Hi Iamcool. This thread has gone in two directions, with the original idea being that a "statistical" certainty will come through BECAUSE it always does, and regardless of current form, to boot!!! For example, that Australia always wins at Lords and always will (can this be true????). I never bet team sports, precisely because you are relying on too many players to "be right on the night".
The real danger in the idea of "Hoodoos" however is clear enough when you read Goldmembers post (#13). In that, he specifically cited the Dragons as a perennial "risk" (no matter the form) against the Roosters because their last 10 games have been losses or wafer-thin wins.Yesterday was the greatest slaughter the Roosters have endured in years AND at the hands of the Dragons!!!! So much for the predictive power of stats.
In tennis, I am always betting the non-favs (and will start a new thread on this topic shortly) as I believe upsets are ALWAYS on the cards. This means, however, waiting for "good" players to be the underestimated "outsider" (ie Hewitt versus Federer) and at long adds. It's remarkable really that Hewitt (the second best performed player of recent years) should be so definitively dismissed against ANYONE.
One of the most famous examples of this type of thing was 1956 (before my time, but proof that it has always been thus!!!) where Lew Hoad faced Ken Rosewall in the U.S. Final to complete the Grand Slam, after having beaten him in two previous GS finals and one semi that year. If anyone had "the wood" on someone it was Hoad over Rosewall (that year) AND he had motivation (completing the Slam plus a huge bonus offer to join Jack Kramers Pro circuit). Hoad was UNBACKABLE. But.....well, you can guess what happened!! Just another case of "he who dares, wins" for the courageous punter. Going against the crowd and bookies (and the stats) is the WAY!!! Cheers