Managing players in todays era and betting odds

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

Over the past two weeks we have seen players so called managed in the lead up to a game. I think we got 2 current examples of how its done between Collingwood and Hawthorn

Collingwood - They announced it right after the game. Mentioned who/when/why . The betting markets opened right after and were adjusted appropiately

Hawthorn - They hid it until team announcement. Before this we saw a enormous betting shift with Gold Coast coming in substantially before the eventual team announcement. It was clear to anyone with eyeballs that with the weight of the odd change that its very easy the betting swing could have been down to the potential knowledge of these changes. At Betfair it was around 82 percent to Gold Coast and 18 percent on Hawks at one point for bets placed

In NBA you have teams having to announce OUTS before the betting odds come out basically to avoid collusion and market manipulation. IMHO the AFL after this week needs to take the same stance. Quite a few people would have bet on Hawthorn not knowing the full information required to make a informed decision and quite a few also would have bet knowing all the information at hand.

So far the media has been dead silent on this out of well fear it is fair to say. Perhaps one of them can read this and call it out ? Have a bit of courage for a change. Even in the absence of any outside noise the AFL still need to address this as it hurts the integrity of the game... just like it did for the NBA

 

[NetworkNerd]

Before the teams were announced it was known that

• Hawks were resting Gunston/Meek as they weren't even on the plane
• Breust was injured and not on the plane
• Impey would miss due to the birth of his first child

Hawks flew up on Monday so plenty of notice for the markets

 

[Piggy Smalls]

My strong opinion on this is that the teams should be able to do as they please and the punters should suck it up.

But, knowing the AFL for the blood sucking bottom feeders they are, I 100% expect them to cater to the betting agencies first and foremost going forward. I mean why stop at pokies when they can destroy countless other lives while they sitting around counting their money.

 

[Jedi01]

Don't really have an issue with it. If you want to bet early before team announcements thinking odds in your favour you should have done some basic research on possible in/outs.

NBA is far more effected by outs with only 5 players on the court. 1 or 2 outs effect the game far more than 2 outs in AFL.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Blunt view on betting in footy.
More power to him I say. **** the gamblers.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

There’s absolutely no question that clubs and the league need to be far more transparent.

The way they treat punters is a disgrace.

Some will not have a problem with that. Chris Scott

Chris Scott

Age

49

Ht

182cm

Wt

89kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

16.6

4star

K

11.2

4star

HB

5.4

4star

M

5.1

5star

T

1.6

4star

G

0.4

3star

No current season stats available

D

13.2

4star

K

10.2

4star

HB

3.0

3star

M

2.2

3star

T

2.8

5star

G

0.4

3star

said he didn’t, in what was really an outrageous statement.

If you don’t care about the betting markets then fine - stop accepting the money.

In terms of direct revenue from betting companies, as well as indirect revenue through TV rights, The Age conservatively estimated that betting is worth over $150 million per year to the AFL.

In short, it’s the league’s #1 meal ticket.

In the same breath an incredibly ignorant Scott started wailing about needing more money for football departments. Slap him across the cheek, because he needs to wake up.

If a horse trainer or jockey stated they didn’t care about betting markets and made late changes (for example, to riding gear) they would be absolutely clobbered and rightly so. You can’t treat your customers like shit.

The AFL has chosen to make itself a major betting product and accept hundreds of millions of dollars per year in return.

You don’t get to take the money without any of the responsibilities.

Time for the AFL to decide what it wants to be.

 

[RCAB]

AFL is a drop in the ocean compared to soccer, when it comes to betting. Soccer teams only announce their line-ups one hour before games. AFL punters need to get over it.

 

[Sirlemsip]

People that are serious about betting (so-called 'professional punters') are the type of people who would definitely have access to information about likely changes well before they are announced to the 'public'.
Hell, all you needed to do was jump on the Hawks board here on BigFooty and you would have known about 4 of the 5 guaranteed changes on Monday.

Sports betting is a scourge anyway. I can't wait for the government to get off their ass and legislate against the overwhelming amount of betting advertising we have to sit through.

If you want to gamble... fine, I don't care. But don't make me sit though hours and hours of content made only to entice people (usually dumb those of lower education and socio-economic status) to throw their money away.

Chances are you're about to lose.

 

[maskmcgee]

They hid it until team announcement

Hid it where? I heard about these changes on Monday on SEN. How was it hidden?

 

[Chief]

You're betting on unknowns. That's what betting is.

If you stuff up you can always hedge your bet.

 

[offtherails9]

I agree there should be more general transparency but not sure I agree with these examples.

Meek was clearly cooked last week and travelling on a 5 day break - it would have been poor management to play him.
Gunston is 34 and it was known early in the week he's not there.

