AFL 2022 AFL Round 5

Line Winners?

  • Total voters
    17
  • Poll closed .

Remove this Banner Ad

mouncey2franklin said:
Ess vs Freo

Clark 1u each 20+ 25+ ($3.25, $15, tab)

Serong 0.5u each 30+ 35+ 40+ ($4.50, $17, $101, tab)

Smith 0.5u each 3+ 4+ ($17, $67, pb)

O'Driscoll 0.5u each 3+ 4+ ($19, $67, pb)

Guelfi 0.5u each 2+ 3+ ($12, $67, pb)

Hobbs 0.5u each 2+ 3+ ($12, $51, pb)

Perkins 0.5u each 3+ 4+ ($8, $21, pb)

Serong 0.5u each 2+ 3+ ($15, $67, pb)

Cox 0.5u each 2+ 3+ ($12, $51, pb)

Multis

Wright Taberner 0.5u each 4+ 4+, 5+ 5+ ($15, $82, sb)

Waterman Lobb 0.5u each 3+ 3+, 4+ 4+ ($21, $141, sb)

Wright Taberner Waterman Lobb 0.5u 4+ 4+ 3+ 3+ ($326, sb)

O'Driscoll Martin 0.5u each 3+ 3+, 2+ 4+, 4+ 2+, 4+ 4+ ($101, $101, $161, $1801, sb)

Perkins Waterman Smith Frederick Colyer 0.5u all 2+ ($151, sb)

Draw, Wright 2+ Taberner 2+ Colyer AGS Waterman AGS 0.5u ($161, sb)

Total outlay: 16u
Click to expand...
Very smart move to get on my man O'Driscoll tomorrow.
 
tripple1zero said:
Yeh that’s what’s happening every time. All good, just making sure I’m not wasting time looking for this. Cheers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

If a player is available for 1+ 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+, it will only work if you multi 3 into 4, or 4 into 5.

It doesn't work on lower goals, only the higher ones.

And even then, it often doesn't work for 3 into 4, or 4 into 5, anyway.

If a player is available only for 1+ 2+ 3+ 4+, then the multi trick will only work on 3 into 4.

And again, it will work with some players, others not.

And this is all generally speaking. Your best bet is just to play around with the odds, see what works, what doesn't.

Last year sportsbet still offered players with only 1+ 2+ 3+ (no 4 or 5 option) and you could multi 2 into 3.

Those were the days.

IIRC, they shut that shit down not long after Dom Sheed popped up with three goals @ $101 in Rd 5 last year, lol.

Good times, brother. Good times.
 
mouncey2franklin said:
If a player is available for 1+ 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+, it will only work if you multi 3 into 4, or 4 into 5.

It doesn't work on lower goals, only the higher ones.

And even then, it often doesn't work for 3 into 4, or 4 into 5, anyway.

If a player is available only for 1+ 2+ 3+ 4+, then the multi trick will only work on 3 into 4.

And again, it will work with some players, others not.

And this is all generally speaking. Your best bet is just to play around with the odds, see what works, what doesn't.

Last year sportsbet still offered players with only 1+ 2+ 3+ (no 4 or 5 option) and you could multi 2 into 3.

Those were the days.

IIRC, they shut that shit down not long after Dom Sheed popped up with three goals @ $101 in Rd 5 last year, lol.

Good times, brother. Good times.
Click to expand...

Are Tabs and Wright examples of you doing this, from your post for Freo v Ess?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Toby Greene will be back for GWS next week. I know they were pi$$ poor tonight but he changes the dynamic of that team.

Will be interested in see how they go against the Saints next week .

One thing is for sure i dont think they can be as bad as tonight.
 
NYRB said:
Toby Greene will be back for GWS next week. I know they were pi$$ poor tonight but he changes the dynamic of that team.

Will be interested in see how they go against the Saints next week .

