Back on 1.01

[Derek27]

Thanks a lot to everybody to spent a little time trying to answer to my questions.
Actually, in three pages of threads nobody has been able to provide me a clear answer.
But thanks anyways

The answer has been given, whether you choose to accept it is another question.

If you check better, and read again, there's not any clear answer.
Not Any.

To which question? You've asked several.

If you want a clear answer you need a clear question! You're talking about football 1.01s but didn't say what country, year, league, etc.

[Kai]

Fully agree with Fabio Capello on this one, why waste your own time finding answers to easy questions when others can do that faster and better? Makes no sense.

Like Winston Churchill once famously said : "If it's on the internet, then it must be true."

The reason I suggested doing research is that I sense if somebody could provide him with the answer the next question would be, what about 1.02, 1.03, etc. If you're building a strategy at some point you'll have to some research.

I must have been answering that in hurry to not have noticed that you were taking the piss.

What gave it away? Was it the Winston Churchill internet quote?

[Tuco]

I often fire bets in at 1.01

[Kai]

Thanks a lot to everybody to spent a little time trying to answer to my questions.
Actually, in three pages of threads nobody has been able to provide me a clear answer.
But thanks anyways

The answer has been given, whether you choose to accept it is another question.

If you check better, and read again, there's not any clear answer.
Not Any.

Don't have any answers myself, only more questions I'm afraid.

Not happy with the answer in the very first post?
Why not frame the question better or ask the next one?
Why is there often money sitting at extreme ends of the market at 1.01 and 1000?
Could it be a hint of value sometimes at those price ranges or is it simply the way the markets are structured?
Could it be both, or is that just stupid clueless money waiting to be taken advantage of?
How come 1.01 has ridiculous sums of money sitting there, while 1000 only has a couple pounds lying around?
Why does the matched volume increase the lower the price is on a selection, and drastically so at very low prices?
Does queue position in the market even matter at all?
Would it matter more at prices with massive sums of money or at prices with tiny amounts?
Should you be backing football teams at 1.01 for seemingly easy money or is it more sensible to lay instead?

[Derek27]

Hi guys,
easy question, can please anyone exaplain me what you see on that images attached?
Why people back on 1.01?
Is it a strategy?
Is it profitable?
Hedge funds?

Thanks

P.s. Please please please, no answer with links to other threads

I'll give you comprehensive answers to your 5 questions.

1. I see images of trading ladders with unmatched lay bets.

2. Everybody who backs at 1.01 does it for individual reasons. They could do it because they think it's a certain winner, closing a losing trade, by mistake, because they didn't know the difference between backing and laying, etc.

3. Some people will have a strategy that involves backing at 1.01 and some won't.

4. It's profitable if the bet wins, it's not if it loses.

5. The question "Hedge funds?" doesn't make any sense, which may explain why it hasn't been answered. Perhaps you need to make more effort to explain exactly what you mean?

[Kai]

I can add another very basic question, but to Don Fabio and not Derek

If you back at odds of 1000 for a mere 2 pounds, how much do you need to stake to close that trade at 1.01?

This would probably answer most of those questions.

[FabioC13]

Hi guys,
easy question, can please anyone exaplain me what you see on that images attached?
Why people back on 1.01?
Is it a strategy?
Is it profitable?
Hedge funds?

Thanks

P.s. Please please please, no answer with links to other threads

I'll give you comprehensive answers to your 5 questions.

1. I see images of trading ladders with unmatched lay bets.

2. Everybody who backs at 1.01 does it for individual reasons. They could do it because they think it's a certain winner, closing a losing trade, by mistake, because they didn't know the difference between backing and laying, etc.

3. Some people will have a strategy that involves backing at 1.01 and some won't.

4. It's profitable if the bet wins, it's not if it loses.

5. The question "Hedge funds?" doesn't make any sense, which may explain why it hasn't been answered. Perhaps you need to make more effort to explain exactly what you mean?

HiDerek,
finally, after 4 threads pages, someone trying to explain me thises screenshots. So:

1. Ok, but it's weird only for me that we have almost exactly the same amounts for both teams?

2. Perfect, many reasons, but from your point of view, looking at first screen (Inter-Fiorentina) what's the possible reason in this case? Any idea?

