It is good to bet in sports which are profitable and good to win a game.
There is no such thing as a profitable sports, everything depends on the gambler itself, sportsbook won't offer sports that they will loss their business.
Topic: Sportsbetting odds, which do you prefer? (Read 1190 times)
There is no such thing as a profitable sports, everything depends on the gambler itself, sportsbook won't offer sports that they will loss their business.
It is good to bet in sports which are profitable and good to win a game.
There is no such thing as a profitable sports, everything depends on the gambler itself, sportsbook won't offer sports that they will loss their business.
Martingale is just a strategy that needs pure luck or a higher probability to win in any gambling games.
It doesn't need pure luck, gambler use the martingale strategy because they don't believe in pure luck, they likely want to make sure they will win all the time using this risky gambling method. There has been enough discussion on martingale strategy and it has been concluded by most people that martingale strategy is of no use. The experienced gamblers never use the martingale strategy because of its high risk and low reward.
I would like to hear some of your comments based on your experience here.
Sports betting is one of the favorite games in gambling and I always wanted to experience a long term winning.
Therefore I'd like to get some of your opinion based on your experience, which is odds listed below gives you a better chance of winning?
a) over 2.00 or b) less than 2.00
The lower the odd the better the chances of wining that is why bookies uses smaller odds on a potential winning teams while using a higher odd for the weaker team, I usually accumulates the lower than 2.00 odd by betting on sure games which in most cases often results to wining however despite the numbers of my accumulated odds the values are still small because my maximum numbers of accumulation is four or five matches which I considered reasonable with a much lower risk unlike accumulating ten to twenty matches if a match is loss that is absolute or overall loss.Sports betting is one of the favorite games in gambling and I always wanted to experience a long term winning.
Therefore I'd like to get some of your opinion based on your experience, which is odds listed below gives you a better chance of winning?
a) over 2.00 or b) less than 2.00
That's not always correct.
Of course bookers use smaller odds for the favorites and they wait for the time that the favorite would lose, in order gamblers lose as well.
In my opinion, is more profitable to gamble on odds over than 2.00 as it is a balanced odd without any real favorite in the match.
I would like to hear some of your comments based on your experience here.
Sports betting is one of the favorite games in gambling and I always wanted to experience a long term winning.
Therefore I'd like to get some of your opinion based on your experience, which is odds listed below gives you a better chance of winning?
a) over 2.00 or b) less than 2.00
The lower the odd the better the chances of wining that is why bookies uses smaller odds on a potential winning teams while using a higher odd for the weaker team, I usually accumulates the lower than 2.00 odd by betting on sure games which in most cases often results to wining however despite the numbers of my accumulated odds the values are still small because my maximum numbers of accumulation is four or five matches which I considered reasonable with a much lower risk unlike accumulating ten to twenty matches if a match is loss that is absolute or overall loss. Sports betting is one of the favorite games in gambling and I always wanted to experience a long term winning.
Therefore I'd like to get some of your opinion based on your experience, which is odds listed below gives you a better chance of winning?
a) over 2.00 or b) less than 2.00
There has been enough discussion on martingale strategy and it has been concluded by most people that martingale strategy is of no use. The experienced gamblers never use the martingale strategy because of its high risk and low reward.
This thread is slowly getting out of discussion, martingale is not discuss here it's a flag betting using either odds above or below 2.00 in sportsbook.
Martingale are normally use in dice and not in sports.
Martingale is just a strategy that needs pure luck or a higher probability to win in any gambling games.
It doesn't need pure luck, gambler use the martingale strategy because they don't believe in pure luck, they likely want to make sure they will win all the time using this risky gambling method. There has been enough discussion on martingale strategy and it has been concluded by most people that martingale strategy is of no use. The experienced gamblers never use the martingale strategy because of its high risk and low reward.
Martingale is just a strategy that needs pure luck or a higher probability to win in any gambling games.
It doesn't need pure luck, gambler use the martingale strategy because they don't believe in pure luck, they likely want to make sure they will win all the time using this risky gambling method. p.s : if martingale doesnt require a luck then how do you think it will trigger ?
Martingale is just a strategy that needs pure luck or a higher probability to win in any gambling games.
It doesn't need pure luck, gambler use the martingale strategy because they don't believe in pure luck, they likely want to make sure they will win all the time using this risky gambling method. I see a few people try this parlay strategy,,, and you also see it in dice a lot.
Come again? I don't know that you can parlay in dice... Maybe what you meant is martingale, or betting on low change with high possible win?
I think martingale is a strategy will not bring nothing good and make lose a lot if try to recover with.