One thing is for sure i dont think they can be as bad as tonight.
Click to expand...

yep should change the forward line, also think they are missing hopper badly and davis + cumming (tonight) down back
 
2.5u - Drew over 19.5 disposals - $2 - PointsBet
2.5u - Butters over 24.5 disposals - $1.98 - PointsBet
With no Wines in the side, these two become the number #2 and #3 midfielders for Port. Both of these guys got to work in the second half after Wines went off last week with Drew collecting 10 disposals and Butters 15, this has both players projecting to clear these numbers.
 
NYRB said:
Toby Greene will be back for GWS next week. I know they were pi$$ poor tonight but he changes the dynamic of that team.

Will be interested in see how they go against the Saints next week .

One thing is for sure i dont think they can be as bad as tonight.
Click to expand...

We all love a Toby Hog Train!
 
dontlimitme said:
yep should change the forward line, also think they are missing hopper badly and davis + cumming (tonight) down back
Click to expand...

A better coach wouldn’t go astray. Clarko is surely available lol
 
Carl vs Port

Finlayson 1u each 2+, 3+, 4+ ($3, $7, $17, pb) 5+ ($41, ts), 6+ ($81, tab)

Kicked 6.1 in the sanfl last week, five goals against Carlton last year and in 2019.

Houston 0.5u each 2+, 3+ ($8, $29, pb)

Just seems to know where to be for shots on goal.

Cottrell 0.5u each AGS, 2+ ($3.50, $13, pb)

Kicked two in the VFL last week.

Hayes 0.5u 2+ ($21, pb)

Kicked two in the VFL a few weeks ago.

Multis

Finlayson Curnow 0.5u each 4+ 4+, 5+ 5+, ($50, $476, sb)

Finlayson McKay 0.5u each 4+ 4+, 5+ 5+ ($44, $201, sb)

Georgiades Marshall 0.5u 4+ 4+ ($101, sb)

Outlay: 10u
 
Ohh Ok said:
2.5u - Drew over 19.5 disposals - $2 - PointsBet
2.5u - Butters over 24.5 disposals - $1.98 - PointsBet
With no Wines in the side, these two become the number #2 and #3 midfielders for Port. Both of these guys got to work in the second half after Wines went off last week with Drew collecting 10 disposals and Butters 15, this has both players projecting to clear these numbers.
Click to expand...
Where do you get quarter-by-quarter disposal breakdowns?
 
AFL Stat Multiplier for Essendon v Fremantle (kicks x handballs x Goals) spreads from PointsBet. I have decided to add another column, the Maximum score accumulated in 2021 and 2022, to show the potential ceiling of the players. Tips using $1 stake (and some reasoning behind them):

1650122862602.png



Nic Martin UNDER 98 (dont let that average deceive you. The question will be whether he can get 1 goal ?)
Parish NO PLAY (but if i were to play, I would go the OVER)
Peter Wright UNDER 72 (its about 25 too high)
Caldwell NO PLAY
Shiel NO PLAY
Waterman UNDER 44 (this too may be a couple too high)
McGrath OVER 44 (been labelled in the centre and could get an opportunity or 2 for goal)
Perkins UNDER 37 (table suggests he doesnt cover)
Devon Smith OVER 38 (table suggests he can clear this with at least a couple of goals)
Sam Durham OVER 30 (table again based on averages suggests he can clear)
Nik Cox NO PLAY
Hind NO PLAY
Heppell NO PLAY
Guelfi NO PLAY
Redman OVER 18 (see following post for reason)
Draper NO PLAY (low ceiling)
Phillips NO PLAY (low ceiling)
Laverde OVER 6 (might have an opportunity or two to sneak a goal from the defence)
Ridley NO PLAY
Jake Kelly NO PLAY
Zurk-Thatcher NO PLAY
Brayshaw NO PLAY
Mundy NO PLAY
Walters NO PLAY
Taberner NO PLAY
Lobb OVER 55 (can oblige with his goals. 3 or more would be ice on top of the cake)
Serong NO PLAY
Sean Darcy NO PLAY
Will Brodie NO PLAY
Colyer NO PLAY
Acres NO PLAY
Switkowski NO PLAY
Jordan Clark NO PLAY
Frederick NO PLAY
Banfield NO PLAY
Aish NO PLAY
Chapman OVER 10 (fancy a defender may snag a goal for Freo)
Luke Ryan OVER 5 (he could snag a goal)
Brandon Walker OVER 5 (defender could snag a goal for Freo)
Pearce NO PLAY
Brennan Cox NO PLAY
Hayden Young NO PLAY
 
Last edited:
Ive decided to have another play on the Stat Multiplier,

Mason Redman , last year scored 140 against Freo.

