Opinion Questions For Rowsus

[Darkie]

2202 and a Ranking of 21k, which surprised me a little. I thought 2202 might get me 12-15k.
Only 6 100+ scores, with Fyfe, Barlow, Robbo, McGovern letting the team down.
I'm ok with my team, and won't trade this week, unless Robbo is out 3+ weeks.
Might bring in Papley and Weitering the week after.

How about you, Darkie?

That's a pretty good start, so that's good to hear. I got 2,226 and am ranked around 15,500 - so my sense is that a lot of people scored pretty similarly, and therefore coaches are quite tightly bunched (this will always happen at round one, but I think this year perhaps moreso than normal). I think the main thing is being happy with your picks, and it sounds like you are. A corrective trade is worth at least 100 points, so I'd take 2,200 and being happy with your selections over 2,300 with meaningful corrections (or even injury/suspension trades) needed. Hopefully Robinson is not an LTI.

I'm holding fire this week as well. If I was forced to do one trade it would probably be Gresham to Hewett, who I'm a little annoyed about missing because he was my next-man-in, but I went with Dea for structural reasons, and because I doubted the JS of both Hewett and Papley. I still wonder whether both will be playing in a month, but Hewett in particular now looks like a risk I will likely take at round three - obviously good performances help boost that JS. I think if Weitering and Papley are the best rookies you are missing, you are pretty well placed on that front Good luck with this week's teams!

 

[Bigfellashawks]

Hi Rowsus. Thanks for your time.

I started without weitering... but looks like maybe brown and a few others might be a 40-50 av and left some cash to trade up if required.

I see Eric Mckensie had an awesome first rd score after coming back from a serious acl injury. I didnt get to see the game unfortunately.... can anyone tell me where about he spent his time? His history says that he has had a few high scores but stinks it up with low ones to boot! Great score and only just Higher$$ than Weitering... is he worth consideration?

Hmmmm....... Any thoughts?

 

[lavenderbandit]

Hi guys

I see Eric Mckensie had an awesome first rd score. I didnt get to see the game unfortunately.... can anyone tell me where about he spent his time? Great score and only just Higher$$ than Weitering... is he worth consideration?

I was at the game and payed close attention to him, mostly as a supporter tho to see how he recovered from his knee. He played pure fullback, but interestingly he spent, based purely on my observation (stats will probably show otherwise) almost half playing on the resting mids mostly Hanley and rockliff. Think Brisbane were maybe trying to exploit a perceived weakness with this tactic, our maybe just working out how to play the new interchange rules.

I was surprised to see he got an 80 odd, but from memory he cracked a ton in 2014 at least once. Won't be in my SC side, but perhaps an option.

 

[Bigfellashawks]

I was at the game and payed close attention to him, mostly as a supporter tho to see how he recovered from his knee. He played pure fullback, but interestingly he spent, based purely on my observation (stats will probably show otherwise) almost half playing on the resting mids mostly Hanley and rockliff. Think Brisbane were maybe trying to exploit a perceived weakness with this tactic, our maybe just working out how to play the new interchange rules.

I was surprised to see he got an 80 odd, but from memory he cracked a ton in 2014 at least once. Won't be in my SC side, but perhaps an option.

Thanks Mate. It was a game where many Eagles were bound to score well, I thought maybe he may be playing a running defender or something. Not sure i will take the risk either, just thought it was interesting Good luck for the season Lavenderbandit and thanks for the feedback

 

[Rowsus]

Thoughts on Johannisen from the doggies, any chance of being allowed to roam free or do we simply put it down to a terrible Freo outfit and forget him, considering he was talked about last year and had a good NAB?
cheers Row.

