Tonight odds

[wilks_bfc]

Just looking at the odds for tonight game

A result of 0-0 is 15/2
Under 0.5 goals scored (aka 0-0) is 9/1

How does that work? Why aren’t they the same odds?

[Rowls]

And why do they use "under 0.5 goals"? It's not possible to score half a goal, so why do they do it?

Be interesting to hear why people think this is done.

[daveisaclaret]

It's likely caused by the bookie automatically lowering the odds on something when an unexpectedly high volume of bets is placed.

[wilks_bfc]

And why do they use "under 0.5 goals"? It's not possible to score half a goal, so why do they do it?

Be interesting to hear why people think this is done.

As a programmer, I can understand using .5 as its “clearer” than using full values, especially on online betting programming

Even though saying <1 may mean 0 some might see it as the same as less than or equal to 1, whereas saying <0.5 there is no ambiguity

[Darnhill Claret]

Walks has it. It is to avoid any confusion. Some firms still do it to whole numbers. Some do both, 0.5 in general odds and whole numbers in 'bet builders', where they might list, under, over and exactly.

[Darnhill Claret]

Occasionally there might be a discrepancy, as Wilks pointed out in the opening post.
That is when you take advantage of the better offer.
Someone said elsewhere that 0-0 is usually around 5/1. Not so, it depends if the two teams are considered closely matched, and if they are low scorers.
5/1 is usually the lowest and I've recently seen 11/1. I would say that the average is usually somewhere in the middle.
1-1 is usually accepted as the lowest price usually between 9/2 and 6/1. Last night Chelsea v West Ham, 1-1 was 11/1.

[Darnhill Claret]

For people betting on correct scores always check that the price list is either H/T or F/T, depending which one you want.

[Rileybobs]

Most bookies are already paying out on a 0-0.

[Tall Paul]

And why do they use "under 0.5 goals"? It's not possible to score half a goal, so why do they do it?

Be interesting to hear why people think this is done.

Because you can bet on under (or over) 1.0 goals and get your stake back if there is exactly one goal scored in the match.

[andyh]

Best odds are often on the goalscorer market as “no goalscorer”. Why you ask? Because o.g. get ignored by most bookies on goalscorer markets so 1-0 with an o.g. still counts as a winning bet.

[Rowls]

As a programmer, I can understand using .5 as its “clearer” than using full values, especially on online betting programming

Even though saying <1 may mean 0 some might see it as the same as less than or equal to 1, whereas saying <0.5 there is no ambiguity

This only makes sense to me if the target audience were robots.

[Rowls]

Because you can bet on under (or over) 1.0 goals and get your stake back if there is exactly one goal scored in the match.

But “1.0 goals” is the same as “1 goal” ??

Can’t the bets you’re talking about here be easily rephrased without using the nonexistent “half a goal”??

[wilks_bfc]

This only makes sense to me if the target audience were robots.

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

[Rowls]

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

We'll have to disagree here. I think that EVERYTHING the betting companies do is very, very much to do with targeting their audience.

I don't think this 'half a goal' malarky is there for the convenience of their programmers.

[Rowls]

Even though saying <1 may mean 0 some might see it as the same as less than or equal to 1, whereas saying <0.5 there is no ambiguity

Obviously, "<1" and "0" mean the same thing in terms of goals scored because goals can only be scored in integers.

I'm not sure why the bookies choose silly language like "less than 0.5 goals" but I'm convinced it will be because it's better for them financially.

I'm not much of a betting man but here's one of the few things I'd wager on with a degree of confidence: I'd bet the bookies have A vs B testing showing that "less than 0.5 goals" hooks in more gamblers better than "less than one goal". Even though they are exactly the same thing.

What might not be known is the reason why, but if anyone can think of an alternative logical reason why it would be interesting to hear it.

