Which side fails to play in September?

[sleep]

It’s not about dismissing them.

It’s about not using just them and moving on. Otherwise whats the point for any discussion.

There is more, which insinuates not disregarding but rather in addition to.

It is never that simple.

You're saying “it’s never that simple” — but ironically, you're oversimplifying how betting markets actually work.

No one here is saying odds are the only thing that matters. What we’re saying is that they’re the most objective, efficient reflection of all known factors — stats, injuries, form, history, and sentiment — aggregated and priced in real-time with millions of dollars on the line.

If you think you're adding some deeper layer of insight by saying “but there's more than just odds,” you're misunderstanding the entire point of the market: it's designed to already account for everything you're talking about.

You don’t get to ignore what the most data-informed, financially incentivized prediction system is telling you, just because it doesn’t match a gut feel or preferred narrative.

You want discussion? Great — but don’t pretend that anecdotal reasoning or cherry-picked history carries the same weight as something shaped by professional traders, models, and sharp capital. If you’re consistently at odds with the market, it’s far more likely you are missing something — not the other way around.

 

[Dewyyyyy]

You're saying “it’s never that simple” — but ironically, you're oversimplifying how betting markets actually work.

No one here is saying odds are the only thing that matters. What we’re saying is that they’re the most objective, efficient reflection of all known factors — stats, injuries, form, history, and sentiment — aggregated and priced in real-time with millions of dollars on the line.

If you think you're adding some deeper layer of insight by saying “but there's more than just odds,” you're misunderstanding the entire point of the market: it's designed to already account for everything you're talking about.

You don’t get to ignore what the most data-informed, financially incentivized prediction system is telling you, just because it doesn’t match a gut feel or preferred narrative.

You want discussion? Great — but don’t pretend that anecdotal reasoning or cherry-picked history carries the same weight as something shaped by professional traders, models, and sharp capital. If you’re consistently at odds with the market, it’s far more likely you are missing something — not the other way around.

The point is that it doesn’t account for everything. It accounts for a hell of a lot but never everything.

When it’s treated and you act like it does that’s the issue.

An example being, taggers. The odds of disposals when playing taggers and also how that influences games.

You're going on a tangent a bit, because funnily enough part of my reasoning is included in betting from the agency side, with recent history, head to heads etc as you mentioned.

The thing is it’s important to consider but it shouldn’t be the only thing considered. The things you’re disqualifying are apart of it.

 

[sleep]

The point is that it doesn’t account for everything. It accounts for a hell of a lot but never everything.

When it’s treated and you act like it does that’s the issue.

An example being, taggers. The odds of disposals when playing taggers and also how that influences games.

You're going on a tangent a bit, because funnily enough part of my reasoning is included in betting from the agency side, with recent history, head to heads etc as you mentioned.

The thing is it’s important to consider but it shouldn’t be the only thing considered. The things you’re disqualifying are apart of it.

You’re not adding insight — you’re just repeating things the market already knows.

Taggers, head-to-heads, form, injuries — it’s all priced in the second it matters. That’s how betting markets work. You're arriving late, acting like you’ve cracked the code, when you’re just regurgitating noise.

Now you’re shape-shifting mid-thread to dodge being wrong — textbook forum dribbler behavior. Every reply moves the goalposts. First markets are flawed, now they’re valid “but not everything.” Mate, pick a lane — you're not debating, you’re squirming.

Let’s be clear: you’re not deeper than the market. You’re just ignoring it because it doesn’t fit your narrative. That’s not analysis — it’s just coping.

 

[SA HAWK]

Agreed. It didn't tell us anything when they were destroying the Blues early, or after when it became a back and forth.

We'll find out about the Hawks in their tough games for the rest of the season. I'm happy to sit on the fence until then.

Fair call we probably have our strongest side of the year available now and playing adelaide we have 2 more days break and they had a pretty wet slog against port.

Pies have a 5 day break before playing us and a tough game against brisbane and brisbane have a trip to perth against freo the week before playing us so although it is a tough draw the scheduling has worked out well for us so no excuses we have some players back (Day, Dear & Lewis) and others have found some form (Sicily & Moore) so we are either good enough or we are not.

 

[Dewyyyyy]

You’re not adding insight — you’re just repeating things the market already knows.