To be honest, it's really hard to know. We really need to be very guarded with our assessment of the Bullies v Freo game, as it is definitely an outlier. It was nearly like they were playing Essendon! We shouldn't be drastically downgrading our opinions of Freo players on the back of that game, so we need to be careful about upgrading our opinion of the Bullies players too. His NAB was good, but NAB's are pretty much pressure free. He's an unknown quantity, when it comes to getting opposition attention, and if he keeps showing form like that, it won't be long until he gets some.
My thoughts are, the only people that should seriously consider getting him, are those that had him in their side, but took him out, or all but had him. That nearly makes it excusable, and a correction trade. Outside of that, it appears to be a knee jerk reaction to one game, which as we know, was a game of exceptional circumstances. If you didn't rate him high enough, or near high enough, before the weekend, then one game shouldn't be enough to change your mind.
cheers Go

 

[Rowsus]

Hey Row,

I had a plan going in to the year with my premo mids. I thought the big 5 of Fyfe, Gaz, Danger, Pendles and Rocky were the ones that could make or break the year. I had my doubts about all of them though. Fyfe, Gaz and Rocky with injuries, Pendles being played less in the middle and Danger at a new club and yet to play with Selwood.

So I picked them all plus Viney who I really wanted and the plan was that I would set aside one trade for one of those 5 for if / when things didnt go well. I didnt really want to run a 6 deep premo midfield but I thought itd be easier having them all in to start and offloading one than to choose between them and get them wrong, plus it would allow me to have a look at who has started well in the other lines.

Fyfe definitely didnt look right to me and Rocky had his arm iced too. Pendles wasnt the usual Pendles but I still think he will come good. So considering this was my plan from the start..if say Fyfe has another off game this week and / or doesnt look 100%, is trading him and Uber for say Hall / JJ worth it? At this stage im happy with all my rookies - I just need Kennedy..maybe Weitering. I use that one trade and lose Fyfe and a donut for two potential keepers and strengthen my forwards and backs which is needed.

Thanks mate!

Disclaimer: I'm not the great man.

NO. Seriously, this is line of thinking is insanity. You decided on your structure, you decided on your players, and now, after a couple of games, you want to change your team? If you wanted to make this move; you should have done it before lockout on Thursday. RULE 1: DO NOT TRADE PREMIUMS. Fyfe is a premium; and one of the best at that. If you thought he wasn't right, you wouldn't have picked him, and one or two games is not enough to get a read on a player's long term potential.

Look, your trade may work out, and Fyfe might break his leg 5 minutes into round 3 and you'll look like a genius; but the methodology is flawed.

I encourage others to answer questions here too. The more minds looking at a problem, the more likely we are to solve it!

No thats not exactly true. My structure was that I wanted a 5 premo midfield, however, I had my doubts over the 5 mentioned players so the plan was to pick the 5 plus Viney and then offload one. As mentioned it also gave me a chance to see how others on the other lines performed before selecting them. This isnt a knee jerk reaction to one bad Fyfe game.

I could have just picked the 4 plus Viney from the start but this way I get a couple of weeks to have a look at them and its only one trade used.

Thanks for the reply

That is a misuse of trades and funds. The only time it would be remotely acceptable is if you were trading in the other direction; two midpricers to a rookie and premium. Believe me, as a general rule, you'll regret a trade like this. You don't spend 600k+ on player for two weeks only to trade him out without a LTI.

I looked at it as a couple of rounds of insurance. If I hadve picked 4 of the 5 mids I wouldve left Danger out which I would be regretting and with the extra money for the forward and back I would have got Yeo and Greene. Odds are I would end up trading one of them out eventually anyway.

The other thing to note is it would be one premium mid (whether thats Fyfe or not i dont know..he just didnt look right to me) and a donut (Uebergang) for two potential keepers..one forward and one defender. Obviously neither would average more than Fyfe but the two combined would average more than Fyfe and Ueber.

I'm not Rowsus, but I'd say go for it if you feel you've made a mistake with your structure and you feel those trades will fix it in the long run. It's interesting that you deliberately started with the plan to offload one of the Big 5 having said that.
Strengthening your backs could really help you out if especially the Brown/Tippa/Adams types picks prove to be not viable as onfield options (ie: 40 averages). Something I'm considering too. Do you need to get Hall though? Have you missed out on Libba? Potentially a Libba + JJ combo sounds better for me personally but go for what you feel is right.

