Stones to Man U?

4 England caps actually, but what does that mean nowadays? He's not even in the current plans as he's back with the U21s

 

He's 21 years old, and will be a big part of the England team for the next 10 years, Southampton, Tottenham, Everton, Newcastle pay 10/15 million for players, he's linked with the big boys not also rans, Chelsea, City, Man Utd, & Barcelona, as soon as them clubs show interest, you're looking at the thick end of 20 million easy

 

Ok. You have had a bang ont head haven't you. Go have a lie down.

Quoted wrong post, was meant for tyke67, too many tykes on here. I'm off for a lie down.

 

I work with an Everton fan who is quite close to the club. He has heard that Stones is going to Barcelona with Delafounso (Spelling?) a makeweight in the deal.

Only what he's heard - no sources.

 

Re: there is NO such clause

Thanks. This may sound very sad but the current Mrs Didcot Red and I had tears in our eyes laughing at this.

 

It's fact that they have been interested in him, very nearly signed him last season. If they weren't under an embargo I'm sure he'd be heading there this summer. Maybe the exchange of players gets around that? 1 out 1 in (both u21 too). Bad news for us though, we can't have a % of a Spanish attacking midfielder.

 

Not really. We get the % of contract value and as players are assets they have to be 'valued' in the contract of the sale. And they can't make their own valuation up. As I understand it uits fairly complicated with regard contract terms, market conditions, previous sale etc.

So it could work out better. If the Barcelona offer is £20m plus this player then we get 15% of that 20m. Plus a % of the value of the player. So if he is valued at £20m we get another 15% of that. It used to be a loop hole to help selling clubs avoiding paying sell on percentages but this loop hole has been closed. So Barcelona may be making him available as part of a make weight, but his market value could be far higher on the open market, meaning we get more cash!

 

But surely you're trusting that the bookies don't know?

 

Hope you're right.

 

What?

I trust that the bookies know what the results are going to be. I choose teams that they say will win the game.

 

Deulofeu Has been under sold from barca to Everton tonight for 2.2m - can see some kind of stitch up situation where stones goes to barca now for a few million to diddle us.. Would be just our luck.

 

Say they offer odds of 1/7. For you to break even the team has to win that match 7 out of 8 times. Bookies offer odds which grant them an advantage. That's their business model, and the fact they still exist shows they do this fairly well. That means that the true probability of the team winning that match will only be something like 5 out of 8 or 6 out of 8. Therefore if the bookies know what they are doing (and they certainly do) then it's unbeatable in the long run.

It's like someone offering you odds of 1/95 that a 100 sided dice will roll any number other than 1. Yes you are overwhelmingly likely to win each bet, but the difference between the odds offered and the actual probability means that over any extended period you are statistically certain to lose.

 

Where in all that have you taken account of the accumulation of separate match odds? Answer - you haven't. Again.

 

Why? Putting them in an accumulator changes nothing. You're betting at worse odds than the true probabilities. Clumping multiple bad bets together doesn't magically make them profitable.

 

It changes a lot. But I'm not even gonna try and explain any further.

 

Explain "further"? You haven't explained at all so far! This isn't a matter of opinion, it's just mathematical fact.

Alternatively consider this - which is more likely:

A) Grouping odds-on bets together in an accumulator is consistently profitable. There have been tomes written on the probability and statistics of gambling, and despite the maths being fairly basic this simple trick has somehow evaded the most learned minds who have considered the subject until you somehow discovered it.

OR

B) You're wrong.

 

According to odds, hes more likely to sign for Chelsea. Which would be the better move for him?

 

So if the bookies know what they're doing when pricing let's extrapolate that and say they get 100% of results right. You accumulate games (albeit at unfavourable odds on each individual match). So for each £1 staked you're getting say £100 back (as they never get them wrong). How can you lose?

Obviously you do lose as they don't always get the result right. But that is a totally different reason to the one you're giving as to why you'd lose (guaranteed to even - even if you never lose an accumulator!!).

And that is it for me on this subject. You seem to be on a bit of a crusade on this to show you're right, so I concede (through sheer tedium really). I'm happy with the profits I'm showing, you're happy because you've won an argument on the internet. Win win.

 

Of course I'm not saying that you're guaranteed to lose if you never lose an accumulator, but that isn't realistic. I'm saying that effectively something like 1 in 5 of your accumulators might come off, but due to bookies odds being slightly shorter than the real probability when each one comes off you get paid out at something like 3 to 1. That means that in the long run you can't win and any short term profits are just variance.

I'm not on a crusade at all. I'm just wary of people believing that they have a "sure thing" when it comes to betting.

 

What about this John Stones geezer, eh?