do you think every bet must have an “opposite”?

[Findingnemo]

How does that make sense? If you want the team a to win then you can't bet the team B to win right? The same applies to each kinds such as number of goals scored, number of yellow cards and such, there can be only one option for you to pick not both.

[Agbamoni]

my question is this: do you think gambling sites that give odds on the likelihood of an event occurring should also offer the option to bet on the opposite outcome? of course, there's no obligation to do so, but if there are odds given on a player scoring a goal, i think gamblers should also be able to bet on the possibility of that player not scoring.

Sportsbooks are smart enough to offer outcomes that wont later turn into a regretful decision in the end. Of course, they offer outcomes as well as the opposite of the outcomes. For instance, when you bet on GG, there is an option to bet on NGG. This is a balanced outcome. But you dont expect them to include an outcome for a player not to score because there is a high percent chance for the player not to score. And even if they include it, the odds will be very low as 1 odd, which means absolutely nothing.

[leonair]

when browsing a gambling site, you will see some special bets for every popular match. for example, there may be bets on a player scoring a goal, receiving a card, or being sent off. there may be some bets on what the referee or players will do.

my question is this: do you think gambling sites that give odds on the likelihood of an event occurring should also offer the option to bet on the opposite outcome? of course, there's no obligation to do so, but if there are odds given on a player scoring a goal, i think gamblers should also be able to bet on the possibility of that player not scoring.

there can be special bets with very low odds, and i think it wouldn't be a bad idea for their opposite bets to be available as well. this could be a recommendation for gambling sites.

Since Odd is not fixed in live games, it changes based on the performance of both teams, in which case this method can certainly be used, but you will not get the opportunity to use this method for every match where only one team will play well and the other team will not be able to play well. However, what you said is possible when a match is played closely. However, sometimes it is seen that suddenly one team, despite being weak and far behind, miraculously wins at the last moment of the game. Those who can agree to those matches get the chance to win very big ODD. If you can use this method properly, then you can definitely reduce your risk from here.

[Mr_Brilliant$]

I get what you are saying, and I think I will have to agree with this lol.. Giving people the option to bet on both outcomes makes sense, especially for those low odds bet.. it could even make the sites more attractive if they offer that..
But still if we are  to be honest, it wouldn’t be really profitable for the casino owner.. So thats the reason it may not be possible..

[stompix]

How does that make sense? If you want the team a to win then you can't bet the team B to win right? The same applies to each kinds such as number of goals scored, number of yellow cards and such, there can be only one option for you to pick not both.

Have you actually read the topic?

He is asking why you don't have the option to bet on a player NOT scoring!
You can bet on either Team A or Team B, you can bet on either over 4 goals or under 4 goals but you can only bet on Kane scoring you don't have the option of betting on Kane not scoring a goal!

But you dont expect them to include an outcome for a player not to score because there is a high percent chance for the player not to score. And even if they include it, the odds will be very low as 1 odd, which means absolutely nothing.

Makes zero sense!
Gyokeres to be the first scorer is 4.40  an opposite bet would still be way higher than the DNB for Arsenal that is 1.07, which the bookies do offer!

[sunsilk]

It can be a good suggestion to the bookie for also adding the opposite that's being offered to bet for. But that's how they're earning.

That's the reason why they're not putting that in the first place and that's for them to have that choice.

If they'll put that up, it will be good for the gamblers but maybe there's a reason aside from that why they're not including it as per choices.

[Agbamoni]

Makes zero sense!
Gyokeres to be the first scorer is 4.40  an opposite bet would still be way higher than the DNB for Arsenal that is 1.07, which the bookies do offer!

Replying without reading properly, always a problem for a lot of persons and you are one of them.

Gyokeres to be the first scorer, is not the same thing as Gyokeres to score a goal, emphasis on the word "first". They are two different outcomes. It makes more sense for the scenario you mentioned to have an opposite bet which the odd will be around 1.80 or above.

[Nothingtodo]

However, in some cases, it would not be bad to have a system to bet against such bets. But what we think may not be what the casino authorities think or it may be that what we think is positive is what the casino authorities think is negative. What we think is profitable may be unprofitable for the casino authorities.

