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.

Similarly Lions over Hawks - alas very short price though.

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.

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.]

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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!!!.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

woof woof


Couldn't agree more mate.

thank you for the positive perspective.

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

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!

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

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.

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 .

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?

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.

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

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!!!