What a bet

myflipflops

cson wrote: »

As an fyi to those debating whether he'll get the 50k off an Independent; any Indo worth their salt will have signs in the shop displaying a maximum liability on any one docket to a certain amount - usually anywhere between 10k - 25k depending on the game [sports/horses/dogs/lotto]. So it's likely the punter will get a max of 25k unless the Bookmaker wants the publicity of paying it out in full.

Also; remember that a gambling debt is considered a debt of honour and furthermore it has no legal standing in this country. So if he took it to Court the Judge would likely just laugh at him.

All true but if paying up MIGHT put him out of business, refusing to pay WILL do so due to the publicity.

I guess any indy would put together a payment scheme if it would cripple him to pay out straight up.

Jigga

Diarmuid Kirwan is the name of the man who made the bet.

Collie D

Jigga wrote: »

Diarmuid Kirwan is the name of the man who made the bet.

Is that public info? I mean did the guy come out to papers and say he had the bet. If that's not the case I think it's poor form naming the guy on a public forum.

EDIT Nevermind. I just realised who he is. Apologies, Jigga.

myflipflops

Collie D wrote: »

EDIT Nevermind. I just realised who he is. Apologies, Jigga.

Not the referee surely???

Jigga

Collie D wrote: »

Is that public info? I mean did the guy come out to papers and say he had the bet. If that's not the case I think it's poor form naming the guy on a public forum.

EDIT Nevermind. I just realised who he is. Apologies, Jigga.

Poor attempt at humour by me, you may recall Kirwan's awful performance in the final last year.

myflipflops

Jigga wrote: »

Poor attempt at humour by me, you may recall Kirwan's awful performance in the final last year.

Ah right. Makes more sense.

Speak Now

Jigga wrote: »

Poor attempt at humour by me, you may recall Kirwan's awful performance in the final last year.

Remember it well, gave Tipp everything apart from the peno he gave to KK which should have been a 21

Collie D

Jigga wrote: »

Poor attempt at humour by me, you may recall Kirwan's awful performance in the final last year.

Was my bad. Didn't realise you meant the ref and thought you were naming some poor randomer. I do indeed remember his performance.

ft9

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: »

Remember it well, gave Tipp everything apart from the peno he gave to KK which should have been a 21

Does not matter in the slightest if it should have been a 21 or not, Henry Shefflin was never gonna miss what was probably the most important strike of his career. He would have buried it from either penalty or 21, he's a winner!

dxhound2005

Anyone in Kilkenny know who this is? I think it's probably an urban legend myself.

ft9

Im from KK and i think its a myth myself. If someone did request a price for this which imo is unlikely, and were quoted 1000/1 I dont think they would have 50quid on such an unlikely event at this price. surely a small bet at such a large price would make more sense.
And there is no talk about it around KK either, these things always get out.

Myth IMO

coughlan08

ft9 wrote: »

Im from KK and i think its a myth myself. If someone did request a price for this which imo is unlikely, and were quoted 1000/1 I dont think they would have 50quid on such an unlikely event at this price. surely a small bet at such a large price would make more sense.
And there is no talk about it around KK either, these things always get out.

Myth IMO

a small bet might in fact be €50, for that person,
for another it could be their max,its different for everybody.....;)

ft9

coughlan08 wrote: »

a small bet might in fact be €50, for that person,
for another it could be their max,its different for everybody.....;)

Fair point yeah, i agree 50 is small for some and big for others...

Theres a few on here who would consider 50 small stakes, so whens the last time anyones put 50 on a 1000/1 shot?

3hn2givr7mx1sc

ft9 wrote: »

Fair point yeah, i agree 50 is small for some and big for others...

Theres a few on here who would consider 50 small stakes, so whens the last time anyones put 50 on a 1000/1 shot?

When has a 1000/1 shot ever been as good as that?

ft9

baz2009 wrote: »

When has a 1000/1 shot ever been as good as that?

Its easy to say its good now as KK are in the 5th.
I would have considered it almost impossible 5 years ago, besides they havent won yet

Verance

ft9 wrote: »

Fair point yeah, i agree 50 is small for some and big for others...

Theres a few on here who would consider 50 small stakes, so whens the last time anyones put 50 on a 1000/1 shot?

...1000/1 shot that should have been 100/1!

coughlan08

look ft9,,its not about what the bookies odds are,,its what the punter thinks the odds should be..if the punter thought that the odds were way over priced which they were,then he was correct in placing a "small" bet on..in other words he was finding value in the bet,...

ft9

Yeah ok, i see what you mean. Hopefully KK will win now and he can collect!!!

coughlan08

well kk will win,the only question is, will he be able to collect.....:pac:
rule 4 and the likes,you never know what those bookies will make "up next":D

ft9

I hope your right, not that confident myself. I really do hope someone has this bet down, would be great to see. For some reason i doubt it tho

Kod-box

coughlan08 wrote: »

well kk will win,the only question is, will he be able to collect.....:pac:
rule 4 and the likes,you never know what those bookies will make "up next":D

Dont think there was any non-runners in the All-Ireland this year :pac:

coughlan08

Kod-box wrote: »

Dont think there was any non-runners in the All-Ireland this year :pac:

you forgot about cork,,ground was soft or something,,they never run/play unless its good...;)

Kod-box

I was waiting for that but i would have had Galway in there as the biggest non-runners lol

jacool

myflipflops wrote: »

No ridcule. If somebody does have this bet then your process is how the bookie calculated the price.

