Brownlow Guru Speaks - 2015

[bresker]

Dangerfield isn't going to win the Brownlow so why worry if his odds are $50 or $5000?

You Adelaide folk are touchy if you think this s**t matters in any meaningful way. It's not even the Brownlow, it's a bloke making predictions about the Brownlow. Hardly a slight on liddle Patrick's reputation

 

[Roby]

Dangerfield isn't going to win the Brownlow so why worry if his odds are $50 or $5000?

You Adelaide folk are touchy if you think this s**t matters in any meaningful way. It's not even the Brownlow, it's a bloke making predictions about the Brownlow. Hardly a slight on liddle Patrick's reputation

I would have thought Geelong supporters would be more annoyed.

 

[The Passenger]

Anybody made money off this guy? I remember seeing him the past couple of years but has anyone used his advice?

Did well in 2011-13. Like everyone he struggled in 2014. I doubled up $50 in 2012 or 2013 (can't remember which) using his tips.

Dangerfield certainly looks like a bit outlier in this years group. Has polled 20 votes in each of the last 3 years and has probably had his best year (alongside 2012).

I don't think Gaff will poll so well. It's often the year after the breakout that a guy starts really polling well.

 

[JohnnyFontane90]

Dangerfield is the certainly the one that my model differs the most with.

According to my model, he's had a very similar year to 2014 - but I don't expect him to get the same armchair ride from the umpires. Even if he does - I'm expecting the winner to get around 26-28 votes, and it's unlikely he's going to get those numbers

might i ask why not? i thought he wouldn't go close last year and he polled over 20. any adelaide fan will tell you that he's had MUCH better season than last year.

 

[Go the Guts]

Confirms BrownlowGuru is not part of the Adelaide media.

Riiiight. Is he part of Champion Data?

 

[craffles]

Thanks for the input Brownlow guru, a lot of armchair critics.

The hardest part about modelling things like the Brownlow are the objectivity of the award. Eg: 18 line breaking disposals from danger/dusty might catch the umpires eye more than 30 of Gaff 's.

Nonetheless, great analysis as always and thanks for sharing

 

[pantskyle]

I said Priddis would win last year and he did, I said he will win this year, maybe he will.

I got him at the start of the season, anyone else jump on him early?

 

[chiwigi]

Riiiight. Is he part of Champion Data?

View attachment 174179

What has that got to do with it?
You think Robbie Gray will come second in the Brownlow? He wont even come top 20.

 

[billy fragos]

If a non bias spectator watches every game and gives his 3-2-1 straight after they would pick thr Brownlow winner more often than not.

The problem predictors like these is people don't actually look at influence on games.

 

[Go the Guts]

What has that got to do with it?
You think Robbie Gray will come second in the Brownlow? He wont even come top 20.

Way to miss the point. Wasn't referring to the OP. I was referring to your (typical wharfie chip on the shoulder) comment about the Adelaide media overrating Dangerfield. He is the no. 1 ranked player in the AFL according to CD. But yeah, the Adelaide media overrate him.

 

[chiwigi]

Way to miss the point. Wasn't referring to the OP. I was referring to your (typical wharfie chip on the shoulder) comment about the Adelaide media overrating Dangerfield. He is the no. 1 ranked player in the AFL according to CD. But yeah, the Adelaide media overrate him.

Hahahaha, I find that the people with the chip on their shoulder tend to be those who accuse others of it. Your pointless sharing of the article is proof evident.

 

[Go the Guts]

Hahahaha, I find that the people with the chip on their shoulder tend to be those who accuse others of it. Your pointless sharing of the article is proof evident.

Yeah. You make sense on so many levels.

 

[Furn2]

So who do I bet on ?

 

[tige19]

Results are good enough for me!! All aboard the Fyfe train

 

[Hoffy95]

Very few people here seem to understand how framing a market works.

 

[TheFVK]

ITT: defensive simpletons who didn't read the OP.

BrownlowGuru why no release of the teams' markets or exotics?

