2012 AFL Power Rankings Rnd 15

[GreatBradScott]

Another week and the same questions are still be avoided...


Roby, any chance of a response this week or are you still going to ignore anything that puts serious holes in your advanced calculus abilities?

Prosecutor, me thinks the defendant is no state to be answering questions of logical substance.

 

[shoebox]

I'll just take my yearly profits each year until the system fails as you expect. Maybe it's just easier for you to believe I don't answer questions and no profit is generated. Type enough posts you my finally create your reality.

You've turned $13 into $53. If you have spent 2 hours a round on this, you are making about $1.50 an hour. Get a job at maccas FFS.

 

[Furn]

Without understanding your ranking system, how the heck:

1. Are Hawks top? Do you use % or last result as a big factor in the weighting. Certainly not top-2, & probably not top-4. 5th-6th for me.

2. Are Carlton 4th? Should be middle of the pack. 1 gutsy win over the Pies doesn't make up for the last poor 2 months.

3. Are Adelaide 8th? Have been in top-4 most of the year, surely at least top-6?

4. Are Port Adelaide 12th? Surely in bottom 5?

5. Are Kangaroos 13th - below Port - WTF? Have beaten top teams & nearly beat West Coast. Should be a few spots higher.

Personally, I think the AFL table is a better reflection of the sides ranking.

PS. Richmond 7th - lol

In other words why aren't rankings exactly the same as the ladder?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Is there some science to Roby's analysis or spending too much time with his psychic?

I don't agree with the AFL on many things, but reckon there ladder is much fairer!

 

[Roby]

Hi Roby,

Long time reader, first time poster. Just a suggestion for the future, as there are 9 games per week wouldnt it make this more respectable if you posted all projected winners for the round. I feel you hedging your bets a little by no doing this.

Example would be, you state last week you rankings delivered 4 from 5. Yet i know that you rankings also predicted Collingwood to beat Carlton by 24 points.

Only five discrepencies found in the lines this week but very large discrepancies so we expect to increase profit. The rankings are also predicting a non-favourite in the Kangaroos to beat West Coast by 28 points. For the Friday night blockbuster, the rankings are predicting 24 point win to The Pies

So really your ranking delivered 4 of 6, with 3 games unaccounted for.

If you truly believed in these rankings, you would trust them correct for all games, and not leave out the one that your unsure about in order to not skew the percentage of of correct/incorrect picks.

Of the non-bet games, it's 22 for and 24 against. If the margin is too close it virtually becomes a toss of a coin. This week for example it was 2-2. If the bookmakers were offering better than $2 on line bets than there would be value but obviously they don't.

 

[ok.crows]

He adds and takes away points based on whether a team was favoured by certain decisions (his opinion) and the value of players missing (his opinion).

In other words he pretty much puts teams wherever he likes.

In terms of "whether a team was favoured by certain decisions (his opinion)" ... in the first post of this thread, Roby said of Adelaide "They also rank 5th on the Competiveness Table but 3rd last on the Unfairness Table (includes outs and umpiring weighting) – meaning they have had a favourable run this year". In actual fact, Adelaide do very poorly when it comes to umpiring decisions or "frees for". For example Adelaide have won the free kick tally in only three matches this year. Read about it here:
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/losing-the-free-kicks.960393/

It's worth noting we haven't lost a match this year in which we've won or broken even on the free kick differential.

Hmmmm. As an indication: in the last match against Port, McKernan copped a head-high hit in a marking contest which broke his jaw. He will be out for six weeks. Not only did he not receive a free, the (Victorian) TV commentators did not even notice that he had been hit, and did not notice that he had left the ground until one of them noticed Brody Martin getting a possession, and realised that Martin was Adelaide's sub. Later, in the Victorian press, this incident was reported as "a head clash". Sure, it did happen that McKernan's jaw (which would presumably be part of his head if he was playing for a Victorian club) clashed with the fist of the Port player attempting to spoil.

So the bias in assessing the fairness of umpiring decisions in relation to Adelaide is not only considerable in its magnitude, it is also an apparently very widespread view amongst Victorian footy followers that, no matter what happens, Adelaide did not deserve the free (that, for the most part, they weren't awarded).

