|
||||||||
Anyone had an early bet ? |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Richmond, Surrey.
Posts: 13,812
|
Anyone had an early bet ?
Almost impossible to come to any definite conclusions from the little we've seen and heard so far. But I always like to have one modest early bet on a contestant who's odds appear generous.
This year I've gone for Kellie Bright at 20/1. I have my doubts about her going all the way, but those odds look good value from the little I've seen and read about her. Each way you get 4/1 for a place (getting in the first three) so I've gone for that. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 11,130
|
I've ended up with a few on different sweepstakes but my main flutter is on Jay and Kellie, I increased my bet on her after the launch show 20/1 is very good odds.
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Richmond, Surrey.
Posts: 13,812
|
Quote:
I've ended up with a few on different sweepstakes but my main flutter is on Jay and Kellie, I increased my bet on her after the launch show 20/1 is very good odds.
Of course, Peter Andre is the one they all have to beat. But he's another kind of marmite character and I wouldn't be betting at his odds of 5/2. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The Twitterverse
Posts: 39,530
|
I've been quite lucky and picked the winner the last 3 years.
![]() I made my bets as soon as the celebs were officially named and put £10 on Helen (7/1) and I also had a free £10 bet which I put on Anita who was 33/1 at the time! Thought she was worth a tenner at that price
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: in the Sun (ツ)
Posts: 11,219
|
I bet the psofa psychologisers will be psychoanalysing ever single utterance, and pinging their empty heroes wrappers in protest at their plasmas at meaningful intervals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Richmond, Surrey.
Posts: 13,812
|
Quote:
I've been quite lucky and picked the winner the last 3 years.
![]() I made my bets as soon as the celebs were officially named and put £10 on Helen (7/1) and I also had a free £10 bet which I put on Anita who was 33/1 at the time! Thought she was worth a tenner at that price ![]() ![]() Katie is as short as 12/1 with some bookies, so must have attracted a few bets. I can't see her getting far myself. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Leicester/London/Essex/Hell
Posts: 3,290
|
Quote:
Katie is as short as 12/1 with some bookies, so must have attracted a few bets. I can't see her getting far myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Down South
Posts: 24,599
|
Had a little punt on Georgia a week or so ago, got her at 7/1
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 124
|
Quote:
Of course, Peter Andre is the one they all have to beat. But he's another kind of marmite character and I wouldn't be betting at his odds of 5/2.
I am a professional sports trader and have not played on Strictly since the BBC changed the rules in season 6 and allowed all three semi-finalists through to the final. Tom Chambers was set up (by the judges) to be eliminated but the BBC thwarted that; since then I have stayed clear as I am not going to get involved in something where the rules can be changed without warning. Prior to this, laying the favourite before he or she had danced was the value bet as anyone backing was not betting on dancing prowess or form, but on speculation. Even if he/she proved capable they would usually have at least one bad week which would enable you to get out of the lay if you wished to. Of course, for a little bit of fun there is nothing wrong with a small bet or two and I wish the best of British to those that are having a go. Best prices I can see on those already mentioned are 23/1 on Anita, 27/1 on Kellie, 8.5/1 on Georgia, 15/1 on Katie and 6.5/1 on Helen. If you have beaten those odds then you have done well as against what is currently available, but of course these will fluctuate once the dancing begins in earnest. Good luck everyone; enjoy the series and your flutters!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 35
|
As far as I am concerned, the one big question is whether the BBC will allow a professional dancer to win the title twice? Aside from the betting point of view, it makes SCD that much less exciting when you can presume that five celebs this year cannot win the competition due to being partnered with a pro who has already won. Carol and Iwan might not be expected to win anyway, but Jay, Kirsty and Helen all could have been considered possible winners. Yes, it might just be how the cards have fallen, but out of the last five finals, (fifteen couples), only one, Natalie and Artem have been a couple with an already winning pro, and their chances could have been considered to have been dashed once the celebs had been announced when the Daily MIrror ( I believe) headlined Natalie as a ringer the very next day. Only one such couple out of fifteen finalists does seem to smack of a bit of good planning going on, rather than just luck.
On the other hand, this should make backing the winner that much easier. Fifteen-runner races are much easier to predict when five can be ruled out to begin with. However, it would only take one pro to win it twice to open all the possibilities. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,314
|
IIRC there was a recent documentary on BBC One about betting shops, and the people working out the odds do so entirely based on what they've seen on the launch show.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 124
|
Quote:
IIRC there was a recent documentary on BBC One about betting shops, and the people working out the odds do so entirely based on what they've seen on the launch show.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 124
|
Quote:
As far as I am concerned, the one big question is whether the BBC will allow a professional dancer to win the title twice?