[FCBurnley]

Betting in the states uses .5 all the time especially on over under bets. EG in the upcoming Super Bowl you can bet over or under on total points scored. Vegas bookies set the total eg 44.5 and you bet if you think over or under that number. So 44 is under and 45 is over. I think it’s pretty clear and a decent fun bet

[Rowls]

Occasionally there might be a discrepancy, as Wilks pointed out in the opening post.
That is when you take advantage of the better offer.
Someone said elsewhere that 0-0 is usually around 5/1. Not so, it depends if the two teams are considered closely matched, and if they are low scorers.
5/1 is usually the lowest and I've recently seen 11/1. I would say that the average is usually somewhere in the middle.
1-1 is usually accepted as the lowest price usually between 9/2 and 6/1. Last night Chelsea v West Ham, 1-1 was 11/1.

It's an interesting theory. We don't know from the OP whether these odds are being offered by the same bookmaker.

Even if they aren't - it might be wise to ask ourselves if it is a real "discrepancy" or if it's some kind of psychological technique to encourage us to gamble more.

After all, encouraging us to gamble more is goal of every bookmaker out there.

When it comes to discrepancies and taking advantage of them it might be best to exercise a massive dose of scepticism. Bookmakers are constantly taking advantage of compulsive and addictive nature of gambling - that's their business.

There was a recent high profile case involving the son of a famous Claret who had raised extremely large sums of investment capital to launch a company that he claimed was going to take advantage of discrepancies in betting markets and make huge, huge amounts of money.

Obviously, the scheme did not work and the investors have lost lots and lots of money. It turns out the ones taking advantage were the bookmakers and the only discrepancies are in the gulf between the money promised to investors and the the reality of losing lots of money.

This is how bookies thrive - making people think they're onto some kind of guaranteed or easy win.

[wilks_bfc]

It's an interesting theory. We don't know from the OP whether these odds are being offered by the same bookmaker.

Even if they aren't - it might be wise to ask ourselves if it is a real "discrepancy" or if it's some kind of psychological technique to encourage us to gamble more.

After all, encouraging us to gamble more is goal of every bookmaker out there.

When it comes to discrepancies and taking advantage of them it might be best to exercise a massive dose of scepticism. Bookmakers are constantly taking advantage of compulsive and addictive nature of gambling - that's their business.

There was a recent high profile case involving the son of a famous Claret who had raised extremely large sums of investment capital to launch a company that he claimed was going to take advantage of discrepancies in betting markets and make huge, huge amounts of money.

Obviously, the scheme did not work and the investors have lost lots and lots of money. It turns out the ones taking advantage were the bookmakers and the only discrepancies are in the gulf between the money promised to investors and the the reality of losing lots of money.

This is how bookies thrive - making people think they're onto some kind of guaranteed or easy win.

Both odd were with SkyBet

I’m not looking to make either bets, I was just curious what the odds were for another 0-0, then wondered if the odd on no goals being scored would be the same

[Rowls]

Betting in the states uses .5 all the time especially on over under bets. EG in the upcoming Super Bowl you can bet over or under on total points scored. Vegas bookies set the total eg 44.5 and you bet if you think over or under that number. So 44 is under and 45 is over. I think it’s pretty clear and a decent fun bet

I can see how that works to make it slightly easier to quickly express the bet. "Under/Over 44.5" is good shorthand. But it's still the same as "Under 45 or over 44".

It's slightly different in the OP though as we can't go below zero goals (even if we've tried hard this season). How is a bookie advertising "less than 0.5 goals" any different to a bookie advertising "nil-nil"?? Isn't it exactly the same thing?

Equally, how is "less than 2.5 goals" any different from "less than 3 goals"?? These are exactly the same thing, aren't they??

[StuffyClaret]

What might not be known is the reason why, but if anyone can think of an alternative logical reason why it would be interesting to hear it.

The logical reason is that 'less than/<' one goal is more ambiguous than 'less than/<' 0.5 goals. Less educated folk may interpret the former as including one goal i.e. less than or equal to, whereas (as stated earlier) there can be no ambiguity with less than half a goal (as the result can only be a positive integer).

There is therefore a lot smaller likelihood of dissatisfied punters claiming winning bets that clearly aren't winners

[Rowls]

Both odd were with SkyBet

I’m not looking to make either bets, I was just curious what the odds were for another 0-0, then wondered if the odd on no goals being scored would be the same

Ah, yes.