Its definitely a different way that I decided to go about it this year but last year I got burnt by so many of my premo mids being injured that I thought this option might help me out.

I also wasnt sold on which extra player to pick up forward and back and didnt want to be locked in.

Youre right about the rookies down back. I didnt even have Brown but had to bring him in when Hartley wasnt picked plus I still have Ueber.

I dont have Libba but only because I already packed my mids and have Mills and Oliver there and even if I trade Fyfe I think I still have enough mid depth but my def / fwds need it more.

Hey Mike,
there's a bit to deal with here, so I've highlighted some relevant passages.
First of all, just because a plan is unorthodox, doesn't mean it is bad. I encourage outside the box thinking, so much so, that I'm a great believer in contra-thinking, but that's a discussion for another day.
The key to your plan seemed to be to get a look at your options, and to trade one of these out eventually. I think this is the keyword, and where you should maybe wait, before pulling the trigger on your plan. You are operating on one games information, and that doesn't really seem to be what you planned at the start.
You say that Fyfe didn't look right, and that it isn't a knee jerk reaction to one bad Fyfe game. While it falls within the parameters of your plan, the timing makes it look knee-jerk. For instance, are you aware Fyfe copped a corked thigh in the first quarter? The last time he got a corked thigh, he not only scored lowly in that game (against your Hawks Rnd 15 last season), he also scored lowly the next week too!
Part of your reasoning for this unorthodox plan, was that you got burnt by injuries to your Mid Prems last season. If you pull the trigger on your plan now, it will not help protect/insure you against the same thing happening this season. Unless the injury strikes the Mid Prem you decide to trade out. If part of your plan was to protect against the Ablett/Rocky/Sloane/Wines scenario of last season, then there is another reason to wait!
I'm not sure what your set up is, but does trading Ueber out eliminate most of your loopholing? If so, it could be swings and roundabouts on the points gained on field.
Unless you have grave concerns that your current structure might crumble, I say stick to your plan, but be a bit more patient. It certainly didn't sound like you intended to pull the trigger Round 1.
Good luck.

 

[Rowsus]

Hi Rowsus. Thanks for your time.

I started without weitering... but looks like maybe brown and a few others might be a 40-50 av and left some cash to trade up if required.

I see Eric Mckensie had an awesome first rd score after coming back from a serious acl injury. I didnt get to see the game unfortunately.... can anyone tell me where about he spent his time? His history says that he has had a few high scores but stinks it up with low ones to boot! Great score and only just Higher$$ than Weitering... is he worth consideration?

Hmmmm....... Any thoughts?

I was at the game and payed close attention to him, mostly as a supporter tho to see how he recovered from his knee. He played pure fullback, but interestingly he spent, based purely on my observation (stats will probably show otherwise) almost half playing on the resting mids mostly Hanley and rockliff. Think Brisbane were maybe trying to exploit a perceived weakness with this tactic, our maybe just working out how to play the new interchange rules.

I was surprised to see he got an 80 odd, but from memory he cracked a ton in 2014 at least once. Won't be in my SC side, but perhaps an option.

Thanks Mate. It was a game where many Eagles were bound to score well, I thought maybe he may be playing a running defender or something. Not sure i will take the risk either, just thought it was interesting Good luck for the season Lavenderbandit and thanks for the feedback

Hi bfh, always happy to help!
I think the key lies in MacKenzie's history. Before his knee injury he had played 121 games, with only one season above 68.5, and that was a 75.2 in 2014. MacKenzie is priced $22,600 higher than Weitering, that means he needs to average 4-5/game higher than Weitering, to make the same amount of profit. Keep in mind, in his 121 game history, MacKenzie only has 12 games with a higher score than his Rnd 1 95. It would appear to me, that if you were REALLY bullish on MacKenzie, you might expect him to average 80 this season, but a more realistic expectation is probably low 70's. That means Weithering only needs high 60's to 70 to match, or beat MacKenzie. There's no guarantee which is better, and I doubt one will trump the other by 10 or more. Safety says Weitering, liking a POD factor, if Weitering fails to meet expectations, says MacKenzie. If you already have a number of risks, maybe Weitering is the safer option.

