AFL 2021 AFL Grand Final (Macrae is a spud thread)

[Red Dog Styles]

Sweet thanks for that
As usual getting no reply from them so thought someone on here would have the answer and just like that you do
Appreciate it mate

Yeah as long as over 3 legs and odds were over 2.00.


On SM-G930F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[mac23]

Where’s the bloke saying we were pretenders all year long?

 

[srobbo]

FU McCrae….12 to qtr time & you finish on 25. No wonder the umps don’t give you brownlow votes you spud. Cost me a fortune. EAD! Go Dees!

 

[The_Steadier]

Where’s the bloke saying we were pretenders all year long?

That would be our resident know it all iluvparis

He's like origami though, folds under pressure.

so you won't see him around to receive his medicine.

 

[iluvparis]

Pickett held his own & did a few good things besides scoring, but Weightman, F**k me what a piss weak effort!

wut? I thought he went full neon Leon myself. Awful display

 

[iluvparis]

That would be our resident know it all iluvparis

He's like origami though, folds under pressure.

so you won't see him around to receive his medicine.

they turned up when it mattered the most this year and that got them the title in an exceptionally weak year. But a touch of variance in the last 6 weeks and they don’t get there.

Deserved flag winners though as the least chokey of the only 3 half decent units in the comp

 

[onthehill24]

wut? I thought he went full neon Leon myself. Awful display

Correct 4 possies

 

[BuddysBiggestFan]

 

[BuddysBiggestFan]

Should have went over 5.5 for the quarter….

 

[NonPhixion]

Christian petracca

5

Christian Petracca

Age

28

Ht

187cm

Wt

94kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

19.4

5star

K

9.5

4star

HB

9.8

5star

M

3.5

4star

T

3.0

5star

CL

2.5

4star

D

24.4

5star

K

10.4

4star

HB

14.0

5star

M

3.5

3star

T

3.6

4star

CL

3.4

4star

D

19.0

5star

K

7.8

3star

HB

11.2

5star

M

3.0

3star

T

3.8

5star

CL

2.0

4star

highlight view count: 27

 

[Ohh Ok]

Great season boys.

I wish I quit after rd 3,would have ended up much better.

But it has been a lot of fun.

Special mentions BloodRet NYRB Ohh Ok dontlimitme

And so many others.

I've said it before, I'll say it again, you guys are like friends to me.

I'm stuck in this bullshit country a million miles away from home, you guys keep me sane.

Next year I'll find the next Gulden, let's clean out sportsbet, fu** the campaigners

Have a good weekend, see you all soon

Cheers mate! Always love your posts and the laughs you bring to this place.

My head is pounding but last night couldn’t have gone much better from a punting perspective. Went 10-6 and up 14.83 units from plays I posted in here.

Had an absolute blast this season. Cheers to everyone who made it an enjoyable and contributed insight and tips throughout.

 

[NYRB]

AFL Grand Final Sprint 2021 Winner:
Petruccelle $1.57
Henry 5.50
Liam Ryan 6.50
Ethan Hughes 9.50
Rotham 13
Tom Cole 21
Andrew Brayshaw 26
Luke Ryan 41


if Petruccelle doesn't win that, he shouldn't be playing AFL footy.

i didnt realise but Rothan won that race..........well done to anyone that got on that one.

 

[Ohh Ok]

Also, hopefully the bookies are liking their wounds a bit. Would think Petracca would’ve been most backed in the NS markets

 

[Robo87]

i didnt realise but Rothan won that race..........well done to anyone that got on that one.

the video footage they showed on channel 7 last night looked like he drew with petrucelle, but they never mentioned exactly who won it on tv, they just said eagles placed 1st, 2nd and 3rd, so the no winner announcement annoyed me.

 

[Prochard123]

macrae sux macrae sux macrae sux macrae sux macrae sux

Oliver over 31.5 - tick
Petracca 25 - tick
Dunkley 20 - tick
Bontempelli 25 - tick

4/5 right all with line odds or around and macrae ruined Half the multis

shame that sportsbet only allow me to do multis otherwise fk multis go for singles every game

 

[FrankGrimes]

im also on the F you macrae train...

 

[The_Steadier]

Awwww shucks, it's nice to no this place isn't completely overrun by ingrates.


Just when you thought I wasn't awesome enough already- here's some fun.

(Note the below are all UNBOOSTED odds)

I've discovered that the SB multi algorithm
REALLY doesn't rate the chances of a player from EACH team winning the most goals and most possies group 1 markets.
As such, the algorithm gives us generous odds OVER the quoted values like this:

View attachment 1245809

But wait, there's more- the algorithm also doesn't rate the prospect of EACH team winning the most goals and first goal markets either.

Both of these quirks are hit and miss in their application, but they do result in some absurd value if you have a play around.

View attachment 1245823

View attachment 1245824

View attachment 1245826

View attachment 1245827

View attachment 1245828


View attachment 1245830

View attachment 1245832


I could go on all day, but I think you get the idea.

At least some will.... the others will laugh at my post as it goes sailing over their heads and into the window they just finished licking.

So naturally none of these came up for 2 reasons-
1. Neither macrae nor oliver won most possies.
(Can't argue about that, that's life)

But reason 2 for why they didn't get up is worth exploring:

2. They didn't get up because players from the same team won the most goals, most possies and first goal markets.

The "bonus" value the SB algorithm applies to multis only occurs when you select (some) players from differing teams to win:
A. most possies and most goals markets
and/or
B. Most goals and first goal markets

This is worth watching out for in the future I think, as to me they are 3 markets which should be fairly independent of eachother.

