2014/15 Lowland League Odds

[surely not!]

The odds set on 1st September after the match on 30th August indicated that there was an 17.75 point gap between Spartans and Gretna. I said that on the evidence of the match that I saw (which I assume that since you two support Whitehill and 'Scotland' you both weren't there and cannot dispute) the gap in the odds did not indicate the gulf between the teams. Taking that into account I said that the odds were very generous especially for an each way bet.

Now, two month later and more than half the league games played, Gretna could easily go into 3rd place if they win their game in hand. You certainly wouldn't get 20/1 now. The guy who put £50 on an each way bet (A Queen's supporter not Gretna) must still be fairly happy. If you can afford to lose £50, 20/1 are great odds to risk the hit. Even if Gretna finish fourth or fifth, the point is still valid as the odds were generous and worth the risk.

Does 'Scotland' not exist any more?

The point is not valid if Gretna finish fourth or fifth. Bookies odds are only long IF the team in question achieves success enough for the bookie to pay out. The odds can be a million to one and the bookie won't pay out if Gretna don't finish in top three.

Also, based on the fact that he's actually put in an outlay of £100 and will get £150 profit only if Gretna make top three( assuming they don't win it) , I'm gonna assume he/she isn't that happy with that as there's a long way to go to collect that £150.

[surely not!]

You were only 7/1 at the time though Elton.

Its all very well now quoting 20/1 1/4 1st 2 when the top two in my opinion are certainties to finish there.

I hope im proved wrong.

Think these odds are more reflective. Actually agree that hills got the odds for Gretna wrong at that point, but only because they were paying top three as opposed to the top two mcbookie were offering. What I don't agree with is the difference between the spartans and Gretna odds- an argument that I believe the current league table supports.

Actually think hills were trying to tempt some money with their odds better than mcbookies at the time but hadn't thought through the top three finish properly. Looks like they had decided the top three would be city, spartans, ww and EK- although not entirely sure of the order. Think they discounted other teams, which in non league fitba is very foolish.

[Mak QOSFC]

I reckon Gretna will kick on and challenge for the title, 20/1 was far too big.

[jimmy grimble]

I reckon Gretna will kick on and challenge for the title, 20/1 was far too big.

Give me some of what you're having!!

[Patches O'Houlihan]

EK 7/1???? I'll give anyone 25/1 if they want.

Thanks to all who took up my kind offer, odds are now 50's for anyone interested. ????

[Cicero]

no point was you said if ye won yer game in hand yer point would be proved. The point will only be proved if and when ye finish in the top 3 ?

No, the point was that some of the Gretna fans thought the bookies shouldn't have had the difference in price between spartans and Gretna as far apart as they were after your 'famous victory' . Spartans are essentially guaranteed to finish top three every year- hence the very skinny odds. Gretna still to prove- no doubt 20/1 is generous for a top three each way market, but you're original 'complaint' was about the difference in price between you and spartans. The ensuing results seem to have justified that difference, although you were then quickly cut to 10/1 after two of you lumped £50 on it!

I have been waiting for this.

Point proved

[surely not!]

Why copy on a statement I've made that actually agrees with you? I've said the odds were generous from a top three point of view.

Your compliant was the difference in odds to win it between you and spartans based on the game at raydale. Based on the game at Ainslie park those odds were correct. And based on the way the league actually finished then the only odds to win the bookies got wrong were the city ones.