2010 Brownlow Wash-up: List five things you learned

Remove this Banner Ad

Jan Juc

Jan Juc

All Australian
Veteran
Jan 31, 2007
831
168
Southbank
AFL Club
Collingwood
Guys,

I'm a firm believer in the work done after an event is often as valuable (if not more) than the work done leading up to the event. Analysing what went right (and why), what went wrong (and why), what you didn't see coming, what you should have seen coming, what you took advantage of, what you missed and general gut-feel/intuitive learnings must be bundled up together and put away somewhere - so as to not make those same mistakes again or to provide a spark for future opportunities down the track when this event has long been forgotten.

I'd like this thread to be a place where people sit back for a couple of minutes and reflect on key learnings after Brownlow night 2010. Make them as in-depth as you want. No need to boast about winnings (be they actual or "virtual"). No need to pay out umpires or specific players. Just jot down the handful of things that you took away from the night. Hopefully some of the 'year-long' devotees of these Brownlow threads will show their faces in these parts as well!

I'll add to this OP later today with my own learnings (right now I'm flat out with our own B-low post-mortem), but some things I'll be covering include:

* Polling in average teams (Priddis v Le Cras; Riewoldt v Deledio) vs polling in strong teams (Montagna v NDS v Hayes v Goddard)
* Optimal number of anchors or banker selections in multi's
* The 1.02 effect (club votes) in a player's winning chances
* Preparation (and timing of). Framing your own markets before the markets are released


Sorry to leave this open-ended, but I've got to churn out some stats for media requests. Will get back to this this afternoon.
 
Good stuff Jan Juc

I think post event analysis is very important - each year I do a verification of my votes to see how well I did - what was my percentage/hit rate for 3 votes, 2 votes, 1 vote etc.

Then there is the umpire analysis which I haven't found a quantitative way of analysing.
 
One other thing with regard to the betting was the arbitrage opportunities available throughout the night.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I'm doing my post-count review at the moment. Some of the things on my list are:

- most team favourites won last night - usually there are 2 or 3 from left field, like Davey. Is this an ongoing trend, as has been more prevalent in the last two years
- past polling history, Judd again showed how important this is
 
One thing off the top of my head for now-

- I think it is very dangerous to lock in a forward for 3 votes, unless they kick 8 goals or more. Example being Jack Riewoldt vs St Kilda in Round 21, kicking 7 goals 1 in a tight loss and winning the medal during the game. Only polled a single Brownlow vote from that game, when most here had him locked in for 2 at worst. (Jonathan Brown seems to be an exception to this)

Many also had Brad Green polling more than he actually did, for similar reasons I think. No forward love
 
1. Stick to proven vote getters. Obviously, there are exceptions, but when it works, it works.
2. First year pollers don't do great. But it means that Barlow/Hannebery/Martin will be in our vision next season.
3. Instinct is good. No second guessing.

That's three.
 
Great Idea Jan Juc, i was thinking of this during my dream last night.

Hopefully Gary Davies doesnt check the team multis and is just glad with his 4million + win. Because he got poned by all of us.

I was really nervous at the start of the night. Melbournes votes were heading to Davey, Macdonald and Moloney and Sylvia missed out in rounds 4 and 5 where i though he would pick a few up. Green also struggled but i was barracking for him hard even though i had Sylvia in majority of bets.

1. I dont know which performance was more impressive (Priddis, Boak, Watson or Judd). These guys have to be in our vision next year as they polled ridicously well. Helps being captain and proven vote getters continue to poll votes.

2. Back in your own tally and other well known posters on this board. They put in huge amounts of time and research to make gambling on the brownlow "calculated gambling". If i backed my vote count i wouldve won a shitload more. Only my cover bets lost, but i predicted every team winner which shouldve won me alot more. My combinations all seemed to miss by one. But i still won big.

3. End of an Era. It looks like Black, Goodes, Boomer harvey may have ran their race for the brownlow all polled below what was expected. So look for other players in these teams to take the reigns.

4. Ill add in another one. Get in ealry with your bets and do research earlier so you can be confident in your bets. Boak payed 6, Sylvia payed 5 or 6, Boyd was 4.50 and not to mention the anchors which opened much closer to $2.