 

[Blue Dragons]

I encourage others to answer questions here too. The more minds looking at a problem, the more likely we are to solve it!











Hey Mike,
there's a bit to deal with here, so I've highlighted some relevant passages.
First of all, just because a plan is unorthodox, doesn't mean it is bad. I encourage outside the box thinking, so much so, that I'm a great believer in contra-thinking, but that's a discussion for another day.
The key to your plan seemed to be to get a look at your options, and to trade one of these out eventually. I think this is the keyword, and where you should maybe wait, before pulling the trigger on your plan. You are operating on one games information, and that doesn't really seem to be what you planned at the start.
You say that Fyfe didn't look right, and that it isn't a knee jerk reaction to one bad Fyfe game. While it falls within the parameters of your plan, the timing makes it look knee-jerk. For instance, are you aware Fyfe copped a corked thigh in the first quarter? The last time he got a corked thigh, he not only scored lowly in that game (against your Hawks Rnd 15 last season), he also scored lowly the next week too!
Part of your reasoning for this unorthodox plan, was that you got burnt by injuries to your Mid Prems last season. If you pull the trigger on your plan now, it will not help protect/insure you against the same thing happening this season. Unless the injury strikes the Mid Prem you decide to trade out. If part of your plan was to protect against the Ablett/Rocky/Sloane/Wines scenario of last season, then there is another reason to wait!
I'm not sure what your set up is, but does trading Ueber out eliminate most of your loopholing? If so, it could be swings and roundabouts on the points gained on field.
Unless you have grave concerns that your current structure might crumble, I say stick to your plan, but be a bit more patient. It certainly didn't sound like you intended to pull the trigger Round 1.
Good luck.

Thanks Row,

The original plan was to do this after round two, which if i go through with it, is when it will be done. So i will still have another week to look at them all.

Youre right about it not protecting me from any injuries striking..but i think it was also to see how Gaz and Rocky went with no pre season, Pendles role and Danger at his new club etc if only for two weeks.

The Ueber selection was the lesser of two evils for me. I didnt really want a loophole in the backline as i already have one in the ruck, but i wasnt keen on Brown. I only got Brown last minute because there was no Hartley and i had no other options so i looked shallow down back. I had asked you a question pre season regarding defenders because i wasnt keen on many at all so getting a chance to see them might help.

Is two weeks long enough to wait? Probably not. But Fyfe / Pendles will decrease in price. Hall will definitely increase. I wont chase two weeks points but after watching two weeks of games i will at least get to see where and how some of the players look.

Thanks again!

 

[Max Power]

Hi Rowsus, hope all is well on your end. Was hoping you could help me with some numbers, you seemed like the best person to go to!

Not SC related but has intrigued me nonetheless. Each R1 winner is versing a R1 loser in R2, and was wondering what the probability of this happening is, as I was staggered when I noticed it somehow when looking ahead to the weekend's games.

Am I correct in saying "18 * (18 - 1)" fits in the equation(s) somewhere?

Would like to know!

Cheers in advance.

 

[lavenderbandit]

Thanks Mate. It was a game where many Eagles were bound to score well, I thought maybe he may be playing a running defender or something. Not sure i will take the risk either, just thought it was interesting Good luck for the season Lavenderbandit and thanks for the feedback

Hi bfh, always happy to help!
I think the key lies in MacKenzie's history. Before his knee injury he had played 121 games, with only one season above 68.5, and that was a 75.2 in 2014. MacKenzie is priced $22,600 higher than Weitering, that means he needs to average 4-5/game higher than Weitering, to make the same amount of profit. Keep in mind, in his 121 game history, MacKenzie only has 12 games with a higher score than his Rnd 1 95. It would appear to me, that if you were REALLY bullish on MacKenzie, you might expect him to average 80 this season, but a more realistic expectation is probably low 70's. That means Weithering only needs high 60's to 70 to match, or beat MacKenzie. There's no guarantee which is better, and I doubt one will trump the other by 10 or more. Safety says Weitering, liking a POD factor, if Weitering fails to meet expectations, says MacKenzie. If you already have a number of risks, maybe Weitering is the safer option.

