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

[lovesmayfamilis]

It could be more entertaining, as such errors, especially personalized ones, will be quite interesting. But like all the unsubscribers above, I agree that the casino is satisfied with its rules, which are primarily beneficial for their business.

[Oluwa-btc]

I think a lot of what you’re asking is dependent on the type of game you are playing, but for the most part the casino wins either way, so you can bet that the odds are adjusted as more players bet on one side or the other. You’d have to be more specific about the game to get a good answer I think.

Exactly,wether a game has an opposite depends on the nature and structure of the game.In many online betting systems, betting usually occurs in a way that you're betting against probability programmed into the system.In such games,you either win or lose based on the programmed probabilities and it's often difficult to bet both sides effectively.

[Cityhunter34]

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..

It seems like OP want to do smarter than the casinos, it has been said several times that the game is program for the house to benefit more than the gamblers. So it's not a new thing anymore because there's no how that the casino would make things easier for gamblers, they always do it in a way that everything will be difficult for gamblers to get a win in the game and that's exactly what is keeping them in the game because had it been is possible for gamblers to get it correctly without losing they would have all shutdown by now.

[crwth]

I guess it's more exciting that they don't do that. It's like betting or not betting in that situation. The manipulation I think once they have that would be very easy compared to having offers with those types of bets. It's mostly about regulatory restrictions when it comes to those types of things. Maybe this would be done on prediction markets.

I think there are some ethical concerns as well, because players might underperform and be harassed or compromise their integrity in the sport.

It's something that would be too risky IMO.

[Hewlet]

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.

Once it looks like an event has an high likelihood of being predictable, it is not possible that it will be included as a betable option because in most instances, the casino or gambling platform will be the one that will be at loss. all this things involve calculation especially from the angle of the gambling company because they never want to be at loss. if you allow bet that players will not score goal, such bet are easily predicted because for most games, we see few goals by few people and apart from some players that are a bit consistent with scoring goals, you can easily tell that certain player will not score goal. it is just a strategy that they will intentionally set games that are relatively hard to predict which is the reason why certain options wont be available.

[asriloni]

I do think any bet should have an opposite choice, but it's not gonna be profitable for the house. Let's imagine when there is a bet says "Will Garnacho score in this game?" while he's rarely scoring. So it's very easy just to always pick "No" to give you a huge WR caused by the fact Garnacho is not scoring in every single game. Even if Garnacho scores, it happens a few times only.

So this is the reason casino doesn't like it. If you're expecting it, very sad it will never come true. Casino wants their own business to be profitable, they are not a charitable institution. 

[Alex077]

I agreed if every bet had an opposite option the market would look perfect. But in reality bookie do not always do this because these prop bet are made as a specific move, not to create a balanced market. These bet mainly focus on some specific thing like whether or not a certain player will score a goal or a red card etc. Bookie give these discount to bait gambler, not to open a perfect even market

Also you will see bookie manage their profit and risk by changing margin and odd repeatedly. So there is no need for them to keep both side every prop bet to survive or profit. But yeah it would be more fun and flexible if there were opposite option

[Akbarkoe]

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.

There doesn't always have to be an opponent, as some betting options simply don't allow the casino to profit. As you mentioned, while we can bet on a player scoring a goal, there's also the option of the player not scoring. This isn't always the case, as the probability of a player not scoring is much greater than the probability of a player scoring. This is why casinos won't offer the option of betting on the player not scoring.

However, other options, such as no fouls or no corner, can be the opposite of both a foul and a corner. The only betting options for such bets are under or over.

[Fortify]

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.

Believe? It's a bit of a silly question and has nothing to do with belief. Yes, every bet will have an opposite, however small the odds may be on that. However a sportsbook is a business, a company built to make a profit, so they don't have to do anything besides follow the laws of their jurisdiction and any others that they might be forced to adhere on. That means that they only offer a certain size of bet on either side of the odds, but this will be dependent on many factors like their current bankroll, the risk of that particular bet, whether one side of the bet is too heavy already, and several others. I always see opposite bets available, because they're usually built with a margin of safety too - which means even if they're successful the bookmaker is not taking a bigger than necessary hit for the payoff.

[sleepfirefly]

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 definitely are options you can bet on that aren't the most popular bets or the ones being promoted by the gambling site. as a gambler, you should do your own research and make your own decisions so you can know what bets you want to take and not just bet on whatever you see first

[Mpamaegbu]

...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.