This IS a well known psychological trick in order to encourage people to part with their money.

It has many different forms and there are many ways to utilise it but it's comparitive pricing encouraging people to falsely believe they've "discovered" something the bookies have missed.

Here's something "fun" to do the next time you go to a fast food outlet: You'll notice at the doorway / entrance an advertisement for something that isn't especially good value. In McDonalds it might be something like, "Fillet of fish - £2.39". By the time you get to the ordering area, you'll be informed that Big Macs (which is what you wanted in the first place) are £1.99.

What McDonalds want is to set up a mental comparison in your head between the fillet of fish and the bigmac. We struggle to make value judgements without the ability to compare so by setting the price side-by-side it makes the bigmac seem "better value".

They'll pull the same trick when you order - if you try to order a bigmac on its own you'll be advised that you can have a "meal deal" for only "£1.30£ extra. They might even tell you how much this "saves".

Even if you only wanted the burger when you walked into McDonalds you're far more likely to buy the chips and the fizzy drink when they're presented in this manner - as a "saving" compared to the indivdual price compared to how much they are as part of the "meal deal".

*****

The two bets are obviously the same.

"Nil-nil" is clearly the same as "less than 0.5 goals".

But this psychological trick will make many people think they've "discovered" a "discrepancy" here.

It's a psychological trick designed to get you to gamble more of your own money.

[Rowls]

The logical reason is that 'less than/<' one goal is more ambiguous than 'less than/<' 0.5 goals. Less educated folk may interpret the former as including one goal i.e. less than or equal to, whereas (as stated earlier) there can be no ambiguity with less than half a goal (as the result can only be a positive integer).

There is therefore a lot smaller likelihood of dissatisfied punters claiming winning bets that clearly aren't winners

We all know they mean exactly the same thing. How many people won't realise this? I'm far from convinced the language is designed to limit the amount of dissatisfied punters. How much ambiguity is there really in "less than one goal" or "nil-nil"?

Maybe avoiding ambiguity is a tiny part of the reasoning? Maybe. Maybe not.

Surely it's more likely to do with the bookies wanting to take more money out of our pockets? Wouldn't their lust for profits be a more likely explanation?

[Rowls]

A couple of mildly interesting articles about pricing psychology:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_pricing

https://www.netsuite.com/portal/resourc ... cing.shtml

[Herts Clarets]

So could you bet for example a treble on correct score 0-0, less than 0.5 goals and no goal scorer?

[Rowls]

A few interesting things to note from wilks_bfc's screen cap:

* The bets are the same thing
* The worse value odds are on put against the most obvious way to describe the bet (ie. "0-0")
* The worse odds (15/2) is a trickier calculation than the better odds (9/1)
* The margin of difference between the odds is still relatively small - it's 15% better.

None of these "discrepancies" is going to be an accident or the result of somebody at Sky Bet 'missing' something. These are all deliberate decisions designed to trick you into parting with your earnings.

[claretonthecoast1882]

So could you bet for example a treble on correct score 0-0, less than 0.5 goals and no goal scorer?

No they are related bets so could only do singles on those selections

[Rowls]

So could you bet for example a treble on correct score 0-0, less than 0.5 goals and no goal scorer?

Yes, but 'no goal scorer' is ever so slightly slightly different if it doesn't discount own goals.

Edit - "No, but..."

My error there!

[StuffyClaret]

Regardless of any perceived 'pricing psychology', if you had put a fiver on every Burnley league game this season ending up 0-0 or less than one goal at nominal odds of 5/1, you would have spent £150 but would have £300 winnings.

[Greenmile]

But “1.0 goals” is the same as “1 goal” ??

Can’t the bets you’re talking about here be easily rephrased without using the nonexistent “half a goal”??

Maybe this will help clear up your confusion

https://www.honestbettingreviews.com/under-1-meaning/

To summarise, if a game ends 1-0, and your bet is “under 0.5 goals” you win nowt; if your bet is “under 1 goal”, you get your stake back.

