Tonight odds

[Rowls]

The reason it’s done is precisely because you can’t score half a goal, therefore the result of the bet is definitive every time with no scope for contesting it.

But this would be true if the bets were placed using simple language like, "2 goals or less" or "under two goals".

Or even, in the case of a nil-nil draw you could use the phrase "nil-nil".

Why wouldn't the bookies use language as simple as this?

[Rowls]

If the wording upsets you then just bet on the correct score. EG 1-0

It makes perfect sense. And works on betting/bookies systems.

Like you say above, you're not a betting man, so I wouldn't fret over it.

The thing that I fret about and the thing that upsets me is the number of people who become compulsive gamblers and lose money.

It emiserates and demeans them. It ruins their mental health, their relationships and their finances. It wrecks lives.

*****

I was genuinley curious as to whether there was a logical reason for why these 0.5 increments were being used. There doesn't appear to be.

******

I *suspect* that online betting firms use constant A vs B testing to try and tease more money out of their punters. I *suspect* that these 0.5 increments are some kind of psychological trick. I do not know. I was hoping somebody might know more here.
Does anybody know of a psychological study showing increasing participation in gambling with the re-wording or re-phrasing or re-orientating of bets?
Does anybody here work for an online betting company? - If so, do you know if they use A vs B testing? Tell us more!

*****

If anybody is reading this thread and is considering their own betting and worried that it might be getting out of control please share your problems with somebody and seek out help.

https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/addiction- ... addiction/

[Greenmile]

Well, I'm always grateful when people who are smarter than me explain stuff which I haven't understood. I do enjoy learning things and apparently I'm fairly adept at taking on information.

However, I'm not especially interested in learning betting intricacies like this. My reasoning is that I'm happy to have a bet on the simple stuff every now and again. However, if I'm expected to learn a new system or way of looking at things simply in order to be able to make a bet then I think the bookies have stolen a kind of psychological march on me - I've already invested my time and energy learning these concepts for the supposed honour of placing a bet.

If you post about these concepts I'll probably read them and take them on but that's the reason why I haven't sought out this information independently.

This entire thread would suggest otherwise.

[Rowls]

This entire thread would suggest otherwise.

Lol.

I'll give you something that everybody wants to give away and few people want to receive: Advice.

I shared this on here once before to a chap called 'imploding turtle'. You seem similar to him in that you're a lefty and you're clearly fairly intelligent.

Here's the advice: If you're going to try and insult somebody then choose to lead on something they are insecure about. I don't ever claim to be super intelligent, but I know I'm not thick and you're not going to get anywhere by trying to claim I'm a thicko.

For the future, you should have gone straight to mentioning my baldness and skinny frame.

[Greenmile]

Lol.

I'll give you something that everybody wants to give away and few people want to receive: Advice.

I shared this on here once before to a chap called 'imploding turtle'. You seem similar to him in that you're a lefty and you're clearly fairly intelligent.

Here's the advice: If you're going to try and insult somebody then choose to lead on something they are insecure about. I don't ever claim to be super intelligent, but I know I'm not thick and you're not going to get anywhere by trying to claim I'm a thicko.

For the future, you should have gone straight to mentioning my baldness and skinny frame.

If I was trying to insult you, I would have insulted you. Nor was I trying to suggest you are thick.

I was simply making an observation that you have clearly failed to take on any of the information given to you on this thread by numerous different people in numerous different ways, on a topic you readily admit you don’t know much about.

You decided from the outset that x.5 odds were just a way of bookies using NLP to “Derren Brown” folk out of their money, and no amount of helpful information or explanation provided to you by other posters was ever going to change that.

[fatboy47]

It's the bookies I feel for. Getting skinned by all the smart streetwise punters every day.

[Greenmile]

It's the bookies I feel for. Getting skinned by all the smart streetwise punters every day.

Do I need to clarify that I’m not here to defend bookies? They obviously do alright for themselves and set odds that will always work out in their favour in the long run - they have certainly made a few quid off me over the years. There are also decent arguments to be made that they prey on the vulnerable and are a scourge to society (although millions of people can just enjoy the odd bet without it ever becoming a problem).

