Statistical Certainty Bets

[racingnovice]

Following on from sports thread how about we post bets what we think are certainties. Post the event, winner and odds. If people decide to back them so be it :).

[racingnovice]

I'll Post the first one i think is a cert :).

Nth Melbourne vs Port Adeliade

Nth Melbourne to win @ $1.65

Nth has won 5 from the last 7 meetings and port hasn't beaten nth away from football park in the last 5 years. Port has only won 1 from 7 away from home this year.

[racingnovice]

Melbourne Vs St Kilda

Melbourne to win @ $3.00

This is a tough won on recent form but on stats Melbourne should win. The last 4 meetings between these 2 teams at the MCG Melbourne has won all 4 by an average margin of 48points.

[Sportz]

The Kangaroos were actually the ones I was thinking of. They have won 10 of the 12 matches between the two teams. Port have won 2 of the past 3, but they were both at Football Park. If Port lose, they're just about out of the running for the 8 so they'll be damn determined, but the Roos are looking for a top 4 spot too.

[Sportz]

The only problem with the Kangaroos is they're not a team I feel really comfortable backing as favourites. They tend to be an under-rated team that wins a lot as underdogs. Not sure they're a great team to bet on as favs.

[Chuck]

BULLDOGS vs Rabbitohs

The Rabbitohs have won 1 out of the last 14 games between these two - they beat them 6 years ago 16-14 but before that was 12 years ago in 1993. The Bulldogs have also racked up 128 pts in their last 3 encounters at Aussie Stadium.
Despite the shock draw last time, the bulldogs look to be the much better side, and with mason back in the side they should win.

[Sportz]

Yes, but what about the price? The Bulldogs will be about $1.10, won't they?

[Merriguy]

Driving home I think I heard $1.12, Sportz. Souths $5.50.

[discipline pays]

Following on from sports thread how about we post bets what we think are certainties. Post the event, winner and odds. If people decide to back them so be it :).
would it be a "statistical certainty"


ha ha

[goldmember]

The Bulldogs will have to score a lot more trys from now on as El Masri is out for the season and i think only Anasta and Sherwin have only ever kicked 1 goal each, so with the bulldogs probably going in as fav's in nearly all their remainng games i would think about taking the start on the other teams.

[Chuck]

they have only kicked 1 goal each because el Masri has played 194 games straight :o

Lolesi will probably kick anyway i think

[Sportz]

The Wallabies have never won at the ground they're playing at this week, they've won only 1 of their last 11 games in Sth Africa and since Eddie Jones took over, they've only won 2 of their last 14 overseas tests against quality opposition.

Just going on that, you'd think South Africa were specials this week. Australia's had an extra week in SA to prepare for this one though, so I'm not as confident as I was last week. Let's see what the odds are.

[DR RON]

IAS have the springboks at $ 1.65 which I think is pretty fair odds, considering your stats sportz, Still I wouldnt underate the aussies. might be good value.

[Floydyboy]

I was on the phone to my young bloke two days ago and I said to him before the news broke that el masri was worth ten points a game to them ...just looked at his record 18 appearances for 180 pts.(11 tries).... bang on the money.
Ive always thought that he was a good winger positionally .......johnny on the spot type....I think his loss will diminish the scoreline by 33% (eg the 180 he scored this year would be reduced to 120pts if he hadnt been there)However they have gone the year with out a full forward pack but I think thats all coming back together so maybe they wont be that badly off bar a couple of goals a match

[rabbitz]

Melbourne Vs St Kilda

Melbourne to win @ $3.00

This is a tough won on recent form but on stats Melbourne should win. The last 4 meetings between these 2 teams at the MCG Melbourne has won all 4 by an average margin of 48points.

Why should they win?
They are coming back from Perth
St kilda are flying and with the possibility of Riewoldt ,Hammill etc back from injury this week,I dont think you could put enough on St kilda.
The only drawback is that it is at the G,which is not as kind to St Kilda as the dome is
Good luck anyway.

[rabbitz]

Yes, but what about the price? The Bulldogs will be about $1.10, won't they?
Centrebet is offering $1.17,HUGE!!!!!!!

[Sportz]

Obviously, they've gone out due to no El Masri.

[thefan]

correct! A majority of the bulldogs wins have been by a miNimal margin and was due to El masaris 85% goal kicking.I wouldnt touch the bulldogs this week. Fullback and 2 wingers gone, i dunno.

[rabbitz]

correct! A majority of the bulldogs wins have been by a miNimal margin and was due to El masaris 85% goal kicking.I wouldnt touch the bulldogs this week. Fullback and 2 wingers gone, i dunno.