Whilst I’ve no doubt bookies are happy to use whatever psychological tricks they can to make a few more quid (and this may be what’s happening in the OP’s example), “under 0.5 goals” is a different bet to “under 1 goal”.

[Tall Paul]

I should have known it wasn't a genuine question

[alboclaret]

Obviously, "<1" and "0" mean the same thing in terms of goals scored because goals can only be scored in integers.

I'm not sure why the bookies choose silly language like "less than 0.5 goals" but I'm convinced it will be because it's better for them financially.

I'm not much of a betting man but here's one of the few things I'd wager on with a degree of confidence: I'd bet the bookies have A vs B testing showing that "less than 0.5 goals" hooks in more gamblers better than "less than one goal". Even though they are exactly the same thing.

What might not be known is the reason why, but if anyone can think of an alternative logical reason why it would be interesting to hear it.

It's not really for 0.5 it's for under/over markets
I.e under 2.5 goals or over 2.5 goals. It's then clear. If you pick over 2.5, so atleast 3, then there is no confusion if someone thought it meant 2 AND over.
It's quite simple and makes perfect sense.

[Rowls]

Maybe this will help clear up your confusion

https://www.honestbettingreviews.com/under-1-meaning/

To summarise, if a game ends 1-0, and your bet is “under 0.5 goals” you win nowt; if your bet is “under 1 goal”, you get your stake back.

Whilst I’ve no doubt bookies are happy to use whatever psychological tricks they can to make a few more quid (and this may be what’s happening in the OP’s example), “under 0.5 goals” is a different bet to “under 1 goal”.

That draws a distinction between the two descriptions but it doesn't explain why the wording still makes no sense:

A score of 1-0 is NOT "under 1 goal". 1 goal = 1 goal.

1-0 to either side =/= "Under 1.0 goals"

"Under 1.0 goals" is trickier to understand and it makes no logical sense if it includes money back when 1 goal has been scored.

So the question remains, why wouldn't they rephrase call the bet "1 goal or less"?

After all, this is easier to understand AND makes sense.

[Rowls]

It's not really for 0.5 it's for under/over markets
I.e under 2.5 goals or over 2.5 goals. It's then clear. If you pick over 2.5, so atleast 3, then there is no confusion if someone thought it meant 2 AND over.
It's quite simple and makes perfect sense.

It doesn't really make sense. It adds a layer of confusion regarding the 'half a goal'.

The tricky question is, why don't they just say, "1 goal or less"?

[Tall Paul]

It's really easy to understand. There's a line and the bet is over or under that line, if the line is hit exactly the bet is a push and stakes are returned. The lines are set at half goals so that it's impossible for a bet to be a push.

[Greenmile]

…So the question remains, why wouldn't they rephrase call the bet "1 goal or less"?…

Maybe because they paid attention to their English lessons at school?

[Greenmile]

That draws a distinction between the two descriptions but it doesn't explain why the wording still makes no sense:

A score of 1-0 is NOT "under 1 goal". 1 goal = 1 goal.

1-0 to either side =/= "Under 1.0 goals"

"Under 1.0 goals" is trickier to understand and it makes no logical sense if it includes money back when 1 goal has been scored.

So the question remains, why wouldn't they rephrase call the bet "1 goal or less"?

After all, this is easier to understand AND makes sense.

You’re right, of course, that a 1-0 scoreline is not “under 1 goal”, but then your bet wouldn’t win in these circumstances; you’d just get your stake back. This is also the reason they can’t call the bet “1 goal or less” (sic), as that would be misleading.

All this info is relatively easy to find on any gambling website or at a physical bookies. It’s not some kind of sneaky trick.

[Tall Paul]

If you struggle to understand x.5 goal lines, x.25 and x,75 might just blow your mind.

[JR1882]

And why do they use "under 0.5 goals"? It's not possible to score half a goal, so why do they do it?

Be interesting to hear why people think this is done.

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.

[alboclaret]

It doesn't really make sense. It adds a layer of confusion regarding the 'half a goal'.

The tricky question is, why don't they just say, "1 goal or less"?

