The Cycling Betting Thread

Page 56 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
First cycling bet of the bet of the season and it's a fanboy one:eek:

Omloop - Stannard v Devenyns at Bet365. Can't remember what the odds were. Not brilliant, so have put it in an acca with a couple of English football bets (Luton and Wolves).

Stannard's shown a bit of form already, and there should be rain!
 
Aug 4, 2010
11,337
0
0
postmanhat said:
First cycling bet of the bet of the season and it's a fanboy one:eek:

Omloop - Stannard v Devenyns at Bet365. Can't remember what the odds were. Not brilliant, so have put it in an acca with a couple of English football bets (Luton and Wolves).

Stannard's shown a bit of form already, and there should be rain!
Bet should never have been a fanboy one.:D
Its biased and dangerous,my exp:D
 
Jul 2, 2010
80
0
0
Need to get this thread rolling now the racing's really happening!

I've got Vanmarcke 8, Stannard 40 ew and Farrar 80 ew for E3, all with PP.
 
May 8, 2013
14
0
0
Nuash65 said:
Need to get this thread rolling now the racing's really happening!

I've got Vanmarcke 8, Stannard 40 ew and Farrar 80 ew for E3, all with PP.
Couldn't agree more, I had Spartacus to win, degenkolb 28 e/w, stannard 40 e/w (thought about Thomas!) and thankfully Terpstra to finish top 3 @ 8s, which meant I broke evenish..

But yeah, some more life in this thread would be good. I'll post what I'm on in advance next time!

Anyone got any thoughts bout Catalunya tomoz or Gent-Wevelgem?
 
Jul 2, 2010
80
0
0
Ok, I realise that this will get laughed at but I'm betting small on Wiggins e/w at 33 (Paddy) for Roubaix.

He's got the engine and in the past when he's really set himself to something he's achieved it. Has he really committed to this? Has he got form? Who knows but if he shows it in Flanders, in support of G hopefully, then the price will come down.

Imagine Wiggo instead of Sep last year, battling Spartacus for the win! Even better would be the forum reaction of those who see only his limitations, not the achievement of converting from trackie to TdF winner when the course and opposition made a perfect storm with his objective.
 
Nuash65 said:
Ok, I realise that this will get laughed at but I'm betting small on Wiggins e/w at 33 (Paddy) for Roubaix.

He's got the engine and in the past when he's really set himself to something he's achieved it. Has he really committed to this? Has he got form? Who knows but if he shows it in Flanders, in support of G hopefully, then the price will come down.

Imagine Wiggo instead of Sep last year, battling Spartacus for the win! Even better would be the forum reaction of those who see only his limitations, not the achievement of converting from trackie to TdF winner when the course and opposition made a perfect storm with his objective.
:confused:

Weirdest post ever.
 
podunavac said:
Why?
........
What do you mean why? For starters he offers some bizarre- imagine if argument that makes 0 sense
Imagine Wiggo instead of Sep last year, battling Spartacus for the win
Imagine if a non cobbles specialist who wasn't in the race fought cancellara instead of thr cobbles specialist who was, err where does that lead

Then he has some whinge at the forum not rating Wiggins highly. I agree Wiggins performances have been wrongly underrated at times, but this is the betting thread, what possible relevance does that have. Is the fact that some posters on a forum doubt him supposed to increase the value of the bet?


The premise itself is ridiculous. the poster says he sees value at 33-1 even though he admits he himself doesn't even know if Wiggins is interested, and is basing it on a maybe that he even cares
Has he really committed to this? Has he got form? Who knows
If you don't even know if the rider is bothered how can there be value in the bet at 33-1 :confused:

And who are we even talking about? A rider who has ridden 0 cobbled classics this season (or in the previous 4 seasons) even though riding the cobbled one day races is practically a requirement when it comes to challenging for roubaix. A rider who has not shown much form all season while the favourites - Sagan, canc, boonen, were already on good form a month ago.

A rider who has ridden 1 Pr his entire life, even though it takes years of riding cobbles to learn the technique and positioning and tactics of the race?

Why? Because he has shown he wins when he puts his head to things? What kind of an argument is that? All the cobble races of this year and all the facts on the ground are to be ignored because Wiggins has win what he wants superpowers? Does that also mean Wiggins can win the London marathon next month? Come on there is a former winner Johan van summeren who is younger than wiggins at 100-1. There are former podium finishers like pipo at far lower prices.

The only reason Wiggins is 30-1 as opposed to the 300-1 is name recognition, bookies targeting people who have no concept of what a cobbles race is who will bet on Wiggins because they see his name. 30-1 is for people who have shown great form this season and have some history with cobbles.
 
Jan 12, 2014
142
0
0
Relax, The Hitch.
It's not like he's put a fortune on a 30-1 bet, or something like that.
You can see a typical betting logic in his reasoning and he's presenting it to us... finding arguments to support his decision.
Keeping in mind all the hype surrounding Wiggins, and an unique kind of image that follows him since his transformation, you can't really qualify his post like "weirdest". It's a bit hard and carries unpleasant etiquette.
It's probably irrational, but the odd's giving it some sense.
 