In terms of players missing, Adelaide have indeed had a good run this year. The point I would make is that Roby's ratings are allegedly supposed to indicate each team's relative chances of winning the flag. If a team has only a few players missing, wouldn't that mean that their chances of winning the flag are better? Shouldn't a team with no or only a few long term injured players be considered a good chance to win the flag, and therefore have a higher ranking?

In terms of "adds and takes away points" it must be noted that Roby starts his ranking at the beginning of each season based on the ladder position from the previous year. At the end of last year Geelong were ranked 1st, Collingwood 2nd and the Crows 14th, so in order to be considered equal ranking to Collingwood this year apparently Adelaide would have had to "add points" 14 times and Collingwood only once during this year.

In other words Roby's apparent "system" is pretty much non-objective nonsense.

 

[Hank93]

I suppose if you tell enough lies and make enough mistakes, that eventually you believe your own bullshit without fear of reprimand.

Kudos to you sir. Congrats on taking that from his twitter feed.

 

[GreatBradScott]

You've turned $13 into $53. If you have spent 2 hours a round on this, you are making about $1.50 an hour. Get a job at maccas FFS.

 

[Eth]

Wait, Roby's more than double the gangsta of that guy?

I'm surprised BigFooty can handle all that.

 

[Roby]

I guess you write something it must be true, yes?

In terms of "whether a team was favoured by certain decisions (his opinion)" ... in the first post of this thread, Roby said of Adelaide "They also rank 5th on the Competiveness Table but 3rd last on the Unfairness Table (includes outs and umpiring weighting) – meaning they have had a favourable run this year". In actual fact, Adelaide do very poorly when it comes to umpiring decisions or "frees for". For example Adelaide have won the free kick tally in only three matches this year.

Adelaide rank 6th on the Umpiring Disadvantage Table with a net weight of -4.5 goals for the year. You could've just asked.

As an indication: in the last match against Port, McKernan copped a head-high hit in a marking contest which broke his jaw. He will be out for six weeks. Not only did he not receive a free, the (Victorian) TV commentators did not even notice that he had been hit, and did not notice that he had left the ground until one of them noticed Brody Martin getting a possession, and realised that Martin was Adelaide's sub. Later, in the Victorian press, this incident was reported as "a head clash". Sure, it did happen that McKernan's jaw (which would presumably be part of his head if he was playing for a Victorian club) clashed with the fist of the Port player attempting to spoil.

Yes I know and that's why I do my own review. Mckernan's out was weighted when he came off in the second quarter but you have put one game in isolation.

If you combine the total weighting of Adelaide player outs vs opponent they rank 2nd in the league behind North Melbourne. They have had very good run with injuries and few key players out. Walker has been out through suspension but not much else compared to the clubs Adelaide has played this season. If you then combine the total weighting of Adelaide player outs/umpiring vs opponent they rank 3rd behind North Melbourne and Richmond.

So the bias in assessing the fairness of umpiring decisions in relation to Adelaide is not only considerable in its magnitude, it is also an apparently very widespread view amongst Victorian footy followers that, no matter what happens, Adelaide did not deserve the free (that, for the most part, they weren't awarded).

Don't care if you think I am Victorian because firstly I wasn't born here and secondly and most importantly if I get it wrong it cost me money, if you get it wrong it cost you...

In terms of players missing, Adelaide have indeed had a good run this year. The point I would make is that Roby's ratings are allegedly supposed to indicate each team's relative chances of winning the flag. If a team has only a few players missing, wouldn't that mean that their chances of winning the flag are better? Shouldn't a team with no or only a few long term injured players be considered a good chance to win the flag, and therefore have a higher ranking?

What if Adelaide get injuries come finals? What if the some of the other teams get players back from injury?

The rankings monitor performance and expected performance amongst a number of criteria.

In terms of "adds and takes away points" it must be noted that Roby starts his ranking at the beginning of each season based on the ladder position from the previous year.

Again you just make stuff up and think it's true. Check last years rankings. It does not mirror the ladder.