Plus NBA markets are up much earlier than the final teams are confirmed, I have no idea where you've gotten that from. Some books may pull a market/game because a player may be listed as 'doubtful' etc on the injury updates that the NBA provide throughout the day but generally markets are up.

Your thought was there you just failed with the execution of it though.

I like the NFLs way of doing things. You have a real good idea of who will and won't play most of the time by looking at the Wed/Thurs/Fri practice injury reports then the final game designation sits from Fri-Sun morn which is Questionable/Doubtful/Out.

 

[FrustratedTiger]

Stuff the punters. They're a stain on the game anyway

 

[craffles]

There’s absolutely no question that clubs and the league need to be far more transparent.

The way they treat punters is a disgrace.

Some will not have a problem with that. Chris Scott said he didn’t, in what was really an outrageous statement.

If you don’t care about the betting markets then fine - stop accepting the money.

In terms of direct revenue from betting companies, as well as indirect revenue through TV rights, The Age conservatively estimated that betting is worth over $150 million per year to the AFL.

In short, it’s the league’s #1 meal ticket.

In the same breath an incredibly ignorant Scott started wailing about needing more money for football departments. Slap him across the cheek, because he needs to wake up.

If a horse trainer or jockey stated they didn’t care about betting markets and made late changes (for example, to riding gear) they would be absolutely clobbered and rightly so. You can’t treat your customers like shit.

The AFL has chosen to make itself a major betting product and accept hundreds of millions of dollars per year in return.

You don’t get to take the money without any of the responsibilities.

Time for the AFL to decide what it wants to be.

The ideal solution for me would be for the AFL to recognise that they are a registered non-profit and take the 100% anti-gambling stance and get off the teat. We don’t need kids growing up watching their idols and understanding betting odds.

It will never happen though, especially not with Gillon as Tabcorp CEO.

 

[Chief]

If a horse trainer or jockey stated they didn’t care about betting markets and made late changes (for example, to riding gear) they would be absolutely clobbered and rightly so. You can’t treat your customers like shit.

Horse racing is done purely for gambling purposes.

Football is not.

We shouldn't accept the proposition that it is.

 

[Chief]

The AFL has chosen to make itself a major betting product and accept hundreds of millions of dollars per year in return.

Punters should be aware of the situation.

Vote with your money and bet on sports that are more aimed at gamblers.

You don’t get to take the money without any of the responsibilities.

Which responsibilities? If you know how the AFL operates and you know that makes betting harder, then do not bet on the AFL.

Time for the AFL to decide what it wants to be.

True.

 

[darcytiger]

It’s almost like betting on sports matches is…. A gamble

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Horse racing is done purely for gambling purposes.

Football is not.

We shouldn't accept the proposition that it is.

20 years ago you could 100% make that distinction.

Now, not so much.

If the AFL had just reluctantly acknowledged betting as a reality and otherwise basically kept their nose out of it, I’d have a lot of sympathy for that position.

But the AFL has absolutely 100% dived into betting with great enthusiam.

Of course they don’t say that out loud and it’s not in their strategic statements - they’re scared to admit it - but it’s their actions that speak louder.

The reality is louder: unlike decades ago, football is first and foremost a broadcast product.

And by far the #1 thing underpinning that is betting.

The AFL know that and the decisions they make - even though they don’t say it directly - reflect that.

 

[kaiserchief13]

There’s absolutely no question that clubs and the league need to be far more transparent.

The way they treat punters is a disgrace.

Some will not have a problem with that. Chris Scott said he didn’t, in what was really an outrageous statement.

If you don’t care about the betting markets then fine - stop accepting the money.

In terms of direct revenue from betting companies, as well as indirect revenue through TV rights, The Age conservatively estimated that betting is worth over $150 million per year to the AFL.

In short, it’s the league’s #1 meal ticket.

In the same breath an incredibly ignorant Scott started wailing about needing more money for football departments. Slap him across the cheek, because he needs to wake up.

If a horse trainer or jockey stated they didn’t care about betting markets and made late changes (for example, to riding gear) they would be absolutely clobbered and rightly so. You can’t treat your customers like shit.

The AFL has chosen to make itself a major betting product and accept hundreds of millions of dollars per year in return.

You don’t get to take the money without any of the responsibilities.

Time for the AFL to decide what it wants to be.

Chris Scott a hypocrite? Wow I'm shocked to be sitting here

 

[kickazz]

Do your bet 30 mins before the game if you don't like the uncertainty.

