Which side fails to play in September?

[Dewyyyyy]

You seem to have some basic comprehension problems that are beyond my capacity to reason with. I won't be replying again. Good luck to the hawks

Ironic, have a splendid day

 

[Dewyyyyy]

Semantics! It is a fact that of each game this round, one team the favourite to win. JFC.

And no it isn't determined by ladder position, another fact.

If Collingwood and Geelong played this week it would be a 50-50 game at the G

 

[cactuscall]

If Collingwood and Geelong played this week it would be a 50-50 game at the G

It would not, Collingwood would be slight favourites. Close to 50-50 perhaps but one team would be granted favourites. How damn pig headed could one person be! Why would anyone even argue this fact lol

Thinking one team is going to win against the grain or that it's a completely 50-50 chance is one thing. The reality is, one team is seen as the favourite to win even if purely by betting markets.

 

[HairyO]

I don't really understand what you're saying here. Odds are a function of probability.

Odds are a function of the amount being bet. Not of the probability of a win.

 

[The Feeder Club]

Odds are a function of the amount being bet. Not of the probability of a win.

No, odds = probability/ (1- probability). Opening markets are set before any bets, based on this formula. Odds then fluctuate based on money wagered, but that's because money wagered is just a reflection of the probability the punters place on a win and the bookies don't like losing money The fundamental relationship between odds and probability is the same

 

[Dewyyyyy]

It would not, Collingwood would be slight favourites. Close to 50-50 perhaps but one team would be granted favourites. How damn pig headed could one person be! Why would anyone even argue this fact lol

Thinking one team is going to win against the grain or that it's a completely 50-50 chance is one thing. The reality is, one team is seen as the favourite to win even if purely by betting markets.

it’s clearly just a differing opinion of how you view games.

 

[Fadge]

Carlton.

 

[HairyO]

No, odds = probability/ (1- probability). Opening markets are set before any bets, based on this formula. Odds then fluctuate based on money wagered, but that's because money wagered is just a reflection of the probability the punters place on a win and the bookies don't like losing money The fundamental relationship between odds and probability is the same

The only bit that is true is the opening market which even still is the best guess of the betting agencies, and a great way to see why bookies make so much money.

1,000 cashed up addicts betting massively on Collingwood and 10,000 latte sippers betting far less in total on the Swans sees the Pies as overwhelming favourites in the odds yet far more people in total are expecting the Swans to win and being the favourites to win.

Gambling has completely skewed the way sports are seen now.

 

[The Feeder Club]

The only bit that is true is the opening market which even still is the best guess of the betting agencies, and a great way to see why bookies make so much money.

1,000 cashed up addicts betting massively on Collingwood and 10,000 latte sippers betting far less in total on the Swans sees the Pies as overwhelming favourites in the odds yet far more people in total are expecting the Swans to win and being the favourites to win.

Gambling has completely skewed the way sports are seen now.

You can represent it however you want, but the basic truth is odds are a function of probability. All bookmakers do is use both dollars wagered AND volume of bets placed as additional bits of information on top of the many other bits they use to help them determine the probability of an outcome, and then set the odds accordingly to make a profit regardless of the result. It really isn't corrupted by gambling, in fact the larger the gambling pool is the more likely it is that the odds will be an accurate reflection of the outcome

 

[HairyO]

You can represent it however you want, but the basic truth is odds are a function of probability. All bookmakers do is use both money wagered AND volume of bets placed as additional bits of information on top of them many other bits they use to help them determine the probability of an outcome, and then set the odds accordingly to make a profit regardless of the outcome. It really isn't corrupted by gambling, in fact the larger the gambling pool is the more likely it is that the odds will be an accurate reflection of the outcome

Oh, so what youre saying is the odds are not an accurate reflection but are more accurate the more money gets gambled?

Interesting.

Anyway, I hope youre not a gambler because I suspect you lose a lot of money.

 

[sydney_gws]

Hawks. Lots of suspect players.

Day coming back helps alot. But if Carlton beat them tonight I think they probably miss out.

 

[The Feeder Club]

Oh, so what youre saying is the odds are not an accurate reflection but are more accurate the more money gets gambled?

I have no idea how you got to that conclusion from what I said

 

[kickazz]

Odds are a function of the amount being bet. Not of the probability of a win.

IT's also a term used in the Mathematical field of probability and statistics, so it is a valid use of the term

 

[Orfullrules]

Name 6 ?

Chol, worpel, moore, ambrosia, two defenders. Don’t have much time for you hairy. Onya bike.