Ill back him in to snag a goal and hopefully accumulate his possessions. 2 goals or more would be lovely.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Miles Bergman named half forward flank maybe Hinkley trying to shift something not sure? 3.50/21 on pb. Taken 2 into Devon Smith ags @34
 
BloodRet said:
Miles Bergman named half forward flank maybe Hinkley trying to shift something not sure? 3.50/21 on pb. Taken 2 into Devon Smith ags @34
Click to expand...
Was one of their better players at half back last week would be surprised if the role changed, screams the standard guy that doesnt spend a second of the game forward to me tbh, teams should be made to actually name their side where they are going to start instead of just taking the piss like they all seem to do of late.
 
TryAnHit said:
All these people who use the multi trick... has anyone actually won a decent sum and been paid out? Am talking 10k+ where they might say it's against the rules.. they won't bother for anything smaller as bad publicity
Click to expand...
I think its a legit question what you posed. I did wonder the same thing myself and wondered about the potential pay out issues.

Yes, many on here include myself have used it for "smaller" amounts, but always been concerned about what if the payout was a 5 or 6 figure sum?

This very issue happened with a punter a few years back, with TAB.

Here is the thread.

AFL - TAB Refuse to Pay out $150k pay-out to Maths Wiz Uni Student who out-smarted their system

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/monash-university-maths-whiz-fights-for-150k-dusty-martinbilly-slater-multibet-winnings/news-story/0e28df2f25e24a008133be6342ae0028 Definitely makes me think twice about using TAB for the Melbourne Cup. They'll try find every excuse not to pay you...
www.bigfooty.com www.bigfooty.com

Effectively he did the same thing we discussed on here the "SB multi trick", if I am not mistaken.

He picked Dusty to win NS into Dusty to win NS/Billy Slater to win Clive Churchill medal (BOG) which effectively is like our SGM trick with SB, ie betting a player to kick 5+ but including 1,2,3,4.

My argument would be is that SB have been paying this out and paying out many punters, however they could argue its a system error. If it went to the Gambling Commission, my gut feel is that they would side with SB. Hence meaning we are basically giving away money for 5+ that would never actually be paid out in reality if you include 1,2,3,4.

I would be interested in punters views on this.
 
ShaunWDT said:
Was one of their better players at half back last week would be surprised if the role changed, screams the standard guy that doesnt spend a second of the game forward to me tbh, teams should be made to actually name their side where they are going to start instead of just taking the piss like they all seem to do of late.
Click to expand...

I think in fairness some coaches do, many dont. We should maybe keep a list of who does what they say they will do and who wont.

As an example, Noble kept true with keeping Zieball up forward.
 
NYRB said:
PointsBet Player Total Points Spreads for tomorrow, St.Kilda v Gold Coast:

Max King UNDER 15, OVER 18
Tim Membrey UNDER 11, OVER 14
Izak Rankine UNDER 9, OVER 12
Levi Casboult UNDER 9, OVER 12
Mabior Chol UNDER 9, OVER 12
Josh Corbett UNDER 8, OVER 11
Click to expand...
had you backed the OVER on all players using $1 stakes

You would have been in the red, -$20 for yesterdays match between the Saints and Suns.
 
GROTTO said:
Yes, many on here include myself have used it for "smaller" amounts, but always been concerned about what if the payout was a 5 or 6 figure sum?

This very issue happened with a punter a few years back, with TAB.

Here is the thread.

AFL - TAB Refuse to Pay out $150k pay-out to Maths Wiz Uni Student who out-smarted their system

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/monash-university-maths-whiz-fights-for-150k-dusty-martinbilly-slater-multibet-winnings/news-story/0e28df2f25e24a008133be6342ae0028 Definitely makes me think twice about using TAB for the Melbourne Cup. They'll try find every excuse not to pay you...
www.bigfooty.com www.bigfooty.com

Effectively he did the same thing we discussed on here the "SB multi trick", if I am not mistaken.

