I don't htink I saw that Williams, Eade or Craig's odds were slashed.

There is firming odds, and then there are plunges. Not often the latter isn't from "smart" money.

But it's all in context. In a horse race a plunge often takes a fair bit of coin to change the odds. The bookies react to the money but they also (especially the major corporates) do their own form so if a few people load up on a second or third fav they wont do much. After more and more jump on then they sense what's going on and slash the odds.

In this market the actual amount of betting wouldn't be that large and there is also no real form. You can say some candidates are better than others but it isn't a race it's PJ picking a name and signing him at this stage anyway. So I'd argue that even only a minor amount of money, on the guy who has the best credentials, after a melbourne win would lead the bookies to slash the odds.

If you have a spare $300 get 3 mates and all of you put $100 on Williams or Brett Ratten or someone plausible in a short time frame and see what happens. The bookies know that they make a lot of money in these markets due to people just taking speculative bets, but they can also lose a bit if everyone jumps on in a proper plunge, so as soon as a few bets come the odds slash.

As I said if there was strong mail around that Roos was in then they wouldn't have slashed the odds they would've suspended betting.

I think the $250k bet @ $5 fixed odds from P Jackson's account has probably altered the market to some degree.

Edit - spelling

That will help pay off the debt

I think the odds shortening is probably related to us winning which maybe got a few people thinking Roos might actually be keen as we aren't a massive basket case after all. The bookies then react to the cash coming on by drastically shortening the odds. If Roos was really locked in they would've suspended the market. I maintain it means very little. It would undermine Craig too much to fully commit to Roos right now. Especially considering Craig is getting some positive results from the players.

There is no way the betting market would change that dramatically because we won a game.

Damn, my ex boyfriend worked for sportsbet, would've been able to find out what was happening!!

Edited July 1, 201312 yr by DemonDan83

I think the $250k bet @ $5 fixed odds from P Jackson's account has probably altered the market to some degree.

Edit - spelling

The betting on these things are low level.

I guarantee you they would not take a $250k bet.

The pool is probably $500 if that.

In these funny bets a $50 wager would change the odds dramatically.

I would take very little notice

Damn, my ex boyfriend worked for sportsbet, would've been able to find out what was happening!!

well make the suck up call and speak in a low growler type voice

when you receive the goss ,get straight back to us and dump him again

If it was certain they would suspend it, they are just trying to drum up interest IMO.

well make the suck up call and speak in a low growler type voice

when you receive the goss ,get straight back to us and dump him again

Are we males that easy?

Are we males that easy?

that's what the boss tells me

and SHE hasn't made a mistake in 52 years

Talking about it on SEN at the moment...

that's what the boss tells me

and SHE hasn't made a mistake in 52 years

Sad but probably true on both counts jazza.

Funny but five seconds after I type it I thought YES

If they were looking at Saturday nights game, Neil Craig should've firmed. He would tick most of the boxes that we are looking for, and the fact that he got us playing reasonable footy for most of the game, and in turn we won the match, that's where "smart" money should've gone.

The fact that is didn't, and that Roos has shortened significantly, that speaks a lot for me.

From what I understand, the AFL have limits on how much a potential payout per bet can be on this type of betting (think it's a max of $500). Given that odds for the corporates are more based on % of payout and then their own studying of form, it would tell me that a number of bets (not one big one) have been taken for Roos.

I strongly doubt they have shortened him to "drum up interest" RP. I for one won't be backing Roos at $2 or $1.80, he was of more interest to me at $5.

Somebody knows something. I wonder how true it is.

The betting on these things are low level.

I guarantee you they would not take a $250k bet.

The pool is probably $500 if that.

In these funny bets a $50 wager would change the odds dramatically.

I would take very little notice

I was taking to pizz with the $250k call Old Dee.

Also, 1 x $50 bet wouldn't set off the alarm bells, but mulitple bets of $50 in a short period does. It will also depend on the account holder, and what their history is like. There are a number of factors that agencies take in to consideration before slashing odds. I know this as a number of my mates work in this industry, and I am invovled to some degree (I often pay their wages!!!).

As i've posted before i backed at Roos at $7 with two different bookies. Why? One would only let me have $20 on it and the other $8! So forget lots of bets of $50 or indeed any more than $20.

A bookie is probably only holding a couple of grand on it. Purely done for promotional value. Still i hope the new quote indicates it is going to happen. Perhaps i should lay off. Does anyone want to take $2?

Edited July 1, 201312 yr by binman

As i've posted before i backed at Roos at $7 with two different bookies. Why? One would only let me have $20 on it and the other $8! So forget lots of bets of $50 or indeed any more than $20.

A bookie is probably only holding a couple of grand on it. Purely done for promotional value. Still i hope the new quote indicates it is going to happen. Perhaps i should lay off. Does anyone want to take $2?

Did your 1 bet of $20 @ $7 see him firm?

Edited July 1, 201312 yr by billy2803

As i've posted before i backed at Roos at $7 with two different bookies. Why? One would only let me have $20 on it and the other $8! So forget lots of bets of $50 or indeed any more than $20.

A bookie is probably only holding a couple of grand on it. Purely done for promotional value. Still i hope the new quote indicates it is going to happen. Perhaps i should lay off. Does anyone want to take $2?

Spot on

Yeah nah.

Damn, my ex boyfriend worked for sportsbet, would've been able to find out what was happening!!

Any chance for old times sake taking one for the team and letting us know if you hear anything!

There is no way the betting market would change that dramatically because we won a game.

Winning may well have sparked interest in the market which in turn led to money for Roos plus a rumour or two and the bookies go from $5 to $2 to safe guard themselves.

If asked tonight Roos will deny anything has changed and to be honest I will believe him. No party benefits from committing this early in the year. Unless Roos panics and thinks Craig will work miracles and get himself the job. But I don't see that happening. Roos just has to point to his premiership if PJ decided to waver in his thoughts.

if we put some money on Thomas and bring his in, maybe roos odds will slacken and we can make a killing

good way to pay off 3 mill

Since the maximum winnings is $500, we'd only have to make 6000 bets.

Talking about it on SEN at the moment...

What are they saying?

Matt Thompson from the AFL obviously lurking amongst us!!

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-07-01/betting-plunge-on-coach-roos?utm_medium=RSS

It's probably just a ploy to increase ratings of On The Couch tonight.

Oh my god I will cry from happiness if this ever eventuates.

Come on Melbourne, make it happen. I truely believe that Roos can be the person to finally put this club on the right track mentally and culturally.

Maybe he watched Casey and then our win and said "well I'll be damned, lets do it".

Or maybe people are delusional and they are betting on what they want.