I wouldnt touch them either especially against THE MIGHTY RABBITZ

[Mr J]

"considering your stats sportz"

"The Wallabies have never won at the ground they're playing at this week, they've won only 1 of their last 11 games in Sth Africa and since Eddie Jones took over, they've only won 2 of their last 14 overseas tests against quality opposition."

All those stats say is SA is tough at home and Aus has been in a slump. Before last week, SA didn't look too good did they?

I also think you're missing something VERY important. Last week didn't really matter, where as this week is the first game of the tri-nations.

"IAS have the springboks at $ 1.65 which I think is pretty fair odds, considering your stats sportz"

Guys, you don't think the bookies have already taken everything your've thought of into account? You don't think people will be jumping to back SA after last week?

[Management]

1.71 is available at Pinnacle for North.

[Sportz]

I'll Post the first one i think is a cert :).

Nth Melbourne vs Port Adeliade

Nth Melbourne to win @ $1.65

Nth has won 5 from the last 7 meetings and port hasn't beaten nth away from football park in the last 5 years. Port has only won 1 from 7 away from home this year.

Don't like the look of the Kangaroos at the moment.

[racingnovice]

Yep nth look very flat.

[Sportz]

I had a VERY minimal bet on them, because as I said earlier in the thread, I just can't go with the fact of them being favourites for this game. The Kangaroos are a team that seem to do best when they are the underdogs, and I personally don't really rate them in the same class as Port.

[Sportz]

Kangaroos fighting back. Still some chance here.

[Sportz]

Never in doubt! :D

Sure makes it tough for Port to make the finals now!

[Sportz]

Well, these were the 'statistical certainty' type bets that I had on the weekend:

Sth Africa to beat Australia: 3 units @ $1.72
Tiger Woods to make top 5: 3 units @ $1.45
Kangaroos to beat Port Adel: 1 unit @ $1.65

So, not a bad result, but all 3 were looking shaky at various stages.

[racingnovice]

Yep not to bad sportz. It doesnt matter what happens during the game all that matters is the final scores ;)

[thefan]

not a bad thread. i wanna see some more weekly bets of the week

[rabbitz]

How about St kilda at $3.75 for the flag,West coast and adelaide dont play real well in melbourne.how about Ben cousins at $1.14 to finish a place in the brownlow.how about leeds to beat Hull in the challenge trophy (when its played i dont know but they'll walk in
Cheers

[racingnovice]

Dont jump on the saints yet. The last 8 games were all against current bottom 8 sides. Wait until they come up against a good top 8 side before putting $'s on them. I wouldnt include Geelong as a good example lol. There form has been shocking expect stkilda to smash them.

[iamcool]

Okee Dokee,
Here's my AFL action for Rd 19

Saints 'ON FIRE' vs 'LACKLUSTER' Cats @ $1.22
Eagles 'TOO STRONG' vs 'IMPROVING' Doggies @ $1.55
Crows 'AT HOME' vs 'DEPLETED' Demons @ $1.16
Power 'UP AND DOWN LIKE A WHORES KNICKERS' vs 'HAPPLESS' Carlton @ $1.65

Multi @ Centre = $3.62
Although not a big multi fan any of the above selections should do you proud.
Saints and Power combo = even money - not a bad bet

http://forums.ozmium.com.au/images/icons/icon6.gif

[thefan]

whats the satistical certaincy for those bets

[Chuck]

Okee Dokee,
Here's my AFL action for Rd 19

Saints 'ON FIRE' vs 'LACKLUSTER' Cats @ $1.22
Eagles 'TOO STRONG' vs 'IMPROVING' Doggies @ $1.55
Crows 'AT HOME' vs 'DEPLETED' Demons @ $1.16
Power 'UP AND DOWN LIKE A WHORES KNICKERS' vs 'HAPPLESS' Carlton @ $1.65

Multi @ Centre = $3.62
Although not a big multi fan any of the above selections should do you proud.
Saints and Power combo = even money - not a bad bet

http://forums.ozmium.com.au/images/icons/icon6.gif

have you got any stats to back these up, because i think that was what this thread was about

[Sportz]

Yeah, all those teams could certainly win, but there's not actually any huge statistical advantage for saying so. For example, Geelong have won 7 of the past 10 against the Saints.

