Probabilities of World Cup victory (6 September 2011)
Myk Cameron
http://www.image.co.nz/aqb/rugby_ratings.html
Probabilities of World Cup victory:
1 New Zealand 65.1966%
2 Australia 16.0248%
3 South Africa 7.9437%
4 France 7.3474%
5 England 2.1818%
6 Wales 0.5421%
7 Ireland 0.3734%
8 Scotland 0.2265%
9 Argentina 0.1302%
10 Samoa 0.0136%
11 Italy 0.0134%
12 Georgia 0.0045%
13 Japan 0.0014%
14 Fiji 0.0006%
15 Canada 0.0002%
16 Tonga <0.0001%
17 Romania <0.0001%
18 Namibia <0.0001%
19 USA <0.0001%
20 Russia <0.0001%
N.B. New Zealand's home advantage is worth 63.15 ratings points.
Assumptions:
1. Probabilitiy of a draw is assumed to be zero.
2. If two teams were tied on points at the end of the pool stage, the
probability of a team being ahead on bonus points is assumed to be the same
as the probability of a head-to-head win.
Comments:
New Zealand are clear favourites due to having a clear lead at the top of
the ratings, combined with home advantage.
Myk
Myk Cameron
news:9cmgn8...@mid.individual.net...
> Using the AQB Ratings 7 September 2011:
> http://www.image.co.nz/aqb/rugby_ratings.html
>
>
> Probabilities of World Cup victory:
>
> 1 New Zealand 65.1966%
> 2 Australia 16.0248%
> 3 South Africa 7.9437%
> 4 France 7.3474%
> 5 England 2.1818%
> 6 Wales 0.5421%
> 7 Ireland 0.3734%
> 8 Scotland 0.2265%
> 9 Argentina 0.1302%
> 10 Samoa 0.0136%
> 11 Italy 0.0134%
> 12 Georgia 0.0045%
> 13 Japan 0.0014%
> 14 Fiji 0.0006%
> 15 Canada 0.0002%
> 16 Tonga <0.0001%
> 17 Romania <0.0001%
> 18 Namibia <0.0001%
> 19 USA <0.0001%
> 20 Russia <0.0001%
>
Just a quick follow-up. Looking at Betfair odds of World Cup victory, it
appears that if the above probabilities are accurate, that the only teams
that are good value bets are:
New Zealand @ 1.77
France @ 19
Related question: Why the hell is Russia paying 500, when Italy is paying
910? Not that either of them has much chance, but who's laying those odds?
Myk
Mentalguy2k8
> New Zealand are clear favourites due to having a clear lead at the top of
> the ratings,
Weren't they the bookies' pre-tournament favourites/joint-favourites in
1995, 1999, 2003 and 2007, too?
caspar milquetoast
> Using the AQB Ratings 7 September 2011:
> http://www.image.co.nz/aqb/rugby_ratings.html
>
>
> Probabilities of World Cup victory:
>
> 1 New Zealand 65.1966%
I wonder if similar or greater probabilities were generously forecasting
NZ winning the Tri-Nations?
Mentalguy2k8
"caspar milquetoast" <bo...@comswest.net.au> wrote in message
news:iLOdnWuXh5JBp_vT...@westnet.com.au...
Probably, because on paper they should have won it. But these stats don't
reflect the rough trend that although NZ can beat everyone in the world in
tests without even trying, they're very capable of losing the big games that
*really* matter.
Two Dogs
> "caspar milquetoast" <b...@comswest.net.au> wrote in message
All teams are capable of losing the big games that *really* matter.
What's your point?
Two Dogs
Uncle Dave
I think he's saying that just as New Zealand are consistently better
at winning, so they are consistently better at losing. They always
target the biggest prize to lose - no half measures for them!
UD
Simon S-B
France 3x as likely as England? Love to see how.
Two Dogs
How can they be consistently better at losing? Namibia is
consistently better at losing. Romania is consistently better at
losing. England is consistently better at losing. A team that is
consistently better at winning *cannot* be consistently better at
losing. You can't have it both ways.
Even if you take the small sample that is the RWC you will find that
South Africa has an 86% winning percentage, Australia an 85% rate, and
New Zealand an 83% rate. Not a lot in it, really, for the top three
teams in the world.
England, on the other hand, is a full 10 percentage points lower
than New Zealand, which makes them consistently better at losing at
Rugby World Cups.
Two Dogs
Myk Cameron
news:j45imj$afo$1...@dont-email.me...
England have a tougher pool, with two other teams with a decent chance.
France's probability of advancing from the pool is 94.0%, while England's is
82.4%. In that, England have a fair chance of coming second (25.7%) in which
case they are almost certain to meet the hosts in the quarter final, whereas
France can't meet New Zealand again until the final. And, France are a
little higher in the ratings than England so if they meet in the QF France
has a higher probability of advancing (55.9%). So due to a combination of
those things, England has a much lower probability of winning overall.
If England beat Argentina on Saturday, their probability will increase a
lot.
Myk
Apteryx
In 1995 pre-tournament bookies favourites were Australia (justly so,
they having dominated internationally since winning the 1991 RWC). Not
counting a cup warm-up match against Canada, NZ had won only two of
their last 6 matches before the 95 cup (losing to France and Australia,
beating only South Africa). Some would say NZ were "joint" favourites in
2003 on the basis that favouritism was too close to call, with different
bookies citing either NZ or England, but I think more money was on
England overall. If so, it would be the only time the bookies favourite
won (Australia were favourites in 1987).
The thing is that if the bookies are good at their job (and they usually
are) then favourites are the most likely to win. But only in the long
run. Not necessarily in a sample as small as 6. And even in the long
run, in a field larger than two to say that the favourite is the most
likely to win does not mean that the favourite will win more often than not.