And to that poster who said harvey and swallow would poll 40 votes between them and i said they would be luck to get anywhere near close to that. You know who was right, cant remember the poster and cant be bothered looking back through.

Something else that i think might be important to post. Is how to get your money out of a Victorian account into your bank account or whatever?? anyone with known experience of this would be greatly appreciated. Would love to get it into my bank account before my parents know
 
If Ablett leaves for the GC, get on Selwoood early next year as he is going to poll his brains out once Gary has gone north...

Even more so if he's made captain as well.
 
To be honest, most of the stuff I learnt was just re-confirming what I already knew. Picked 15 of the 16 team winners so I basically have just learnt to keep doing what I'm doing. I guess a couple of other small things are:

- Try and bet earlier to get better odds, I left it until last week.
- Trust yourself with the bigger odds multis. A couple of multis that I was thinking of putting on and didnt end up doing because they were too much of a 'long shot' would have got up and won. For example I had Boak marked at about $1.5. I included him in a lot of multis but was still a bit tentative with him because he was paying about $3 at the TAB. Shouldn't have been more tentative, should have backed my instinct and included Boak in more things.
 
1) Do the Obvious
2) Go early and get the best odds
3) Don't over think it
4) Go with your gut instincts
5) Don't get too greedy in your multis.
6) Small fruit are still sweet.

I turned a $5k profit.

But lost out some big bets cause Chappy didn't beat Franklyn, Bolton, Rioli in that group.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I guess the main thing i learnt to back myself as i thought boyd would do well but hesitated with others opinions and putting boyd in more multis would have made me a lot richer.

Its important to get other opinions but to do well you have to back the decisions you made.

Also there isnt too much research the people who do the best are willing to put in the hard yards. The mug punters wont but the successful ones do.

With the players it seems that no matter what good pollers poll. Agree with Selwood being a big chance next year if ablett leaves and depending on how well port do in the next few years boak could do well. His polling last night really impressed me.
 
its also going to be interesting with a new club on the horizon with 17 markets instead of 16.

p.s sorry didnt realise we had to list them just rambled along.
 
Can anyone tell me how much ill get if Collingwood win, they payout is 3400ish

But i have Sylvia and K.Jack in that bet. Sylvia drew with Davey and Jack drew with Buddy and Bolton. How much will i get payed?

Also whats the best way to get my money from the VIC account into my bank account. Not to keen on giving details over the iternet ect. EFT or cheque??
 
Dunn - Well Done said:
Can anyone tell me how much ill get if Collingwood win, they payout is 3400ish

But i have Sylvia and K.Jack in that bet. Sylvia drew with Davey and Jack drew with Buddy and Bolton. How much will i get payed?

Also whats the best way to get my money from the VIC account into my bank account. Not to keen on giving details over the iternet ect. EFT or cheque??
Click to expand...
3400/2(Sylvia) = 1700. 1700/3(Jack) = 566.66
 
1. Listen to other people. Don't ignore your own thoughts/tallys but combining ideas and results leads to a greater idea of what might happen.
2. There's always going to be a Davey each year. Don't depend too much on semi-longshots like Swallow and Jack, still have a few 'out there' bets, but the many-legged multis with your dependables like Thompson, Watson, etc. should be your bread and butter (two 8-legs won me most of my $$$).
3. Hodge at ~$1.20 was probably not worth it and not good for my heart but he still won :thumbsu:
 
sgnl00 said:
1. Listen to other people. Don't ignore your own thoughts/tallys but combining ideas and results leads to a greater idea of what might happen.
2. There's always going to be a Davey each year. Don't depend too much on semi-longshots like Swallow and Jack, still have a few 'out there' bets, but the many-legged multis with your dependables like Thompson, Watson, etc. should be your bread and butter (two 8-legs won me most of my $$$).
3. Hodge at ~$1.20 was probably not worth it and not good for my heart but he still won :thumbsu:
Click to expand...