[iamcool]

Sure,

Saints record at telstra dome is enviable, they have most if not all key players back from injury. As for Geelong, King and Mooney are out. King especially as he would most likely dominate the clearances giving Geelong first use. Mooney's loss means less flexibility and Ottens will have to cover in the ruck diminishing what is already struggling Cats forward line - by their own admission. The last five games played by each team spit out the following win/loss info:

Saints: W W W W W ave score = 138
Geelong: L L W L W ave score = 96.4

Granted both teams have played inferior opposition but the Saints have thrashed the teams they have played whereas Geelong have beaten Hawthorn and Port, both at Skilled Stadium.

For me stats are great at telling me what has happened in the past however not always transferable to next week. It also depends how and what you would want to see in them. For instance 7 of 10 wins to the Cats suggests to me that sooner rather than later the Saints will win. However to someone else they say the Cats have the ascendency and therefore should win.

As for my other selections:

Eagles are far and away the most consistent team in the land this season. Refer to any stats you wish. I expect them to be too strong for a resurgent Bulldogs. Too much class and depth in most key positions. The MCG is said to be an achilles heel for the Eagles, i am not convinced. They lost to the Pies in round 9, a freakish performance by the Pies in the context of their year to date. They then beat Melbourne convincingly there in round 13 when the Dees were second on the ladder. I think i'll call it even.

The Crows are possibly the most improved team this year. The demons are in a massive slump and with the loss of Bruce, Green and Neitz they will not have the midfield or strike power to trouble the tightest defence around at the moment, particularly at AAMI.

As for the power, well i just can not tip Carlton, no matter how well they played last weekend. Port are having a miserable season but they should have too much class for Carlton, if and only if they feel like playing. I don't think stats will help anyone here.

Statistically sound - perhaps not. If you guys have info that would contradict or improve on my reasoning please post so i can re-assess.

http://forums.ozmium.com.au/images/icons/icon6.gif

[Sportz]

As I said, those 4 teams could certainly all win. Not arguing that. But there's not actually any overwhelming statistical basis for picking them.

[Chuck]

i don' think there's any major statistical selections this week for AFL or NRL

[iamcool]

OK Guys,

Hows about this:

Crows vs Demons
Crows have won 9 of last 10 matches.
Demons have won 4 of last 10, lost last six in a row by an average of 48.
Crows have won last 7 of 10 at AAMI.
Demons have lost last 8 of 10 at AAMI.
Crows have won last 9 of 10 day games.
Demons have lost last 7 of 10 day games.
Demons have lost last 7 of 10 interstate games.

Average points scored last 10 matches.
Crows: 94
Demons: 97

Average points conceded last 10 matches.
Crows: 65
Demons: 112

Average points at AAMI.
Crows: 83
Demons: 77

Head to Head at AAMI.
Crows: 5
Demons: 2

No Neitz, Bruce or Green.
Statistical Certs?
http://forums.ozmium.com.au/images/icons/icon6.gif

Wait for it

[Sportz]

Yes, but they're also only paying $1.16. Personally, I do agree that they will almost certainly win and probably by a good margin.

[iamcool]

Haha Sportz

I knew you'd say that. True though the price is too short but me thinks it would be very difficult to find a statistical cert that is also well priced in market. Not impossible, but difficult all the same. Certainly with AFL this weekend! That's why i was looking at Port and the Saints for the healthier divvies. Perhaps if the Dees were not playing so poorly and carrying so many injuries.

Perhaps, as you last post would suggest, Line or Margin betting may be the way to go.
http://forums.ozmium.com.au/images/icons/icon6.gif

[iamcool]

Similarly Lions over Hawks - alas very short price though.

http://forums.ozmium.com.au/images/icons/icon6.gif

[karla909]

In the satistical certainties but unbettable tennis events, Agassi won 2nd round match at $1.10 ---system 1-0 +.10


This week the #1 seed at Washington will win 3rd round match now 23 from 24 since 1978. (must win rd 2 of course to qualify).

Go Andy

[Sportz]

In the satistical certainties but unbettable tennis events, Agassi won 2nd round match at $1.10 ---system 1-0 +.10

This week the #1 seed at Washington will win 3rd round match now 23 from 24 since 1978. (must win rd 2 of course to qualify).

Go Andy

Well done. Short price, but the stats were really behind him.

[goldmember]

After watching last weeks games ,i wouldnt be rushing in to back the eagles,it was a pretty average win against the hawks at home and their form at the M.C.G isnt that great, the last 9 day games there have resulted in 3 wins [ 2 wins this year beating richmond by 2 and melboune by 13 and they wont be in the finals this year.]

