Would you take this bet? ;D

[dimonstration]

Worth it?

Yes, for money launderers .

I didn’t consider this but only money launderers indeed will avail this kind of daylight scam bet since it’s an easy x1 wagering requirements.

Although, taking 1.05 to 1.1 odds bet will be the best choice considering that bet still has risk on it. I believe availing this 1.0 odds will raise a concern from the bookie especially if the stake amount is huge.

I think the odds is just a visual bug.

[stompix]

Worth it?

Yes, for money launderers .

You don't launder money risking to lose it, Piastri might have a car crash or an accident in real life tommorow and ust drop out of the Championship and your bet is goign to lose, same if RB gets a better car and McLaren doens't win a single time, while the risks are small there is still the posibility of you losing, no mafia syndicate will try this, not with all the red flag around it.

I think the odds is just a visual bug.

It's because of the volume on that market, somebody probably dropped a huge bet on Piastri that was already small and their system got probably stuck between offering a 1.002 odds or canceling the option to bet, so they offered the rounded up odds, I assume it dropped under 1.0001 the moemnt I visited the page.

[Josefjix]

This bet on Formula 1 



In case you're wondering if it's not already a done deal, no, Piastri has 5 wins, so he needs another two for the bet to be won.
Worth it? (Big /S)

It's worth it despite the size of the odd, winning consecutive 5 games is a guaranteed sure game to win this one also, bookies already knew this is sure winning.

But I would love to ask, how much you intending to go in for this. I'll suggest you;

Use 70% of the amount and go in for Piastri
Use 30% of the amount for the other guy with 1.14 odd.

[Orpichukwu]

What kind of odds are those? Why is 1.0 even being offered? Bookies must be out of their minds, it almost feels like a trap for gamblers.

I’m not too familiar with betting on this particular sport, though I watch it from time to time. But just looking at the odds, 1.0 is definitely not worth it. I’d rather just sit back, watch the game, and enjoy a cold beer at the table.

Any odds less than 1.2, you can hardly see me place my bet on such a game, no matter how convincing I try to be to myself, because it's literally the same thing as just dashing the money out; if you lose, you lose the money, and even if the game plays and you win, there is almost nothing added to your wagered amount. Spending that money on a cold beer and sitting back to watch the game indeed is better than staking it.

[DaNNy001]

I wonder why anyone would put money on this 1.14 odd? Even if the guy got it right, the profit would be so low that he wouldn't be able to celebrate. The guy would be risking an amount of money where the reward if he got it right wouldn't give him a decent profit to bet on another race or game. That's why whenever I see someone post that they won but with such low odds like these, I usually laugh a lot. It doesn't make sense to take that risk unless the person was putting a lot of odds like that on a parlay to have high odds.

People put thousands of dollars on 1.06 odds and it's when they lose such bets because the risk isn't Worth taking...my major concern here is the fact that there's an odd of 1.0 there which is equivalent to nothing...even if you consider putting such odds on a parlay it would be more risky, you'd have to combine at least 6 to 7 games or more to get something valuable but the it's possible to have a cut one or two

[Justbillywitt]

What kind of odds are those? Why is 1.0 even being offered? Bookies must be out of their minds, it almost feels like a trap for gamblers.

Of course bookies are known for setting traps for gamblers, while they are patiently waiting for those that will fall into their traps. Because I don't even see the reason why someone will waste their time bringing out odds as this 1.0, if it's not a trap. Although someone who is new to gambling and know nothing much about odds, will rush and fall for the trap because the number one odd on the list look certain to play, even though it's not guaranteed. For the bookies to this, it only means that they have been doing it in the past and people has been falling.

[Pandorak]

This bet on Formula 1 



In case you're wondering if it's not already a done deal, no, Piastri has 5 wins, so he needs another two for the bet to be won.
Worth it? (Big /S)

It's hard to believe, how could the bookmaker give odds of @1.0? Is this a joke?

If you think logically, no one would want to bet on Plastri. Betting on Norris might be a better option, even though the odds are only @1.14, it would give a profit of around 14%, which is more reasonable.

Personally, i wouldn't bet on anyone. Considering the risks involved and the potential winnings, it's pretty much impossible and not worth it. It's more enjoyable to just watch.

[SmartGold01]

This bet on Formula 1 



In case you're wondering if it's not already a done deal, no, Piastri has 5 wins, so he needs another two for the bet to be won.
Worth it? (Big /S)

I am not good in racing but considering the odds I wouldn't mind going for the 1.14 odds even though my profits has to be less 10 percent of my initial stake amount it's a bit preferable than going for the 1.0 which is more riskier because it seems you are just trying to dash your money to the casino, except you had already placed the bet when they started their first race, since you said is remaining about 2 race to complete that section. That of 6.0 odds extremely risky because the chances of winning is also very slim, so going for the 1.14 odds and this could be after doing my analysis very well.

[Maslate]

They didn’t even bother making it 1.01, I’ve never seen odds like that in my life.