Taggers, head-to-heads, form, injuries — it’s all priced in the second it matters. That’s how betting markets work. You're arriving late, acting like you’ve cracked the code, when you’re just regurgitating noise.

Now you’re shape-shifting mid-thread to dodge being wrong — textbook forum dribbler behavior. Every reply moves the goalposts. First markets are flawed, now they’re valid “but not everything.” Mate, pick a lane — you're not debating, you’re squirming.

Let’s be clear: you’re not deeper than the market. You’re just ignoring it because it doesn’t fit your narrative. That’s not analysis — it’s just coping.

What are you on about.

I’m telling you from looking at markets, not everything you’ve mentioned is taken into consideration. Because again it’s not a guarantee, if you knew with 100% certainty “x” player was being tagged it’d be a drastic change, the fact is it cannot be known, but it can be expected.

The big part of this is that a betting agency isn’t likely to change something off it being just “expected”. Hence why other evidence and reasoning is a valid contribution within given context.

Maginness tagged Butters in Tasmania, which the odds disposal wise weren’t good, nor the game odds to correlate with that. This was because Maginness hasn’t consistently tagged in games he’s played and played a plethora of roles, changing week to week that he plays.

The fact you’re taking it as if I’m moving goal posts - or invalidating odds. It’s again as I’ve said, more about adding more and especially context to it.

Sports betting can be accurate with probability and odds, but they aren’t infallible.

They set odds, the market is adjusted especially for long and short odds as you have mentioned. The opinions and proceeding placement of bets can vary the odds.

The implied probabilities are usually quite accurate for the long run, but the unpredictability of individual games can vary wildly due to context and randomness.

There are limitations of raw data, and whilst as stated can be quite accurate, it can miss things.

My point was not relying on just odds, and the discussion point of looking at what aids odds, whilst adding other context. It was never about an ignorance of the odds, data etc. The best path is always a combination of multiple factors, again nothing will ever be perfect, hence discussion.

 

[sleep]

What are you on about.

I’m telling you from looking at markets, not everything you’ve mentioned is taken into consideration. Because again it’s not a guarantee, if you knew with 100% certainty “x” player was being tagged it’d be a drastic change, the fact is it cannot be known, but it can be expected.

The big part of this is that a betting agency isn’t likely to change something off it being “expected”. Hence why other evidence and reasoning is a valid contribution within given context.

Maginness tagged Butters in Tasmania, which the odds disposal wise weren’t good, nor the game odds to correlate with that. This was because Maginness hasn’t consistently tagged in games he’s played and played a plethora of roles, changing week to week that he plays.

The fact you’re taking it as if I’m moving goal posts - or invalidating odds. It’s again as I’ve said, more about adding more and especially context to it.

Sports betting can be accurate with probability and odds, but they aren’t infallible.

They set odds, the market is adjusted especially for long and short odds as you have mentioned. The opinions and proceeding placement of bets can vary the odds.

The implied probabilities are usually quite accurate for the long run, but the unpredictability of individual games can vary wildly due to context and randomness.

There are limitations of raw data, and whilst as stated can be quite accurate, it can miss things.

My point was not relying on just odds, and the discussion point of looking at what aids odds, whilst adding other context. It was never about an ignorance of the odds, data etc. The best path is always a combination of multiple factors, again nothing will ever be perfect, hence discussion.

You keep trying to sound reasonable, but the core issue is clear: you fundamentally don’t understand how efficient betting markets work.

The Butters/Maginness example actually proves the opposite of your point. You’re arguing that because Maginness isn’t a guaranteed tagger every week, the market didn’t fully price in the tag — but that’s exactly how probabilistic modeling works. The possibility of a tag, weighed against its likelihood and historical effect, was already baked into the odds. That’s why odds don’t swing wildly off educated guesses — they’re built to absorb variance. That’s not a flaw, it’s the point.

You’re not “adding context.” You’re just misreading how markets function and doubling down on it. If you think you’ve spotted something the market missed — great, bet on it. But if the price hasn’t moved, it usually means your “context” isn’t the edge you think it is. You’re not challenging the odds — you’re just late to the information party.

The fact that you keep shifting your framing — from “markets ignore X,” to “markets consider it but not enough,” to “I’m just adding nuance” — makes it obvious you’re just trying to save face. But anyone paying attention can see through it.