Fantastic insight. I got Boak, Boyd and the other locks home easy (was most confident about these), but was far too dependent on getting one (or two) of swallow, jack, tuck and montagna up for a massive collect.
 
sgnl00 said:
1. Listen to other people. Don't ignore your own thoughts/tallys but combining ideas and results leads to a greater idea of what might happen.
Click to expand...

My credo is nearly the polar opposite - form your own opinions and stand by them because if you're not confident enough to do so in the face of opposing views, you don't stand a chance in the long run.

Conducted a reasonably sophisticated analysis and came up short in my first attempt. Even before the count (but after betting!) I realised there were flaws in my approach. Needed at least one of Goddard, Swallow or Hodge to poll to expectations, and none did. Will modify it next year and if the result is bad again, I'll abandon punting on the Brownlow because my opinion's not worth s**t.
 
Ron The Bear said:
My credo is nearly the polar opposite - form your own opinions and stand by them because if you're not confident enough to do so in the face of opposing views, you don't stand a chance in the long run.

Conducted a reasonably sophisticated analysis and came up short in my first attempt. Even before the count (but after betting!) I realised there were flaws in my approach. Needed at least one of Goddard, Swallow or Hodge to poll to expectations, and none did. Will modify it next year and if the result is bad again, I'll abandon punting on the Brownlow because my opinion's not worth s**t.
Click to expand...

Normally I'd agree, if you know your stuff well enough and have a good brain for analysis then back yourself, but I think the nature of the Brownlow has enough variation (i.e. unpredictability of umps) that you need a large sample of people who have a good idea of polling.
 
I remember someone looked at this last year but I can't find the specific post. If anyone can find it, can you post a link as it would be interesting to compare the results between years.

Basically I've looked at how teams polled compared to how many points (as in games won) they got throughout the year. For some reason, probably game style or the closeness of results, some clubs such as Collingwood, North Melbourne & St Kilda polled fewer votes per game won than others. Teams that got more votes relative to games won (or drawn) were West Coast, Melbourne, Brisbane & Sydney.

Team ----Points ----Votes ----VPP
WCE-----16 --------31 -------1.938
MEL -----34 --------64 -------1.882
BRI ------28 --------49 -------1.750
SYD -----52 --------88--------1.692
CAR -----44 --------71 -------1.614
RIC ------24 --------37 -------1.542
WB ------56 --------86 -------1.536
ESS -----28 --------43 -------1.536
GEE -----68 --------104 ------1.529
ADE -----36 --------53 -------1.472
FRE -----52 --------75 -------1.442
POR -----40 --------57 -------1.425
HAW ----50 --------70 -------1.400
STK -----62 --------83 -------1.339
NME -----44 --------56 -------1.273
COL -----70 --------89 -------1.271

I remember that Collingwood were down the bottom last year as well. If the trend is similar for a number of clubs over several years, it might be worth taking account of this trend when giving votes next year. An example would be Rodan or Judd in their games versus the Pies this year. Most people had them getting 2 votes (they both ended up getting 3). Next year, when opposition players star against the Pies, North or Saints in a loss, it might be worth erring on the side of generosity.
 
You would expect the lower teams to gain more votes per 'point' than the higher teams however (which your table suggests) as in a given game, where the winner may kick 60% of the score and the loser 40% of the score, the winner receives four premiership points to zero - which is not a true indication of the match outcome (which ideally would show 2.4 points to 1.6 points). Thus the winner of a match is rewarded more for effort than the loser.

However the votes awarded have more 'shades of grey', where (although of course there is a correlation between a team's performance in a match and the amount of votes they gain), you would assume there would be a stronger relationship between some sort of measure of the match score (say margin, or percentage etc.) and the number of votes polled.
 
krayfesh said:
1. Stick to proven vote getters. Obviously, there are exceptions, but when it works, it works.
2. First year pollers don't do great. But it means that Barlow/Hannebery/Martin will be in our vision next season.
3. Instinct is good. No second guessing.

That's three.
Click to expand...

These thoughts are excellent.
'In Close players are the way to go. Juddy[forever] ,Watson, Selwood, Boyd, Priddis, Gazza, Blackie[except this year] ,Hayes, Mitchell.