No question about that but the fact that this method is still popular, I can think of some possibilities that this is also working to some people doing it using the proper timing. For instance, I can do martingale in just 2 games like a race to 3 games if I believe this team should win at least one game.
I see a few people try this parlay strategy,,, and you also see it in dice a lot.
Come again? I don't know that you can parlay in dice... Maybe what you meant is martingale, or betting on low change with high possible win?
I think martingale is a strategy will not bring nothing good and make lose a lot if try to recover with.
No question about that but the fact that this method is still popular, I can think of some possibilities that this is also working to some people doing it using the proper timing. For instance, I can do martingale in just 2 games like a race to 3 games if I believe this team should win at least one game.
But the chance of win will certainly be much smaller right? the greater the risk the greater the odds. if you are not prepared for defeat then it is better to use a strong team with small odds its more better, the important thing is the chance of win is more bigger, that's the principle of my gambling
But smaller odds usually also mean bigger wagers to make some decent profit. And bigger wagers mean the possibility to lose more money if the bet doesn't go the way you planned. There is no bulletproof strategy unfortunately. There will be no bulletproof strategy in gambling. But there are still many opportunities to minimize the chances of loss, for example with the parlay system, I think this system is very effective in reducing the chances of loss, where we have to get the winning points first. Then gamble from the profits of the first win, but if the initial results lose, then the martiangle system can be used to cover the initial losses but are very risky.
Never rely on proportions to make predictions. Of course, the lower odds will always be the more likely option to win, but remember that odds are often misleading. In particular, it is impossible to comment on the question you asked, according to the rates, and the rates you mentioned are also impossible. You can never have the same ratio as the two opposite options you specify. If so, users can use their bonus balances in these options and cause a loss of gambling. Therefore, I think that there is no need to brainstorm too much about such events.
But the chance of win will certainly be much smaller right? the greater the risk the greater the odds. if you are not prepared for defeat then it is better to use a strong team with small odds its more better, the important thing is the chance of win is more bigger, that's the principle of my gambling
But smaller odds usually also mean bigger wagers to make some decent profit. And bigger wagers mean the possibility to lose more money if the bet doesn't go the way you planned. There is no bulletproof strategy unfortunately. There will be no bulletproof strategy in gambling. But there are still many opportunities to minimize the chances of loss, for example with the parlay system, I think this system is very effective in reducing the chances of loss, where we have to get the winning points first. Then gamble from the profits of the first win, but if the initial results lose, then the martiangle system can be used to cover the initial losses but are very risky.
[..]
I most of the times bet with chances lower than 2.00 but sometimes if I feel like I have won some extra over my target that I set then I don't mind trying some risky odds.
Also at times when my research on performances indicate underdog having a good chance then I also don't back down from betting at high odds.
im prefer join great match so its 50:50 chance.
Me I would not, the odds would be 1.90 and you already loss 10% if you win.
If there's more option in the line available, I would choose to increase it at least over 2.00.
For example, in basketball, both ML offers 1.90 but when you bet on -2.5, you'll get over 2.00, so I'm choosing the -2.5.
when you are fully comfortable with your knowledge about the game. There's always different styles of betting, and most of the time, if there's a good
chance to make your profit rise much higher, you're going to try your best in understanding the game.
I preffer odds over 2. I think is more easy to have more chances to win with and also if get a bad series then is more easy to recover if odds are over 2 and win.
Come again? I don't know that you can parlay in dice... Maybe what you meant is martingale, or betting on low change with high possible win?
I think martingale is a strategy will not bring nothing good and make lose a lot if try to recover with.
I see a few people try this parlay strategy,,, and you also see it in dice a lot.
Come again? I don't know that you can parlay in dice... Maybe what you meant is martingale, or betting on low change with high possible win?
I think martingale is a strategy will not bring nothing good and make lose a lot if try to recover with.
I see a few people try this parlay strategy,,, and you also see it in dice a lot.
Come again? I don't know that you can parlay in dice... Maybe what you meant is martingale, or betting on low change with high possible win?
I try with odds which are higher then 2, and accumulate max 3 of them on one ticket with lower stake which is always 10% of my bank. So if I bet on total odd around 10 with for example $100, possible win is $1000 and I have 10 chances to win with this system. If you fail to win at least two times in such way of betting, they you should stop to bet on sports.
I see a few people try this parlay strategy,,, and you also see it in dice a lot. The only difference is people who try this in sportsbet usually know their games really well. But to get odds of over 2, the teams have to be balanced even if you know them well, you can never tell their form until the game itself so the only way is to get live odds, which is hard to do for parlay.
Jump to: