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

[qwertyup23]

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.

I agree with you here.

While adding extra choices may seem attractive, there is no all-encompassing choice that would cover each and every answer to this question. While I do agree that it is highly variable, meaning it depends on the game, adding those choices would either be a boon or a bane depending on the sport involved.

Personally, however, I do think that adding the opposite choice can be quite fun but at the same time riskier on my part. But then again, it will highly depend on the game/sport that is involved which can either be beneficial or not to both me and the casino.

[Joy- maker]

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.

On a related note, casinos are suppose to allow betting on both side of an event, but practically it doesn't work that way. And there are few reasons why casinos don't allow betting on both side of an event, first reason has to do with risk management, casinos try as much as possible to protect themselves from a situation where players will bet on one side of the outcome.

If the betting is not balanced casinos will expose themselves to larger losses, but by limiting some options they can be able to manage that Risk better. Remember, same way you and me is in to make money, is the same way casinos owners are in to make money, and not to lose money.

Second reason is that some markets simply don't have enough liquidity, If there are not enough players who are willing to take the opposite side, then casinos will be left with no option than to offer the side at will attract more players. Remember before casinos bring out any option they will first do some mathematics, after that they check and balance and when they discover that players will bet less on a particular option they won't bring that option or they may change how it work.

[rachael9385]

This is a good idea, but you need to understand that every option in betting is well planned out by the casino and as such they are calculated to be the way they are. Only few options have opposites and an example is BTTS yes and BTTS no. Everything is calculated, any option you don't find there is because they don't want it.

[Somto9Light]

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..

This option will really make the gamblers to have more of wins than loss but this will have side effect in them, in a way they will want to place a bet with a big about of money, hoping they can be winning everytime and will also make them not to be strict or discipline about gambling, whereby they will behaving anyhow because they have seen option that will make them to win more. So the disadvantage won't only be for casino's owners but also for the gamblers as well.

[Smartprofit]

Yes, that would be great! 💁

However, in my opinion, it's important to remember that a bookmaker is a commercial organization. For a bookmaker, sports betting is a business. Therefore, the bookmaker already takes their profit into account when compiling the list of bets and odds. The player can win or lose. However, the bookmaker must still make a profit!💸

I think that if you haven't found an "opposite" bet at the casino, it's most likely simply unprofitable for the bookmaker. That's why they don't offer it.

Furthermore, the presence of an "opposite" bet, in my opinion, isn't entirely beneficial for the players themselves. I don't quite understand how a player can use such bets... Hedging risks? No, that's not how it works! It's like going to the racetrack and betting on all the horses at once.🏇 You're guaranteed to lose even if one of your bets wins.

[Nwada001]

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.

Yes, it was a typo. Thanks for pointing that out. It has been corrected. By the explanation, it was clear on the angle that I was pointing at. We all know how easy and manipulative it can be when someone is asked not to score in a game or when someone doesn't want to score; they carefully use every possible means to make sure they miss scoring even when it's pretty obvious that's a good chance for them to have scored.

[stompix]

~
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.

None from those that I use, there might be a some to offer specials for certain players, I know Betfair has a lot of those weird bets, but something that goes on constantly and for every single player, no, I don't know any.
Of course, this is for football, it's a different thing for basketball but I don't bet on that at all.

My opinion, these are way too easy to rig, especially in lower leagues or matches without much at stake, so bookies stay away from them.

[Muba20]

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.

If there is a betting option, there should also be an opposite betting option. If I see a betting option that a certain player will score goal in a bet, then there should be an option that that player will not score goal. When the option to bet on both sides is open, the gambler has no hesitation in betting on that bet. But when the option to bet on only one side is given, it seems boring to me. However, nothing can be said about this because what the bookmaker will do is completely their own matter. Another thing is that the same type of bets are never seen in the market. Gambling platforms offer betting options according to their wishes. In the case of betting, if there are two options, bets will be placed on both sides.

[CryptoHeadlineNews]

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.

Such idea of having an opposite bet option on Sport games is actually a brilliant idea, and I'm sure lots of casinos are on this forum and they might wish to implement that on their respective casinos if they seems to notice a high depend for it.  But however, I think implementing both positive and opposite options on the betting slip, it will literally just make the betting options many to easily navigate while booking games, which is which I think soon book makers usually only pick those players that have been proven to score goal in that clue on their previous games on the bet slip. But it still doesn't mean this idea is not brilliant, as it will give gambler more options to navigate sport betting seamlessly. So I will be glad to see casinos like Stake, Duelbits, Rollbits and Rainbet implement this new option, and likewise advertise it to the general gambling community.

[Lannakosa]

This is a good idea, but you need to understand that every option in betting is well planned out by the casino and as such they are calculated to be the way they are. Only few options have opposites and an example is BTTS yes and BTTS no. Everything is calculated, any option you don't find there is because they don't want it.

I’ve never really thought about the idea that every bet must have an opposite outcome, and I don’t think it’s that important. When we want to place a bet and look at a particular event, the betting market usually includes a huge number of possible options, so you can almost always choose something that suits you. And if not, there are always other events to bet on. So I don’t believe that having an opposite outcome is something that must exist for every bet.

