Back From The Game - Ipswich Town

[facaldaqui]

If you are talking about teams occupying league positions (which is of course the best indicator of a season's form), there are results up and down the leagues every week which don't work out as they 'should' do.

Arsenal Vs West Brom and Norwich Vs Hull come straight to mind from last weekend. If I looked for some results on teh internets I'm sure I could find more examples where 'form' teams have been beaten at home by bottom six sides.

As a betting man, I'd agree. I've given up serious betting on football because I've never found a system that would more than break even. (Rugby handicaps are much easier, in my opinion; horseracing, a write off.) The obvious thing to do would be to back teams that had won their last few at home, if they are playing at home against teams that have lost their last few away. And because the odds would be tight, put them in a treble. But it's virtually impossible to get three home wins using that method, I found.

[Ryn]

And that's why running a bookies is a license to print money. Things just don't work out as they should.

There's always going to be an upset, and form tables can't predict that. In fact, no stats can.

The only ones that matter are the points total in the league, and the goal difference if it comes down to it, because that is what the league is sorted on, and that is what determines whether we get promoted or not.

The most I will concede is that a team playing well is usually playing well for a reason, possibly because they have a better squad, or better manager, and are perhaps more likely to win a home encounter against a lower placed side.

It is never guaranteed however and anything can happen, including a beach ball in your goal

[Snowball]

So in a given season, Man U or Chelsea at home to some bottom six side
how often do they LOSE such a game. Very rarely.

Sides promoted from the Championship are capable of beating the big sides at home in the Premiership, as we have proven ourselves. We were still a 'bottom six' side though as that was were we were predicted to finish.
If you are talking about teams occupying league positions (which is of course the best indicator of a season's form), there are results up and down the leagues every week which don't work out as they 'should' do.
Arsenal Vs West Brom and




Norwich Vs Hull come straight to mind from last weekend.



Going into that game, Norwich after 7 games were on 13 points, Hull were on 8
That is hardly a CHASM, and Norwich had already lost 1 of their 3 home games.

And Norwich were just up from Div 1, Hull down from the Prem
so experience, class etc, that's hardly an upset.


If I looked for some results on the internet I'm sure I could find more examples where 'form' teams have been beaten at home by bottom six sides.
Bookies would have made a mint on the Arsenal game.

I said top sides AT HOME. I don't recall us winning at Man Utd, Chelsea or Arsenal, even when we came 8th.

West Brom were IN FORM going into the Arsenal game, certainly a very decent run of form after their horrible 6-0 walloping first game

P6 W4 D1 L1 9-5

They had beaten Birmingham, Man City & Sunderland, so no mugs, and drawn with Spurs
and lost by a single goal at Anfield. That's hardly "bottom-of-the-table" form

AND THEY ARE SIXTH IN THE TABLE!!


A L 0-6 Chelsea

H W 1-0 Sunderland
A W 2-0 Leyton Orient
A L 0-1 Liverpool
H D 1-1 Tottenham
H W 3-1 Birmingham
H W 2-1 Manchester City

A W 3-2 Arsenal

[RobRoyal]

And that's why running a bookies is a license to print money. Things just don't work out as they should.

Erm... right. Wouldn't that mean that a great strategy for beating the bookies is just to back all the upsets?

The reason that bookies make money, when they do make money, is because they call the odds right (and add their percentage cut). If things were really that unpredictable then bookmaking would be a less profitable (at any rate less popular) than it is.

Your above comment is circular. I would say that things work out exactly as they should. Man Utd will be given odds for a given home game that suggest a likelihood of 70, 80% or more that they'll win. Perhaps 10 or 20% of the time they don't. How is that "things not working out as they should?"

[Ryn]

Because by your example 10-20% of the time they won't win. Then things don't work out as they should. In reality it's probably more like 5%, but that's still one match in 20 that flouts the rules and goes the opposite to what was predicted. Which means facaldaqui's spread bet goes out the window

Bookies make money by taking more money on bets than they pay out in winnings. It's a simple formula that is indeed very difficult to get right every time. They try to spread their liability by shortening odds on the favourite to win and lengthening those on the less favoured side, to attract more business there and away from where they are more likely to pay out. When the favorite wins, it's at low odds, and they are covered by betting of the other two outcomes, i.e draw or favorite to lose.

By far the most lucrative is now all the side betting - how many corners, red cards and fouls will there be? What will the exact score be and who will score first?