I say fairly because I do think SB probably have a wealth of statistical data which probably(?) show that teams that win most possies and/or first goal usually/often win most goals and vice versa.
?

But even if true- that doesn't discount this algorithm quirk entirely I think, because the size of the "bonus" value that it thows up with certain players (random players, ranging from long shots to favourites) is truly astronomical.

ie at times it even literally DOUBLES (and more) what the multi odds should be (via straight multiplication).

(As my select few options I posted yesterday demonstrate)

 

[Ohh Ok]

So naturally none of these came up for 2 reasons-
1. Neither macrae nor oliver won most possies.
(Can't argue about that, that's life)

But reason 2 for why they didn't get up is worth exploring:

2. They didn't get up because players from the same team won the most goals, most possies and first goal markets.

The "bonus" value the SB algorithm applies to multis only occurs when you select (some) players from differing teams to win:
A. most possies and most goals markets
and/or
B. Most goals and first goal markets

This is worth watching out for in the future I think, as to me they are 3 markets which should be fairly independent of eachother.

I say fairly because I do think SB probably have a wealth of statistical data which probably(?) show that teams that win most possies and/or first goal usually/often win most goals and vice versa.
?

But even if true- that doesn't discount this algorithm quirk entirely I think, because the size of the "bonus" value that it thows up with certain players (random players, ranging from long shots to favourites) is truly astronomical.

ie at times it even literally DOUBLES (and more) what the multi odds should be (via straight multiplication).

(As my select few options I posted yesterday demonstrate)

Both options are negatively correlated, much the same as when you put total game unders on your SGM when you’ve got goal scorers in there. Simple as that really, nothing special about it.

 

[The_Steadier]

Both options are negatively correlated, much the same as when you put total game unders on your SGM when you’ve got goal scorers in there. Simple as that really, nothing special about it.

Yeah like I said, I accept that there is probably a negative correlation, but how much??

It would need to be a pretty massive negative correlation (as in it NEVER happens where each team has a player that wins the most goals and most possies market etc) to account for an up to literal doubling (and more) of the odds on offer.

 

[Ohh Ok]

Yeah like I said, I accept that there is probably a negative correlation, but how much??

It would need to be a pretty massive negative correlation (as in it NEVER happens where each team has a player that wins the most goals and most possies market etc) to account for an up to literal doubling (and more) of the odds on offer.

Can think of Mitchell where it would happen a bit, but not mathematically equip to do the maths behind that, nor would I want to, first goal scorer bets are pretty low % bets, and top goal scorer bets often get their odds slashed due to dead heats.

If you want to double odds etc you’re better off backing the unders and then a couple goal scorers

 

[Dominion]

Both options are negatively correlated, much the same as when you put total game unders on your SGM when you’ve got goal scorers in there. Simple as that really, nothing special about it.

Are they really though? Is more possessions really that correlated with winning/more goals? I always thought it was more game style based. Feel like I see a lot of the teams that chip it around a lot and not actually accomplish anything are the ones losing

 

[Ohh Ok]

Are they really though? Is more possessions really that correlated with winning/more goals? I always thought it was more game style based. Feel like I see a lot of the teams that chip it around a lot and not actually accomplish anything are the ones losing

Average disposal differentials for 2021. Obviously more to it than that, but a decent snapshot.

 

[The_Steadier]

If you want to double odds etc you’re better off backing the unders and then a couple goal scorers

This is my point though- you aren't just doubling your odds by adding more multi legs. (Like as you suggest, add a couple of goal scorers)

I'm talking about how this sometimes (up to) and sometimes way more than doubles your odds without adding any extra legs.


Look.at this one for instance:



None were outrageous chances of getting up, but those odds are!

Fyi, the odds on each leg for that one were:
Naughton = $5
Tracc = $14
Macrae = $2.3
Bont = $1.45
Fritch = $1.12
Spargo = $1.75

= 457/1... but paying out @ $2501.

Like I said- this is well worth exploring even if there is some level of negative correlation.

 

[iluvparis]

This is my point though- you aren't just doubling your odds by adding more multi legs. (Like as you suggest, add a couple of goal scorers)

I'm talking about how this sometimes (up to) and sometimes way more than doubles your odds without adding any extra legs.


Look.at this one for instance:

View attachment 1247717

None were outrageous chances of getting up, but those odds are!

Fyi, the odds on each leg for that one were:
Naughton = $5
Tracc = $14
Macrae = $2.3
Bont = $1.45
Fritch = $1.12
Spargo = $1.75

= 457/1... but paying out @ $2501.

Like I said- this is well worth exploring even if there is some level of negative correlation.

The 'negative correlation' comes from the fact that only a certain amount of goals will generally be kicked in a game - so the more AGS you add to a bet the less goals are available for the next person you add to the bet to kick.

 

[The_Steadier]

The 'negative correlation' comes from the fact that only a certain amount of goals will generally be kicked in a game - so the more AGS you add to a bet the less goals are available for the next person you add to the bet to kick.

Like I said that's gotta be some pretty incredibly sized negative correlation (as in it basically NEVER EVER EVER EVER happens) that, for instance, guys like spargo, fritch and bont kick a snag + a guy like Trac kicks first goal + a guy like naughton kicks most goals....

to account for a 500% increase in odds solely resultant from that negative correlation.