If you go early, you are part betting on the game and part betting on selection. And because nobody really knows what will happen there you don't get as sharp prices as when you wait. Unless you are speculating on a selection that you suspect most of the market is unaware of, it is really not a good move to bet too early.

 

[Chief]

20 years ago you could 100% make that distinction.

Now, not so much.

If the AFL had just reluctantly acknowledged betting as a reality and otherwise basically kept their nose out of it, I’d have a lot of sympathy for that position.

The answer is, of course, don't gamble on AFL markets and it will go away.

If you know AFL is a second-rate market, you know that any bet isn't done under the same conditions as horse racing, then don't partake.

But the AFL has absolutely 100% dived into betting with great enthusiam.

Yes.

Of course they don’t say that out loud and it’s not in their strategic statements - they’re scared to admit it - but it’s their actions that speak louder.

Yes.

The reality is louder: unlike decades ago, football is first and foremost a broadcast product.

And by far the #1 thing underpinning that is betting.

I don't know about that - can you explain?

The AFL know that and the decisions they make - even though they don’t say it directly - reflect that.

And if they do it badly, don't use their product.

 

[RCAB]

Really the AFL teams thing is not an issue. The problem with gambling in Australia is systemic. You have casinos, horse racing, pokies, stock markets, cryptocurrency....

Do I need to go on?

We keep getting hit with that line after each ad:
"What’s gambling really costing you?"
and a hotline number that sounds like it’s more for ticking a legal box than actually helping anyone.
What we need is more education, not more legal disclaimers.

Most punters are too stupid to realise how much a cut these companies are receiving.


Example for tonight's game:

Sydney @ 1.57 (implied 63.7%)

Carlton @ 2.41 (implied 41.5%)
Add them up = 105.2%


That means the bookie is taking a 5.2% margin on that market.

Call it “commission,” call it “the cut,” doesn’t matter, they’re usually pocketing the difference whether you win or lose.

It doesn't matter when you're betting before the teams are announced after a teams are announced, they're still taking 5%.

If people understood that then they would understand that every time they spend a hundred dollars on AFL head to head markets for example, they would lose five bucks.

So if you're only prepared to lose a dollar that only bet $20, if you spend $1,000 in a year make sure you realize you're going to lose 50 bucks on average.


But that's just head to head markets.


Where do they really make most of their money? Things like first goal scorer.

So on that “first goalscorer” market, Sportsbet effectively takes about 35% cut of the total pool of stakes! Put another way, for every $100 wagered across all those outcomes, the book expects to keep about $35. That's just crazy. Not too mention all the other markets.

Compare that too:

Pokies around 12% which is baked in to Random Number Generator

Keno is around 25–29%

Depending on which roulette game you're playing it's around three to five percent.



Blackjack, Baccarat, Craps, are around 1-2%.


The only thing worse is the Weekly Tax on the poor, the median/low income of society who regularly gambles on the lottery such takes around... 50%.


The other problem is it's baked into our brain since childhood.

Think about it. School raffles,
birthday scratchies from grandma, claw machines at the shops, Pokemon, arcades, showbags, and video games today are basically a legal form of gambling for children.

By the time you become an adult, this all feels very familiar. That’s the real house edge.

 

[Chief]

Think about it. School raffles,
birthday scratchies from grandma, claw machines at the shops, Pokemon, arcades, showbags, and video games today are basically a legal form of gambling for children.

Total side-track, but decades ago we had an over-unders dice game going at the school fete - run by the P&C.

A few primary school kids dropped their money on it and walked away pretty sad (I think I lost half my money on it) while the dad running it was obviously getting off on the excitement of gambling and raking in piles of 20c pieces.

EDIT: Forgot about Lob-a-Chock. Throw a coin and land in a cup to win the chocolate bar. They raked in thousands in a day - line up of kids just chucking coins at a table of donated chocolate bars.

The good ol' days were never gambling-free for kids.

 

[kickazz]

Really the AFL teams thing is not an issue. The problem with gambling in Australia is systemic. You have casinos, horse racing, pokies, stock markets, cryptocurrency....

Do I need to go on?

We keep getting hit with that line after each ad:
"What’s gambling really costing you?"
and a hotline number that sounds like it’s more for ticking a legal box than actually helping anyone.
What we need is more education, not more legal disclaimers.

Most punters are too stupid to realise how much a cut these companies are receiving.


Example for tonight's game:

Sydney @ 1.57 (implied 63.7%)

Carlton @ 2.41 (implied 41.5%)
Add them up = 105.2%


That means the bookie is taking a 5.2% margin on that market.

Call it “commission,” call it “the cut,” doesn’t matter, they’re usually pocketing the difference whether you win or lose.