It should be remembered that the casino authorities keep the system that they consider to be the most profitable. Perhaps if they apply it to their profit line, the casino authorities may have a chance of losing money, which is why they may not have chosen the opposite betting system.

[PX-Z]

my question is this: do you think gambling sites that give odds on the likelihood of an event occurring should also offer the option to bet on the opposite outcome? of course, there's no obligation to do so, but if there are odds given on a player scoring a goal, i think gamblers should also be able to bet on the possibility of that player not scoring.

As far as i know,  there are already bets for that kind of stuff although not every game, as most sports bets have opposite option to bet. But for your example of a player not scoring, that's very unique, and prone to cheating especially the players knows about that kind of bet. Lol. For the context, its very much easier for someone to not score than making a score specially in regards the players role.

[JoyMarsha]

Special bets like the one you mentioned can't work in the gambling industry, you know the reason? there are possibility of players not scoring in a match, compared to when you bet a player to score.

Gamblers owners are people like us, they will consider things that will favor them the most, not us, even if the odds for that it's little. They will go with theirs. However, what you are thinking can't happen. The ones that will continue to happen are the ones we already have

[Churchillvv]

When I rethink this I feel like it will be more like a cheat code for winning if they implement it and basically on some players it will be a very terrible gambling against the casinos and also imagine that their business model developers must have thought about it and then let it go because people will probably use it wrongly and players with less popular players can be manipulated, but sometimes it’s good to question things like this, so we have better options as gamblers and this suggestion will be good if implemented  

[stompix]

Makes zero sense!
Gyokeres to be the first scorer is 4.40  an opposite bet would still be way higher than the DNB for Arsenal that is 1.07, which the bookies do offer!

Replying without reading properly, always a problem for a lot of persons and you are one of them.

Gyokeres to be the first scorer, is not the same thing as Gyokeres to score a goal, emphasis on the word "first". They are two different outcomes. It makes more sense for the scenario you mentioned to have an opposite bet which the odd will be around 1.80 or above.

Retarded shitposters cheaters with multiple alts like you who rush to make their damn quota of 3 lines of nonse are the problem on this forum, you imbecile!!

Do you actually use your brain when you do math, or don't you do math at all?
Seriously, if Arsenal is 1.07 for DNG, how much is the opposite, is it higher than 4.40?
Think for a damn second and use basic math!!!

How did you manage to get to that 1.80 punching voodoo dolls?

[red4slash]

when browsing a gambling site, you will see some special bets for every popular match. for example, there may be bets on a player scoring a goal, receiving a card, or being sent off. there may be some bets on what the referee or players will do.

my question is this: do you think gambling sites that give odds on the likelihood of an event occurring should also offer the option to bet on the opposite outcome? of course, there's no obligation to do so, but if there are odds given on a player scoring a goal, i think gamblers should also be able to bet on the possibility of that player not scoring.

there can be special bets with very low odds, and i think it wouldn't be a bad idea for their opposite bets to be available as well. this could be a recommendation for gambling sites.

It seems that this may be possible in the future even if it does not exist now but it is possible that it will exist in the future.
We know that the longer the bet the more varied it becomes so it is possible that this option will exist in the future and we just need to wait for it.

Previously, we only ever relied on 1x2 but as betting has developed over time there are now various types of bets within a match. Therefore I believe that the conditions you hope for are very likely to occur in the future, as innovation continues to develop and sports betting will also follow this development.

[Hispo]

It could be interesting but it could also make things more complex than they are supposed to be.
I am saying it from the perspective of someone who likes to follow money line and stuck to a simple prediction for the sake of simplicity and control over odds.

If things like that were available on all bookies, when people would surely go crazy with combined bets/parley and we would see even higher multipliers.

It is not my thing. I am not seeking to become rich thanks to betting. I am just trying to keep my mind cold enough and have some entertainment with football games.

[Alphakilo]

Every bet is supposed to have an opposite, but am sure the financial mechanics makes it a risk that the gambling company may not be willing to bet on.
All these sportsbook try to stick to providing more fun, hence why they carefully know the markets they are involved in, but am sure if the gamblers who use these platforms can be more persuasive in some way as a feedback to the gambling company, it might eventually be adopted majorly for high profile matches where the funds is available for payments to winners.

