No goalscorer

So_Fresh

I assume almost everyone here will know this, but just in case:

If you back "no goalscorer" rather than 0-0, then you will still be paid if the only goal(s) in the game are own goal(s).

The odds used to be identical, but I see Powers have started to factor this into their prices - for example, for the Glenavon-Cliftonville game tonight, a 0-0 scoreline is 11/1, whereas no goalscorer is 10/1.

I mostly use Powers so I'm not sure how the other bookies work it.

Virgo2011

As far as i am aware, if you back 0-0, and there is an OG in the game - your bet will be a loser, as the offical score would be e.g 1-0.

If you have "no goalscorer" from the goalscorer markets your bet will be a winner.

So_Fresh

Maybe I didn't make it very well, but that was my point - if you think a game will finish scoreless, back "no goalscorer" rather than the 0-0 scoreline to increase your chances.

Polar101

Related question: What will happen if you bet on the first goalscorer, and the player you picked scores an own goal?

So_Fresh

In this case you demand payment, the bookmaker refuses, and you then mutter some vague threat to burn the shop down and leave.

PCPhoto

I'm open to correction but the bet for "first goalscorer" is for his team...in the case of an OG he would be scoring against his team.

okidoki987

Nearly sure the T&C's state "own goals don't count".

jacool

okidoki987 wrote: »

Nearly sure the T&C's state "own goals don't count".

A 1-0 match with an o.g. would have you losing if you backed 0-0 (i.e. correct score), but winning if you backed "no goalscorer".