No problem at all bfh. I initially thought I was in the rookie thread as was responding on my phone, so glad to see that row also gave you his usual brilliant statistical answer.

If you are still undecided about picking Eric, perhaps this useless fact will help? My brother, mad eagles supporter, named his son Eric after Mr Mackenzie seriously! Surely a sign...

 

[Rowsus]

Hi Rowsus, hope all is well on your end. Was hoping you could help me with some numbers, you seemed like the best person to go to!

Not SC related but has intrigued me nonetheless. Each R1 winner is versing a R1 loser in R2, and was wondering what the probability of this happening is, as I was staggered when I noticed it somehow when looking ahead to the weekend's games.

Am I correct in saying "18 * (18 - 1)" fits in the equation(s) somewhere?

Would like to know!

Cheers in advance.

Hi Max, things are good here, I hope they're good for you too.
Not only are the 9 losers playing the 9 winners, but all the losers are home teams this week!
It reminds me of Round 2, 1977! In Round 2 1977 all the teams that won in Round 1, played a team that also won in Round 1, and obviously, all the teams that lost in Round 1, played another team that lost in Round 1. This guaranteed that the ladder after Round 2 would have 3 teams with 2 wins, 6 teams with 1 win, and 3 teams with no wins. A little fact that smart arse 15 year old me latched onto, and won a tidy little sum betting my friends at school, that that was how the ladder would look after Round 2. The only thing that could stop me winning the bets was a draw. I was in a panic at the end of the last game, when Richmond lead Hawthorn by 1 point, but happily, there was no draw, and I won my bets.

But back to your question.
It's not as easy to answer as people might think!
The number of ways you can make a single round draw with 18 teams is:

17 x 15 x 13 x 11 x 9 x 7 x 5 x 3 x 1 = 34,459,425

Why?
Pick a team at random, and there are 17 teams left you can match it up against.
Pick your next team at random, and now there 15 teams left you can match this one up against.
etc etc until all the teams are gone.
Now, I know this will be possibly refuted by some maths people in SCS, but it works, and it's right! They will say I forgot to factor in the "random" team, but in this case, the random team is irrelevant!
It is because you are picking the teams in pairs, and not making a lineal or random order of the 18 teams.

There are 9! = 362,880 ways in which you can make a draw with 9 losers from one week, playing 9 winners from one week. (For those that don't know 9! = 9 x 8 x 7 x 6 x 5 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 1)

Why?
Pick any loser at random, pick at random one of 9 winners to play them.
Pick another loser at random, and then pick at random one of the 8 winners left
etc etc

This means the chances of this anomoly happening is 1 in 34,459,425/362880 = 1 in 94.96 or around 1.05%

Now, imagine someone came to you, and said BEFORE round 1 was even drawn to be played, that in Round 2, all the home teams would be losers from Round 1, and all the away teams would be winners. If we assume that everything is equal, and there is no outside influence on this, then we have to change the odds by a factor of:

2^9 = 512. So the chances of that happening are 1 in 48,620 (exactly!) or 0.002%

 

[THCLT]

And considering that all the winners from round 1 were home teams, that is an extraordinary set of occurence!

If this repeats for round 2, then all teams will be 1-1 heading to round 3. What are the odds of that happening?

 

[Rowsus]

And considering that all the winners from round 1 were home teams, that is an extraordinary set of occurence!

If this repeats for round 2, then all teams will be 1-1 heading to round 3. What are the odds of that happening?

According to Sportsbet $20,711!!!

 

[chels]

The $20,711 figure is interesting in that it is the expansion of the odds on the home team winning each game. Using the odds (or are these payo*** - I get confused on this point) from the SC site in order of the game's start time $21,711 = $(2.3*2.35*7*4*4*1.16*2.75*1.95*5.5).

Of interest to me is how the odds change when the presumed weakest home team is removed from the bet / equation. If you are "sure" a home team will not win - for argument's sake Essendon - note that the odds / payoff for the other eight home teams winning is $2958. Multiply this number by your own estimate of the probability of Ess winning and I think you will get a number greater than $21,711. Yes, I know I am mixing probabilities and odds / payo*** but this is a discussion not a mathematics lecture.

I think Rowsus's figures for the odds / probability before the first round commenced correctly assumes all teams were equally likely to win. At first glance the bookmakers are offering extremely poor odds for the bet using the approach of the "true" odds on Ess winning. Look more deeply at the Ess v Mel game. The dees are quoted at $1.10 which "seems" very short compared to Ess at $7. I am not sure how to correctly estimate the odds on the other horse in a two horse race but the margin (the bookies' profit) "seems" quite large. Note that a margin is built into each of the nine individual bets. I guess paying a bookie 9*margin for a single bet is why the $21,711 is unattractive to me.

 

[incog43]

Rowsus, you were keen on Williams from GWS....do you jave any thoughts on Nathan Wilson?

 

[Zagbag]

Is Sam Jacobs a steal for the Showdown Medal at $21.

Last four years Supercoach score against Port Adelaide:

2012: 122 and 146 (Medal)
2013: 106 and 99
2014: 69 and 163 (Medal)
2015: 62 and 162

Finds himself up against and incompetent Lobbe this week, who was destroyed by Hickey. Surely we're looking at a huge change at 150 points and a third medal?

 

[Nathan]

Is Sam Jacobs a steal for the Showdown Medal at $21.

Last four years Supercoach score against Port Adelaide:

2012: 122 and 146 (Medal)
2013: 106 and 99
2014: 69 and 163 (Medal)
2015: 62 and 162

Finds himself up against and incompetent Lobbe this week, who was destroyed by Hickey. Surely we're looking at a huge change at 150 points and a third medal?

Wow! that's juicy.

 

[Torress]

Can't think of a better place to ask for an opinion,

My team:

D - Yeo, Rich, Smith, Sheridan, Weitering, Adams, Tippa, Brown

M - GAJ, pendles, danger, shiel, rocky, cripps, mills, davis, hewett, menadue, gresham

R - Nicnat, Gawn, wyatt

F - Dusty, Gray, hall, wells, kerridge, benken, mccarthy, mcgovern

12k
scored 2372, ranked 846

To be honest i'm pretty happy with the current team, i've got one obvious non selection; Libba. I feel good with my rookies, maybe papley would of been better than mcgovern, no trades planned there atm.

I got cold feet on libba, i know that game against freo isn't a good platform for judging fanatasy prospects as it won't be that easy each week for the doggies. However he was at the coal face, and he looked good.

Mate do you feel and think libba is a must have for my team? To be honest i'm not sure who to ditch for him! maybe pendles and pocket the cash for early upgrades, its about 280k!

i decided to go with pendles and gresham, i did have libba and JJ in before that. I can (with DPP) make that happen. It feels like an okay re-structure trade - pendles & gresham out, libba and JJ in. Which would happen after round 2 anyway.

Any suggestion or thoughts would be appreciated, thanks you for this thread.

 

[Rowsus]

The $20,711 figure is interesting in that it is the expansion of the odds on the home team winning each game. Using the odds (or are these payo*** - I get confused on this point) from the SC site in order of the game's start time $21,711 = $(2.3*2.35*7*4*4*1.16*2.75*1.95*5.5).

Of interest to me is how the odds change when the presumed weakest home team is removed from the bet / equation. If you are "sure" a home team will not win - for argument's sake Essendon - note that the odds / payoff for the other eight home teams winning is $2958. Multiply this number by your own estimate of the probability of Ess winning and I think you will get a number greater than $21,711. Yes, I know I am mixing probabilities and odds / payo*** but this is a discussion not a mathematics lecture.