He picked Dusty to win NS into Dusty to win NS/Billy Slater to win Clive Churchill medal (BOG) which effectively is like our SGM trick with SB, ie betting a player to kick 5+ but including 1,2,3,4.

My argument would be is that SB have been paying this out and paying out many punters, however they could argue its a system error. If it went to the Gambling Commission, my gut feel is that they would side with SB. Hence meaning we are basically giving away money for 5+ that would never actually be paid out in reality if you include 1,2,3,4.

I would be interested in punters views on this.
Click to expand...

I feel like it definitely depends how much you win. As you said, if it were a 5 or 6 figure sum they’d probably have a look at it. I’m doubtful that they’d pay it out, and I don’t think you have much of a case if you’re manipulating the odds. It’s a wonder that they even pay these bets out on a smaller scale to me, but I’ll take it. And if you were to win a 5 or 6 figure sum and they didn’t pay it out - why do they allow you to place the bet in the first place? Under most circumstances I think it’s pretty ****ed that you can successfully place a bet and then not have it paid out
 
GROTTO said:
I think its a legit question what you posed. I did wonder the same thing myself and wondered about the potential pay out issues.

Yes, many on here include myself have used it for "smaller" amounts, but always been concerned about what if the payout was a 5 or 6 figure sum?

This very issue happened with a punter a few years back, with TAB.

Here is the thread.

AFL - TAB Refuse to Pay out $150k pay-out to Maths Wiz Uni Student who out-smarted their system

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/monash-university-maths-whiz-fights-for-150k-dusty-martinbilly-slater-multibet-winnings/news-story/0e28df2f25e24a008133be6342ae0028 Definitely makes me think twice about using TAB for the Melbourne Cup. They'll try find every excuse not to pay you...
www.bigfooty.com www.bigfooty.com

Effectively he did the same thing we discussed on here the "SB multi trick", if I am not mistaken.

He picked Dusty to win NS into Dusty to win NS/Billy Slater to win Clive Churchill medal (BOG) which effectively is like our SGM trick with SB, ie betting a player to kick 5+ but including 1,2,3,4.

My argument would be is that SB have been paying this out and paying out many punters, however they could argue its a system error. If it went to the Gambling Commission, my gut feel is that they would side with SB. Hence meaning we are basically giving away money for 5+ that would never actually be paid out in reality if you include 1,2,3,4.

I would be interested in punters views on this.
Click to expand...

Very different situations IMO. One is a straight multi of correlated markets, where it's pretty common knowledge that that isn't meant to be allowed, as the odds are just calculated by multiplying the legs, (i.e. assuming no correlation). The entire point of SGMs is that they understand there is correlation involved and try to calculate it, which is why it isn't just multiplying the legs.

Obv I'm no lawyer and have no idea how a commission would actually rule, just think don't think they're particularly similar cases
 

Remove this Banner Ad

AFL 2022 AFL Round 5

Similar threads

balmainforever
AFL 2024 - AFL ROUND 5
38 39 40 41 42
Replies
1K
Views
27K
Bucking Bronco
Bucking Bronco
balmainforever
AFL 2024 - AFL ROUND 24
17 18 19 20 21
Replies
505
Views
14K
BloodRet
BloodRet
balmainforever
AFL 2024 - AFL ROUND 23
15 16 17 18 19
Replies
463
Views
15K
Rank
R
balmainforever
AFL 2024 - AFL ROUND 22
11 12 13 14 15
Replies
359
Views
11K
Rank
R
balmainforever
AFL 2024 - AFL ROUND 21
13 14 15 16 17
Replies
401
Views
12K
NYRB
N
balmainforever
AFL 2024 - AFL ROUND 20
13 14 15 16 17
Replies
407
Views
14K
Areyoufireal
A
balmainforever
AFL 2024 - AFL ROUND 19
13 14 15 16 17
Replies
410
Views
13K
Fizza
Fizza
Back
Top