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

[imthegreat]

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.

If I understood you correctly, bookmakers should conduct such bets, which will assume that, for example, a certain player will definitely not score a single vote in the match or will definitely not receive a red card. And of course, these betting slots should exist because it will expand the range of opportunities for the bookmaker and at the same time attract new gamblers who will consider it a very good opportunity to place a bet in which they could be sure.

[sotelorene]

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.

This is where they used so many people's head or brain because they will give a certain odd on a particular option due to the chances or possibilities of the the game playing and sometimes they will give a higher odds on the opposite of that same game and  sometimes we are been deceived by odds, we believed big odds signifies impossible but that is not actually correct because bookmaker always use this to trick people. I think last week or this week Monaco used a big odd to win PSG some people never believed because of the odd.

[Darker45]

The "option to bet on the opposite outcome" is already there right? In the first place, that's what you'll choose from if you bet on which team or player is winning. It's either this team or the other. Betting on Team A basically means betting on Team B not to win. Or betting on first goals, for example, you don't have to release odds for Team A not making it because that essentially means betting on Team B. There's also over/under, yes/no, and so on. Those are already opposite outcomes, right? But I guess not all opposites odds are profitable, interesting, or even possible.

[nimogsm]

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.

If I understood you correctly, bookmakers should conduct such bets, which will assume that, for example, a certain player will definitely not score a single vote in the match or will definitely not receive a red card. And of course, these betting slots should exist because it will expand the range of opportunities for the bookmaker and at the same time attract new gamblers who will consider it a very good opportunity to place a bet in which they could be sure.

But would this be profitable for the bookmaker itself? For example, take football, and then you could create a condition that the goalkeeper won't score, since it's extremely obvious, and then the site would have to pay for it. I think this is unlikely, since someone has to pay for it.Perhaps somewhere there are such extended conditions, but I have not yet encountered such that it would be possible to write the script for the game yourself.

[AmaGold70]

Most of the bets or options still have their opposites, and I would say this depends on the site and the particular match that is about to play. There are times you will see a particular option or bet with their opposite option on a particular match, but when you check on the next match, you may only be seeing one option without the opposite side. Bets with opposite options can be interesting to bettors, because it enables them to make their decision based on the wide range of options available . When bets have only one direction without the opposite side, it can be very challenging, it can deprive bettors of choosing the best option for themselves, and sometimes you see a gambler not betting on a match because he or she feels the best option for that particular game is not on the list of options given. I used to experience this sometimes, when I want to play bet based on my research, sometimes it could be that the opposite option is my favorite bet, when it is not on the list of options on the betting site, I feel discouraged and does not bet on that particular game.

[Rashlyowl]

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.

That is a great idea for betting sites, it will give different color to the betting options, if there is a 'Yes' then there should be a 'No'. Usually, those special betting options are available when there is a big match, I believe the reason why sites don't offer the opposite option is because it doesn't appeal to most bettors. Their team understands better how the betting market is, it is not available for a reason & the logical reason is there is no interest from the market for such betting type.

[dimonstration]

That is a great idea for betting sites, it will give different color to the betting options, if there is a 'Yes' then there should be a 'No'. Usually, those special betting options are available when there is a big match, I believe the reason why sites don't offer the opposite option is because it doesn't appeal to most bettors. Their team understands better how the betting market is, it is not available for a reason & the logical reason is there is no interest from the market for such betting type.

I believe some of the sportsbook offers already have this yes or no feature especially on the player props category which the bookie gives a certain target for players to reach while you can bet yes or no with this offer.

I’m actually confused on how will sportsbook can offer a one side bet only while they always rely on the counter bet to pay the winning bet.

Prediction market just much various offer compared to sportsbook.

[Hypnosis00]

No, I don't think that works and benefits us. Why should we not trust our bet? Why should we take all the options?

If you are betting on that player, you already believe he can win the game. But if not, then that's the time to bet on the other option.

What I see is that you wanted to win every game. Thinking about betting on both makes you not lose any. But I don't think it will be the best thing we do as gamblers. It is a crazy thing to do as a bettor. Instead, choose the odd that makes you believe it was right. If it loses, then accept it.

[GiftedMAN]

That is a great idea for betting sites, it will give different color to the betting options, if there is a 'Yes' then there should be a 'No'. Usually, those special betting options are available when there is a big match, I believe the reason why sites don't offer the opposite option is because it doesn't appeal to most bettors. Their team understands better how the betting market is, it is not available for a reason & the logical reason is there is no interest from the market for such betting type.

I've come across several betting options with their opposite for instance a team to score up to 2 or 3 goals in a row and No, a team player to get booked just like the OP said and No, special bettings like that mostly have their opposite No options with it's own odds too and their odds is based on the possibility of the occurrence of such events.

[Ziskinberg]

I’m actually confused on how will sportsbook can offer a one side bet only while they always rely on the counter bet to pay the winning bet.

They play it through the odds. Once they offer those markets it’s almost guaranteed they will end up profitable because the margin is already built into the lines.

Just like in NBA futures betting. There are many choices, like betting on who will win the NBA Finals. You can pick from different teams with their corresponding odds.

But you’ll notice there’s no market that offers “who will not win the NBA Finals.” The way the options are structured already ensures the bookies keep the edge regardless of the outcome.