[Mr_Brilliant$]

This is a good idea, but you need to understand that every option in betting is well planned out by the casino and as such they are calculated to be the way they are. Only few options have opposites and an example is BTTS yes and BTTS no. Everything is calculated, any option you don't find there is because they don't want it.

This is true, casinos will not just put options out there randomly, everything is carefully structured so that they will always has an edge.. If an option is not available, then it is because it can give players a better angle that might reduce their advantage.. 
so that is why even when we see opposites like Both team to score yes and Both team to score no, the odds will be in a way that protects them.. it is all business, the system is designed for them to win in a long run..

[Dunamisx]

When we have a large number of gamblers taking bets, from there, you will discover that some are having a better school and while in other conditions, some gamblers are losing and having the opposite of what others are achieving, this is a normal expectation with gambling because we don't know what may end up our own experience each time we are playing.

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

I don't think it's a must for every bet to have an opposite, some bets do but not all, in market options such as home win or away win, you can bet that home is going to win or you can bet that they will lose while away is going to win them. You can also bet on both team to score 1 goal on the first half or both team not to score. So, it actually depends on the game you are referring to, the bookie you are using and the option you really want.

[nakamura12]

A casino is supposed to be smart, if you think they are not giving options which you expect them to have, that means they are protecting their business, knowing fully well that such option will give them more losses. For example, a goal keeper scoring in a game, you don't expect them to have a NO with a good odd, if YES the odds will be huge, for a NO can have very tiny odds that won't add any significant multiplier to your whole bet, including the NO option with the cheap odd is the same as not having that particular option.

It's true because casinos mainly focus on profit and not losses although some casinos may have it but I don't think many casinos will do it. Anyway, if there isn't a lot of gamblers want the feature on a casinos about it then I don't think that casinos will implement it and rather focus on what the casinos have right now although in my opinion, it is a good idea to have it and see if it will bring good profit to the casinos.

[Strongkored]

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 are already quite a few betting options available now, allowing bettors to choose another option if one doesn't meet their expectations. Therefore, I believe what's currently available meets the needs of bettors.
Bookmakers will only add additional bet types if they see a high-profit potential, if there's little interest, it likely won't be profitable for them.
I even do the same things more often, on handicaps, over/under, ML or BTTS, the rest only occasionally, other bettors might do the same thing as me.

[Mhizlove]

The idea isn't that bad because the betting market are supposed to give players flexibility when both sides is possible available and gamblers  can decide base on how they think and reason rather than being limited to one option. With all this I will say that at the same time bookmakers are very careful when it comes to designing the market and they always make sure to manage the risk and protects their advantage which do not end here, they also gives opposite options most times can make the market more better and balanced for bettors

[khiholangkang]

This is a good idea, but you need to understand that every option in betting is well planned out by the casino and as such they are calculated to be the way they are. Only few options have opposites and an example is BTTS yes and BTTS no. Everything is calculated, any option you don't find there is because they don't want it.

The idea is quite cool, we can see that with BTTS YES or No, the consequences are very big if it's about the player who scored the goal, because in the average match I've watched, not every match the striker scored a goal, for example yesterday's match in La Liga between Real Madrid vs Celta Vigo, in this match strikers like Vinicius Junior, Brahim Diaz and Arda Guler didn't score a goal and Valverde and Tchouameny scored goals and that was a goal, this is very difficult to predict and calculating the odds is also definitely difficult in my opinion.

[Judith87403]

In principle, to offer both sides of a bet can make the market to feel much more balanced. When a site lists odds for players to score, it looks reasonable that bettors could equally choose not to score, since both results is existing. Such kind of symmetry can provide gamblers more flexibility and permit different methods.

Nevertheless, bookmakers mostly limits markets based on risk, liquidity, and how easy the price is to event. Certain niche bets are given majorly for entertainment or promotions, therefore they can just show one side when then other side is hard to manage or possible to get exploited.

Hence while it may be fair and helpful in a lot of cases, betting sites ultimately create markets in areas that secure their risk and model of profit.

[alegotardo]

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 do not see problem with casinos offering a contrary bet, nor can I imagine why they would have reasons not to do so.... In fact, there is a reason, yeah: "are there people willing to bet in this?"

For example, what are the probability of someone bet that "The goalkeeper of ABC team will not score a goal?"
Even though the back profit to cassino on this type of bet is so low, its certainly not a profitable betting option to offer, because very few people would make this type of bet, do you see? do you agreee?

In the same way that a tradicional merchant would hardly display a product on their store that almost none buy, casinos do the same thing with th  bets they offer on your sites.

There are certain bets that are not worth offering, not because its would be a problem bu it is only not profitable.

[OsaiEmma]

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 is some sense in your suggestion, but this will only favor the bettors and go against the owners or bookmakers. You know, scoring a goal is more difficult than not scoring, having an option of not scoring is basically setting an odd that will be unfavourable to the house, so that suggestion is good and nice for us that are using the service, but horrible for those rendering the service.

You also suggested to give it a low odds, regardless, there will be a win, if someone keeps accumulating these wins, then the house will be in loss, so no matter what it won't be favourable to the bookmakers. I guess, because of this, it will be unlikely to see such options in any sports bet platforms. But for events like corners, goals, fouls, and similar options, can have opposite options because they're more likely to occur, and including their opposites will give a good chance to both the house and bettors.