Walk past a betting shop on a big match day, and you will see in the window 'Lampard to score first in a 2-1 win pays 8-1' which in reality is pretty shitty odds. The chances of Lampard getting the first goal out of a choice of about 10 players (5 for each side capable of realistically scoring) multiplied by the chance of the correct scoreline (again from a choice of about another 10 realitistic scores) already gives 100 combinations, yet you are taking on the bet for a chance of 8-1? No thanks.

All those combinations attract extra business that often has a very low chance of payout and makes some healthy money for the book keeper.

In a very long winded way, my point was alluding to the fact that you can use statistics to give an indication as to what might happen, but I would never bet on it

[Ryn]

And Snowball, you should really spend less of your life collecting stats to try to prove people wrong.

[facaldaqui]

Because by your example 10-20% of the time they won't win. Then things don't work out as they should. In reality it's probably more like 5%, but that's still one match in 20 that flouts the rules and goes the opposite to what was predicted. Which means facaldaqui's spread bet goes out the window

Bookies make money by taking more money on bets than they pay out in winnings. It's a simple formula that is indeed very difficult to get right every time. They try to spread their liability by shortening odds on the favourite to win and lengthening those on the less favoured side, to attract more business there and away from where they are more likely to pay out. When the favorite wins, it's at low odds, and they are covered by betting of the other two outcomes, i.e draw or favorite to lose.

By far the most lucrative is now all the side betting - how many corners, red cards and fouls will there be? What will the exact score be and who will score first?

Walk past a betting shop on a big match day, and you will see in the window 'Lampard to score first in a 2-1 win pays 8-1' which in reality is pretty shitty odds. The chances of Lampard getting the first goal out of a choice of about 10 players (5 for each side capable of realistically scoring) multiplied by the chance of the correct scoreline (again from a choice of about another 10 realitistic scores) already gives 100 combinations, yet you are taking on the bet for a chance of 8-1? No thanks.

All those combinations attract extra business that often has a very low chance of payout and makes some healthy money for the book keeper.

In a very long winded way, my point was alluding to the fact that you can use statistics to give an indication as to what might happen, but I would never bet on it

For once, someone on HN who understands betting. The sort of odds people on here take for first scorer, etc., are daylight robbery. Early last season there was a great excitement here about odds of 33:1 for Reading being in the lead at half time and losing, after they'd done just that against someone (Peterborough?). I said, knowing some stats, that the true odds were more like 66:1. I don't think it came up again for Reading that season. In my opinion, the only way a Reading fan could make a little money is by using their knowledge of watching teams play against Reading. For example, I backed Northampton to win or draw against Liverpool.

[Ian Royal]

We wont last the pace, ITFC. Our squad is wafer thin and it wont take more than an injury or two and the odd suspension to derail us, but a top ten finish would be good for me with how keen the chairman is to sell every asset here.

We've had injuries since the 1st ball was kicked yet currently find ourselves in 6th

We competed pretty well against a highly fancied Ipswich team despite missing 2 first team regulars through injury and 2 through suspension. We even won the game after our captain was sent off and our best player removed as an injury precaution. I'm not entirely convinced about the "wafer thin" squad argument to be honest especially when you look at how players such as Cummings and Robson-Kanu have stepped up recently.

As someone else pointed out I'm not convinced we've enough goals in us to last the pace (unless we can get Hunt back to his best) and I think the fixture list has probably been relatively easy on us so far but the squad in general is a lot stronger than its given credit for in my opinion.

this all seems to be utterly correct, carry on.

Vision is always worth reading. Even if he's disagreeing with you and you think he's wrong, he still makes excellent posts.

[facaldaqui]

And Snowball, you should really spend less of your life collecting stats to try to prove people wrong.

I'm a Snowball fan. His stats make you think: for example he showed that Reading played well enough without Sigurdsson in the past, and this trend seems to be continuing. But I doubt Snowball takes his stats very seriously; he just enjoys compiling them, and they add to the gaiety of nations.

[Upper West Ginger]

I'm a Snowball fan. His stats make you think: for example he showed that Reading played well enough without Sigurdsson in the past, and this trend seems to be continuing. But I doubt Snowball takes his stats very seriously; he just enjoys compiling them, and they add to the gaiety of nations.

Then I wish he would stick to compilation, and quit sharing them with the rest of us. Whatever medication he is on, the dosage needs adjusting, because in the past couple of weeks he has gone into manic overload (and straight back onto my foes list).

[Woodcote Royal]

If you feel the need to put someone on ignore just for posting stats perhaps you're the one who needs some medication.

[Ryn]

I'm not saying the stats don't have their place, because they do, but it is possible to over-analyse.

Snowball is basing his projections on a very small sample size so far which doesn't really tell us much, apart from one possible outcome out of about 8 million.