[stadus]

my question is this: do you think gambling sites that give odds on the likelihood of an event occurring should also offer the option to bet on the opposite outcome? of course, there's no obligation to do so, but if there are odds given on a player scoring a goal, i think gamblers should also be able to bet on the possibility of that player not scoring.

I think most of the markets they offer already have the opposite outcome covered. Even those simple ones like odd/even with odds around 1.87, they still include them in the board. If you check closely you’ll see it, but even then it’s still hard to win consistently.

The thing is you have to understand how they set it up. Bookmakers use odds providers who are experts at this. Every market they release already has the juice built into it, so in the long run they will still profit regardless of the outcome.

[TopT3ns]

my question is this: do you think gambling sites that give odds on the likelihood of an event occurring should also offer the option to bet on the opposite outcome? of course, there's no obligation to do so, but if there are odds given on a player scoring a goal, i think gamblers should also be able to bet on the possibility of that player not scoring.

I think most of the markets they offer already have the opposite outcome covered. Even those simple ones like odd/even with odds around 1.87, they still include them in the board. If you check closely you’ll see it, but even then it’s still hard to win consistently.

The thing is you have to understand how they set it up. Bookmakers use odds providers who are experts at this. Every market they release already has the juice built into it, so in the long run they will still profit regardless of the outcome.

The structure of odds designed by the professionals will give an entertainment company a steady gain. Odd even markets are merely an attempt to ring a bell without any trinkled advantage to persons who are playing roulette. We get to understand through the detailed investigation of the system used by the bookmaker that the odds of winning two or more in a row are highly a challenge difficult to beat.

Judging the natural value prevents over-ambition of expectations which are in the field of pure recreation. The key, however, to being able to still enjoy is to treat every bet as an entertainment cost that needs to be taken into account.

[ryzaadit]

IMO, with Polymarket.

And betting on anything, everything you are mentioned or imposible bet right now can be happens. These should be easy with Polymarket or platform are offering bet on anythings. Maybe you can check on there ?

To find some bet you're looking.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

when browsing a gambling site, you will see some special bets for every popular match. for example, there may be bets on a player scoring a goal, receiving a card, or being sent off. there may be some bets on what the referee or players will do.

my question is this: do you think gambling sites that give odds on the likelihood of an event occurring should also offer the option to bet on the opposite outcome? of course, there's no obligation to do so, but if there are odds given on a player scoring a goal, i think gamblers should also be able to bet on the possibility of that player not scoring.

there can be special bets with very low odds, and i think it wouldn't be a bad idea for their opposite bets to be available as well. this could be a recommendation for gambling sites.

Well, as much as I understand what you are talking about and believe it's a really good idea, I still think casinos or sportsbook makers introducing such is absolutely not necessary, introducing such can only lead to a cluster of betting options won't really be nice looking even for the casino's UI..

For example, if a casino after having provided the 1x2 market and provide other betting options too and created an option for osimhen to score, it might make sense to also provide an bet option for osimhen not to score but it's not necessary, so the only option have to be if osimhen wi score, if you think he will score, then place a bet on this option, but if you think he wouldn't, then simply go for the next available option, it's not absolutely necessary casinos to start creating opposite option for very bet option they introduce in a sports match.

[m2017]

when browsing a gambling site, you will see some special bets for every popular match. for example, there may be bets on a player scoring a goal, receiving a card, or being sent off. there may be some bets on what the referee or players will do.

my question is this: do you think gambling sites that give odds on the likelihood of an event occurring should also offer the option to bet on the opposite outcome? of course, there's no obligation to do so, but if there are odds given on a player scoring a goal, i think gamblers should also be able to bet on the possibility of that player not scoring.

there can be special bets with very low odds, and i think it wouldn't be a bad idea for their opposite bets to be available as well. this could be a recommendation for gambling sites.

Technically, can create a bet on any event, like a football match (even absurd ones), and you're limited only by the bookmaker's imagination: how many times will this player fall, how many times will the ball go into the stands, which player will feign injury when hit by the ball. You can create a bet on any event, which would expand the types of bets for each match. I think if bookmakers added such borderline absurd bets, it would only attract new gamblers who would bet purely for fun.

Perhaps the betting industry will eventually come to this conclusion.