Yeah, I think there should be opposite bets too. In real life situation, we know that anything that has advantages as a feature also has disadvantages. That's one thing life has thought me. Just like we've win and losses, stakers should also have that luxury of choice in such a situation. I know doing that will create more bets on every single game. Some may think it's going to be distractions. For me, the more the merrier.

[ralle14]

Those special bets should have an opposite, but that's the downside of most odds providers. The variety of lines they offer can only go so far, and those special markets aren't as popular as the regular markets (moneylines, asian handicaps, totals).

I'd sometimes think it's intentional because offering the opposite could reduce their profits knowing it's only going to help gamblers win.

[DubemIfedigbo001]

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.

In terms of making provision for bets on players not to score, I doubt bookmakers will even think of enabling that. It's easier for someone to score till the end of the entire 90 minutes than for the person scoring. Casinos provide options that they believe will favor them more and not just options that the players are imagining. That option will make sense, but as stompix said, it might create room for cheating.

In think you've got things are little kind of mixed up here, or perhaps it is a typo, but it is easier for players not to score in a match than for them to score, they can just be missing goals intentionally so the manipulated third-party stake on themselves play out. It is true that actions that are dependent of players has possibilities of cheating and the sportsbook curtails it to some point from available selections.

[mv1986]

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!

@stompix I as your doctor have to advise you to not come to these threads! I have told you a million times that your heart is not going to do it for much longer, let alone your brain! The overwhelming amount of basement level information processing will keep gaslighting your perception of reality, dementia is coming for you! You will start doubting yourself where there should be no doubt. Do me a favor and stick to your medication plan before you attend this forum! Only the drugs will help you get through this, alcohol is an option, too.

Anyway, one good thing came out of your discussion: is there a bookie that still offers "play does not score"? I know there was, I think it was Sportsbet for a while because I did hedge bets for the BSFL pool I am playing here. But they don't offer it anymore. Any idea? Oh and the odds were quite high for not scoring. I remember a question was about Osimhen to score in a game yes/no? And back then the odds were like yes/no = 1.87/1.97. Something along those lines.

[rbynxx]

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.

I don't know if I understand your question correctly but aren't they doing that as it is given that if the event wouldn't hit they will get the players bet/money? Well, there could be some opposition for some special bet so there's a lot of options but having just one isn't that bad at all having too many options will only decrease your chance of winning and probably just favorable to the casino.

[danherbias07]

It's called player props in the NBA. I don't know when it comes to football.

Also, there are options in the NBA like (Over/Under) - Double-double. If a player averages almost a double-double per game, you can bet against it by picking under.
This is a sample.

It's like a Yes or No. I believe that's what you are looking for.

Do check the sports bookie that you are using and compare it with others. There might be other options that is not available to them but available to others.

[Altryist]

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.

I’ve definitely seen bookmakers with very wide betting lines that include events for almost any preference, including bets on a player not scoring a goal. But the odds there are so low that when I looked at these markets, I didn’t see any real point in betting on them. In general, I think that betting on low odds events means playing against yourself, because if you win the payout is very small, so the bookmaker takes very little risk, but if you lose, they take your entire bet.

[Zigabel]

Every event that happens is an opposite of it not happening, so there is always an opposite of an Event that happens, and it actually makes a lot of sense if there can be options in that directions too, because events always fo have the opposite of them, of which not happening or happening when it was taught it will not happen is one.  That too can also be another market that will fall to the advantage of the casino, they can cease this as an opportunity to still make money from people's bet. I think I have see a casino with similar stuff, but there's has the yes and no options only.

[SmartGold01]

Of course this could be possible if there are Gambling site that is offering such bet at the moment they could likely bet on the way you said, but most times when the gambling site noticed that there is no benefit on that market they wouldn't mind excluding it just to make sure that they didn't lose. The gambling site prefers for the gambler to be losing all the time without them losing much Penny's to the gambler.

[Slow death]

I believe that if bookmakers offered this market, they would go bankrupt. Consider this: if they offered odds of Mbappé scoring at any time (@2.00) or Mbappé not scoring (@2.00), I believe most people would bet on the second option and win. And I gave the example of Mbappé, who is the top scorer in La Liga. Now imagine what would happen with other La Liga players? I think the reason bookmakers don't offer this market is because many people would win consistently, and this would cause losses for the bookmakers.