Basically, they’re saying Piastri has a 99% chance of winning. But since it’s not a done deal, there’s still a small chance he could lose.
Might as well skip betting on it. The risk-reward ratio just doesn’t favor us bettors at all.

[EluguHcman]

CMIIW, but with odds of 1.0, I will be getting no profits from that bet?

That is where the bookmakers poses the house edge power.
Where the odds is much low, you will have to bet with a very high amount before your potential returns can fetch you profits otherwise, when you stake with a minimum amount, you will only dangling in the average of you stake value.

Funny enough as we may believe the logic.... The lower the odds is the lower the risks, the game would remain unpredictable and players will always act at their own risks.

[BitMaxz]

Is that your list of wins, and did you get one bet with 1.0 odds? Isn't that the odds change over time? If you bet early, I guess this is not 1.0 odds, but if the bookmaker already set that, then that's an obvious trap. What will happen? Then you lose your stake, you risk no return.
If it was at least 1.2 odds, maybe it would be worth the risk because you are expecting to make a profit, but for 1.0, I don't know why anyone would take this bet with risk and no return. Someone said just to wager something; they would take this risk even if the winning result is zero profit for the sake of wagering requirements, but for me, I won't take that risk.

[peter0425]

This bet on Formula 1 



In case you're wondering if it's not already a done deal, no, Piastri has 5 wins, so he needs another two for the bet to be won.
Worth it? (Big /S)

If the bet is on Piastri I think the eldest would say no, also because where would the profit be?
If I risk making a senseless bet, I risk with the hope of winning something good, otherwise what could be the point?
Sure it's funny, maybe someone wanted to make their bet anyway?

The way I see it, Piastri is the clear favorite but does it make sense to have the odds at 1.0? Lol. Might as well go bet on someone else and risk it logically and have the chance of winning a much higher profit. Norris is not a bad choice. If he does win more than 7 races, you’ll earn more from betting on him than on Piastri.

[stadus]

Funny enough as we may believe the logic.... The lower the odds is the lower the risks, the game would remain unpredictable and players will always act at their own risks.

1.0 odds.. that’s basically a 100% house edge. We can’t win, but the bookies still can, so there’s zero risk on their side.

I was surprised to see that kind of odds, but it exists. That’s why it’s important to understand the basics of reading odds, so we don’t fall into these trap-like markets.

This game might not be very popular in the betting scene, which could be why a lot of bettors got tricked.
It’s definitely tricky, but not illegal. The bookies stay within the rules, but whether it helps or hurts their reputation, that’s another story.

[Odusko]

I wonder why anyone would put money on this 1.14 odd? Even if the guy got it right, the profit would be so low that he wouldn't be able to celebrate. The guy would be risking an amount of money where the reward if he got it right wouldn't give him a decent profit to bet on another race or game. That's why whenever I see someone post that they won but with such low odds like these, I usually laugh a lot. It doesn't make sense to take that risk unless the person was putting a lot of odds like that on a parlay to have high odds.

People put thousands of dollars on 1.06 odds and it's when they lose such bets because the risk isn't Worth taking...my major concern here is the fact that there's an odd of 1.0 there which is equivalent to nothing...even if you consider putting such odds on a parlay it would be more risky, you'd have to combine at least 6 to 7 games or more to get something valuable but the it's possible to have a cut one or two

Regardless of how many games you combine in this regards, if you mentain that 1.0 odds selection even if you pick 100 games with same odds, you still amount to nothing at that end, most of the gamblers that take such bet have different motives other than just winning or making profitable from the winnings, some just want to mix their deposits and need to make 1x and 1.0 is a sure bet to achieve that 1x requirements before they withdraw the founds.

[stompix]

It's worth it despite the size of the odd, winning consecutive 5 games is a guaranteed sure game to win this one also, bookies already knew this is sure winning.

There is no such thing as a guarantee game, both pilots could die in an airplane crash tommorow and that's it.

Is that your list of wins, and did you get one bet with 1.0 odds? Isn't that the odds change over time?

It was an active offer on betfair, you could actually take a 1.0 bet on that, they have finally disabled it but it was on for at least two days.
Funny enough, an already settled bet was still featured but at least that one was disabled.
They need a failsafe mechanism when odds turn that low.

my major concern here is the fact that there's an odd of 1.0 there which is equivalent to nothing...even if you consider putting such odds on a parlay it would be more risky, you'd have to combine at least 6 to 7 games or more to get something valuable but the it's possible to have a cut one or two

What's 1 multiplied 7 times by 1? 

[Apocollapse]

It's good to have such tiny odds because gamblers who looking to increase their wager amount or meet wager requirement will take this bet, it's 99.9% winning chance. I haven't see the player/team lost when they listed as huge favorite, even the odds for Argentina vs Saudi Arabia wasn't that low, the odds for Argentina was @1.11.

I ever made mistake when I want to deposit my money, I deposit 10x than what I want. Then I bet on team who has @1.01 odds, bet all in for two times and I can withdraw my money.