The stand-off players waiting for 2nd use worth 'risking'. Swanny, Chappie, Dal santo, Montagna, Hodge, Goddard, etc.

Flashie players who make things happen worth a look. Buddy, Goodes, Browny, Davey?...etc

Dodge forwards alltogeather.

youngsters who can make the in-close group will do well next time.such as Hanneberry, Swallow, Barlow, etc
Congratulations to the UMPIRES for getting it right!!
 
SJ said:
You would expect the lower teams to gain more votes per 'point' than the higher teams however (which your table suggests) as in a given game, where the winner may kick 60% of the score and the loser 40% of the score, the winner receives four premiership points to zero - which is not a true indication of the match outcome (which ideally would show 2.4 points to 1.6 points). Thus the winner of a match is rewarded more for effort than the loser.

However the votes awarded have more 'shades of grey', where (although of course there is a correlation between a team's performance in a match and the amount of votes they gain), you would assume there would be a stronger relationship between some sort of measure of the match score (say margin, or percentage etc.) and the number of votes polled.
Click to expand...

Players from winning teams are over-represented in the votes. Long gone are the days of Fitzroy producing 5 winners in 6 years while winning 35 games. Later, Skilton won his medals playing in 4, 6 & 8 wins. I reckon it's a cultural thing we've picked up from the US which has replaced the Australian "battler" ethos. Everybody loves a winner nowadays.

% of votes to players in winning teams. 2010 had the fourth-highest ratio since the recording of round-by-round votes began.

Code: 
Year % Vts
----------
1984 82.70
1985 79.26
1986 83.59
1987 80.48
1988 83.11
1989 81.81
1990 84.31
1991 84.87
1992 82.62
1993 83.00
1994 84.35
1995 82.47
1996 86.99
1997 86.57
1998 84.86
1999 84.00
2000 88.70
2001 87.50
2002 85.06
2003 85.74
2004 84.38
2005 82.57
2006 84.10
2007 85.26
2008 85.54
2009 86.59
2010 86.88


A few years ago I won some money betting on the total number of votes polled by Geelong players (no other teams were offered). The margins were in three-vote increments - 103-105, 106-108, 109-111 etc. I did this by graphing the following numbers on a curve, deriving an equation for the curve, and estimating that Geelong would poll 106 votes (odds $5.50 from memory). AFAIK this bet is no longer offered, but maybe these numbers will help somebody.

Margins of all h&a games since 1984, with number of matches, number of 3-2-1 polled by winning teams, and % of total votes scored by winning teams.