 

[Dewyyyyy]

Chol, worpel, moore, ambrosia, two defenders. Don’t have much time for you hairy. Onya bike.

Chol - #17 Coleman (1.9 goals a game), with 1.6 contested marks, the most efficient HTA ruck ITL and great defensive pressure.

Worpel - injured throughout big patches of the year but had good runs of form outside of that and previously, especially last year consistently.

Moore - AA HF and despite a down year still good, look at the weekend gone aswell.

D’Ambrosio - been good without reaching his heights of last year, AA squad last year.

You picked a random few to say are suspect players, two defenders are?

 

[Orfullrules]

Day coming back helps alot. But if Carlton beat them tonight I think they probably miss out.

Day will be a champion if fit. Few followers though

 

[Dewyyyyy]

Day will be a champion if fit. Few followers though

Few followers? As in?

 

[HairyO]

Chol, worpel, moore, ambrosia, two defenders. Don’t have much time for you hairy. Onya bike.

Lol "2 defenders"... maybe CJ who doesnt play unless we have injuries?

Chol has 30 goals in 17 games. Pretty good for a 2nd or 3rd tall. Possibly doesnt play unless we have injuries?

Moore has been quiet and is behind where he was last year, but just had a 30 and 2 game so hopefully is back.

D'Ambrosio I agree is behind where he was last year but is doing ok.

We are mostly winning despite a number of players down on form and a couple of our best players with long term injuries. Seems good if we can get the injuries down.

 

[Orfullrules]

Chol - #17 Coleman (1.9 goals a game), with 1.6 contested marks, the most efficient HTA ruck ITL and great defensive pressure.

Worpel - injured throughout big patches of the year but had good runs of form outside of that and previously, especially last year consistently.

Moore - AA HF and despite a down year still good, look at the weekend gone aswell.

D’Ambrosio - been good without reaching his heights of last year, AA squad last year.

You picked a random few to say are suspect players, two defenders are?

The recruits. U make a compelling case with 17th in the Coleman as a start.

 

[crows dude]

Gold Coast

 

[Orfullrules]

Lol "2 defenders"... maybe CJ who doesnt play unless we have injuries?

Chol has 30 goals in 17 games. Pretty good for a 2nd or 3rd tall. Possibly doesnt play unless we have injuries?

Moore has been quiet and is behind where he was last year, but just had a 30 and 2 game so hopefully is back.

D'Ambrosio I agree is behind where he was last year but is doing ok.

We are mostly winning despite a number of players down on form and a couple of our best players with long term injuries. Seems good if we can get the injuries down.

If. Maybe. Suspect.

 

[Dewyyyyy]

The recruits. U make a compelling case with 17th in the Coleman as a start.

Battle has been brilliant and Barrass good?

Kicking 2 a game whilst also being strong as a second ruck option, good aerially and strong defensively is hardly suspect.

 

[Hobbes]

It’s more helpful to think of a “favourite” as “PERCEIVED to be most likely to win”. Nobody has the actual odds.

Bookmakers aren’t just taking money from cashed-up addicts and pusillanimous latte drinkers. There are also semi-serious punters and total sharks. I was once part of the last category, with little knowledge of the horses on which I was betting but a determination to extract every last bit of value from the betting market. The betting market is a function of the bookmakers’ perceived probabilities and the money they have received. If they offer odds that are too generous, the sharks will swoop and the bookmaker might risk a substantial loss. They can prevent or mitigate this risk by keeping balanced books - ideally, an amount wagered on each outcome that will guarantee a profit. Occasionally, a bookmaker with deep understanding or inside knowledge will take on the market and risk a loss.

So, betting markets are self-correcting. If a bookmaker has an outcome too short, he won’t get any takers. Too long, and sharks will scoop it up. A betting market might not completely align with perceived odds when the bookies have already taken a ton of money on something and would prefer their books were more balanced. For example, it wouldn’t shock me if Adelaide are currently really premiership favourites, but an earlier glut of money for Collingwood and/or Brisbane has bookmakers keeping them safely short.

 

[Mr Meow]

I don't think there's anyone wrong with someone using the bookie's odds to broadly label which side are favourites, even if the smart money disagrees or the masses have it wrong. Then again it's not a massive deal if people call games with slight favourites a 50/50 contest. In any case, Hawthorn have a few tough games but they won't be inconceivable underdogs.

 

[Orfullrules]

Battle has been brilliant and Barrass good?

Kicking 2 a game whilst also being strong as a second ruck option, good aerially and strong defensively is hardly suspect.

Being strong. Ok.