[goldmember]

The cowboys record against the saints at home is very good [4/5] scoring 174 [av 34.8] to 92 [av 18.4] and i've already taken the $1.90

nothing to do with stats,but they have P.Rahihi and C.Webb back. that stat will then become 5/6.

cheers

[Sportz]

Whoever wins between the Cowboys and Dragons often seems to win BIG. Let's see if it happens again.

[iamcool]

Hey Boys and Girls,

Hows about Aussies to win second test @ $1.77 Sportingbet. Weather forecast is for light rain on Sat only - otherwise fine 18/21 degrees. Fair chance they can rap it up in four days either way all things going well. Soft pitch might be a concern though, however should be the same for both teams as the curator doesn't expect any rapid improvement.

http://forums.ozmium.com.au/images/icons/icon6.gif

[Sportz]

Whoever wins between the Cowboys and Dragons often seems to win BIG. Let's see if it happens again.

Yep. :D

I have no idea why, but when these two teams play each other, it's almost always a 13+ margin. Just have to pick which team. Although, you could have backed both teams 13+ and done okay.

[Sportz]

There was only one of these 'Statistical Certainty' type bets for me this weekend:

MANLY (+7.5) vs Brisbane

Good result. The Brookvale jinx remains in place.

[Mr J]

re the aussies & cricket.

Wouldn't the statistically certainty be backing the poms? Largest 2nd innings total to chase etc.

Then again, the poms haven't won a test for a while.

[Sportz]

I had both results covered Mr J. I got $4 for England before the start of play, and $3 for Australia at lunch on day 1. Very rare to get a draw these days unless there's a huge downpour, so on most occasions I just rule out the draw altogether.

[iamcool]

re the aussies & cricket.

Wouldn't the statistically certainty be backing the poms? Largest 2nd innings total to chase etc.

Then again, the poms haven't won a test for a while.
Sure is Mr J,
However when i proposed that silly idea play was yet to start and i was thinking along the lines:

Aussies - great team/great record Vs Poms

That all changed after first innings. Still, only 2 runs in the end.

[karla909]

The statistical certainty tennis system won again with Roddick ($1.09) this week. Now 2-0 for a profit of .19.


This week the pick is #1 seed (Nadal) to win 2nd rd match. This is 21-2 since 1978. must beat Moya in rd 1 first to qualify.

By the way I am looking up the results of the system for 2005.

Rules.
A - must be seeded 1-8 player (not a replacement)
B - must have at least 15 years of results
C - must be 90% or above strike rate.

Results from 1/1/05 until 15/4/05 Monte Carlo - picks 13, wins 13 - profit 1.42 units.

Will post complete results when finished.

Good Punting
Karla

[Sportz]

Geelong aren't in great form, so it's risky to back them. However, Melbourne's form is even worse, and Melbourne have lost their last 10 matches at Kardinia Park (Skilled Stadium). They haven't won there since 1988.

If Sydney were playing Brisbane at the SCG, they would be specials. But they're playing at Telstra Stadium instead and I'm not quite as confident about their chances there. Still think they're likely to win though.

[mad]

Hows about this little tid -bit,

Since 2000 Hawthorn has played Essendon 8 times for no wins. That's a 0% strike rate.

Similarly, going back as far as 1983 the Hawks and the Dons have met on the hallowed MCG turf a total of 16 times. Essendon have won 12.

[punter57]

As much as I hate to pour cold water on all this statistics inanity,I will !!!
On Sunday last I read Ricky Ponting, lamenting that he'd allowed the English to bat first in the 2nd Test despite favourable weather conditions etc etc (and the lack of G. Mcgrath to get the Poms out) Why did he do it? While you and I are probably STILL wondering, Ricky was straightforward..
As Punter put it "I was misled by the stats: in the previous 13 Tests at Birmingham,12 had been won by the team batting second" Can't get more CERTAIN than that!!! And Karla, I don't know what the stats were saying when Ginepri upset Roddick (at $12!!!!) two weeks back in the RCA but I reckon it wasn't pretty for Robby; only for those who look at statistical certs and then BET AGAINST THEM!!!! Cheers and best to all.

[mad]

That's a fair point P57 albeit another view,

However i would argue that it's very easy for all of us to sit here after the fact and explain away the Aussies loss - not so easy to call before McGrath got injured. With Mcgrath in, i for one would have expected the Aussies to have bowled the Poms out for three less runs and batting second would suit in this instance.