It doesn't matter when you're betting before the teams are announced after a teams are announced, they're still taking 5%.

If people understood that then they would understand that every time they spend a hundred dollars on AFL head to head markets for example, they would lose five bucks.

So if you're only prepared to lose a dollar that only bet $20, if you spend $1,000 in a year make sure you realize you're going to lose 50 bucks on average.


But that's just head to head markets.


Where do they really make most of their money? Things like first goal scorer.

So on that “first goalscorer” market, Sportsbet effectively takes about 35% cut of the total pool of stakes! Put another way, for every $100 wagered across all those outcomes, the book expects to keep about $35. That's just crazy. Not too mention all the other markets.

Compare that too:

Pokies around 12% which is baked in to Random Number Generator

Keno is around 25–29%

Depending on which roulette game you're playing it's around three to five percent.



Blackjack, Baccarat, Craps, are around 1-2%.


The only thing worse is the Weekly Tax on the poor, the median/low income of society who regularly gambles on the lottery such takes around... 50%.


The other problem is it's baked into our brain since childhood.

Think about it. School raffles,
birthday scratchies from grandma, claw machines at the shops, Pokemon, arcades, showbags, and video games today are basically a legal form of gambling for children.

By the time you become an adult, this all feels very familiar. That’s the real house edge.

Yes people don't even look at this.

The 5% on head-to-head bets isn't too bad when you compare to many other forms of gambling. Some of the prices I see for first goal scorer or SGM legs are criminal.

But if you genuinely think you know better than the market on the result of a head to head or even line bet, then perhaps there is good value betting there.

Do many gamblers not understand the concept of house edge? I'd like to think that most do understand it, and it's just that many think they can beat it occasionally on 'skill' bets like the footy, or are prepared to cop long term losses as just entertainment costs.

What shocks me is there is a thread on the punting board where folks are discussing systems for Keno. And I think they are serious.

 

[kickazz]

Total side-track, but decades ago we had an over-unders dice game going at the school fete - run by the P&C.

A few primary school kids dropped their money on it and walked away pretty sad (I think I lost half my money on it) while the dad running it was obviously getting off on the excitement of gambling and raking in piles of 20c pieces.

EDIT: Forgot about Lob-a-Chock. Throw a coin and land in a cup to win the chocolate bar. They raked in thousands in a day - line up of kids just chucking coins at a table of donated chocolate bars.

The good ol' days were never gambling-free for kids.

No they weren't indeed. Even things like footy cards were sort of gambling - you bought a pack, uncertain if you'd get good ones.

And it has always had appeal because the uncertainty of the outcome has innate connections to dopamine.

Experiments on rats: I can't remember the specifics but they found rats were more likely to push a level with an uncertain outcome (food, no food, random delay of getting food) than a lever with certain food. Similar to a hunter-gatherer: why check a tree for fruit that you know always has fruit? Better to explore uncertain areas and get REWARDED (dopamine) when you find something.

And the time delay is the interesting part with dopamine. Facebook learned that delaying, or specifically, VARYING THE DELAY of your friend 'liking' a post and you seeing that 'like' really ****ed with your dopamine, enhancing addiction.

What makes this interesting is the parallel with poker machines. We have legislated to slow down how many spins per minute can happen, with absolute rate of lost money over time in mind. But rapid spinning like this could actually be less addictive than if they varied the time it took with each spin. (But it is the variability in the outcome that drives the dopamine issues and addiction here mostly anyway)

 

[demondavey]

There’s absolutely no question that clubs and the league need to be far more transparent.

The way they treat punters is a disgrace.

Some will not have a problem with that. Chris Scott said he didn’t, in what was really an outrageous statement.

If you don’t care about the betting markets then fine - stop accepting the money.

In terms of direct revenue from betting companies, as well as indirect revenue through TV rights, The Age conservatively estimated that betting is worth over $150 million per year to the AFL.

In short, it’s the league’s #1 meal ticket.

In the same breath an incredibly ignorant Scott started wailing about needing more money for football departments. Slap him across the cheek, because he needs to wake up.

If a horse trainer or jockey stated they didn’t care about betting markets and made late changes (for example, to riding gear) they would be absolutely clobbered and rightly so. You can’t treat your customers like shit.

The AFL has chosen to make itself a major betting product and accept hundreds of millions of dollars per year in return.

You don’t get to take the money without any of the responsibilities.

Time for the AFL to decide what it wants to be.

Why should Chris Scott care? The AFL has backed itself into a corner by relying heavily on gambling, that shouldn’t impact the way a club organises its team on game day. If they’ve got up until an hour to go then bad luck, put your bet on an hour before. It’s all on your phone anyway.

What’s the big sook?