Some of his numbers do make interesting reading, and at least he is passionate I suppose, which is better than some of the morons on here.

[Snowball]

I'm not saying the stats don't have their place, because they do, but it is possible to over-analyse.

Snowball is basing his projections on a very small sample size so far which doesn't really tell us much, apart from one possible outcome out of about 8 million.

Some of his numbers do make interesting reading, and at least he is passionate I suppose, which is better than some of the morons on here.

I have admitted that the sample size is small, but it grows every game.

Facts are still abundantly clear that we score more, concede less WITHOUT Gylfi, and facts are 1 defeat in the last 8 league games now, sixth now, 4 clean sheets in the last 5.

[Upper West Ginger]

If you feel the need to put someone on ignore just for posting stats perhaps you're the one who needs some medication.

Posting stats is fine. Behaving obsessively about it is not, hence my comment. I find Snowball's highly selective stats and his tortured logic a waste of bandwidth, so I've chosen the simplest way of ignoring them. No medication needed, but thanks for your concern.

[Mr Angry]

Another thing about Tuesday night; am I the only one who, when seeing the pic of Stretch on the cover of the programme did a double take and thought I was seeing a picture of Floyd???

Have Floyd and Armstrong ever been seen in the same room togteher?

Floyd - you ARE Chris Armstrong, AICMFP.

[Maguire]

The statistics are fine.

The conclusions are an affront to scientists the world over.

[floyd__streete]

Floyd - you ARE Chris Armstrong, AICMFP.

I have been told that I am more Andy Gurney.

http://www.havantandwaterlooville.net/p ... rs/185.jpg

[RobRoyal]

Because by your example 10-20% of the time they won't win. Then things don't work out as they should. In reality it's probably more like 5%, but that's still one match in 20 that flouts the rules and goes the opposite to what was predicted. Which means facaldaqui's spread bet goes out the window

Bookies make money by taking more money on bets than they pay out in winnings. It's a simple formula that is indeed very difficult to get right every time. They try to spread their liability by shortening odds on the favourite to win and lengthening those on the less favoured side, to attract more business there and away from where they are more likely to pay out. When the favorite wins, it's at low odds, and they are covered by betting of the other two outcomes, i.e draw or favorite to lose.

By far the most lucrative is now all the side betting - how many corners, red cards and fouls will there be? What will the exact score be and who will score first?

Walk past a betting shop on a big match day, and you will see in the window 'Lampard to score first in a 2-1 win pays 8-1' which in reality is pretty shitty odds. The chances of Lampard getting the first goal out of a choice of about 10 players (5 for each side capable of realistically scoring) multiplied by the chance of the correct scoreline (again from a choice of about another 10 realitistic scores) already gives 100 combinations, yet you are taking on the bet for a chance of 8-1? No thanks.

All those combinations attract extra business that often has a very low chance of payout and makes some healthy money for the book keeper.

In a very long winded way, my point was alluding to the fact that you can use statistics to give an indication as to what might happen, but I would never bet on it

You are quite correct. Scorecast bets make me wince with their unfairness. I have no sympathy for people seduced by a big price who bet without considering the true likelihood of, say, Lampard FG 2-1 win. A lot of people do it for fun without believing it's sensible, I suppose.

I would only add the following:

1) the reason you shouldn't bet with the bookies is because their cut makes the odds almost always reflect a slimmer outcome chance than it the reality, and

2) if you feel you know more about an outcome than the bookies' oddsetters, you are in a good position to take money off them (the best example I experienced working at William Hill was where someone put decent money on both drivers of an unfancied car to place in the Canadian Grand Prix - the one that eventually ran with only 6 cars. Because the punter foresaw that most teams would pull out of the race before the bookies had realised that, he cleaned up to the tune of several thousand. The same can, in theory, be practiced in all sports and in more common circumstances, though in reality few if any people are better informed than the bookies about English football. Foreign football is a different matter entirely).

[Ryn]

I'd agree with you Rob. It's why insider info is so valuable

[facaldaqui]

I'd agree with you Rob. It's why insider info is so valuable

I think the only way you can get a slight edge is by using your local knowledge of watching Reading. If I had to suggest a winning system, it would be to back Reading to win at home in any championship game after they won at home last time. This is such an unexciting and slow system (tight odds) that I doubt thrill-seekers would follow it; but it is nice. You could spice it up by doubling stakes for the next two suitable games before returning to the original stake, or by adding winnings to stake for the next two games. You could add a cautious element by not betting next time if you felt Reading had a lucky win last time or too many players missing for the game in question. The profit margin wouldn't be anything to write home about, but profit margins in betting never are.