Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Football] Question for you betting people



Dick Swiveller

Well-known member
Sep 9, 2011
9,142
As I haven't got around to putting my iPod back in the car after its hiatus, I endured Talksport for a short trip to the shops. One of the ads was an Acca deal (Paddy Power I think) where you miss one and get a free bet. I am sure in the T&Cs at the end, they said that every leg had to be a minimum of 1/5 on. I always thought 1/5 was 5 to 1 on. Is 1/5 technically 1/5 on or just 1/5? Stupid things like this bugging me are on of the reasons I am sure I am a bit OCD but thought I would check if I am right to be annoyed.
 






Dick Swiveller

Well-known member
Sep 9, 2011
9,142
I think somebody who understands gibberish best answer this.

I just remember the old horse racing results in Grandstand and I am sure if a horse was 4/11 then they would say Eleven to Four On. That would make 1/5 Five to One On. The ad says One to Five On which in my head is wrong. And is petty and insignificant enough to bug me!
 


Deano's Right Foot

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
3,911
Barcombe
As I haven't got around to putting my iPod back in the car after its hiatus, I endured Talksport for a short trip to the shops. One of the ads was an Acca deal (Paddy Power I think) where you miss one and get a free bet. I am sure in the T&Cs at the end, they said that every leg had to be a minimum of 1/5 on. I always thought 1/5 was 5 to 1 on. Is 1/5 technically 1/5 on or just 1/5? Stupid things like this bugging me are on of the reasons I am sure I am a bit OCD but thought I would check if I am right to be annoyed.

I think that "5/1 on" is 1/5. "5/1 against" is 5/1. Sounds like the advert is incorrect.
 








Uh_huh_him

Well-known member
Sep 28, 2011
10,612
I think that "5/1 on" is 1/5. "5/1 against" is 5/1. Sounds like the advert is incorrect.

The terminology has changed.

The concept of 5/1 against/on has long gone.
Back in the day I seem to remember that 100/30 was also offered as an acceptable way of displaying odds.
Seemed weird to me that it wasn't 10/3

With the use of online bookies and the algorithms supporting them, decimal odds are often preferred.
5/1 against becomes 6 and 5/1 on becomes 1.2.
 




Mackenzie

Old Brightonian
Nov 7, 2003
33,508
East Wales
5/1 on is 1/5.....so I expect each part of your accumulator must be 1/5 or bigger.
 


Dick Swiveller

Well-known member
Sep 9, 2011
9,142
5/1 on is 1/5.....so I expect each part of your accumulator must be 1/5 or bigger.

Yeah - but I am sure they said it needs to be higher than 1 to 5 on. After all of this, I probably misheard but I am sure that is what they said. So either say 1 to 5 or 5 to 1 on.
 


neilbard

Hedging up
Oct 8, 2013
6,245
Tyringham
Yeah - but I am sure they said it needs to be higher than 1 to 5 on. After all of this, I probably misheard but I am sure that is what they said. So either say 1 to 5 or 5 to 1 on.

Annotation 2020-07-16 163449.png

Higher than 1/5 would be 1/4, 1/3,1/2
 






beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,265
probably writen by someone unfamilar with betting terminology, mixed up.
 








neilbard

Hedging up
Oct 8, 2013
6,245
Tyringham
I get the odds, it is the use of the word on after 1/5 I don't get. BTW, I have no interest in an Acca or this deal. My football betting history is woeful.

For this instance, I would suggest what they are saying is you cannot put a team in your ACCA that is shorter than 1/5. They have probably just made a mistake with the language.

What they should have said is five to one on and not one to five on.
 




PILTDOWN MAN

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Sep 15, 2004
18,607
Hurst Green
Lost me. So glad I don’t bet
 




pasty

A different kind of pasty
Jul 5, 2003
30,178
West, West, West Sussex
For this instance, I would suggest what they are saying is you cannot put a team in your ACCA that is shorter than 1/5. They have probably just made a mistake with the language.

What they should have said is five to one on and not one to five on.

You can include a team in the acca that is shorter than 1/5, BUT if the acca misses by one, you will not get the stake back as a free bet. That only applies if every match is longer 1/5.

I know this from experience. I wasn't aware of that rule, and had an acca before lockdown that missed by one. I queried why I didn't get the free bet and it was pointed out to me that one match in my acca was 1/6 so it didn't qualify for the free bet.
 


Swansman

Pro-peace
May 13, 2019
22,320
Sweden
But what if you only have £87.33 to put on. :rolleyes:

Ehe... winners only bet round numbers though, because otherwise the betting companies algorithms will suspect you of arbing. Its difficult enough to keep them from limiting you as it is, no need to give them a reason to take a look at you.
 



Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here