At the end of last year Geelong were ranked 1st, Collingwood 2nd and the Crows 14th, so in order to be considered equal ranking to Collingwood this year apparently Adelaide would have had to "add points" 14 times and Collingwood only once during this year.

If Adelaide were to play Collingwood in a final right now in Adelaide, the rankings predicted The Crows to win by a four goal margin.

Of course a lot can change come September.

 

[George Washington]

 

[ok.crows]

What if Adelaide get injuries come finals?

The exact same question applies equally to all sides. If injuries are random, as one would have to assume, then Adelaide players have the same chance of getting injured from here on in as players from other clubs do. Since Adelaide have few players injured now, this in turn means that future injuries for Adelaide (which should be assumed to occur at the same rate as for other clubs) should have less overall impact on Adelaide's performance since Adelaide aren't dipping as deeply into their reserve players.

What if the some of the other teams get players back from injury?

When they do come back from injury the rankings of the other clubs should then rise. While they are out, the fact that they are out surely diminishes their club's chances of winning the flag compared to a club that has less injury concerns.

The rankings monitor performance and expected performance amongst a number of criteria.

And apparently add or subtract a factor to a teams ranking in the wrong direction for some criteria.

Again you just make stuff up and think it's true. Check last years rankings. It does not mimic the ladder.

I'll take your word for it. At the start of the year Adelaide were still ranked by you about 14 positions behind Collingwood and Geelong. Adelaide's performance would apparently have to be super-exemplary (compared to Collingwood and Geelong) in order to impress you to rank them as making up that ground. On the official AFL ladder there is no such need, if Adelaide perform as well or better than Collingwood or Geelong this year, then Adelaide will be ranked higher this year, despite how well or otherwise they went last year. It seems pretty straightforward to me. What is perhaps even more to the point is that if a club does finish higher on the official AFL ladder, say top 2, then THAT has far, far more impact on that club's actual for-real chances of winning a flag than any of your number crunching.

If Adelaide were to play Collingwood in a final right now in Adelaide, the rankings predicted The Crows to win by a four goal margin.

Yet you have Collingwood ranked 5th and Adelaide 8th in terms of their chance to win the flag? You make no sense.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/2012-afl-power-rankings-rnd-15.960574/page-3#post-24814129

 

[The Prosecutor]

You're still avoiding my last post in the previously quoted debate Roby.

Why do you continue to avoid that post? You seemed fine about answering it until you dug yourself in to a whole. I know you've seen it as well, since I've tagged you in the thread each week and quoted it to you.

For your convenience, Roby.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/2012-afl-power-rankings-rnd-15.960574/page-2#post-24803206

 

[Dirty Bird]

Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby Roby

If that doesn't get his attention, nothing will.

 

[Roby]

Only four discrepancies found in the lines this week with only one major discrepancy and that is the top the ladder clash. Could it be the betting and weight of opinion as finally caught up with the rankings? Who know but last year it happened a lot quicker. The only predicted non-favourite the rankings predicted to come up this week is Sydney. (Current tips are 98).

(Bet is on team in bold)


West Coast v Sydney – Handicap (+9.5) – $2 @ $1.91 Centrebet

GWS v Adelaide – Handicap (+70.5) – $1.5 @ $1.92 Sportbet

Richmond v Gold Coast – Handicap (-37.5) – $1 @ $1.92 Sportsbet

Brisbane v St Kilda – Handicap (+13.5) – $1 @ $1.91 Centrebet

Check the Bigfoooty News page for explanation on the tips. http://www.bigfootynews.com/2012/07/weekly-punt-the-top-of-ladder-team-still-underrated/

Weekly Punt: The Top of The Ladder Team Still Underrated

by Roberto Bazzan on JULY 12, 2012 in FOOTY BETTING {EDIT}
After picking four out of five lines last week, the Weekly Punt show invariable insight into how to beat the bookmakers. The initial stake we have started with back in round 5 has more than tripled and we have four more tips for you this week.

Despite that they are on top of the ladder, The Swans continued to be underrated by the punters on the line; they have beaten the line nine times this season. This week they play against The Eagles – a team they have had the wood over of recent times. With the Ealges losing key players at the tribunal expect an in form and fit Swans to beat The Ealges yet again. The Swans -9.5 offered byCentrebet is the bet of the round for the second consecutive week.