Jul 2, 2010
80
0
0
Nuash65 said:
Need to get this thread rolling now the racing's really happening! ...
Nuash65 said:
Ok, I realise that this will get laughed at...
It's a small fanboy bet rather than a serious one. Only reason for posting was because I'm disappointed this thread hasn't come to life this season and I hoped it would amuse and generate a bit of chat (and more serious bet suggestions). I thought I'd get a bit of teasing not a bait followed by THAT. Chill man, betting is meant to be fun and I thought this thread likewise - my mistake.
 
Mar 14, 2009
3,436
0
0
Nuash65 said:
Ok, I realise that this will get laughed at but I'm betting small on Wiggins e/w at 33 (Paddy) for Roubaix.

He's got the engine and in the past when he's really set himself to something he's achieved it. Has he really committed to this? Has he got form? Who knows but if he shows it in Flanders, in support of G hopefully, then the price will come down.

Imagine Wiggo instead of Sep last year, battling Spartacus for the win! Even better would be the forum reaction of those who see only his limitations, not the achievement of converting from trackie to TdF winner when the course and opposition made a perfect storm with his objective.
Can I be your bookie for that bet? I will double whatever they are offering!
 
podunavac said:
Relax, The Hitch.
It's not like he's put a fortune on a 30-1 bet, or something like that.
You can see a typical betting logic in his reasoning and he's presenting it to us... finding arguments to support his decision.
Keeping in mind all the hype surrounding Wiggins, and an unique kind of image that follows him since his transformation, you can't really qualify his post like "weirdest". It's a bit hard and carries unpleasant etiquette.
It's probably irrational, but the odd's giving it some sense.
The - imagine if Wiggins was Sep Vanmarke, point, was very weird. Which is what prompted my response.
 
Jan 12, 2014
142
0
0
The Hitch said:
The - imagine if Wiggins was Sep Vanmarke, point, was very weird. Which is what prompted my response.
Told you - it's just a part of betting logic. Remember that betting is all about "if"... When you're placing your bet, you have in mind a potential development of the event, and that development is often related to some previous development(s) and so on... entire chain of thoughts.
 
Oct 10, 2013
18
0
0
After a successful small E/W on Vanmarcke last weekend, I looked at Paris-Roubaix and of course his odds are much shorter for that now (especially as he was second last year). So I've gone for a small E/W on van Avermaet for l'Enfer du Nord, as his odds offer decent value given recent form and finishes.
 
May 8, 2013
14
0
0
Had a pretty miserable classics betting season - picked kwiatkowski but didn't get bet on in time, nearly went for stannard omloop - go for spartacus in e3 and sagan in flanders, had degenkolb e/w in e3 but didn't place a bet in gw!

Think Spartacus will do it again Sunday but have probably just cursed him with that. Also Stybar at 16 e/w.

Re Wiggins, based on 2009, I think he could get top ten if he's on form and has luck but ain't tempted at 40s.
 
Jul 2, 2010
80
0
0
The Hitch said:
Any man still standing at the end of Paris Roubaix, you can't call him soft. That's a rule.

Wiggins did very well
From another thread and not exactly humble pie.

I for one would like to feel I can post in this thread without being ridiculed and to see others do the same.
 
Nuash65 said:
From another thread and not exactly humble pie.

I for one would like to feel I can post in this thread without being ridiculed and to see others do the same.
You are either trolling or being really stupid.

I said Wiggins wouldn't win. He didn't. He didn't come close to winning, he rolled over the line in 9th place and waved his hand in the air happy at a top 10.

Your bet was about winning. I told you there was no value in that bet. Not even Boonen, or Cancellara or Merckx or RDV won Roubaix on their first attempt, there was no value in betting on Wiggins to do it at 33/1.

I never said anything about top 10, and nor did you. You said you went for a bet on wiggins winning, gave a very stupid justification of making the bet, which btw was proven wrong today because Wiggins didnt manage to follow Cancellara's attacks like you claimed he would.

You lost the bet and you never even came close to winning it.

Any "I told you so", in this case comes from me to you and not the other way around. I wasn't going to do it, but since you brought it up - I told you so. Watch cycling for a few years and you might end up placing bets that actually have some value in them.
 
Jul 2, 2010
80
0
0
Here's the situation from my point of view:

I thought your "weirdest post ever" post was nasty as it didn't say why and appeared to be bait so you could trash me. Someone else asked and you did as (it appeared) you had planned to. You didn't just explain, you ridiculed me in an unpleasant way which I didn't appreciate.

I didn't enter into debate with you about the points in your long comment but in my pleasure at Wiggins's brilliant ride today I did foolishly post a gloating comment. You have now written another long unpleasant post assuming things about me like how long I've been watching cycling. I could write and argue vehemently with points in your post but I think we've both damaged this thread enough.

My original post was to try and get the thread going (see my post a couple before). I admit the bet was more fanboy than value (and that some of your points have been very valid) but I thought it would generate chat. Instead, by gloating I've added to the damage and I apologise to others who will now be put off posting here.

I suggest you and I don't engage in further exchanges now or in the future.
 
You have nothing to gloat over. Your bet never won and never came close to winning.

I'm sorry if I came across as a **** when I said your post was weird, but to me it really was. You parachuted someone into a race they were never in and suggested they could have won it, then used that scenario that never actually happened, as a justification for betting that they might win this time.

To me that made no sense. Maybe I'm old school but the performances I base bets on are the ones I've seen not the ones I imagined ;). from then things escalated but I didn't mean it offensively, just that it was very weird logic.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY