Preview Moving on - the future begins now

[arrowman]

Thanks for the explanation. Now I know why my tipping is bad.

Hehe. But speaking of tipping - that's another thing. When setting the odds for a given match during the season, the bookies will have a lot more information available to them than when predicting ladder positions 6-9 months out. Therefore the starting odds for a match will be a much better predictor of the result than the starting odds for ladder positions.

- Also, of course, and I should have mentioned this in my earlier post - once the event begins and as it progresses, the odds will change. If you're betting in game and your team is 60 points down at 3Q time, you'll get pretty good odds on them winning. And if after round 18 your team is 3 games clear of the bottom 4, you'll also get pretty good (long) odds on them finishing bottom 4. Because it is, historically and statistically, very unlikely to happen.

But the situation we're talking about here is the here and now, before the season has even begun.

 

[marty36]

Marty. Mate. You have not understood what ad victoriam was saying. The odds don't move because something is more or less likely to happen, they move with the weight of the money. Sure the bookies start out with a price that is based on their own assessment of likelihood, and sure, the Crows are going to start at shorter odds for bottom 4 than Richmond, but once the money starts coming in, the bookies will move the odds - that's how they make money, not by successfully predicting the outcome, but by adjusting their odds according to the weight of money.

Are the Crows more likely to finish bottom 4 than Richmond in 2020? Yes, yes they are. And that is where the market will be framed to start with.

Now - if lots and lots of people grab those odds and bet on the Crows to finish bottom 4 - guess what? The bookies will shorten the odds. That is not an indicator that the event is more likely to happen, it is the bookies protecting themselves. THAT is how they make money.

No worries

Punters take the short odds because they want to earn less coin

No probs


Richmond v gold coast what do you think the odds will be

Adelaide v Richmond what do you think the odds will be

Wonder why
On SM-G965F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[CrowinNT]

Thanks for the explanation for us non-gamblers. Now I know why my tipping is bad.

Hey I won the Arrowmans Upsetters comp
Still waiting for my prize
My tipping is bad for your information

 

[arrowman]

marty36 before we go on with this, can you tell me/us what market you are looking at, with the odds for bottom 4 for, say, the "bottom" 6-8 teams?

Serious question, I can't see one and I'd like to be talking about some actual figures.

Meanwhile - look, let's say the bookies have Adelaide at $1.30 to finish bottom 4. So money floods in, because as you say, punters are always smart and they love short odds and then - the bookies dial it back to $1.10. And this is before round 1.

Question: does that mean the Crows are now more likely to finish bottom 4 than they were when the market opened?

Because that's what you are arguing here - betting odds are a reliable predictor of likelihood of outcome, for ladder positions before the season has even begun.

And it's not the same as odds / favourites for an individual match, where the available / exposed information is much greater and the consensus view of bookies and punters is much tighter.

 

[Mutineer]

Punters take the short odds because they want to earn less coin


On SM-G965F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Punters take the shorter odds because they think they are backing a "product" with a better chance of getting a collect than one at longer odds.

Bookmakers odds after their initial assessment/starting price are purely based on supply and demand as Arrowman said.

 

[marty36]

Punters take the shorter odds because they think they are backing a "product" with a better chance of getting a collect than one at longer odds.

Bookmakers odds after their initial assessment/starting price are purely based on supply and demand as Arrowman said.

I actually can't believe you are discussing this that odds are irrelevant to the majority of outcomes

More than hilarious



On SM-G965F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Mutineer]

I actually can't believe you are discussing this that odds are irrelevant to the majority of outcomes

More than hilarious



On SM-G965F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Care to explain how that's relevant to what I posted.

 

[marty36]

Care to explain how that's relevant to what I posted.

No

Lets just wait to next year

I reckon game day threads will go the next level if that's even possible

On SM-G965F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[WeeBlake]

Marty’s right. All he is saying is that if the odds say we are likely to go badly then that *of itself* is a good indicator we are likely to go badly.

Bookies do t set their prices based on which team they have an emotional attachment to.

 

[arrowman]

I actually can't believe you are discussing this that odds are irrelevant to the majority of outcomes

That's because he's not saying that.

 

[Alwaysacrow]

I'd say this actually bodes well for us. Many and us pegged as top 4 going into 2019 and look how that turned out.

I think we'll finish somewhere just outside the 8. Bottom 4 is a possibility if we get unlucky with injuries though.

TBO I have absolutely NFI where we will finish next year but if I had to guess I'd say probably about like this year except that we'll be giving a lot more youngsters exposure this time. If that's what happens then I'm cool with that.

 

[kulak]

marty36 before we go on with this, can you tell me/us what market you are looking at, with the odds for bottom 4 for, say, the "bottom" 6-8 teams?

Serious question, I can't see one and I'd like to be talking about some actual figures.

Meanwhile - look, let's say the bookies have Adelaide at $1.30 to finish bottom 4. So money floods in, because as you say, punters are always smart and they love short odds and then - the bookies dial it back to $1.10. And this is before round 1.

Question: does that mean the Crows are now more likely to finish bottom 4 than they were when the market opened?

Because that's what you are arguing here - betting odds are a reliable predictor of likelihood of outcome, for ladder positions before the season has even begun.

And it's not the same as odds / favourites for an individual match, where the available / exposed information is much greater and the consensus view of bookies and punters is much tighter.

Isn’t Marty’s point pretty obvious?

The betting odds reflect that when people put their money on the line they are generally taking a dim view of our chances next year. That’s all.

I reckon if anyone else was making this point you wouldn’t be trying this line. You’d accept the point and disagree with your own reasoning for why it’s less meaningful than other factors. Or ignore it if you couldn’t be bothered, it’s a busy forum, the world will keep turning.

 

[arrowman]

Isn’t Marty’s point pretty obvious?

The betting odds reflect that when people put their money on the line they are generally taking a dim view of our chances next year. That’s all.

Sure, except that's not the point that Marty is making.

If the question is: "Will the Crows finish bottom 4 next year?" the answer is not "Yes, because the betting markets say so", it's "Yes, because <insert footy reasoning>".

And conversely, if the answer is "No, because <footy reasoning>" the rejoinder to that is not "You are wrong because betting odds".

As a footy argument, there are three things wrong with that
1. It's just an appeal to authority without adding / using your own reasoning.
2. The assumed "authority" of the betting market is based on an assumption that the people setting that market (the punters) are mostly well-informed, rational and knowledgeable on the event (Crows finish bottom 4) in question. Which is not necessarily the case.
3. To the extent that the betting market can be seen as an "authority", it is far less so for a long-term ladder prediction before the season has even started, than it is for, say, head to head odds on an individual match, where there is a lot more available / exposed information and form.

I reckon if anyone else was making this point you wouldn’t be trying this line. You’d accept the point and disagree with your own reasoning for why it’s less meaningful than other factors.

You're assuming I'm just having a crack because it's Marty? I'm not "trying this line", I'm making an argument against what I see as a simplistic view of this issue / question. The fact that it's Marty is just a coincidence. And I have given my reasoning.

Or ignore it if you couldn’t be bothered, it’s a busy forum, the world will keep turning.

Shrug, it's an internet forum. This subject interests me and I have a view on it. I rather suspect that is the motivation behind most posts here.

 

[Johnny Rutten]

I think the below 'experience ladder' illustrates how much of a rebuild the AFC has embarked on.

I've allocated points as follows for every current player on every current list-:

5 points - 200+ games
4 points - 100+ games (100-199)
3 points - 50+ games (50-99)
2 points - 25+ games (25-49)
1 point - 1+ game (1-24)
0 points - no games

EXPERIENCE LADDER
110 - Coll
104 - Ess, GWS
103 - GC, WB, WC
102 - Geel
100 - Nth, StK
98 - Haw, Rich
96 - Port
92 - Melb
89 - Bris
87 - Carl, Frem, Syd
79 - Adel

Adelaide Players
5 points - Gibbs, Mackay (10 points)
4 points - Sloane, Tex, Talia, Smith, Brown, Laird, Lynch, M.Crouch, Hartigan, Seedsman (40 points)
3 points - Atkins, B.Crouch, Kelly, Milera, Knight (15 points)
2 points - Murphy, Gallucci (4 points)
1 point - Doedee, ROB, Fog, Poholke, Himmelberg, Jones, Stengle, Frampton, Wilson, Davis (10 points)
0 points - McAdam, McPherson, McHenry, Sholl, Hamill, Butts, Strachan (0 points)

 

[GROTTO]

I will say this again as I have often repeated this several times, but some posters dont seem to grasp how odds are framed.

The bookies set odds/prices based on their own predicted probability of an outcome taking place (using historical data and current information at hand) this AND in conjunction with the weight of money being wagered on events in that field of betting outcomes, shapes how odds are set.

Take this to the bank.

I am a punter and I know the industry and how it operates.

 

[marty36]

Sure, except that's not the point that Marty is making.

If the question is: "Will the Crows finish bottom 4 next year?" the answer is not "Yes, because the betting markets say so", it's "Yes, because <insert footy reasoning>".

And conversely, if the answer is "No, because <footy reasoning>" the rejoinder to that is not "You are wrong because betting odds".

As a footy argument, there are three things wrong with that
1. It's just an appeal to authority without adding / using your own reasoning.
2. The assumed "authority" of the betting market is based on an assumption that the people setting that market (the punters) are mostly well-informed, rational and knowledgeable on the event (Crows finish bottom 4) in question. Which is not necessarily the case.
3. To the extent that the betting market can be seen as an "authority", it is far less so for a long-term ladder prediction before the season has even started, than it is for, say, head to head odds on an individual match, where there is a lot more available / exposed information and form.



You're assuming I'm just having a crack because it's Marty? I'm not "trying this line", I'm making an argument against what I see as a simplistic view of this issue / question. The fact that it's Marty is just a coincidence. And I have given my reasoning.



Shrug, it's an internet forum. This subject interests me and I have a view on it. I rather suspect that is the motivation behind most posts here.

Everything on this board is prediction and opinion

1. Will Milera become a elite AFL player ? Who knows
2. Will jones become an elite players? Who Knows
3. Will Adeaide finish bottom 4? Wo Knows
4. Will Nicks succeed as a coach ? Who Knows

Those betting are putting their hard earned on the prediction as opposed to this board making some anonymous call on it. Those putting their hard earned maybe making a well thought out decision as they are actually throwing money away if they dont, its really not hard to understand, people bet to make money not wanting to lose it which they have a justified decision for. The odds obviously reflect how these punters bet, but remember they arent doing it just to blindly give their money away they are betting soley to win money.

If Richmond were at long odds the betting agency would lose big time as most punters using their knowledge believe they will make the eight as opposed to Adelaide which is the opposite

 

[rocket18]

I think the below 'experience ladder' illustrates how much of a rebuild the AFC has embarked on.

I've allocated points as follows for every current player on every current list-:

5 points - 200+ games
4 points - 100+ games (100-199)
3 points - 50+ games (50-99)
2 points - 25+ games (25-49)
1 point - 1+ game (1-24)
0 points - no games

EXPERIENCE LADDER
110 - Coll
104 - Ess, GWS
103 - GC, WB, WC
102 - Geel
100 - Nth, StK
98 - Haw, Rich
96 - Port
92 - Melb
89 - Bris
87 - Carl, Frem, Syd
79 - Adel

Adelaide Players
5 points - Gibbs, Mackay (10 points)
4 points - Sloane, Tex, Talia, Smith, Brown, Laird, Lynch, M.Crouch, Hartigan, Seedsman (40 points)
3 points - Atkins, B.Crouch, Kelly, Milera, Knight (15 points)
2 points - Murphy, Gallucci (4 points)
1 point - Doedee, ROB, Fog, Poholke, Himmelberg, Jones, Stengle, Frampton, Wilson, Davis (10 points)
0 points - McAdam, McPherson, McHenry, Sholl, Hamill, Butts, Strachan (0 points)

I think your ladder illustrates just how pathetic, short sighted, pig headed, stubborn, stupid etc. our coaches have been over the last 4 years. Plenty of players on your list that should have got more games in front of the incumbent old farts.

Thank goodness the three main culprits for this stuff up have got the arse.

 

[jackster83]

I think the below 'experience ladder' illustrates how much of a rebuild the AFC has embarked on.

I've allocated points as follows for every current player on every current list-:

5 points - 200+ games
4 points - 100+ games (100-199)
3 points - 50+ games (50-99)
2 points - 25+ games (25-49)
1 point - 1+ game (1-24)
0 points - no games

EXPERIENCE LADDER
110 - Coll
104 - Ess, GWS
103 - GC, WB, WC
102 - Geel
100 - Nth, StK
98 - Haw, Rich
96 - Port
92 - Melb
89 - Bris
87 - Carl, Frem, Syd
79 - Adel

Adelaide Players
5 points - Gibbs, Mackay (10 points)
4 points - Sloane, Tex, Talia, Smith, Brown, Laird, Lynch, M.Crouch, Hartigan, Seedsman (40 points)
3 points - Atkins, B.Crouch, Kelly, Milera, Knight (15 points)
2 points - Murphy, Gallucci (4 points)
1 point - Doedee, ROB, Fog, Poholke, Himmelberg, Jones, Stengle, Frampton, Wilson, Davis (10 points)
0 points - McAdam, McPherson, McHenry, Sholl, Hamill, Butts, Strachan (0 points)

The two blokes with the most experience shouldn't even get games in 2020. Would be a waste of time playing them when we could be getting Ned, Sholl, etc up to speed.

 

[arrowman]

Everything on this board is prediction and opinion

1. Will Milera become a elite AFL player ? Who knows
2. Will jones become an elite players? Who Knows
3. Will Adeaide finish bottom 4? Wo Knows
4. Will Nicks succeed as a coach ? Who Knows

Sure. But if "who knows" was the only opinion, this board would be a very boring place. But people don't say "who knows" (not very often, anyway), they'll post an opinion and (hopefully) back it up with some footy logic. Just saying "I think X will happen because the betting market says so" isn't really much of an opinion / contribution. And it's legitimate to express an opinion that is at odds with the betting market, if you can back it up with some footy logic.

Now, I don't know what odds are being offered for Adelaide finishing bottom 4 (do you have any?) but if we were in the top 3-4 "favourites", well, I would differ from that and I could argue (as others have) footy reasoning to support that. "But betting market" is not a rejoinder.

Those betting are putting their hard earned on the prediction as opposed to this board making some anonymous call on it. Those putting their hard earned maybe making a well thought out decision as they are actually throwing money away if they dont, its really not hard to understand, people bet to make money not wanting to lose it which they have a justified decision for. The odds obviously reflect how these punters bet, but remember they arent doing it just to blindly give their money away they are betting soley to win money.

There is an element of "wisdom of the crowd" in betting markets, I agree. There is also an element of "heart over head" or punters seeking what they think is "good value".

And most importantly, as I've said before, there's a big difference - in the credibility, if you like; on the quality of available information - between the betting market on an individual match, and the market on ladder positions at the end of the 2020 season, which hasn't started yet.

If Richmond were at long odds the betting agency would lose big time as most punters using their knowledge believe they will make the eight as opposed to Adelaide which is the opposite

Of course Adelaide should be shorter odds to be bottom 4 than Richmond. And vice versa for the top 8. No-one would dispute that. But it's quite legitimate to have an opinion based on footy logic that Adelaide will not, or are unlikely to, finish bottom 4, and a rebuttal to that needs to be based on footy logic and not just "the betting market says so".

For what it's worth, I don't believe Adelaide will be bottom 4 in 2020. Of course I may be wrong. But if I can find a bookie who will give me odds on that - not bottom 4 - and assuming those odds are the converse of the bottom 4 odds, I'll take that bet.

 

[Thetrader15]

Everything on this board is prediction and opinion

1. Will Milera become a elite AFL player ? Who knows
2. Will jones become an elite players? Who Knows
3. Will Adeaide finish bottom 4? Wo Knows
4. Will Nicks succeed as a coach ? Who Knows

Those betting are putting their hard earned on the prediction as opposed to this board making some anonymous call on it. Those putting their hard earned maybe making a well thought out decision as they are actually throwing money away if they dont, its really not hard to understand, people bet to make money not wanting to lose it which they have a justified decision for. The odds obviously reflect how these punters bet, but remember they arent doing it just to blindly give their money away they are betting soley to win money.

If Richmond were at long odds the betting agency would lose big time as most punters using their knowledge believe they will make the eight as opposed to Adelaide which is the opposite

5. Will Richmond get 18 home games next year and not have to travel in the last 6 weeks - Fact

 

[Betts are off]

This thread is brought to you by BetEasy.com

 

[GROTTO]

This thread is brought to you by BetEasy.com

I hate them. They banned me a long time ago.

 

[marty36]

5. Will Richmond get 18 home games next year and not have to travel in the last 6 weeks - Fact

There are definetly advantages to playing games in Vico but having 10 Vic teams dilutes the advantage

is it more advantage to adelaide

Adelaide V Collingwood at AO

Or more dvantage to Richmond

Richmond v Collingwood at MCG

Unfortuantly the comp is the comp cant be corrected

 

[Thetrader15]

There are definetly advantages to playing games in Vico but having 10 Vic teams dilutes the advantage

is it more advantage to adelaide

Adelaide V Collingwood at AO

Or more dvantage to Richmond

Richmond v Collingwood at MCG

Unfortuantly the comp is the comp cant be corrected

We aren't going to start this are we?

Compare apples and apples

Adelaide V Collingwood at AO
or
Collingwood v Adelaide at MCG

Maybe instead of looking at the H2H advantages, look at the overall advantages - playing most games on the same ground, not travelling (do these expenses go to the soft cap as they are footy spend), only playing the GF on your home ground regardless of ladder position or opposition.

Sure the advantage is diluted, but it's I'd rather play 18 games at AO each year plus a guaranteed GF regardless of who we are playing against

 

[marty36]

We aren't going to start this are we?

Compare apples and apples

Adelaide V Collingwood at AO
or
Collingwood v Adelaide at MCG

Maybe instead of looking at the H2H advantages, look at the overall advantages - playing most games on the same ground, not travelling (do these expenses go to the soft cap as they are footy spend), only playing the GF on your home ground regardless of ladder position or opposition.

Sure the advantage is diluted, but it's I'd rather play 18 games at AO each year plus a guaranteed GF regardless of who we are playing against

The point was it can't be compared as there are 10 Victorian teams



On SM-G965F using BigFooty.com mobile app