I think Rowsus's figures for the odds / probability before the first round commenced correctly assumes all teams were equally likely to win. At first glance the bookmakers are offering extremely poor odds for the bet using the approach of the "true" odds on Ess winning. Look more deeply at the Ess v Mel game. The dees are quoted at $1.10 which "seems" very short compared to Ess at $7. I am not sure how to correctly estimate the odds on the other horse in a two horse race but the margin (the bookies' profit) "seems" quite large. Note that a margin is built into each of the nine individual bets. I guess paying a bookie 9*margin for a single bet is why the $21,711 is unattractive to me.

Your two main points are spot on, Chels.
Let me put them in different words.
Odds and probabilities are quite often different things. The two main reasons for this, are the bookies margin, and the bookies market opinion. In a two horse race, the bookies will quite often be serving up odds that represent around 106%. For those that don't understand this, it means to back both horses, and to get back $100, no matter who wins, will cost you $106. Excluding the bookies market opinion factor, if the odds were to truly reflect the probability, they would need to be set to 100%. The bookies market opinion is an interesting thing. Not many people are aware, that bookies quite often don't set markets on what they believe the real chances are, but more to what they think they can, to create enough interest, to get some business. They also obviously take into account how their ledger looks on that particular contest. The bookies might realistically believe, that Essendon is a $12 chance against Melbourne, but believe they can get people to back them at $7. They need to balance this out with what odds they are offering on the other team, so as they don't give too big of an over on the favourite. This another reason why bookies need a percentage in their favour. They need room to move, to correct markets, and they need to feed and clothe their kids!
Your other point on multiple betting is another thing many people don't understand. Amazingly, people do exactly what they shouldn't do, so often!!! Example: Joe likes Knackers to win the 3rd at Flemington. Knackers is only $3, and Joe is disappointed, thinking and hoping Knackers would be around $4.50. No worries says Joe, I will just throw it into a double with Cantwin in race 2! Joes duly puts $50 on the Cantwin/Knackers double at $12, and tells himself, that's ok, I get a good return if Knackers wins now. Joe should give up punting immediately. By artificially "pumping" your odds, all you are doing is turning one bet on a horse under the odds, into a bet that is now even less likely to be profitable! Let's assume that Joe's hopes of $4.50 truly reflected Knackers chances of winning. That would mean that Knackers would win the race 22.2% of the time. If Joe threw his $50 on Knackers at the the $3, he can reasonably expect, over a period of time from making that same bet, a return of:

$50 x $3 x 22.2% = $33.30 - he will collect just over one in 5 times, and on average loses $16.70 everytime he bets that bet.

But look at what happens to what Joe actually did! Even If we assume that Joe was lucky enough to get "the right odds" on Cantwin:

$50 x $12 x 22.2% x 25% = $33.30 - he will collect in only 1 out of 18 occassions now, and still be losing $16.70 everytime he bets, but now has to withstand much longer "runs of outs" between collects! In 2 months he won't be able to pay his electricity bill, and will be moaning about how unlucky he has been on the punt!

It becomes even worse if Cantwin is also at "bad odds". This something so many punters do! "Gee, I liked Black Caviar, Super Impose and Phar Lap today, but they are just too short to back. I think I will throw them into a multi, just in case they all win!" Loser mentallity. Multiplying bad odds only makes the prospects of winning over a period of time even worse! Yes, you are now looking at a collect you are more happy with, but your prospects of finishing the day happy are very slim!

Looking at what Chels said about not liking what the odds do to backing the 9 home favourites this week, let's assume all the games are at 106%. At 106%, if the odds truly match the probability, however unlikely that is, you are getting back $0.933 cents in the dollar on average, everytime you bet. Because you did this in a 9 game multi, you are getting back $0.933^9 = $0.536 cents in the dollar on average, everytime you bet! And people wonder why bookies let you tie up big multi's!!!

 

[THCLT]

I like tying up BIG multi's...