[irhact]

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 think every bet should have an opposite because if every bet was to have an opposite then the casino should be losing more money than they are currently losing. Casinos are just like other business and they are there to make profit therefore they should have their own best interest at hand first before they begin to make others make money while they lose money if they continue doing this then they can still get bankrupt and they won't be able to continue operating. There are some bets that are just obvious that there should be no opposite because then if there is an opposite that will likely be the case for example when you say a particular player that is not known for scoring goals should get a bet that he's going to score a goal, then you not having an opposite of that not happening a majority of betters will go for the options of that player not being able to score which is likely going to be what is going to happen and with that type of bet the casino is likely going to be losing money more often than they are making money. I just think what we currently have right now is working just fine but that is not going to be a bad idea to have it for some of the casinos but I think most of the options out there always have their opposite.

[YOSHIE]

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

I think the Polymarket.com site already does a series of reciprocal bets, but they don't do it in sports betting, maybe they have done with another strategy that is the opposite.
For example: betting on being caught or not being caught and so on.

Well, if betting sites do what Polymarket.com does, I think having too many different betting options is not a good idea, because sports have limited time matches, So the more options the more complicated it is, except in the long term as Polymarket.com does.

I think it's a little strange to look at sports betting, such as: goals scored, not scored, players out, referees and so on.

[Webutxo]

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.

That depend on the type of casino you are playing, you can check one casino and see good market options but when you check the next one, you may not see such options, that tells you that casino operate on what they can handle and not really how they can make all options available for all gamblers. If they do that, don't you think they are gong to lose. Like the example you gave, even if you hey gave the opposite, the odd will be too small to profit.

The essence of gambling is risk you know, as you trying to pick an option, you are also risking to do what you believe in. As one gambler is making bet that a team can win a match, there is another gambler that thinks the match is going to end as draw and that doesn't make the two gamblers foolish in decision making, they both make bet based on what they believe. If indeed all gamblers make the same productions, I think many casino are going to die.

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

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.

Yes, some market options have opposite bet but not all the option, even those options with opposite bet has different odd set by the bookie, that's to balance the game settings so that players won't take advantage of the opportunity, the opposite bet will either have a very small odd to the real option which is expected not to play out successfully except by luck.

[Patikno]

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 think the "opposite bet" would be attractive to bettors as a wider choice or betting reference, but I don't think it is particularly appealing from a bookmaker perspective, as it would require a lot of work. Furthermore, I think bookmakers have data on the types of bets users play most often, so they only offer a few of those. Personally, I sometimes bet on special bets, or additional bets like that; the last time I did was a VAR bet, and I think the bookmakers/gambling sites know how many bettors are interested in that, and that is why they offer it.

[Wakate]

I don't really know how conversant you are with online casinos due to the nature of your question. There is always an opposite bet for any gambler that they going for the opposite option will be the outcome of the match. It all depends on what you want to see from each matches and that is why casinos do provide gamblers with plenty of options to make your bet be what you want to gamble on.
If you see any option of a team is going to score, you will also see 'no goal' option too in case you think they will not score.

[AmoreJaz]

I don't really know how conversant you are with online casinos due to the nature of your question. There is always an opposite bet for any gambler that they going for the opposite option will be the outcome of the match. It all depends on what you want to see from each matches and that is why casinos do provide gamblers with plenty of options to make your bet be what you want to gamble on.
If you see any option of a team is going to score, you will also see 'no goal' option too in case you think they will not score.

Definitely, there are so many options, not only the opposite. And that is for the gambler to take advantage of. Because every gambler has their own decisions and so they can bet whatever betting line they feel comfortable of or they feel have the chance of winning. Bookies provide those betting lines for so many reasons, bettors have different tastes and so they need to give those lines for them to choose from. The more available lines, the better as they can cover all types of bettors.
Bookies not only provide the opposite but all possible lines that gamblers will be interested of. Because they have their own algo that can detect the pulse of the market and of course, they want to cover those interests so they won't go to another bookie to find that line that is not offered in their site.

[Rgram]

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.

You can’t have an event in a bet without an opposition. I know these things gets tricky when we look at individual performances like a player scoring a goal or certain players being red carded and more but, the fact that you actually took those bets, simply means you’ve opposed another event. The technical part of it is, not having to give odds to certain players not scoring but, you find most of the oppositions on gambling to be about the bets not placed.

[Lida93]

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.

You do have a healthy understanding of what a house is in gambling and in this case, it only entails that the gambling sites would always introduce options that wouldn't be of minimal chance for the gambler to be right about. Countless times we have seen the sites removes options that appears to be very possible to occur in certain matches, they would void those options because it could lead to the house losing much when gamblers pick those options to bet on since they're of high likelihood of playing.

[Emitdama]

The "option to bet on the opposite outcome" is already there right? In the first place, that's what you'll choose from if you bet on which team or player is winning. It's either this team or the other. Betting on Team A basically means betting on Team B not to win. Or betting on first goals, for example, you don't have to release odds for Team A not making it because that essentially means betting on Team B. There's also over/under, yes/no, and so on. Those are already opposite outcomes, right? But I guess not all opposites odds are profitable, interesting, or even possible.

Very interesting topic because do we agree that betting against the majority in sports-betting will lead to profitable results overall? I'm not sure that's true. In fact, most of the times if many people are betting on the same thing, it means the bet is underrated, and hence so many people are betting on that.

I've never tried betting on those popular betting options because most of the time I am very certain what I want to bet on, which mostly is e-sports like Dota 2 and League of Legends. E-sports are not yet famous enough to get front-page recognition or be called popular options.