You can typically get online bookmakers to display decimal odds, but I find the traditional way easier.
1-6 = you bet 6 to win 1 (plus the return of your 6). I should probably have said '1/6' or '6/1 on'.
7/2 = yes, you bet 2 to win 7 (plus the return of your 2). Casinos sometimes like to give odds as '9 for 2', including the return of the winning stake in the money you get, because it sounds better.
So they were effectively saying they thought it was very likely that he would get the record - the decimal odds would be shown as 1.17 (because you get your stake back, you end up with 1.17 times the money you started with).
For the 7/2, it would be 4.50.
Note that if the odds really are him getting it six times out of seven, they should be offering 6/1 (or 7.00) on him not doing so = they were hoping to make a hefty profit either way. That the odds have shifted as they have suggests they have taken rather more bets on him not getting it than they would like.
I don't bet very often (see previous series for why) but there are sometimes offers that are (deliberately) difficult to turn down. In this case, an original bet of £20 for someone to be in the top four goal scorers for this season's football has got £30 of 'free' bets, plus another £2 every time he scores. If Wiggins fails to get the record, I'm ahead.
no subject
1-6 = you bet 6 to win 1 (plus the return of your 6). I should probably have said '1/6' or '6/1 on'.
7/2 = yes, you bet 2 to win 7 (plus the return of your 2). Casinos sometimes like to give odds as '9 for 2', including the return of the winning stake in the money you get, because it sounds better.
So they were effectively saying they thought it was very likely that he would get the record - the decimal odds would be shown as 1.17 (because you get your stake back, you end up with 1.17 times the money you started with).
For the 7/2, it would be 4.50.
Note that if the odds really are him getting it six times out of seven, they should be offering 6/1 (or 7.00) on him not doing so = they were hoping to make a hefty profit either way. That the odds have shifted as they have suggests they have taken rather more bets on him not getting it than they would like.
I don't bet very often (see previous series for why) but there are sometimes offers that are (deliberately) difficult to turn down. In this case, an original bet of £20 for someone to be in the top four goal scorers for this season's football has got £30 of 'free' bets, plus another £2 every time he scores. If Wiggins fails to get the record, I'm ahead.