Talk:Betfair
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Betfair is part of WikiProject Gambling, an attempt at building a useful gambling resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information). |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Poker, an attempt at building a useful poker resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page. |
[edit] Dutching
Because the overround at the bookmakers is so high one CANNOT effectively lay a horse by backing all the others. Usually this will result in an assured loss whatever nag wins. The "obvious" counterargument doesn't wash, I'm afraid. I am a frequent layer at Betfair so the "dutching" argument serves my interest but it cannot be practically implemented. Paul Beardsell 05:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Example: Say there are 10 equally good horses in a race. The odds would be decimal 10 or 9:1 to be fair. But typically the odds available at a high street bookmaker will be decimal 8 or 7:1 at best. Backing 9 of the horses with a stake of GBP10 each in order to lay the remaining horse results in a loss no matter which horse wins. Paul Beardsell 05:10, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Unexplained reversion
Why was this reversion taken [1]? Josh Parris#: 05:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I have fixed it. Paul Beardsell 06:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Betfair guide in external links
Seems like an odd site, like maybe it's an affiliate doorway, but I wanted to get a 2nd opinion about the site's merits before removing it. Rray 22:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- I agree - so I removed it. "Be bold" as they say MikesPlant 12:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- You're replying to a discussion about another site, not the page you added today. Based on the tone of your language, it seems that you have some affiliation with Betfair. You should review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest. Linking to multiple pages from a single site from an article just isn't a standard practice in an encyclopedia, and it shouldn't be done without a good reason. Rray 16:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I completely understand your concerns and as you are the editor of this section, I simply ask you to keep an eye on xhttp://betting.betfair.com as I am sure you will see it's relevance and value within time. Something that should be mentioned on Wikipedia. Regards
why would you call it spammy ! its not - its a collection of blogs written by betfair staffers and other contributors. it does not aggressively sell betfair and its mission is to help users make a better bet. it has the full backing of mark davies head of comms and pr, along with Bert (the founder) so i'm a little disturbed anyone would think its a spam site. for this reason i'm reincluding it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.197.188 (talk) 10:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a link collection. The article already links to the main website. Please don't continue to spam the article with an extra unnecessary link. Rray 12:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
this link (betting.betfair) has value to users, which is why ive included it. if you care to look at the site, you will see how difficult it is for other elements of the site to be user visible. wikipedia is one way of bringing this to users attention.
- Wikipedia doesn't exist to bring a subdomain to the attention of a website's users. Please stop re-adding the link. If you continue to spam the article, I'll ask that your ip address be blocked from editing here. Rray 12:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