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.

[Devils_Advocate]

I've lumped £20 on this thread for Rowls Over 28.5 posts

[PremierLeagueClass]

Obviously, "<1" and "0" mean the same thing in terms of goals scored because goals can only be scored in integers.

I'm not sure why the bookies choose silly language like "less than 0.5 goals" but I'm convinced it will be because it's better for them financially.

I'm not much of a betting man but here's one of the few things I'd wager on with a degree of confidence: I'd bet the bookies have A vs B testing showing that "less than 0.5 goals" hooks in more gamblers better than "less than one goal". Even though they are exactly the same thing.

What might not be known is the reason why, but if anyone can think of an alternative logical reason why it would be interesting to hear it.

I imagine you’ve already decided what the reason is in the world of Rowls and won’t be swayed by anything so trivial as the facts.

But I’ll give it a go anyway.

It’s very straightforward, bookies offer 2-way markets and 3-way markets. So you’ll have over and under in a 2-way, which is where the .5 comes in.

You’ll then have over, under and exactly in a 3-way market. This is where you’ll see under 1, exactly 1 and over 1.

Simple as that.

[Tufty]

I'm not a betting men but a return of £42 for a £5 bet on 0-0 sounds excellent. Easy money !

[Taffy on the wing]

It's almost as if the Universe was listening.........1-0 but an Oxford own goal.

[Rowls]

I've lumped £20 on this thread for Rowls Over 28.5 posts

Lol.

[pauliopaulio]

I’m more annoyed that I was going to back No Goalscorer but then did under 0.5 goals on SkyBet due to this thread. So the bookies get my £5er.

I blame Rowls

[Rowls]

I imagine you’ve already decided what the reason is in the world of Rowls and won’t be swayed by anything so trivial as the facts.
But I’ll give it a go anyway.
It’s very straightforward, bookies offer 2-way markets and 3-way markets. So you’ll have over and under in a 2-way, which is where the .5 comes in.
You’ll then have over, under and exactly in a 3-way market. This is where you’ll see under 1, exactly 1 and over 1.
Simple as that.

Thanks for this - it's the best explanation we've received so far but it doesn't quite cover all the questions about these curious 'half goals'.

I'm grateful for all the people who are clearly smarter than me explaining the things I don't understand.

The question I'd ask is - Is it necessary to have the 0.5 goal increments? It's not as if there's any kind of universal logic that determines that 3 way markets are indicated by the use of 0.5 goal increments - this still requires knowledge of betting markets and the Tc and Cs of individual bookies.

For example, we use place value number systems because they are the most logical. We use base 10 because we are human and it suits our digits best.

There is no corresponding logic that I know of that says that 3 way markets should be indicated by 0.5 goal increments. I think it's more to do with targeting humans and encouraging them to part with more of their hard-earned money.

[Rowls]

You’re right, of course, that a 1-0 scoreline is not “under 1 goal”, but then your bet wouldn’t win in these circumstances; you’d just get your stake back. This is also the reason they can’t call the bet “1 goal or less” (sic), as that would be misleading.

All this info is relatively easy to find on any gambling website or at a physical bookies. It’s not some kind of sneaky trick.

I suspect it is actually a sneaky trick.

I've yet to hear a logical argument for why these bets cannot be expressed more simply using everyday language.

And besides, even the explanations that have been provided demonstrate that you need knowledge of betting to know that your stake will be returned if the goals are equal to the number you'd bet them being under/over.

Obviously, we have a mathematical symbol for "under OR equal to" and "over OR equal to" but we don't have a specific word for this in English. However, it's not tricky to express the concept: You just use a phrase like "under of equal to".

Thanks, BTW, for the grammar lesson. I'd decided against it because it's a distinction that doesn't serve a specifically useful purpose. The kind of English that falls foul of Edwardian grammar rules but up with which we can put.

[FCBurnley]

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

[StuWestMidsClaret]

Jeez lads this is much a do about nothing

[Rowls]

If you struggle to understand x.5 goal lines, x.25 and x,75 might just blow your mind.

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.