 

[Hank93]

"Last week the rankings tipped four out five lines. This makes it now 53 out of 84 lines correct. Also, all the $2 lines came up, which means the $13 stake has turned into $53.28 and quadrupled profit with plenty of rounds to go."

"Current Betting Fund: $3,585.00. Total staked so far: $1,003.50

West Coast v Sydney – Handicap (-9.5) – $200 @ $1.91 Centrebet
GWS v Adelaide – Handicap (+70.5) – $150 @ $1.92 Sportbet
Richmond v Gold Coast – Handicap (-37.5) – $100 @ $1.92 Sportsbet
Brisbane v St Kilda – Handicap (+13.5) – $100 @ $1.91 Centrebet"

Care to explain this Roby? How come you have staked $13 in the OP, yet you have staked $1,003 in the BFN article?

 

[Roby]

"Last week the rankings tipped four out five lines. This makes it now 53 out of 84 lines correct. Also, all the $2 lines came up, which means the $13 stake has turned into $53.28 and quadrupled profit with plenty of rounds to go."

"Current Betting Fund: $3,585.00. Total staked so far: $1,003.50

West Coast v Sydney – Handicap (-9.5) – $200 @ $1.91 Centrebet
GWS v Adelaide – Handicap (+70.5) – $150 @ $1.92 Sportbet
Richmond v Gold Coast – Handicap (-37.5) – $100 @ $1.92 Sportsbet
Brisbane v St Kilda – Handicap (+13.5) – $100 @ $1.91 Centrebet"

Care to explain this Roby? How come you have staked $13 in the OP, yet you have staked $1,003 in the BFN article?

It's a punting article, punting $1 bets (apart from the fact it's impossible) doesn't look good. I put the $1 bets here to represent units. I prefer having a dollar sign than units when I do the rankings.

Also I was asked to do the article in round five this year as opposed to the rankings tips which started in round one. Therefore, the amount staked is different.

P.S. I forgot to change the amounts after copying and pasting. Done now.

 

[Terror Time]

Agree with your lines however i feel the Brsbane game is to close to call. You will be relying heavily on St Kilda not putting up a defensive effort which you can make a strong case for over the context of the season ignoring their previous game. GWS game again you will be relying heavily on Adelaide not putting in four quarters. They are to strong all over the ground for GWS to keep them under 3 goals a quarter average.

Hard to read your threads with the continuous trolling. I feel sorry for you that it's overrun with simpletons!

Here's some things that no doubt will fall on deaf ears as people here seem stubborn to take new heights of stupidity. If he says he bet 13 dollars and made 53, that doesn't mean he started with 13 dollars, a dollar is generally referred to a unit to keep things simple. He may very well have bet 1300 dollars and made 5300 in return for example.

Why would he answer questions pertaining to his formula if he believes its sucessful? Only an IDIOT would do so and only an IDIOT would think he's entitled to an answer.

Nearly everyone here seriously needs to get a clue. Look at a horse race for example when an outsider wins. Majority opinion says no way that could happen yet it DOES happen on a frequent basis. Point being who is anyone here to give an opinion because thats all it is, lets face it and in a hostile manner like what they have to say is gospel. I have yet to come across anyone in the media or otherwise who has much idea at all when it comes to anything that requires logic to determine a winner which leads to,

If even one person here thats ever replied to even one thread this guy has created is a sucessful person making good money on AFL i'd be really suprised. Personally no matter if he's right or wrong i love reading peoples opinions as long as it makes minimal sense and i think any sensible person would be thinking along similar lines.

 

[CrowinPerth]

Of the non-bet games, it's 22 for and 24 against. If the margin is too close it virtually becomes a toss of a coin. This week for example it was 2-2. If the bookmakers were offering better than $2 on line bets than there would be value but obviously they don't.

Hi Roby,

Any chance you can list all predicted margains for the week. Im willing to roll the dice with all 9 lines for $50 (as a multi)

You can PM them too me if you dont wan to post here.

