# Speaker by Various Artists

## 144 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last

• But you can't win either, no?

Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7473 posts Report Reply

• I don't think that's the case. I could do the maths, but not quickly, and I have to leave.

Auckland • Since Jan 2007 • 2618 posts Report Reply

• It's a shame - sounds like we could have all been rich. Rich, I tell you!

Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7473 posts Report Reply

• (If what you're saying is true, then I'm off to sign up to two different betting agencies and then spending my life placing pairs of bets on sporting events based on the difference between the odds on offer.)

Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7473 posts Report Reply

• It's a shame - sounds like we could have all been rich. Rich, I tell you!

Mock away, pal, if it makes you feel like a big man, but beware; others may just think you're an arrogant dickhead.

For the record, my reasoning is as follows
(maths geeks - one of which I am not, really - , feel free to show where I've erred):

TAB offers* on:

(a) 'Will NZ be only unbeaten team at WC 2010?':
\$1.57 for 'YES' (ESP wins) and \$2.35 for 'NO' (NED wins).

(b) 'Will Paul the octopus be correct re: WC 2010 final?'
\$1.75 for YES (ESP wins) and \$2.00 for NO (NED wins).

So, bearing in mind that there MUST be a winner and that it MUST be either Spain or the Netherlands, I propose the following two bets:

(a) \$1000 on NO (NED wins) @ \$2.35

(b) \$1340 on Yes (ESP wins) @ \$1.75

for a total outlay of \$2340.

IF Spain wins, then return:
= (a):(\$1000 x 0) + (b):(\$1340 x \$1.75)
= (a):\$0 + (b):\$2345
= [Total] \$2345

IF Netherlands win, then return:
= (a):(\$1000 x \$2.35) + (b):(\$1340 x 0)
= (a):\$2350 + (b):\$0
= [Total] \$2350

Therefore, for a total outlay of \$2340, you get:
\$2345 (ie \$5 profit) if Spain wins
OR
\$2350 (ie \$10 profit) if Netherlands win.

Hence, as I suggested, you Can Not Lose. Scale up as required.

* or was offering

Auckland • Since Jan 2007 • 2618 posts Report Reply

• Mock away, pal, if it makes you feel like a big man, but beware; others may just think you're an arrogant dickhead.

I wasn't mocking! Well, only gently.

I shall ponder that. Your maths look good to my admittedly enfeebled brain right now.

Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7473 posts Report Reply

• Apaprently it's called exploiting arbs, and you can do what I suggested above - bet with different agencies based on the differing odds.

(They also do it on capital markets. Ahem.)

Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7473 posts Report Reply

• Ahh, you got there before me. Explanation here.

TAB odds now 3.50 Netherlands, 2.10 Spain, 3.25 Draw. Does that work?

Not if they draw, which seemed strange to me, as why is that deemed more likely than Netherlands winning? Am I missing something? Mansplains welcome.

Update: I was looking at Head to Head, so while you're about it, why is the Winner of World cup different? I don't bet at all. Can you tell?

AUCKLAND • Since Dec 2009 • 2607 posts Report Reply

• Thee-way odds ought to balance out. But I've covered myself in ridicule already once on this page, why make rash statements?

Really the question becomes: why doesn't everybody do it? It really is risk free.

(Although seeing as in NZ there's only one betting agency, a New Zealander would have to take some currency risk to exploit the system.)

Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7473 posts Report Reply

• Not if they draw, which seemed strange to me, as why is that deemed more likely than Netherlands winning?

Isn't a draw impossible? I thought that at the end of the final, if nobody has won they just stand there kicking balls at the goal until someone gets more - death by shootout.

WLG • Since Nov 2006 • 2264 posts Report Reply

• Those odds exclude extra time. And the draw is more favoured than a Dutch win simply because Spain go in as the favourites.

Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7473 posts Report Reply

• (I assume 3410 was referring to the odds for outright win, otherwise obviously there's no odds discrepancy to exploit.)

Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7473 posts Report Reply

• Thanks. My befuddled, flu-ridden head can even comprehend that. All this sunshine in Auckland, and I gotta look at it through glass.* Boohoo! Whining over, carry on.

* Ok, I could go out, but the light is just sooo bright!

AUCKLAND • Since Dec 2009 • 2607 posts Report Reply

• Okay, I'm an arbster and didn't even know it!

Gio, lets just put it behind us and carry on in a spirit of peace and understanding. :)

Auckland • Since Jan 2007 • 2618 posts Report Reply

• Seriously, though, I didn't mean to mock you at all. Honest.

Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7473 posts Report Reply

• Well, only gently.

Anyhow, we're both, I'm sure, sorry for offence caused so let's leave it there.

Auckland • Since Jan 2007 • 2618 posts Report Reply

• * Ok, I could go out, but the light is just sooo bright!

Me too. Isn't it a bastard--all that sunshine streaming in the windows and I am lying on the couch, with a damp flannel over my eyes (just got up to refresh the flannel and to check if my legs still work!!)

Got to share the sympathy around. Some consolation in hearing some of the Julia Deans solo release on NatRad--sounds good.

Screen & Media Studies, U… • Since Oct 2007 • 2557 posts Report Reply

• Hey Geoff. Just tried to sleep, and it felt like a new mountain was forming behind my eyes and nose. Will now try the perennial cure all and have some tea with lemon and honey.

Have to get up the strength for Rugby tonight, and the rest of World Cup.

AUCKLAND • Since Dec 2009 • 2607 posts Report Reply

• the drone arrangers...
Phew! that's one genie back in the lamp...
Lancaster Park (or whatever corporate name it now goes under) in Chch has followed Eden Park and banned vuvuzelas...
though we'll have to watch out when the French play in case the Jean Genet gets out of the bottle and we have to endure the blowing of voodoo sailors...
;- )

Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7939 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last