good point. Is there any need for it? If you're not going to get your 1pt stake back and you're daft enough to back five at odds of 1.1, you're not going to win much. Similarly, if you back QPR to win at Stamford Bridge at 15s, then fair play to you.
  8. rcgills

    rcgills Moderator

    Messages:
    3,450
    Think the minimum odds was probably more relevant under the old rules of including your 1pt stake in the returns. Under those rules, people could've backed 5 teams at 1.2, and as your returns are doubled for 5 winners, they'd be scoring 12pts. Under the new rules they'd only score 2pts for that, and as you say, they're not going to get far with that.

    As for the maximum odds, 10 or 15pts is a pretty big margin in the context of this competition (more so under the new scoring rules). For most of the competition, I'd agree with you that if you want to back QPR to win at Stamford Bridge, fair play to you. In the final weeks, though, I'd say allowing big odds like that leaves it open to people adopting a bit of a scattergun approach, backing 5 teams at big prices and hoping that they get lucky.
  9. ONEDUNME

    ONEDUNME Administrator

    Messages:
    9,303
    OK mate, I'm easy either way. What would you suggest maximum odds should be? What were they last year ?
  10. rcgills

    rcgills Moderator

    Messages:
    3,450
    Last year maximum odds were 6.0. Minimum was 1.5. Maybe remove the minimum, and leave the maximum of 6.0?
  11. Punter

    Punter Moderator

    Messages:
    6,443
    I'd like to see bigger than 6 if poss.

    I'm considering Dundee Utd this weekend and it's not like it's the end of the season. Single figures..9.5?
  12. Yorkieacer

    Yorkieacer BEST GAMBLER IN WORLD

    Messages:
    2,257
    I think the minimum should stay and same with maximum am I running it this year still? Getting confused here lol
  13. rcgills

    rcgills Moderator

    Messages:
    3,450
    Why do you think there should be a minimum, Yorkie (not criticising, just curious)? I could understand it last year, when stakes were included in the returns, as I explained above (post 28). Can't really see any need to keep it this season though.

    I'm easy in terms of the maximum, just as long as whatever we go for is decided before the start of the competition.
  14. Kegman

    Kegman Moderator

    Messages:
    2,069
    I also agree that there needs to be a maximum odds level set but you could let anybody pick any team but set a top limit as to what they can score for any match.

    If we set the top score for any match to say be 7.5 points and Punter picks Dundee Utd at 9.5 and they win instead of 9.5 he would score only 7.5.

    If we don't then someone taking a scatter bomb approach on say international weekends with the minnows at massive odds like San Marino, Luxembourg or Scotland (to save ODM mentioning them later :thumb) only needs to hit lucky once
  15. Yorkieacer

    Yorkieacer BEST GAMBLER IN WORLD

    Messages:
    2,257
    I think there should be a minimum otherwise it gets boring someone picking a load of 1.30s per week and when they come in and points doubled they will consistently get a half decent score. I'm not sure why rules really have to change they works last year but hey ho. As for maximum odds I'm happy changing that let's be honest if someone hits a 9/1 shot then fair play unless there consistently doing them :lol
  16. Yorkieacer

    Yorkieacer BEST GAMBLER IN WORLD

    Messages:
    2,257
    Forgot to say do people want a Christmas prize again or just stick to it being all end of the season?
  17. Punter

    Punter Moderator

    Messages:
    6,443
    Good shout imo.

    If you read the rules Yorkie, and as already mentioned by RC read post 28, you are not getting your stake back, which means even 5 x 1.30 shots doubled would not amount to a half decent score. A much better scoring system imo.
  18. rcgills

    rcgills Moderator

    Messages:
    3,450
    Think Betnod are putting up the prizes this year, Yorkie, no need for you to worry about that.

    Exactly. 5 x 1.3 shots are only going to return a maximum of 3pts. If they get one (or more) of them wrong (as they inevitably will quite often) and they're looking at a score of 1.2. If people want to play it that way anyway, that's up to them, but I can't see that being a particularly profitable tactic.
  19. Yorkieacer

    Yorkieacer BEST GAMBLER IN WORLD

    Messages:
    2,257
    Oh are they lol well the offer is there, yeah I suppose it wouldn't be beneficial I'm easy going on the rules as long as everyone agrees on them
  20. ONEDUNME

    ONEDUNME Administrator

    Messages:
    9,303
    Nobody wants to put your nose out or anything Yorkie, we just made the decision to go ahead because u weren't around at the time.

    You can get as involved as you like with the running of it- me and RC have said we will chip in with scoring etc so just let us know what you want us to do.

    As for the rules, Kegman's idea is a genius one- you can pick as high odds as u like but will only be paid up to a certain level.

    If last years level was 6/1 I don't see any reason to change that unless anyone strongly disagrees.

    No need for a minimum odds rule as has been discussed

    What does everyone think?
William Hill In-Play Betting
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page