Last year I tried rating teams efforts for every game they played in the last 12 months.
Then I would use these ratings to predict what the team will do next week.
The assessed ratings were a prediction of the final score for each team.
So by subtracting one score from the other,I would have my expected margin for the coming game.

This year I intend to rate each player and add up each individual player in the coming game.
The tally will again be the team's predicted score.
Did make a profit last year and hopefully can go slightly better again!

You would have to take very careful notice of any injuries and late team changes Mo.

Word of warning. Sometimes just the basic stats like kicks and handballs don't tell the full story. You can sometimes have the lesser team just chipping and handpassing the ball around in their backline picking up easy stats but not really doing anything and not threatening the other team. Meanwhile the top teams often just take a few possessions to go from one end to the other and score. The stats can be deceptive. I mean, just going purely on stats, Chris Judd is a good player but certainly nothing outstanding.

My two cents: Best just to stick to overall team ratings, too many variables to hone in on each player, such as players who are playing tagging roles etc won't rack up the stats that other midfielders may etc

Do you also believe you can keep records on over 400 players?

Moeee, the way Richmond buggarise around with it your rankings for them would be out every week. Lots of stats getting to the forward 50 and then nothing on the end of it.

By the way, nice to see a woman interested in sports betting Betsy, not too many around.

Are you sure? You can't necessarily tell someone's gender just by forum usernames as I found out with one other person.

I hope you're right, because I do agree with you. It WOULD be nice to see a woman interested in betting on sport.

lol I thought Betsy meant like "bet" sy.

I must admit my wife enjoys a bet on the horses just as much as I do, which gets me going on another topic.

I went to Caulfield on Boxing Day, the first time on a track for about a year. $15 for an adult and $10 for a child for an ordinary meeting at best. My family were away with the outlaws in another country but if they were with me it would have cost me $60 just to get in, add another 20 or so for food and refreshment and thats $80 gone without laying a bet. For a $5 and $10 man like me thats a lot of money to LOOSE before placing a bet. And they wonder why no one goes to the bread and butter meetings. The less people that go the less bookies we will have which leaves the punter worse off. I watched the bookies odds for the entire time between races and the % fluctuated between 125% and 145 %
even the top flucuations would have lucky to match the 115% mark of the tote.
I can see the day when on course bookies are no more and it is coming sooner rather than later. They could however try to help themselves by offering decent odds, after all that would be the only reason alot of people would go to the races, to get a bit of competition. For the $80 I would sooner go to the pub and spend 30 on beer and loose 50.

No way would I pay those prices.

Yeah im a bloke, betsy is our dogs name - i thought the Bet part was relevant