I’m just putting forward the (to me, pretty obvious) argument that x.5 odds are not some kind of linguistic sleight of hand to make people believe they are getting better value than they actually are.

[alboclaret]

The thing that I fret about and the thing that upsets me is the number of people who become compulsive gamblers and lose money.

It emiserates and demeans them. It ruins their mental health, their relationships and their finances. It wrecks lives.

*****

I was genuinley curious as to whether there was a logical reason for why these 0.5 increments were being used. There doesn't appear to be.

******

I *suspect* that online betting firms use constant A vs B testing to try and tease more money out of their punters. I *suspect* that these 0.5 increments are some kind of psychological trick. I do not know. I was hoping somebody might know more here.
Does anybody know of a psychological study showing increasing participation in gambling with the re-wording or re-phrasing or re-orientating of bets?
Does anybody here work for an online betting company? - If so, do you know if they use A vs B testing? Tell us more!

*****

If anybody is reading this thread and is considering their own betting and worried that it might be getting out of control please share your problems with somebody and seek out help.

https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/addiction- ... addiction/

You can suspect but it doesn't make it any different to what the usage is actually for.
I think you need to change the tree your barking up as your prey isn't in this one.

[Rowls]

You can suspect but it doesn't make it any different to what the usage is actually for.
I think you need to change the tree your barking up as your prey isn't in this one.

I'm interested in how these kind of things work and I'm broadly against the proliferation of gambling culture in the UK (although I'm happy to have legal and authorised betting).

What's become more interesting as the thread progresses is the intransigence of certain posters against the merest hint or suggestion that there could be something psychological in the phrasing of these bets. Is it likely that corporate bookmakers who make millions of pounds every year would leave something like this to chance? Do people really believe this odd phraseology is accidental rather than a deliberate choice?

As things stand, plenty of people have explained how the bet 'works' (thank you to everybody who has contributed) but nobody has suggested any kind of good logical reason as to why bets would be phrased and presented the specific way they are? One poster suggested it was to differentiate between 2-way and 3-way bets but this could be done with simple language like "Three goals or less. Stake returned if three goals exactly are scored."

Here's a couple of questions that remain unresolved:

* What is the difference between "<0.5 goals" and "nil-nil" or "0-0"? Why would the bookies choose the former phrase over the latter?
* What is the difference between "<1.5 goals" and "Less than 2 goals"? Why would the bookies choose the former phrase over the latter?

I've only got theories and suspicions about why they might do this, but it's something I find interesting. If we're lucky, somebody who works for an online bookie might get in touch and explain their reasoning.

[dandeclaret]

But it’s not about the target audience, its the software that betting company’s use

Definitely about the target audience. Less than 1 goal doesn't translate to enough humans clearly enough, and they fill the contact centres demanding a pay out for a bet that is lost. Under half a goal, or over half a goal has absolutely no ambiguity, so we get far less customer service contacts, and far fewer unhappy customers.

[claretonthecoast1882]

I'm interested in how these kind of things work and I'm broadly against the proliferation of gambling culture in the UK (although I'm happy to have legal and authorised betting).

What's become more interesting as the thread progresses is the intransigence of certain posters against the merest hint or suggestion that there could be something psychological in the phrasing of these bets. Is it likely that corporate bookmakers who make millions of pounds every year would leave something like this to chance? Do people really believe this odd phraseology is accidental rather than a deliberate choice?

As things stand, plenty of people have explained how the bet 'works' (thank you to everybody who has contributed) but nobody has suggested any kind of good logical reason as to why bets would be phrased and presented the specific way they are? One poster suggested it was to differentiate between 2-way and 3-way bets but this could be done with simple language like "Three goals or less. Stake returned if three goals exactly are scored."

Here's a couple of questions that remain unresolved:

* What is the difference between "<0.5 goals" and "nil-nil" or "0-0"? Why would the bookies choose the former phrase over the latter?
* What is the difference between "<1.5 goals" and "Less than 2 goals"? Why would the bookies choose the former phrase over the latter?

