gambler has 100% trust in each stake

[Oti147]

In the game of sports, winners are always categorized based on the team with the highest performance. For example, in English football (EPL), Arsenal Football Club and Manchester City are seen to have good tactical skills, making them stand out as winners in each of their games. Therefore, a gambler establishes trust in those teams because they have won almost 88% of their games. The gambler stakes high on each of these teams because they believe that the money invested in each team will bring out good returns.

The same thing goes for when a gambler wants to stake on players. They must know the performance of that particular player before any trust can be established. For example, Harland of Manchester City is known for goal-scoring, and Saka of Arsenal is known for good finishing. This is how trust in gambling is established, although this trust sometimes fails.

My question now is, As a gambler would you give 100% to a stake that you trust?

[1714635719]

1714635719

[1714635719]

1714635719

[1714635719]

1714635719

[swogerino]

My question now is, As a gambler would you give 100% to a stake that you trust?

I have tried this several times and I have lost it all,trust means nothing in sport betting as I have usually bet on teams in the top of the standings where many people believed that they will win easily and the fact was that they not only did not win but even lost the game at their home.I thought this to be only temporary and was an isolated case but since it happened several times to me,I never do that again,I do not bet 100% of my money no matter how much trust I have on a specific event.I also don't advice anyone to bet 100% of their stake on a single event because while once it may come true,several other times it will hurt those people.

[Oshosondy]

My question now is, As a gambler would you give 100% to a stake that you trust?

What did you mean s 100%? If you mean to stake such match with high amount of money, sorry that I can not. If you mean that I should give 100% trust so that I can encourage others to stake on the match, no because I know the strong clubs can fuckup sometimes. If you check the clubs draw and lost matches, like Arsenal, no one expected that Everton would first win, though we know that the second match can not be the same, but the Everton which is among the clubs on the relegation zone first won Arsenal recently, such little mistake can take huge amount of money from gamblers. Although Manchester City has already won now and I have hope in Arsenal too today.

[rhomelmabini]

My question now is, As a gambler would you give 100% to a stake that you trust?

Never. This may be different to other bettors or gamblers but I gamble when I think a particular team/player is doing good for that day or they prepared enough to have a match. There are other factors to consider like the condition of the team/player, it's not because you're established onto something you'd really bet 100% on it, it's still gambling at the end of the day, you're always looking for the advantage/s over it even if we say you have a favorite team or player.

[AverageGlabella]

You can never trust 1 team or  1 player because they go through different stages of their career. Boxing might be different because they intentionally set up boxers with hype to fight cans but the odds are never worth betting on. In football games the best teams can lose and the best players can perform badly. I think we like to pretend that there is a secret to betting and once you crack it you can make a career out of it but I do not think that is a good idea. I recommend studying form and tactics instead of focusing on 1 team or player you think you can trust.

[348Judah]

My question now is, As a gambler would you give 100% to a stake that you trust?

You could choose yes for an answer if you fully understand the risk involved and ready to take full responsibility for that in case things does not work as expected, secondly choose no if you're not too sure of the outcome or cant risk loosing it all to that betting, what we stake is not the function of how or what determines our winning probability, it only gives direction to tge amount we are liable to get after winning.

[Jawhead999]

As you said Manchester CIty and Arsenal currently have 88% winning chance, it's mean there's a chance you will lose your bet. Don't forget when you bet them, the odds is smaller than other team, so it's mean you will not make a lot money when they win because it has been expected they must win the match. I think it's better to bet the underdog team where you know if they're actually have a good performance, just like Real Madrid on the previous Champions League. If I'm not mistaken they're mostly become underdog team.

[Cantsay]

My question now is, As a gambler would you give 100% to a stake that you trust?

It's called gambling for a reason, you can't just go for how good a player has been doing during the season you could also consider the opponent that they've have been facing so if you just go 100% because of their previous records you'll only end up shooting yourself in the leg. And if you're focusing on a single player that will even be of a greater risk because you never know what might happen during the match, you need to work on probability rather than certainty.

[molsewid]

In the game of sports, winners are always categorized based on the team with the highest performance. For example, in English football (EPL), Arsenal Football Club and Manchester City are seen to have good tactical skills, making them stand out as winners in each of their games. Therefore, a gambler establishes trust in those teams because they have won almost 88% of their games. The gambler stakes high on each of these teams because they believe that the money invested in each team will bring out good returns.

The same thing goes for when a gambler wants to stake on players. They must know the performance of that particular player before any trust can be established. For example, Harland of Manchester City is known for goal-scoring, and Saka of Arsenal is known for good finishing. This is how trust in gambling is established, although this trust sometimes fails.

My question now is, As a gambler would you give 100% to a stake that you trust?

Maybe not really a hundred percent but since I'm into sports betting I will make sure that the team or teams that I'm about to bet has an edge among other teams, a deep research must need in this thing because strategy, roster and some other things may change and it has a huge impact to each and every team so therefore if I will bet maybe 50:50 in two teams so or it really depends I think.

[Cuenta Alternativa]

100% sure there is only death and taxes, as someone said, in that kind of betting I wouldn't give that probability even if someone very trustworthy assured me that the match is rigged. Just by looking at the first answer of the thread we can already see that someone assigned a 100% probability several times and was wrong, so I would not recommend it.