This isn’t about ignoring nuance — it’s about knowing when your nuance is already priced in. And yours is. With change left over.

 

[Dewyyyyy]

You keep trying to sound reasonable, but the core issue is clear: you fundamentally don’t understand how efficient betting markets work.

The Butters/Maginness example actually proves the opposite of your point. You’re arguing that because Maginness isn’t a guaranteed tagger every week, the market didn’t fully price in the tag — but that’s exactly how probabilistic modeling works. The possibility of a tag, weighed against its likelihood and historical effect, was already baked into the odds. That’s why odds don’t swing wildly off educated guesses — they’re built to absorb variance. That’s not a flaw, it’s the point.

You’re not “adding context.” You’re just misreading how markets function and doubling down on it. If you think you’ve spotted something the market missed — great, bet on it. But if the price hasn’t moved, it usually means your “context” isn’t the edge you think it is. You’re not challenging the odds — you’re just late to the information party.

The fact that you keep shifting your framing — from “markets ignore X,” to “markets consider it but not enough,” to “I’m just adding nuance” — makes it obvious you’re just trying to save face. But anyone paying attention can see through it.

This isn’t about ignoring nuance — it’s about knowing when your nuance is already priced in. And yours is. With change left over.

It isn’t changing, and they’re separate points.

I think you originally misunderstood my perspective. Some of the things I originally brought up are taken into consideration but were brought up separately for discussion purposes.

It’s also funny you think it’s clear, when I’m not disagreeing with certain aspects of what you’re saying. But the clear part you’re being ignorant too which is the context, and the “other” aspects.

Whilst a lot of things are considered there is still a lot that isn’t, it has its limits.

Sports betting can be accurate with probability and odds, but they aren’t infallible.

They set odds, the market is adjusted especially for long and short odds as you have mentioned. The opinions and proceeding placement of bets can vary the odds.

The implied probabilities are usually quite accurate for the long run, but the unpredictability of individual games can vary wildly due to context and randomness.

There are limitations of raw data, and whilst as stated can be quite accurate, it can miss things.

My point was not relying on just odds, and the discussion point of looking at what aids odds, whilst adding other context. It was never about an ignorance of the odds, data etc. The best path is always a combination of multiple factors, again nothing will ever be perfect, hence discussion.

 

[sleep]

It isn’t changing, and they’re separate points.

I think you originally misunderstood my perspective. Some of the things I originally brought up are taken into consideration but were brought up separately for discussion purposes.

It’s also funny you think it’s clear, when I’m not disagreeing with certain aspects of what you’re saying. But the clear part you’re being ignorant too which is the context, and the “other” aspects.

Whilst a lot of things are considered there is still a lot that isn’t, it has its limits.

You’re trying to reframe the whole conversation now that it’s obvious you misunderstood how markets work.

You claimed mug punters skew odds — completely ignoring that when that happens, pro money steps in instantly, correcting any inefficiencies. That’s how sharp vs. square dynamics work. If dumb money moved the line and stayed there, pros would feast on it. But you clearly didn’t get that.

Then you rolled out the Butters/tagger example like it was some mic drop. It wasn’t. You expected big odds movement based on a possibility, which tells me you don’t understand that betting markets price probabilities, not hypotheticals. Just because something isn’t guaranteed doesn’t mean it’s ignored — it means it’s weighted accordingly. That’s the whole point of dynamic pricing.

You weren’t “adding context.” You were misrepresenting the core mechanism behind market odds. And now you’re scrambling to soften or reshape your stance — acting like you were on the same page all along. You weren’t.

This isn’t disagreement. This is you getting exposed, then trying to exit through the gift shop.

Markets aren’t perfect, but they’re the best reflection of collective information — and your entire argument ignored how and why they adjust. You missed the basics. And we noticed.

 

[Dewyyyyy]

You’re trying to reframe the whole conversation now that it’s obvious you misunderstood how markets work.

You claimed mug punters skew odds — completely ignoring that when that happens, pro money steps in instantly, correcting any inefficiencies. That’s how sharp vs. square dynamics work. If dumb money moved the line and stayed there, pros would feast on it. But you clearly didn’t get that.