3. Fine.

4. Really? (You really thinks was necessary write the point 4?)

5. Ok, I try to put more effort: anyone can please explain me which are the possibile reasons to have almost the SAME (S-A-M-E) amount of money laying both team in all three screenshots at odds starting from 1.05 to 1.01? Are the going to back on live, maybe at 1.08 or 1.07, and want to stay there already to lay and not queue? Are the going to lay waiting for some late gols? Are they doing something different? Thanks

[Derek27]

Hi guys,
easy question, can please anyone exaplain me what you see on that images attached?
Why people back on 1.01?
Is it a strategy?
Is it profitable?
Hedge funds?

Thanks

P.s. Please please please, no answer with links to other threads

I'll give you comprehensive answers to your 5 questions.

1. I see images of trading ladders with unmatched lay bets.

2. Everybody who backs at 1.01 does it for individual reasons. They could do it because they think it's a certain winner, closing a losing trade, by mistake, because they didn't know the difference between backing and laying, etc.

3. Some people will have a strategy that involves backing at 1.01 and some won't.

4. It's profitable if the bet wins, it's not if it loses.

5. The question "Hedge funds?" doesn't make any sense, which may explain why it hasn't been answered. Perhaps you need to make more effort to explain exactly what you mean?

HiDerek,
finally, after 4 threads pages, someone trying to explain me thises screenshots. So:

1. Ok, but it's weird only for me that we have almost exactly the same amounts for both teams?

2. Perfect, many reasons, but from your point of view, looking at first screen (Inter-Fiorentina) what's the possible reason in this case? Any idea?

3. Fine.

4. Really? (You really thinks was necessary write the point 4?)

5. Ok, I try to put more effort: anyone can please explain me which are the possibile reasons to have almost the SAME (S-A-M-E) amount of money laying both team in all three screenshots at odds starting from 1.05 to 1.01? Are the going to back on live, maybe at 1.08 or 1.07, and want to stay there already to lay and not queue? Are the going to lay waiting for some late gols? Are they doing something different? Thanks

1. Most likely the bulk of the money is from one person and he placed the same amounts on both teams.

2. Same as the possible reason in any case. It could be any of those reasons or another reason. If you want to identify the exact reason you need to see a clairvoyant.

4. If it wasn't necessary to write that point why did you ask the question? You're basically asking if it's profitable to back an individual 1.01. You didn't specify a criteria like all 1.01s, football 1.01s, English Premiership, etc.

5. There are a million reasons, no, there is an infinite number of reasons why somebody might do that. Perhaps he intended to trade at slightly higher prices if the price bounces upwards, but that's just a complete guess.

Would you mind explaining what your explanation of question 5 has to do with hedge funds?

[Kai]

Hi guys,
easy question, can please anyone exaplain me what you see on that images attached?

Is this the socratic method? A slow reveal after you ask many questions?

I tried the Ron Swanson method for once, by answering every question with a new question, but didn't work

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25KW97G ... dudewitgun

[Derek27]

Hi guys,
easy question, can please anyone exaplain me what you see on that images attached?

Is this the socratic method? A slow reveal after you ask many questions?

I tried the Ron Swanson method for once, by answering every question with a new question, but didn't work

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25KW97G ... dudewitgun

My ex-girlfriend used to answer every question with a question.....that had absolutely nothing to do with either question or subject, it was an entirely new line of inquiry or topic.

[Kai]

Is this the socratic method? A slow reveal after you ask many questions?

I tried the Ron Swanson method for once, by answering every question with a new question, but didn't work

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25KW97G ... dudewitgun

My ex-girlfriend used to answer every question with a question.....that had absolutely nothing to do with either question or subject, it was an entirely new line of inquiry or topic.

So didn't work for her either, if she's an ex now? Btw forget Larry David, this is the guy you should have watched = https://youtu.be/Tch4v0L0GHA?t=1

I'm serious, all you need is 5 minutes to fall in love with this guy, get some Yank humor in your life, might improve your Saturday

[FabioC13]

I'll give you comprehensive answers to your 5 questions.

1. I see images of trading ladders with unmatched lay bets.

2. Everybody who backs at 1.01 does it for individual reasons. They could do it because they think it's a certain winner, closing a losing trade, by mistake, because they didn't know the difference between backing and laying, etc.