Another view is that the highest successful run chase in the second innings had for some time been quite low, with no McGrath this meant to me that batting first the Poms had every chance of making a reasonable total , meaning the Aussies had to do what no one else could - chase a reasonable second innings total. These stats go against 'Pontings Logic', a fact i think he should of been aware of considering he knew he would be without McGrath.

For Ponting to choose to bowl first based solely on the fact that 12 of 13 wins came from batting second is silly on many levels. For instance, how many of those teams were struggling with form and had just lost their strike bowler the morning of the test?

Ultimately stats don't determine how the match is played or who wins, for me they are used to support a view i have already formed about the game and as such aid in my decision, not make them.

[Sportz]

Geelong aren't in great form, so it's risky to back them. However, Melbourne's form is even worse, and Melbourne have lost their last 10 matches at Kardinia Park (Skilled Stadium). They haven't won there since 1988.

Well, I did say it was risky to back them. :o

I hope nobody followed this info. I think I'll keep quiet in future.

[thefan]

this has nothing to do with s.c but in the union NZ to bt Aus -3.5 at $1.70 NSW sportstab...Multi it up with Essedon to bt Hawthorn and the multi is $2.41

[punter57]

Anyone following Tiger Woods would know that he's never missed the cut in a major and, despite being almost out with 6 or 7 holes to play in round 2, kept that "statistical certainty" alive in the PGA yesterday. Unfortunately if we go back to 15/5/2005 the very same Mr Woods MISSED the cut in another tournament for the first time in 142 events; the longest streak in golf history!!!!!
Bearing in mind that Tiger has had such a fabulous year in 2005, it's even more AGAINST the stats that he'd crack in the midst of it ( for the first time in more than 7 years).There are NO certainties, statistical or otherwise.
That old saying that it's darkest just before the dawn should have a contra-cliche. Maybe the sun shines brightest just before the eclipse (?????). In 1969 R.Laver won all 4 Tennis Majors as well as the Italian, German, Canadian and Sth African Opens. Not only was/is that year the greatest in tennis history BUT it was also the last time he ever won a major at all!!!! Who would've bet against him at the end of that fabulous year??? When all about are fawning on todays "unbeatables" the successful punter must not LOSE THEIR OBJECTIVITY and start thinking of betting FAVOURITES. Cheers

[punter57]

Hawthorn beats Essendon for the first time in 8 years!!!! Another "statistical certainty" bites the dust. Hope you followed my advice (see 12th August) and BET AGAINST THE CERTAINTY. Cheers, and I'm off to collect. Am also hoping for an early payout on the Poms winning the Ashes as well.

[Sportz]

I don't see ANYWHERE here where you tipped Hawthorn to beat Essendon on Aug12. You never even referred to that match. "BET AGAINST THE CERTAINTY" could mean absolutely anything.

Please feel free to post tips for individual matches if you wish, but just saying people should bet against the favourite says nothing.

Personally, I didn't bet in that Hawthorn/Essendon match because I didn't trust the form of either team. I don't go blindly betting on teams just because statistics suggest they should win. I also have to have some sort of form reasoning behind my selections. That's why I only had a 1 unit bet on Geelong against Melbourne. (really should have left them alone altogether) I had 3 units on Sydney against Brisbane. I thought they were good things although I must admit I would have had 5 units on them if they had played at the SCG.

[punter57]

Sportz, I hope you haven't lost your sense of humour. Every one of my entries on this topic has been taking the p*** out of it, if you'll notice. When I said that on 12th August it was to give general advice not to fall for anything as ludicrous as "stats" or "certainties". This thread is EXACTLY about betting without reference to form/conditions/weather etc and to only look at stats. It follows on from the original "Statistical Certainties" thread.
Since it seems we agree that stats are only a part of the story (a very small part) I don't see why you are having a go at me for mocking them. Well? Cheers anyway.P57
P.S. Sportz: attacking people for not giving you tips on every individual bet under the sun AFTER they've given you the 100% iron-clad winning principle (you may remember the Wimbledon fiasco where no-one wanted to know about V.Williams at 80-1 and then they bucketed ME afterwards) is a little churlish. It is the old cliche: if you give a man a fish, he can eat that day BUT if you show him HOW to fish he can feed himself forever!!!.

[karla909]

The Statistical Certainity tennis syste won with Nadal. Now 3-0 For +.25

At Cinci it picks Federer in r1 & nadal in r2.