Then you rolled out the Butters/tagger example like it was some mic drop. It wasn’t. You expected big odds movement based on a possibility, which tells me you don’t understand that betting markets price probabilities, not hypotheticals. Just because something isn’t guaranteed doesn’t mean it’s ignored — it means it’s weighted accordingly. That’s the whole point of dynamic pricing.

You weren’t “adding context.” You were misrepresenting the core mechanism behind market odds. And now you’re scrambling to soften or reshape your stance — acting like you were on the same page all along. You weren’t.

This isn’t disagreement. This is you getting exposed, then trying to exit through the gift shop.

Markets aren’t perfect, but they’re the best reflection of collective information — and your entire argument ignored how and why they adjust. You missed the basics. And we noticed.

No.

And I still do, it does to an extent, which is what you’re missing. That it was never that it was the whole story, but a portion.

“Weighted accordingly” is a big part of my point. How this is determined or known factors aren’t ever 100%, whilst they can be close they’re never perfect. Which is why context and other evidence is taken into account, this changes from sport to sport as some are reliant on certain things more than others. AFL is one that has a lot of variables.

Whilst data and some variables are considered there are limitations.

Again you think that but it isn’t true. Which is obvious you misinterpreted it. It was never about dismissing, but about addition.

This is you being ignorant to variables and other factors and that the data is only as valuable as the context it’s given with.

You said it yourself, they’re not perfect. It’s also often why people use odds with other things and context, because using one side without others is ignorant. There are always discrepancies between even other betting agencies, and it’s why it’s never as simple as betting on the favourite (odds wise).

You’re repeating the same points, and it isn’t hitting, because for the large majority I agree. It’s the others you’re missing and either blissfully unaware of or benighted..

 

[Mr Meow]

Fair call we probably have our strongest side of the year available now and playing adelaide we have 2 more days break and they had a pretty wet slog against port.

Pies have a 5 day break before playing us and a tough game against brisbane and brisbane have a trip to perth against freo the week before playing us so although it is a tough draw the scheduling has worked out well for us so no excuses we have some players back (Day, Dear & Lewis) and others have found some form (Sicily & Moore) so we are either good enough or we are not.

The best side will win each time. There's no cop outs based on the previous week's breaks and weather. Let's not be like Crows supporters.

 

[sleep]

No.

And I still do, it does to an extent, which is what you’re missing. That it was never that it was the whole story, but a portion.

“Weighted accordingly” is a big part of my point. How this is determined or known factors aren’t ever 100%, whilst they can be close they’re never perfect. Which is why context and other evidence is taken into account, this changes from sport to sport as some are reliant on certain things more than others. AFL is one that has a lot of variables.

Whilst data and some variables are considered there are limitations.

Again you think that but it isn’t true. Which is obvious you misinterpreted it. It was never about dismissing, but about addition.

This is you being ignorant to variables and other factors and that the data is only as valuable as the context it’s given with.

You said it yourself, they’re not perfect. It’s also often why people use odds with other things and context, because using one side without others is ignorant. There are always discrepancies between even other betting agencies, and it’s why it’s never as simple as betting on the favourite (odds wise).

You’re repeating the same points, and it isn’t hitting, because for the large majority I agree. It’s the others you’re missing and either blissfully unaware of or benighted..

You keep clinging to this idea that I’ve “misinterpreted” you, but no — I’ve understood exactly what you said. You just didn’t expect to be exposed this thoroughly, and now you’re scrambling to rewrite your position as “I meant it as additional context.” It’s transparent, weak, and classic goalpost shifting.

Your belief that odds are skewed by mug money while smart punters somehow aren’t already exploiting that is laughable. That’s how price discovery works — any edge, any narrative, any "context" you think you’re bringing up is already baked in by people with sharper tools, faster models, and actual money on the line. You're not unearthing some nuance the market missed — you’re just stuck believing your opinion carries more weight than reality.

This isn’t a misunderstanding. You got it wrong, doubled down, and now you're too deep to admit it. You’re not adding value. You’re repeating noise and hoping someone mistakes it for insight. But I won’t.

I think you've had enough.

 

[Dewyyyyy]

You keep clinging to this idea that I’ve “misinterpreted” you, but no — I’ve understood exactly what you said. You just didn’t expect to be exposed this thoroughly, and now you’re scrambling to rewrite your position as “I meant it as additional context.” It’s transparent, weak, and classic goalpost shifting.