Code: 
Mgn Ma 3v 2v 1v % Vts
---------------------
  1 99 68 51 52  60.3
  2 82 52 52 41  61.2
  3 80 61 40 36  62.3
  4 74 52 42 42  63.5
  5 68 55 39 42  69.9
  6 72 54 42 34  64.8
  7 75 55 44 49  67.1
  8 80 60 49 52  68.8
  9 76 59 53 45  71.9
 10 78 61 55 42  71.6
 11 68 50 41 40  66.7
 12 60 49 45 38  76.4
 13 67 56 49 36  75.1
 14 67 56 48 41  75.9
 15 76 69 44 43  74.1
 16 72 63 47 42  75.2
 17 75 71 55 50  82.9
 18 83 77 58 52  80.1
 19 74 72 47 48  80.6
 20 61 56 50 37  83.3
 21 66 57 51 38  78.5
 22 75 69 53 53  81.3
 23 71 64 51 51  81.0
 24 70 65 55 43  82.9
 25 61 55 47 42  82.2
 26 84 79 65 63  85.3
 27 78 73 65 56  86.5
 28 78 73 66 50  85.7
 29 55 49 46 40  84.5
 30 57 54 46 42  86.5
 31 65 61 53 54  87.9
 32 66 63 56 54  89.6
 33 76 69 70 59  89.0
 34 65 62 54 50  88.2
 35 64 63 50 53  89.1
 36 61 60 56 40  90.7
 37 55 49 46 44  85.8
 38 57 54 46 46  87.7
 39 56 52 48 45  88.4
 40 44 42 41 30  90.2
 41 56 52 45 47  87.2
 42 42 41 36 30  89.3
 43 50 47 47 41  92.0
 44 57 55 52 43  91.2
 45 48 45 41 41  89.6
 46 63 61 62 53  95.2
 47 43 41 38 34  90.3
 48 43 42 40 34  93.0
 49 40 40 37 33  94.6
 50 40 38 36 35  92.1
 51 37 36 34 29  92.3
 52 42 41 37 38  93.3
 53 34 33 34 25  94.1
 54 48 47 47 42  96.2
 55 32 31 32 30  97.4
 56 31 31 30 28  97.3
 57 43 43 37 36  92.6
 58 21 21 19 18  94.4
 59 30 29 27 26  92.8
 60 31 30 29 27  94.1
 61 27 27 26 25  97.5
 62 27 27 27 22  96.9
 63 33 33 32 31  98.0
 64 34 34 34 30  98.0
 65 25 24 25 24  97.3
 66 27 27 25 23  95.1
 67 19 19 17 16  93.9
 68 30 30 29 25  96.1
 69 23 23 22 23  98.6
 70 22 22 22 20  98.5
 71 19 19 17 18  95.6
 72 23 23 22 21  97.1
 73 20 20 19 19  97.5
 74 25 25 25 25 100.0
 75 18 18 17 16  96.3
 76 22 22 21 21  97.7
 77 23 23 22 21  97.1
 78 17 17 15 16  95.1
 79 21 21 21 19  98.4
 80 12 12 12 12 100.0
 81 12 12 12  9  95.8
 82 15 15 15 13  97.8
 83 14 14 14 14 100.0
 84 11 11 11 10  98.5
 85 17 17 17 16  99.0
 86 17 17 17 16  99.0
 87 15 15 15 15 100.0
 88 13 13 13 11  97.4
 89 14 14 14 14 100.0
 90  8  8  8  8 100.0
 91 11 11 11 11 100.0
 92 10 10 10 10 100.0
 93 13 13 13 12  98.7
 94  7  7  7  7 100.0
 95  8  8  8  8 100.0
 96  6  6  6  6 100.0
 97 11 11 11 11 100.0
 98  7  7  6  6  92.9
 99 11 11 11 10  98.5
100  4  4  4  3  95.8
101  8  8  8  8 100.0
102  4  4  4  4 100.0
103  6  6  6  5  97.2
104  7  7  7  7 100.0
105  2  2  2  1  91.7
106  1  1  1  1 100.0
107  4  4  4  4 100.0
108  6  6  6  6 100.0
109  2  2  2  2 100.0
110  3  3  3  3 100.0
111  1  1  1  1 100.0
112  2  2  2  2 100.0
113  4  4  4  4 100.0
114  3  3  3  3 100.0
115  3  3  3  3 100.0
116  7  7  7  6  97.6
117  5  5  5  5 100.0
118  4  4  4  4 100.0
119  2  2  2  2 100.0
120  2  2  2  2 100.0
121  1  1  1  1 100.0
122  3  3  3  3 100.0
123  2  2  2  2 100.0
124  3  3  3  2  94.4
125  1  1  1  1 100.0
126  4  4  4  4 100.0
127  4  4  4  4 100.0
129  1  1  1  1 100.0
130  1  1  1  1 100.0
131  4  4  4  4 100.0
134  1  1  1  1 100.0
135  3  3  3  3 100.0
137  2  2  2  2 100.0
138  1  1  1  1 100.0
139  2  2  2  2 100.0
140  2  2  2  2 100.0
141  2  2  2  2 100.0
142  1  1  1  1 100.0
151  1  1  1  1 100.0
157  2  2  2  2 100.0
160  1  1  1  1 100.0
162  1  1  1  1 100.0
163  1  1  1  1 100.0
164  1  1  1  1 100.0

I also did some research into teams which had the better of the second half, bearing in mind the commonly-held belief that players who finish games strongly will be "fresh" in the umpires' minds when they come to do the votes, however I didn't find any evidence whatsoever that this is a factor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top