[punter57]

Well here we are 5 minutes after seeing Nadal, the latest statistical "certainty" bite the dust and all those absurdly skinny divvy wins (accepted by fav backers) evaporate into a screaming loss. The advice still stands and WITHstands the test of time; wait until they CAN"T LOSE and then bet that they WILL!!!
What a winning gambler needs is GUTS; guts to bet against the crowd. Nadal was and IS always a risk when he's not on some dinky slooooooooooow Euro-trash clay-court. Ho-hum...and another one's down and another one's gone!!!
Cheers and good luck to those with courage. P57

[mad]

OK smarty pants,

Hows about you post some statistical "un"certainties, at your leisure or when the next becomes available, so we can rate and follow your advice.

[punter57]

Thanks for the amiable challenge Mr Mad. After Wimbledon I promised not to give any specific tips until the US Open drew near. In both the ATP and WTA threads I did, however, explicitly warn NOT to bet Nadal on any surface other than Euroclay. This would seem to include Cincinatti (not in Europe and not on clay!!!) so you could've either bet Berdych and cleaned up OR not bet at all. If only one of our fellow forum followers, upon feeling "certain" of something, stops for a reality check (at $1.10 especially), I'll feel a warm inner-glow. Smarty-Pants 57 (mockingly dubbed Professor57 by Karla909, as well!!!!) over and out.Best of Luck.

[karla909]

Well well well. Aren't some of us willing to jump down the throats of others without double checking. If you would take a second to scroll down P57 you might note the following:

The Statistical Certainity tennis syste won with Nadal. Now 3-0 For +.25

At Cinci it picks Federer in r1 & nadal in r2.

NADAL WAS A PICK IN R2 (ROUND 2) Nadals loss was in round 1. Therefore the pick in round2 is void.

To qualify in the tennis statistical certainty system the seed must have a 90% record. The number 2 seed at Cincinatti is 22 for 27 which is 81%. In fact the 2nd seed has now lost 3 of the last 5 years in round 1. I apologize, if my use of r2 for round2 confused anybody.

Caution - the tennis statistical certainity system could be a wealth hazard and is presented here for amusement only.

The system since first presentation is now 4-0 with Federer winning in r1 (ROUND 1) for a profit of +.30.

We should be fair and present the other side of the argument. Betting against the tennis statistical certainity choice which will now be affectiontly named -P57 is now 0-4 for a loss of 4 units.

P57, I actually agree with you, that betting something on the basis of pure history is folly and if you are clever, betting against it will probably bring a profit. I do bet on historical events in tennis. But only when the gentleman involved in the match not only meet the historical conditions but also when my database has a favourable rating.

It is interesting that Federer did lose for the system last year in Cinci after performing well in Canada.
---------
If you do not mind, I would like you (P57) to desist from implying that I would have selected any short priced fav that losses. I am fully aware that Roddick, Nadal or anyone else is highly suspectible to a r1 loss after winning on the previous Sunday. I accept any criticsm of my selections which I present before the event. I did not pick Roddick in Canada or anywhere allude to that match.

I agree with MR Mad and remind you that your before the match picks are still 0% (0-1). I am also very sure that if Ms Williams had not won Wimbeldon you would not have told us after the event what a clever professor you are.

much love and kisses
Karla

ps if you want to meet the real Karla, she stands 6.5 feet on her hind legs, and has all the charm of a German Shepherd guard dog which she is. I'm sure she would love to meet you. lol

[Floydyboy]

WOOF ..Floydyboy stands about 5and a half feet on his hinds hes a boxer staffy cross with no nuts but Im sure hed like to meet her hes a friendly fella ...dosent like tennis much though well not that I know of Ive never seen him paying attention when its on the tv ............Lighten up fellas lets respect eachothers opinions and agree to disagree about things ...I gotta say P57 its really counterproductive rubbin people the wrong way ......The people here as a whole seem to want to help oneanother ........if you disagree say so but why not try to do it without the sarcasm........ there again if your intent is to annoy people or to assert some imaginary superiority why not stick your head in the betfair forum and speak your mind The content there is more condusive to sarcasm and sh**slinging

[karla909]

woof woof


Couldn't agree more mate.

thank you for the positive perspective.

[Floydyboy]

Far be it from me to be critical cos Ive been caught up before myself in slinging matches which i wished id had enough presence of mind to stay out of and say nothing so getting in for your five cents worth dosent help the situ either....... having said that I think theres enough space in here for all of us to have our say without treading on toes............... cheers to all

[mad]

I am confused now, but that's not too hard i don't mind tellin ya!