It is quite remarkable when you compare this with the US series Dancing With The Stars where just five professionals won all eleven series from 2 - 12 (Cheryl Burke, Julianne Hough, Derek Hough, Mark Ballas and Kym Johnson; and Derek Hough has since won another two series). Indeed, at one point the Houghs/Ballas combination had won seven out of eight series, though IMHO this is due in no small part to the Hough siblings being far and away the finest dancers and choreographers across both Strictly and DWTS. |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 108
|
I don't usually bet but if I did I'd choose Helen. I think she's got the best chance if you factor in age, training time, likeability and (probably) talent. The only draw back is she's paired with a winning pro.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,314
|
Quote:
That is a very interesting question. It has always struck me has odd that, even allowing for changes in personnel, no professional dancer has won twice over the twelve series of Strictly.
It is quite remarkable when you compare this with the US series Dancing With The Stars where just five professionals won all eleven series from 2 - 12 (Cheryl Burke, Julianne Hough, Derek Hough, Mark Ballas and Kym Johnson; and Derek Hough has since won another two series). Indeed, at one point the Houghs/Ballas combination had won seven out of eight series, though IMHO this is due in no small part to the Hough siblings being far and away the finest dancers and choreographers across both Strictly and DWTS. - Brendan was arguably given another potential winner in Lisa before she turned out to be so terminally unpopular with the public, and definitely had another potential winner with Sophie - Darren similarly had Emma two series after winning with Jill - Lilia was runner-up the year after winning - Artem had Natalie; the best celebrity ever seen on the show, although in hindsight probably always destined for a runner-up position And this year Aliona and Aljaz both have people who should, on paper, get far. Although I didn't realise until I checked that Derek Hough had won DWTS five times out of twenty series, nobody else has done so more than twice and there's been quite a few occasions on Strictly where that could have happened. |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 124
|
Quote:
- Brendan was arguably given another potential winner in Lisa before she turned out to be so terminally unpopular with the public
Quote:
Derek Hough had won DWTS five times out of twenty series
It is an even better record than that as he only participated from series 5 onwards and did not dance in series 12His form figures read 4 6 1 5 4 1 1 3 4 2 1 1 2 4 4 across his fifteen completed series. Thirteen top four finishes out of fifteen is truly staggering. |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,283
|
Quote:
Indeed, and had it not been for the BBC's unannounced rule change then the final would have been between Lisa and Rachel and who knows what might have happened?
) hold Lisa responsible for the elimination of Austin in the quarterfinal.And disagree with you about the judges fixing this in that semi, as their "fix" resulted in Tom getting into the final (as the BBC were forced to change the rules). Len actually caused me to miss most of series 7 and the whole of series 8 (due to his scoring in that semi amongst others). |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 124
|
Quote:
And disagree with you about the judges fixing this in that semi, as their "fix" resulted in Tom getting into the final (as the BBC were forced to change the rules)..
The judges gave the same score to Lisa and Rachel over the two dances, meaning that each of them scored 3 points from the judges whilst Tom, being bottom, scored 1 (this scenario cannot be repeated as the scoring was adjusted after this, so Tom would now score 2). This meant that even if Tom came top in the public vote and scored 3 (which he did) to give him a total of 4, either Rachel or Lisa had to come second with the viewers, thus earning 2 points and going through to the final. The lowest scoring dancer in the public vote would dance-off against Tom. Tom had been the weakest dancer on the night and thus, barring a miraculously improved performance or a complete disaster by his opponent, he would be eliminated. If there is one thing on which the judges have always been unanimous it is in their emphasis of how they perceive Strictly to be first and foremost a dance competition and that the best dancers should contest the final, and I think this was their way of trying to arrange that rather than have the finalists determined by the public vote. Had Rachel and Lisa been first and second with the judges instead of joint first, the public vote for Tom would have put him straight through to the final if the judges' top choice came bottom in the viewers' vote. If the judges' intention was to ensure that the best dancers got through to the final, this was the only way they could guarantee this would occur. If that is what happened, then as it turns out they couldn't guarantee it thanks to the amendment to the rules. Of course, I have no evidence whatsoever for this; it is merely a theory and feel free to disagree with it and pull it to bits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 13,160
|
I think the on-the-hoof rule change was mainly because all the way through you are asked 'to vote for your favourite to save them from the dance off' - and with the scores there was no way for Tom to avoid the dance off. I think that was the biggie and what lead to the emergency meeting in Strictly Towers. It was all around the same time as the other phone line difficulties and asking the public to pay to vote for something that could never happen was giving them the twitches (especially when you consider that in the event of a tie, the public vote takes precedence).
|
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 124
|
Quote:
I think the on-the-hoof rule change was mainly because all the way through you are asked 'to vote for your favourite to save them from the dance off' - and with the scores there was no way for Tom to avoid the dance off.
