Perm 7 from 10 vs Perm 8 from 11: Cost and Coverage Compared

Two permutations come up again and again in pools conversation: the 7 from 10 and the 8 from 11. Both feel like a natural step up from a straight selection, but they differ more than their names suggest once you actually run the numbers. Here is a proper side-by-side.

What each perm is actually asking for

A 7 from 10 perm means selecting ten fixtures and asking the operator to generate every possible combination in which seven of those ten are correct. An 8 from 11 perm means selecting eleven fixtures and covering every combination in which eight of those eleven are correct. Both let a player hedge against getting one or two selections wrong within a slightly larger pool, rather than needing every single pick to land.

Working the line counts

The number of lines a perm generates is given by the combination formula C(n,k) = n! / (k! × (n−k)!). Working it through for each:

7 from 10: C(10,7) = 10! / (7! × 3!) = 120 lines.

8 from 11: C(11,8) = 11! / (8! × 3!) = 165 lines.

So moving from a 7-from-10 to an 8-from-11 does not just add “one more fixture” — it increases your total line count by 45 lines, or roughly 1.375 times the original coverage. That is a meaningful jump in cost for what looks like a small change in selection size.

Translating lines into stake cost

Using an illustrative unit stake of 20p per line (actual minimum stakes vary by operator and should always be checked directly), the cost difference becomes concrete:

At any given unit stake, the 8 from 11 costs roughly 37.5% more than the 7 from 10 to run — a direct consequence of the 45 extra lines, not a rounding quirk.

What that extra cost buys you

The trade-off is genuine, not just more expensive for its own sake. The 8 from 11 covers an extra fixture in your selection pool (eleven versus ten) while still allowing for the same single-wrong-pick-plus-one margin of error relative to its total pool size. In practical terms, it means you can include one additional fixture you are reasonably confident about without needing to drop a less certain one, at the cost of a meaningfully larger outlay.

Whether that trade is worth it depends entirely on how much extra confidence that eleventh fixture genuinely adds. If it is a toss-up selection included mainly to “fill the pool”, the extra 45 lines of cost are buying very little additional edge. If it is a fixture you are specifically confident about and would otherwise have had to leave out, the larger perm earns its cost more convincingly.

Break-even thinking, worked through

Neither perm guarantees a return, and no amount of combinatorial coverage changes the underlying unpredictability of football results. But it is worth being clear-eyed about what “covering more combinations” does and does not achieve: it increases the chance that a partially-correct set of selections still produces a qualifying line, not the chance that your underlying picks are good ones. A perm built around ten or eleven weak selections, however large, does not out-think a smaller perm built around genuinely well-researched picks.

A simple decision rule

• If you are confident in 8 or 9 of your fixtures and unsure about 1 or 2 extra ones, a 7 from 10 generally offers reasonable coverage without excessive cost.
• If you have a genuinely strong eleventh selection you are reluctant to drop, the 8 from 11’s extra cost may be justified — but budget for it deliberately rather than drifting into it.
• If your “extra” fixtures are really just guesses to fill the pool, stick with the smaller, cheaper perm and save the difference.

A third option worth knowing: part-staking

If the full 165-line cost of an 8 from 11 feels steep but you still want the wider coverage, fractional entry offers a middle path. Taking a half-stake across all 165 lines at an illustrative 20p unit stake brings the cost down to £16.50 — cheaper than a full-stake 7 from 10 at £24.00, while still preserving the wider eleven-fixture coverage. The trade-off is that any winning line pays out only half its full dividend. This is worth considering specifically when the appeal of the 8 from 11 is the extra fixture coverage rather than full-size winnings on every line.

Keeping perspective on both options

Both perms are simply different-sized nets, not different levels of certainty. The quality of the underlying selections still does almost all of the work; the permutation size only determines how much room for error you are paying to build in.

Checking your own operator’s minimum stake rules

Every figure used in this comparison is illustrative, built purely to demonstrate the proportional relationship between the two perms rather than to state real prices. Operators set their own minimum unit stakes, and some apply different rules for perm entries versus single lines. Before committing to either a 7 from 10 or an 8 from 11, check the actual current stake structure for your chosen coupon rather than assuming the figures used here as a teaching example apply directly.

A note on responsible staking

Larger perms cost more, and it is easy to drift from a 7-from-10 budget into an 8-from-11 spend without really deciding to. Set your total coupon budget first, then choose the perm size that fits inside it — not the other way round. Pools play should be treated as entertainment, not income, and is restricted to those aged 18 and over.

Run the maths before you commit to either perm. The 45-line, roughly 37.5% cost gap between a 7-from-10 and an 8-from-11 is exactly the kind of detail that is easy to overlook until the coupon total is already in front of you, and it is far easier to plan for in advance than to absorb as a surprise once the slip is filled in and the total staring back at you is higher than you expected.