[Jating]

My question now is, As a gambler would you give 100% to a stake that you trust?

If you are putting money on a team and think that they can win, then you put 100% on them. But the question is, can they really win the game? what if there are circumstances like injuries during that game that made them lose?

Or even if the odds are high for them to lose, suddenly they play very bad?

So as much money as you put in them, it's not going to be 100% sure that they are going to win.

[Davidvictorson]

My question now is, As a gambler would you give 100% to a stake that you trust?

When I wager on a sports game for a team to beat the other, I do not do so out of trust but out of informed knowledge of the team's historical performance against the opponent, the quality and caliber of players that the team has, the tactics or strategy of their manager and some other minor factors too. Staking  a game based on 100% trust is like hoping a blind man would drive a car successfully because he is human and expecting his other senses to compensate for his loss of vision. In fact there can never be 100% trust when staking as it is the surest way to lose a lot of money.

[Mauser]

My question now is, As a gambler would you give 100% to a stake that you trust?

I never would bet all my money on one team or one play. For me the risk is way too high that something goes. Every athlete can have a bad day and if his bad day results in me going broke I did something. Diversification is one of the key concepts in my trading strategies, I try to also do the same when in gambling and betting. In my opinion its better to focus on minimising my risk of going bankrupt than maximising my returns. Also isn't all the statistical data of the top teams already included in the odds? That's why the profits from betting on the top teams is so much smaller. We either need to combine multiple bets for a decent multipler or bet on the underdog.

[bittraffic]

Not really give 100% trust but there may come a time when a team member got injured and might not be able to participate in the game. I'm not a football fan but it could be compared to NBA where some team members are very reliable but when they got injured, you'll see their defense fall apart.

But most of the time when a team is complete and as solid as they are, you can bet your $500 even when the money line is not very enticing.

[Yatsan]

My question now is, As a gambler would you give 100% to a stake that you trust?

I never would bet all my money on one team or one play. For me the risk is way too high that something goes. Every athlete can have a bad day and if his bad day results in me going broke I did something. Diversification is one of the key concepts in my trading strategies, I try to also do the same when in gambling and betting. In my opinion its better to focus on minimising my risk of going bankrupt than maximising my returns. Also isn't all the statistical data of the top teams already included in the odds? That's why the profits from betting on the top teams is so much smaller. We either need to combine multiple bets for a decent multipler or bet on the underdog.

To put it simply; anything could happen in a match. What OP is trying to emphasize is bias with one's team or single player. Ofcourse stats would be a betting factor but to be hundred percent sure and to bet all in one bucket will never be advisable. It is gambling we are talking about and risk will always be present. Therefore, playing it safely would be better than to pour that much and eventually losing all of your assets on a single bet. Ofcourse we all have our own biases perhaps in sportsbetting. But the best example I guess is that, no team who became champion ever made it to the top without losing. On boxing there's Mayweather without a loss, but would you limit yourself into it? such as betting only on his fights. Ofcourse it would be better to balance and manage the risk.

[Peanutswar]

If you are playing sports game you must know the background of the both teams by that knowledge you can make a conclusion which team is the highest chance of winning but sometimes its always happens that the both teams are really good and quite hard to predict which one has the possible way of winnings some people doing a skip method with this so they didn't make a risk too much sometimes the odd is quite near to each other still not the profitable unlike the underdogs game match, again this is a sports game even the underdog match can make a win in the game so some people making a YOLO bet with a good odds and high risk but huge amount of profit scale.

[Little Mouse]

The problem is the odd vs total match lose won't get you a lot of returns. I haven't tried to do something like this but going with this or going with only strong teams won't get you a good odd.
And where did you find that they have won 88% of their matches? This is definitely a wrong stats. Arsenal have won 19 matches out of 26 including today's one.

[Cling18]

No, I wouldn't give a hundred percent to a stake. No matter how we analyze the capability of the players and do lots of background checking, anything could still happen during the game. The result is always unpredictable because the game flow will always depend on the game condition. Even professional analysts can fail when it comes to predicting the result so it will be a risk to entrust most of your funds to certain sports.

[Oceat]

No, I wouldn't give a hundred percent to a stake. No matter how we analyze the capability of the players and do lots of background checking, anything could still happen during the game. The result is always unpredictable because the game flow will always depend on the game condition. Even professional analysts can fail when it comes to predicting the result so it will be a risk to entrust most of your funds to certain sports.

I can't disagree with you on that since it did happen a lot of times before when I was betting on a certain sports. Those experts saying this and that didn't matter because they somehow overlooked someone or they are just being paid to do this and that just to make odds get on their favor but somehow it didn't work on their favor and sometimes there's always a dirty rigged happening in the game where referees are being paid to do some BS call or the judges.

If they want to bet on someone they should make sure that the team they are betting hasn't done any suspicious move in the past just like how they intentionally want to lose on purpose. Better know your team.

[maydna]

It's not always 100% on every bet because there will definitely be other considerations that will make us want to make sure that our bets can give us a win. It will be 100% if we find the opposing team is completely unable to fight the team we choose but that usually rarely happens, especially if the match has already started. Everything can change in the middle of a match so our predictions which were originally 100%, could change so we have to be prepared for that.