 

[AGC]

Yeh dangerfield at 50+ is ludacris.
He was $60 to 1 last year and finished 4th.

In a worse season, where Adelaide won less games.

For reference the Brownlow 'Guru' had dangerfield at over $1000 to 1 last year.

Which makes sense...given Dangerfield didn't win!

 

[ManWithNoName]

ITT: defensive simpletons who didn't read the OP.

BrownlowGuru why no release of the teams' markets or exotics?

He traditionally releases them later. They're coming.

 

[DangerSloane]

Which makes sense...given Dangerfield didn't win!

And what was Priddis?
Oh yeah...thats right. like $20/1

The fact that Danger isnt even in the top 10 means this guys rating system is absolute garbage.

 

[ManWithNoName]

And what was Priddis?
Oh yeah...thats right. like $20/1

The fact that Danger isnt even in the top 10 means this guys rating system is absolute garbage.

You don't quite get how it works do you.

 

[Forward Press]

And what was Priddis?
Oh yeah...thats right. like $20/1

The fact that Danger isnt even in the top 10 means this guys rating system is absolute garbage.

I've been doing this for a few years now, and had reasonable success punting with this (including posting here last 9 years).

Below are what I have calculated to be the real odds - if you can find odds greater than those displayed (eg Goldstein, Gaff) then they are worth a punt if you are so inclined.

It's not simply a predictor of who wins - it's an attempt at predicting the odds of winning or placing and that if you find better odds than those predicted, it might be worthy of a bet.

If you think Danger at 60/1 does not reflect his chances of winning - then put some money on it.

 

[DangerSloane]

It's not simply a predictor of who wins - it's an attempt at predicting the odds of winning or placing and that if you find better odds than those predicted, it might be worthy of a bet.

If you think Danger at 60/1 does not reflect his chances of winning - then put some money on it.

But the odds of winning reflect someone's chance of winning...by definition.

I don't get what you're trying to say...you've contradicted yourself.
Danger isn't 60/1 anywhere...and hasn't been all season. Wouldn't be able to get anything under double figures.

I already have money on Danger at 15's.

You don't quite get how it works do you.

What do you mean I dont get it?
Theres nothing to get. "real odds" are just the odds that this guy has generated with his system.
The fact that they have Danger at 60/1 means the system is garbage.

But hey we'll see on the night. If you really think Goldstein is a 4 to 1 chance and danger is 56 to 1 then go for it, load up on goldstein but hey he wont be anywhere near it.

 

[Beutbrute]

So who do I bet on ?

Jack Watts

 

[Forward Press]

But the odds of winning reflect someone's chance of winning...by definition.

I don't get what you're trying to say...you've contradicted yourself.
Danger isn't 60/1 anywhere...and hasn't been all season. Wouldn't be able to get anything under double figures.

BG obviously thinks Dangerfield is 60/1 at winning based on his model.

If you think he's wrong - then feel free to bet. But he's on the money more often than not.

 

[ManWithNoName]

But the odds of winning reflect someone's chance of winning...by definition.

I don't get what you're trying to say...you've contradicted yourself.
Danger isn't 60/1 anywhere...and hasn't been all season. Wouldn't be able to get anything under double figures.

I already have money on Danger at 15's.



What do you mean I dont get it?
Theres nothing to get. "real odds" are just the odds that this guy has generated with his system.
The fact that they have Danger at 60/1 means the system is garbage.

But hey we'll see on the night. If you really think Goldstein is a 4 to 1 chance and danger is 56 to 1 then go for it, load up on goldstein but hey he wont be anywhere near it.

I mean you don't get it.

BG thinks Danger would need to be bigger than $60 to be worth putting money on. If you disagree, feel free to put money on Danger at odds less than that. Nobody's stopping you. But BG has a long track record of being on the money. You're coming out and throwing around thoughts with no real fact or basis beyond "the system is garbage".

If you think he's wrong, then load up on Danger at whatever odds you can get.