Whilst watching the semi-final I got an inclination as to what I thought the judges were up to. I was ready to trade on the betting market of this event and the second that the scores were announced I hit the submit button on Tom to be the night's eliminee. A few seconds later as others cottoned on to the situation (i.e. that Tom had to be in the dance off) his price plunged and I sat there with a smug smile on my face as I knew I had locked in a guaranteed profit and beaten everyone else to it. After a short while the smile faded as it became clear, long before it was announced, that something else was going to happen; for Tom's price to be the eliminee started to drift out. This meant there had to be something going of which I was unaware. There were obviously some who did know, however, and they were able to use this knowledge to their advantage and take positions in the market. When it was announced that all three contestants were going through to the final, the latent drift on Tom became understandable. Those "insiders" profited. As it turned out, some of the bets were voided because of the rule change so it wasn't as bad as it could have been. It was enough to deter me from playing on such markets in the future, of course. |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 35
|
Quote:
I don't usually bet but if I did I'd choose Helen. I think she's got the best chance if you factor in age, training time, likeability and (probably) talent. The only draw back is she's paired with a winning pro.
Providing she proves herself capable, I can spend the duration of the series deluding myself that the BBC will break their golden rule, which is not the happiest basis for watching Strictly. I say deluding as I fancy the BBC will keep to their standard of no double winning pro, not realising that with no less than five previous winners in the field, more and more people will put two and two together and come to the conclusion that it is rather strange that no pros win for a second time, and therefore only ten of this year's contestants can actually win. After all, if you can record a results show on Saturday night, and present it as if it were live on Sunday and fool a big percentage of the viewing public over that, I guess you're not going to be troubled with a more complicated stat like winning pros. |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 35
|
Quote:
- Artem had Natalie; the best celebrity ever seen on the show, although in hindsight probably always destined for a runner-up position Then the following morning, she was headline news on the front page of IIRC the Daily Mirror, and THEN she was destined not to win from that point. The bookies didn't realise this, making her even money favourite or thereabouts for many weeks. It wasn't until she fell into the bottom two in the semi-final that they reacted to her low popularity vote and she became an 8/1 shot again. At that time I don't think I had clocked the idea of no double winning pros, so yes, that certainly did for her, but the newspaper article was already out, and then I guess the BBC felt safe in letting Artem partner her knowing that public opinion had already been set against her. It wouldn't surprise me if the BBC had actually leaked the info to the Daily Mirror just to make sure, but that's me getting carried away with my conspiracy theory. I think the BBC can struggle a bit to guarantee a first time pro winner when several previous winners are in the field - 2006 for instance was a close-run thing. However, they managed to dispatch them with ease last year. I am now of the opinion that when the celebs meet the pros for the first time, they are not just using dance experts to sort out who will be suited to whom by temperament, height etc, but who of the celebs isn't actually good enough to win, and then foist the past winners on to them. It's not a conclusion that I'm happy with as it means that they have decided that Helen is not good enough to win. This is nothing more than wishful thinking, but when considering if a pro might be allowed to win for a second time, for some reason I felt that Aljaz might be the one chosen. It is the only hope left for Helen. |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,616
|
I only put a bet on if I can get reasonable odds on someone who looks half reasonable, so this is the first time I've done it in about 3 years. I've gone for Anita because 1. she looks really keen and willing to work hard and 2. there seems to be a history of sexy Russians winning on their first series - Artem, Aljaz.
Got to be worth a tenner at 20/1. ![]() Also think Kellie Bright would be a good punt cos her first steps video looks pretty good, and if we're talking conspiracy/ manipulation, I think the producers want Kevin from Gimsby to win. |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,314
|
Quote:
When I picked her out on the night of the celebrity announcements, she was 8/1 fourth or fifth favourite, and in my opinion was destined to win, and certainly not be runner-up as a matter of course.
Then the following morning, she was headline news on the front page of IIRC the Daily Mirror, and THEN she was destined not to win from that point. The bookies didn't realise this, making her even money favourite or thereabouts for many weeks. It wasn't until she fell into the bottom two in the semi-final that they reacted to her low popularity vote and she became an 8/1 shot again. At that time I don't think I had clocked the idea of no double winning pros, so yes, that certainly did for her, but the newspaper article was already out, and then I guess the BBC felt safe in letting Artem partner her knowing that public opinion had already been set against her. |
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,654
|
Quote:
I only put a bet on if I can get reasonable odds on someone who looks half reasonable, so this is the first time I've done it in about 3 years. I've gone for Anita because 1. she looks really keen and willing to work hard and 2. there seems to be a history of sexy Russians winning on their first series - Artem, Aljaz.
Got to be worth a tenner at 20/1. ![]() Also think Kellie Bright would be a good punt cos her first steps video looks pretty good, and if we're talking conspiracy/ manipulation, I think the producers want Kevin from Gimsby to win. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 15:31.