 

[Eth]

Hi Roby,

Any chance you can list all predicted margains for the week. Im willing to roll the dice with all 9 lines for $50 (as a multi)

You can PM them too me if you dont wan to post here.

I'm sure if you know the position of the sun and the moon relative to Earth, then you can probably figure them out yourself too.

 

[Zahara]

How are Lions so low?

 

[Magpie Since 1986]

I put the $1 bets here to represent units.

Amazing that the half-wits on here are so uninformed they don't realise this point which is so obvious to anyone who has done any punting before yet still give you shit as if they've "nailed you".

 

[Magpie Since 1986]

Roby question for you, I note that you have stated "Sportsbet are offering -37.5 for Tigers at home."

While Richmond are the home team are you aware that this game is being played in Cairns as Richmond have essentially sold their home game. This is the ground where GC beat Richmond last year.

I am interested in taking Richmond at the line and definitely would if it was at the MCG, have you factored in the fact that this isn't really a Richmond home game and GC are far more competitive in QLD?

 

[Roby]

Roby question for you, I note that you have stated "Sportsbet are offering-37.5 for Tigers at home."

While Richmond are the home team are you aware that this game is being played in Cairns as Richmond have essentially sold their home game. This is the ground where GC beat Richmond last year.

I am interested in taking Richmond at the line and definitely would if it was at the MCG, have you factored in the fact that this isn't really a Richmond home game and GC are far more competitive in QLD?

Thanks for pointing that out. Otherwise I'd be wondering what happened to MCG when I watch the game tomorrow. The bet has been made for the record but I wouldn't be betting on the game. I will have to look at the crowd to see who if their is any pro one team support before doing the final home/away weighting.

Hi Roby,

Any chance you can list all predicted margains for the week. Im willing to roll the dice with all 9 lines for $50 (as a multi)

You can PM them too me if you dont wan to post here.

I have put the rankings predicted margins on the bottom but my advice is do not bet multis whatsoever. I know the allure of big odds tempts many but in the long run there is far less yield on your investment.

For example, this year out of the 15 weeks of tips only once has there been a perfect round. Round 10 the rankings predicted seven out of seven. Although, one additional game was added after the Thursday for a GWS v Geelong game when Geelong had several late outs. So it was initially six and if you had of had a multi that week it would have paid $50. Now let's say we bet $100 each week on a multi, that would equal to $1,500 in bets and a return of $5,000 and $3,500 profit. As opposed to singular bets in which $1300 started with a return of $5,328 and $4,028 profit.

That's also added that you are banking on long shots all the time, therefore you may have a year were a few may come up, as opposed to some years where it only comes up once or none. Wouldn't increasing your profits constantly over time be better off that these once off returns? Especially when you're also see returns for the first couple of weeks. And you're heart doesn't have to skip a beat, although maybe you want that.

I've put in red the line favour. Margins are on the right.

Roos Blues Blues +12
Port Dons Dons +16
Dees Freo Freo +17
Tigers Suns Tigers +35*
Lions Saints Saints +1
Cats Pies Pies +10
GWS Crows Crows +55
Eagles Swans Swans +34
Dogs Hawks Hawks +45

*readjusted result due to wrong home ground weighting.

Agree with your lines however i feel the Brsbane game is to close to call. You will be relying heavily on St Kilda not putting up a defensive effort which you can make a strong case for over the context of the season ignoring their previous game. GWS game again you will be relying heavily on Adelaide not putting in four quarters. They are to strong all over the ground for GWS to keep them under 3 goals a quarter average.

If you check the table above you will see predicted margin is 1 point for St Kilda, so in other words only a couple of points off been a non-bet.

Regarding team psychology in your bolded bit, it's not really taken account as it's either too much of a variable factor or too difficult too formulate. I think people think I bet on hunches or instinct because they don't understand the formula and the weightings but believe me I don't as I would be losing money otherwise. The rankings continue to outperform me in my tips and predictions (and everyone else for that matter) so it's very hard to ignore.

 

[The Prosecutor]

You're still not providing an explanation to the inconsistencies I raised Roby.

It seems you're ignoring me because I have proved your rankings are bullshit.