Mr S.Pants57 i agree and i don't. To say that "A" is too short a price and therefore will lose a match, race whatever just doesn't sit well with me. You could make a point that Nadal is S'house on any other surface than clay and back it up with stats and i would agree wholeheartedly - (damn there's that dirty word again). For me that is the reason he lost, nothing to do with price. Sure if the selection is too short a price then no bet, but that doesn't mean the other guy will suddenly serve and volley better because he looked up the TAB prices just before he went out to play and saw his opponent @ $1.10. "I'm sure to win now" he says. The fact is, as demonstrated in your earlier post, that Nadal is crappola on surfaces other than clay. Therefore you were right in your assessment but it was based on past performances not price.

From now on i will keep tabs on some of the sports i watch to find stats and short prices to see how they fare. You are most welcome to join me and we can see exactly how good your method really is. No pressure, no competition just for the benefit of all on this thread. Who knows i might even learn something - lol!

[Floydyboy]

Mad ,you put a website up there earlier on for soccerstats ,its not a bad site i used to use it myself but I havent been back there since i started using Betexplorer

http://www.betexplorer.com/ Its got all the results with prices for all the matches goin back years ...all leagues and lower leagues have a look you wont be dissapointed.

Click on soccer (left side) then country (right side ) chose a league then scroll down the page below those results it will say click for full results then youll get the whole seasons results they also have livescores for tennis and other sports at the righthand side of the livescore page

[mad]

Thanks Floydy, will do nicely. Have put in my favourites and will expect great things (95% strike rate) or i'll blame you! Only kidding.

However what i did find on that site under the heading "Hot Favourites" are the following soccer odds for the Premier League this weekend:

Manchester United $1.28 Vs Aston Villa $9.89
Liverpool $1.30 Vs Sunderland $9.83

Put the opposing views to the test. If Aston Villa or Sunderland get up boy what a windfall, but if not then i guess i'll be buying the beers.

[Floydyboy]

That would probably be good examples to check out the diff in the betfair LAY price...
Ive read somewhere that statistically speaking you do better backing the "under evens" AWAY favs in the soccer .

[mad]

Lay prices
Liverpool $1.32
Man U $1.30

What mean AWAY favs Floydy?
Man U and Liverpool at home this weekend
Or as usual am i misunderstanding?

[mad]

Now here is an interesting situation. Since 1993 the Wallabies have had the advantage over the Springboks here at home. The record stands at 11 wins and a draw out of 14 played. Statistically speaking the Wallabies should be the favourites. However, due to bad form and injuries the Springboks have the edge in the betting market, thus making the Wallabies the underdogs. Therefore we could have a situation whereby the Wallabies are offering the value in terms of betting and are also the stat certs, in theory at least.

[Floydyboy]

Sorry to confuse
Those two matches are good examples of the LAY Price for the underdog.

NEW SUBJECT
AWAY favs (under evens) are a better bet statistically than home favs under evens......What I read was in reference to english socceer

[punter57]

Hello Mad!! Had Nadal been the outsider I MAY have bet on him!! At odds of, say $2.50 he would've been a very tempting bet, and he only lost yesterday's match in a third set tie-break. It is INDEED the price that makes the difference.
Example; my nephew wins the 1500m at his school swimming carnival and now has a race against Grant Hackett. At 2-1 no way, at 50-1 still no way, at a million to one I'll put a buck on the little fella ; big risk but commensurate reward!! Likewise Hackett at a million to one on NO WAY, at 50-1 on, still NO WAY at evens WELL......
K909, I DID overlook the 2nd round proviso on Nadal and have had to suffer the consequences. I suppose if I was a punter content with small risk/ small return (consequently, big outlay), I'd be more receptive to these sorts of tips, and methods (and maybe pay more attention). Being mainly a horseracing punter it has always sat better with me to see my 100-1 shot just miss with only $20 on it than the $1.50 hotpot likewise get pipped carrying $4000! (ie trying to win the same $2000).It strikes me that winning .1 or.2 or.3 etc of a unit is a form of slow torture where you never get far enough ahead to really make much money.Probably that's why 99% of punters suffer just THIS fate.
Still, if you have the patience, good on ya!!!

[mad]

I see what you're saying and i agree to a point Mr Pants. No point chasing short priced favourites, however for me if the price is too short then = No Bet. I will not and can not justify backing the opposition on price alone is my point. Ultimately it is the performance on the park that determines the winner and as such i can and will only back the most likely winner, in my estimation that is.