3. Some people will have a strategy that involves backing at 1.01 and some won't.

4. It's profitable if the bet wins, it's not if it loses.

5. The question "Hedge funds?" doesn't make any sense, which may explain why it hasn't been answered. Perhaps you need to make more effort to explain exactly what you mean?

HiDerek,
finally, after 4 threads pages, someone trying to explain me thises screenshots. So:

1. Ok, but it's weird only for me that we have almost exactly the same amounts for both teams?

2. Perfect, many reasons, but from your point of view, looking at first screen (Inter-Fiorentina) what's the possible reason in this case? Any idea?

3. Fine.

4. Really? (You really thinks was necessary write the point 4?)

5. Ok, I try to put more effort: anyone can please explain me which are the possibile reasons to have almost the SAME (S-A-M-E) amount of money laying both team in all three screenshots at odds starting from 1.05 to 1.01? Are the going to back on live, maybe at 1.08 or 1.07, and want to stay there already to lay and not queue? Are the going to lay waiting for some late gols? Are they doing something different? Thanks

1. Most likely the bulk of the money is from one person and he placed the same amounts on both teams.

2. Same as the possible reason in any case. It could be any of those reasons or another reason. If you want to identify the exact reason you need to see a clairvoyant.

4. If it wasn't necessary to write that point why did you ask the question? You're basically asking if it's profitable to back an individual 1.01. You didn't specify a criteria like all 1.01s, football 1.01s, English Premiership, etc.

5. There are a million reasons, no, there is an infinite number of reasons why somebody might do that. Perhaps he intended to trade at slightly higher prices if the price bounces upwards, but that's just a complete guess.

Would you mind explaining what your explanation of question 5 has to do with hedge funds?

Just companies that manage money, a lot of money. Have you ever heard about "trading"?

[jamesedwards]

HiDerek,
finally, after 4 threads pages, someone trying to explain me thises screenshots. So:

1. Ok, but it's weird only for me that we have almost exactly the same amounts for both teams?

2. Perfect, many reasons, but from your point of view, looking at first screen (Inter-Fiorentina) what's the possible reason in this case? Any idea?

3. Fine.

4. Really? (You really thinks was necessary write the point 4?)

5. Ok, I try to put more effort: anyone can please explain me which are the possibile reasons to have almost the SAME (S-A-M-E) amount of money laying both team in all three screenshots at odds starting from 1.05 to 1.01? Are the going to back on live, maybe at 1.08 or 1.07, and want to stay there already to lay and not queue? Are the going to lay waiting for some late gols? Are they doing something different? Thanks

1. Most likely the bulk of the money is from one person and he placed the same amounts on both teams.

2. Same as the possible reason in any case. It could be any of those reasons or another reason. If you want to identify the exact reason you need to see a clairvoyant.

4. If it wasn't necessary to write that point why did you ask the question? You're basically asking if it's profitable to back an individual 1.01. You didn't specify a criteria like all 1.01s, football 1.01s, English Premiership, etc.

5. There are a million reasons, no, there is an infinite number of reasons why somebody might do that. Perhaps he intended to trade at slightly higher prices if the price bounces upwards, but that's just a complete guess.

Would you mind explaining what your explanation of question 5 has to do with hedge funds?

Just companies that manage money, a lot of money. Have you ever heard about "trading"?

£100,000 available to back at 1.01 is only an exposure of £1,000 for the layer.

[Derek27]

Would you mind explaining what your explanation of question 5 has to do with hedge funds?

Just companies that manage money, a lot of money. Have you ever heard about "trading"?

I wasn't asking you what hedge funds are. I was asking you what hedge funds have got to do with your explanation of question 5. In other words, what has this (which was a question in its entirety):

Hedge funds?

...got to do with this:

5. Ok, I try to put more effort: anyone can please explain me which are the possibile reasons to have almost the SAME (S-A-M-E) amount of money laying both team in all three screenshots at odds starting from 1.05 to 1.01? Are the going to back on live, maybe at 1.08 or 1.07, and want to stay there already to lay and not queue? Are the going to lay waiting for some late gols? Are they doing something different? Thanks

The point I'm making is that there was no way anyone could have guessed what you were asking yet you get disappointed when nobody answers what you regarded as a question!

[jimibt]

got a feeling this could be a LOOONG thread. good luck to all participants

oh yeah - just checking, thoughts as much!!