However, Kilkenny cannot be 3/1 for each championship. The bet implies that Kilkenny win the All Ireland each year so they will be shorter the next year.

Example:

Kilkenny win in 2005 @ 3/1. The are then 2/1 for the next years champs. They win 2006 @ 2/1 and they are 13/8 for the 2007 competition. They win again and they are 11/8, win again and they are 1/1.

The price gets smaller every year.

You are not mulitpying 3/1 x 3/1 x 3/1 x 3/1 x3/1. You are multipling 3/1 x 2/1 x 13/8 x 11/8 x 10/11 (prices are just an example, not necessarily accurate).

By the above logic, you are saying that if I back Man Utd to win the league five times in a row, I should get worse odds than going United-Chelsea-United-United-Chelsea or something. I don't see it. All it takes is for them to lose one year for the bet to be blown out of the water. Clearly the bookie didn't think they would do it (as someone said Galway and Cork were better then). The bookie offered odds on something that had never been done in the history of the GAA. Incidentally, when Kilkenny looked human this year they were on offer at 6/4 and yes, I did not back them. Aagh!!

myflipflops

jacool wrote: »

By the above logic, you are saying that if I back Man Utd to win the league five times in a row, I should get worse odds than going United-Chelsea-United-United-Chelsea or something. I don't see it.

You would get shorter odds on United winning 5 in a row. If they win 4 in a row, you have to assume that they have comfortably the best squad and therefore the are favorites for the 5th year. You are dealing with a scenario 4 years in the future so you have to make logical assumptions that may turn out to be wrong.

The Premier League is different in nature to an All Ireland hurling Championship though as factors like how much money a club has is irrelevant in Gaelic Games.

jacool wrote: »

All it takes is for them to lose one year for the bet to be blown out of the water

You still have to take each season as an individual event. When assigning a price for year 5, it's implied that they have already won 4 on a row so. You can't assign a price based on the fact that the bet may already be beaten.

The logic i have used is the correct way to work this out.

L'prof

myflipflops wrote: »

You still have to take each season as an individual event. When assigning a price for year 5, it's implied that they have already won 4 on a row so. You can't assign a price based on the fact that the bet may already be beaten.

The logic i have used is the correct way to work this out.

Maybe in your mind, but what about the fact that 4 in a row was the previous record? Cork have just won 2 titles in a row and and somebody wants to back Kilkenny for a record breaking 5? 1000/1 is fair enough I'd imagine.

myflipflops

L'prof wrote: »

Maybe in your mind, but what about the fact that 4 in a row was the previous record? Cork have just won 2 titles in a row and and somebody wants to back Kilkenny for a record breaking 5? 1000/1 is fair enough I'd imagine.

In terms of working out the price, the previous record is completely irrelevant to the chances of it happening this time.

If we were talking about this in the pub 5 years ago, we would be on the same wavelength - it can't/won't happen. That's just opinion. Calculating the price is a different matter.

It's not just picking a price you think is correct for Kilkenny winning 5 in a row, it's a matter of working out 5 prices for 5 different championships.

Saying that 1000/1 is correct means that they would be an average price of 3/1 for every individual year. How can that make sense when they were 3/1 the first year?? The logic is especially true in a championship with as few genuine year on year contenders as the AI hurling championship.

What you are saying implies that the fact that Kilkenny win it one year makes no difference to the likelihood of them winning it the next year.

If anyone can find me a bookmaker to lay me 1000/1 on Kilkenny winning 10 in a row, I'll have a couple of hundred on it.

L'prof

myflipflops wrote: »

In terms of working out the price, the previous record is completely irrelevant to the chances of it happening this time.

If we were talking about this in the pub 5 years ago, we would be on the same wavelength - it can't/won't happen. That's just opinion. Calculating the price is a different matter.

It's not just picking a price you think is correct for Kilkenny winning 5 in a row, it's a matter of working out 5 prices for 5 different championships.

Saying that 1000/1 is correct means that they would be an average price of 3/1 for every individual year. How can that make sense when they were 3/1 the first year?? The logic is especially true in a championship with as few genuine year on year contenders as the AI hurling championship.

What you are saying implies that the fact that Kilkenny win it one year makes no difference to the likelihood of them winning it the next year.

If anyone can find me a bookmaker to lay me 1000/1 on Kilkenny winning 10 in a row, I'll have a couple of hundred on it.

I know exactly what you're saying, but I really don'y think you can ignore the fact that it's never been done before and that adds more value to the bet, imo of course.

Verance

L'prof wrote: »

I know exactly what you're saying, but I really don'y think you can ignore the fact that it's never been done before and that adds more value to the bet, imo of course.

Well the bookies disagree, they work the odds out the way myflipflops has, that's why no bookie would have layed 1000/1.

Are you one of those people who thinks that if a favourite hasn't won all day the next fav has a better chance of winning?

myflipflops

L'prof wrote: »

I know exactly what you're saying, but I really don'y think you can ignore the fact that it's never been done before and that adds more value to the bet, imo of course.

OK, fair point.

You work out the straight price and then add another bit for the lack of a historical comparison for the achievement. Factoring in a 10/1 shot to multiply by 100/1 to get to 1000/1 is still way too much for me. Maybe by 2 for a 200/1.