Floydy, i get ya now mate - bit slow i am.
You say lay Villa and Sunderland rather than back Liverpool and Man U. Price is too short on Man U and Liverpool. Therefore better value on the opposite side of the ledger, so to speak. Am i getting closer?
At the moment there is plenty monies for Man U to win, some money for Aston Villa to win also at 17's - might be one for P57. Not much available for Villa to lay $150 @ 17's.
Similarly plenty $$$$$ for Liverpool to win, not as much Sunderland. Lay Sunderland for $550 @ 16.5, bit better, still not great.

[Sportz]

Mad ,you put a website up there earlier on for soccerstats ,its not a bad site i used to use it myself but I havent been back there since i started using Betexplorer


Now I can see where you get all those teams with names I've never heard of and can hardly pronounce. :)

[Floydyboy]

NO NO NO hahaha I was just saying when the match gets closer have a look at the difference between the WIN price and the LAY price .....if you back them you might get say $9 but if you want to lay them you are going to give odds of probably(without looking id say) about $12or $13. I was saying it was a good EXAMPLE of the difference .I wouldnt tell you to back anything .

[Floydyboy]

yep sportz they cover a few leagues ......everynow and again I sit and reflect and wonder what it would be like without the internet .........I d have to start socializing with people in person again hahaha

[Floydyboy]

MAD
Once again SODS LAW at work ....theres only fifty cents difference in the win and the lay price of both Sunderland and Villa .Its unusual at that price but there you go .
In my own defence most bookies will have the outsider at say11.00 while Betfair will have them longer as in this instance about $16 so if your LAYING your still risking paying the bigger odds (thats where Gamebookers P2P may be better for laying the outsider )

[karla909]

The statistical certainity but unbettable tennis system has 7 selections for the US OPEN.

It takes Federer in Round 1 & 2 (seed1)

It takes Nadal Round 1 & 2 (seed2)

It takes Hewitt Round 1 & 2 (seed3)

It takes Roddick Round 2 only (seed4)

Interestingly seed 3 has not lost since 1978 (when my stats start) in the first round. so a 100% statistical certainity???

This system is presented for entertainment purposes only and is not intended as a betting guide. The author does not bet it. The purpose is to see if a system that occurs regularly actually produces a profit.

[BJ]

What about England over Northern Ireland in the soccer. That was surely a statistical certainty. England hadn't lost there for 8 decades......

Hadn't.......

[Sportz]

Yes, but they were about $1.12 or something. That's terrible odds in a Soccer game (especially on England).

[karla909]

the statistical certainity but unbettable tennis system won all 6 selections in the US open with Federer, Nadal and Hewitt all winning their rd 1 and rd 2 matches. The 6 wins were at .01, .03 .02 .02 .04 and .07 for a grand total of .19.



Since first write up I think we are 11-0 for .49.

No selections at Bucharest or Bejing next week

[Sportz]

Could have just backed Federer to beat Hewitt. Didn't pay a lot, but it was easy money.

The thing is that Hewitt showed in the 2nd and 3rd sets that he COULD beat Federer if he would only decide to attack more, come into the net and take the initiative. But as soon as he won the 3rd set, he went back into his shell and that was that.

[karla909]

Couldn't agree more SPortz. Newk said he only came in once in the 4th set. But I think Federer had another gear and Hewitt probably couldn't keep it up in a 5th set. Still it is fustrating that a player with Hewitts ability insists on playing backhand backcourt tennis, no matter what. Plus those foot faults were just stupid for that level of tennis.

It was a great match and I picked up a tiny bit by backing Hewitt to win 13+ games. Won 1.75 units for the tourny so got be smiling.

How did u go.

[Mr J]

I only caught the last set of the match. Just looked like hewitt had to fight to keep up with federer, while federer was just cruising (hewitt looked slow & tired). He makes everything look so smooth and effortless. Hard to imagine that there will be a day he won't be the best.

[karla909]

The statistical certainity but unbettable tennis system has 1 pick this week being the #1 seed in Palmero.

Therefore Ferrer is the pick over Aldi in round 1.

Remember this system because of the very low prices is presented for amusement and educational purposes only.

[karla909]

AH ah


The statistical certainty but unbackable tennis system finally had a loss with Ferrer putting in a listless effort in losing to Aldi 2-6, 2-6.

Now 11-1 for a loss of .51 since started posting although I think it is profitable on the year. I will have a complete wrap by Xmas.

This week it picks #1 seed Puerta and #2 seed Stepanek to win their first match which will be in round 2.

This system is for amusement purposes only.

[karla909]

The statistical certainity but unbackable tennis system bounced back with both Stepanek ($1.25) & Puerta ($1.22)recording 2nd round wins.

Now 13-1 for a loss of .04.

No selections for this week.