I've only got theories and suspicions about why they might do this, but it's something I find interesting. If we're lucky, somebody who works for an online bookie might get in touch and explain their reasoning.

The fact you keep asking the same question despite it being answered several times is a bit odd.

There are different markets for goals in any game. If you backed less than 1 goal and there was 1 goal then on some markets it becomes a push, backing either under or over 0.5 goals removes that. People who don't understand gambling would struggle if every market was the same but with different outcomes as you are displaying with each post.

**One poster suggested it was to differentiate between 2-way and 3-way bets but this could be done with simple language like "Three goals or less. Stake returned if three goals exactly are scored." **

You think that is easier to understand than under or over 2.5 goals ?

It is never easy to decide if you are being deliberately obtuse.

[Quickenthetempo]

A regular better would have cleaned up last night, as they would back No goal scorer, rather than 0-0.

[Greenmile]

I'm interested in how these kind of things work and I'm broadly against the proliferation of gambling culture in the UK (although I'm happy to have legal and authorised betting).

What's become more interesting as the thread progresses is the intransigence of certain posters against the merest hint or suggestion that there could be something psychological in the phrasing of these bets. Is it likely that corporate bookmakers who make millions of pounds every year would leave something like this to chance? Do people really believe this odd phraseology is accidental rather than a deliberate choice?

As things stand, plenty of people have explained how the bet 'works' (thank you to everybody who has contributed) but nobody has suggested any kind of good logical reason as to why bets would be phrased and presented the specific way they are? One poster suggested it was to differentiate between 2-way and 3-way bets but this could be done with simple language like "Three goals or less. Stake returned if three goals exactly are scored."

Here's a couple of questions that remain unresolved:

* What is the difference between "<0.5 goals" and "nil-nil" or "0-0"? Why would the bookies choose the former phrase over the latter?
* What is the difference between "<1.5 goals" and "Less than 2 goals"? Why would the bookies choose the former phrase over the latter?

I've only got theories and suspicions about why they might do this, but it's something I find interesting. If we're lucky, somebody who works for an online bookie might get in touch and explain their reasoning.

I no longer believe you’re asking in good faith (as you’ve said, you’re not thick), but I’ll try again anyway.

Over / under bets exist in a number of markets, not just goals in a football match, and it’s well understood that they only pay out of the outcome is over or under whatever the bet is. If the outcome is equal to the bet, it’s a push, or void bet. Therefore, in this market, under / over x.5 goals serves to ensure that no bet is ever void.

Why would bookies change the terminology they use for this one specific market?

Like any industry which is hundreds of years old, gambling contains a lot of terminology that may seem impenetrable from the outside looking in. You might as well as why they call it an “each way” bet, instead of a “half your stake on a win; half on a place” bet, for example.

It’s just a lot simpler to say “under 3.0 goals”, than your suggestion of "Three goals or less. Stake returned if three goals exactly are scored.". Why use 12 words to describe a bet when 3 words does exactly the same job?

[Big Vinny K]

Just had a quick read through this thread.

Only Rowls could readily admit this is a subject area he knows little or nothing about (I’m going for the latter) be then given an explanation by people who do know about the subject…..and then spend most of the evening telling everyone they are wrong.

It’s beyond weird.

[Greenmile]

Just had a quick read through this thread.

Only Rowls could readily admit this is a subject area he knows little or nothing about (I’m going for the latter) be then given an explanation by people who do know about the subject…..and then spend most of the evening telling everyone they are wrong.

It’s beyond weird.

It is very Rowls, isn’t it?

He then goes on to accuse others of “intransigence” for not unquestioningly accepting the weird theory he’s invented.

For all his intelligence and no doubt many other qualities, he seems to be entirely lacking in self-awareness

[alboclaret]

A regular better would have cleaned up last night, as they would back No goal scorer, rather than 0-0.

Ironically.
0.5pts more