Your belief that odds are skewed by mug money while smart punters somehow aren’t already exploiting that is laughable. That’s how price discovery works — any edge, any narrative, any "context" you think you’re bringing up is already baked in by people with sharper tools, faster models, and actual money on the line. You're not unearthing some nuance the market missed — you’re just stuck believing your opinion carries more weight than reality.

This isn’t a misunderstanding. You got it wrong, doubled down, and now you're too deep to admit it. You’re not adding value. You’re repeating noise and hoping someone mistakes it for insight. But I won’t.

I think you've had enough.

Mate you have clearly, and that’s fine.

You perfectly proved how you misunderstood it in your next sentence.

Sports betting can be accurate with probability and odds, but they aren’t infallible.

They set odds, the market is adjusted especially for long and short odds as you have mentioned. The opinions and proceeding placement of bets can vary the odds.

The implied probabilities are usually quite accurate for the long run, but the unpredictability of individual games can vary wildly due to context and randomness.

There are limitations of raw data, and whilst as stated can be quite accurate, it can miss things.

My point was not relying on just odds, and the discussion point of looking at what aids odds, whilst adding other context. It was never about an ignorance of the odds, data etc. The best path is always a combination of multiple factors, again nothing will ever be perfect, hence discussion.

It is honestly laughable, you’re being extremely ignorant to obvious faults and limitations. You’re clearly not going to change.

Have a wonderful splendid day.

 

[FootyLad0]

The fact that you keep shifting your framing — from “markets ignore X,” to “markets consider it but not enough,” to “I’m just adding nuance” — makes it obvious you’re just trying to save face. But anyone paying attention can see through it.

This isn’t about ignoring nuance — it’s about knowing when your nuance is already priced in. And yours is. With change left over.

Lol how is old mate still going?
It’s clear he doesn’t understand how a betting market works.

Imagine doubling down after being this wrong

 

[SA HAWK]

The best side will win each time. There's no cop outs based on the previous week's breaks and weather. Let's not be like Crows supporters.

Pies might rest a few against us will be coming off 6 & 5 day breaks you would think the game v brisbane will be pretty brutal also.

 

[Dewyyyyy]

Pies might rest a few against us will be coming off 6 & 5 day breaks you would think the game v brisbane will be pretty brutal also.

Doubt you players in important games.

 

[PowerfulPies2023]

Dewy still way off. He keeps fighting a battle that is lost. Long gone.

 

[PowerfulPies2023]

Pies might rest a few against us will be coming off 6 & 5 day breaks you would think the game v brisbane will be pretty brutal also.

No chance that happens with how tight the ladder is.

 

[sleep]

Lol how is old mate still going?
It’s clear he doesn’t understand how a betting market works.

Imagine doubling down after being this wrong

You’ve gotta admire the commitment to being confidently wrong. It’s like watching someone argue with a calculator.

 

[PowerfulPies2023]

Collingwood 1.69 vs hawks next week. Once again it's not 50 50.

 

[Mr Meow]

Collingwood 1.69 vs hawks next week. Once again it's not 50 50.

Dewyyyyy get in here and explain it's 50/50ness!

 

[PowerfulPies2023]

Dewyyyyy get in here and explain it's 50/50ness!

LOL!

 

[Dewyyyyy]

Dewyyyyy get in here and explain it's 50/50ness!

 

[Freomaniac]

Dogs definitely miss and fair enough.

Not it's not. Any side that gets 14 wins and losses and still not make the 8 is gonna feel gutted

 

[Hobbes]

Not it's not. Any side that gets 14 wins and losses and still not make the 8 is gonna feel gutted

Somebody might miss with 15, if the Dogs win all five.

 

[PerthBoy86]

Not it's not. Any side that gets 14 wins and losses and still not make the 8 is gonna feel gutted

Dogs are one of my favourite teams not named the Eagles, but with a 1 and 9 (I think) record against top 8 sides you don't deserve to play finals. Unless they pull off a miracle run (and I haven't yet seen signs that's remotely possible) they'd just be eliminated in week 1 anyway.

In 2016 they were 5-5 vs top 8 sides, and I think on 15 wins were actually very stiff not to make top 4 given the evenness that year.