Apteryx
kev or lou
I think you have to take this in the context of NZ generally being the
favourites.
Stex
Myk,
I'm guessing your probability calculations are solely based on what a
team has achieved in the past. How do you account for a team at the
peak of their performance or starting to wane like England (2003) and
I believe the AB's in this world cup? I would guess the bookies take
this into account as theirs is a judgemental call.
Stex
caspar milquetoast
> On 7/09/2011 12:21 a.m., Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>>
>> "Myk Cameron" <m...@image.co.nz> wrote in message
>> news:9cmgn8...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>
>>> New Zealand are clear favourites due to having a clear lead at the top
>>> of the ratings,
>>
>> Weren't they the bookies' pre-tournament favourites/joint-favourites in
>> 1995, 1999, 2003 and 2007, too?
>
> In 1995 pre-tournament bookies favourites were Australia (justly so,
> they having dominated internationally since winning the 1991 RWC). Not
> counting a cup warm-up match against Canada, NZ had won only two of
> their last 6 matches before the 95 cup (losing to France and Australia,
> beating only South Africa). Some would say NZ were "joint" favourites in
> 2003 on the basis that favouritism was too close to call,
I certainly didn't. You can't lose home and away and be a joint
favourite, however questionable the wins -- the points were still on the
baord.
> with different
> bookies citing either NZ or England, but I think more money was on
> England overall. If so, it would be the only time the bookies favourite
> won (Australia were favourites in 1987).
Bookies just follow the money. And the money follows the average punter.
Neither have anything to do with reasoned analysis.
>
> The thing is that if the bookies are good at their job (and they usually
> are) then favourites are the most likely to win. But only in the long
> run. Not necessarily in a sample as small as 6. And even in the long
> run, in a field larger than two to say that the favourite is the most
> likely to win does not mean that the favourite will win more often than
> not.
The favourites are more likely to win a series. The random natur eof
world cups means favouritism (and ability) is of limited value.
caspar milquetoast
That is to invent outcomes that aren't really there at all. All rugby
test sides are very capable of losing tests from time to time without
any particular pattern.
It is tempting to cherry pick the "big games" from that selection and
accord them different status, but that's just making things up after the
fact to suit personal prejudice.
caspar milquetoast
> I think he's saying that just as New Zealand are consistently better
> at winning, so they are consistently better at losing.
better at winning AND better at losing?
caspar milquetoast
> http://www.image.co.nz/aqb/rugby_ratings.html
>
>
> Probabilities of World Cup victory:
>
> 1 New Zealand 65.1966%
So you're saying that New Zealand have a 65% chance of whitewashing a
three match test series, possibly against Argentina, South Africa and
Australia?
I'm wondering how many times in the past they have managed three-test
whitewashes -- less than 65% I'm guessing.
What's the basis of the maths you're using here, without confusing my
simple brain with complicated equations and things?
Calvin
You do realise that someone has to win the tournament?
--
cheers,
calvin
Apteryx
But before the tournament starts, no team has to have a better than 50%
chance of winning (and in a field with 5 teams having realistic chances
and maybe 4 or 5 others having unrealistic chances of winning but
realistic chances of beating any one of the top 5) it would be unusual
for any team to have a 50% chance). Personally I agree with Myk and the
bookies than NZ are the team most likely to win. But I disagree with
them that their chances of winning are over 50%.
Apteryx
will_s
NZ at $1.77 is ridiculous
We are now in the quarter /semis /finals and the opposition will be top
teams ...so for 3 games its hard
Sir Leslie Bottocks
"Apteryx" <apt...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:j4677v$8i1$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
ABs were favourites in 1987 (when have they not been favourite to win at
home?).
Same can be said for 1991, although in hindsight they may have been on the
wane.
In 1995, perhaps not outright favourites, but certainly up there with Aus
and SA. Results from the previous year not so good, but they were clearly on
the up.
Again in 1999, ABs were favourites having won the tri-nations.
In 2003 ABs are favourites ahead of the Poms.
In 2007 ABs are favourites once again.
So in only one year, 1995 could it be said the ABs were not favourites.
Calvin
So what % chance do you give other teams? And what do they sum?
--
cheers,
calvin
Apteryx
Australia 25%, SA 20%, England and France 5% each, and all others a
total of 2%. The remaining 3% indicates that in expressing those odds in
round numbers, I understated chances slightly more often than I
overstated them.
Apteryx
Dave
More or less agree with your percentages. I would add about 5% to 10%
to NZ and subtract it pro rata from the others.
Even if Myks numbers are spot on it still means there is more than a
1 in 3 chance that come October 24 there will be much complaints over
refs or chefs .
Myk Cameron
news:91291a44-be32-4461...@l28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Myk,
Stex
*****
It's solely based on past performance, as embodied in the AQB ratings. See
my reply to Rick.
Myk
Myk Cameron
The ratings can be used to generate a probability of victory in any given
game, based on the difference in ratings between the two teams. The higher
the difference in your favour, the higher the probability of victory.
Using a bit of computing power, I can then work out the probability of any
given combination of results occurring. There are 47 games in the World Cup
(excluding the losers final which is a waste of everyone's time, including
the teams involved), so there are 2^47 or 1.4x10^14 possible permutations
(actually its much simpler than that since there are some outcomes that
can't occur, and I really treat each pool as a separate set of calculations
and calculate the probability of each team advancing in first or second).
Then simply add up the probabilities where each team wins to get their
probability of victory.
Myk
Brent Hadley
played in NZ. But it is. Ask yourself how often NZ drops home 3N
games. The last time NZ lost a home game to Australia was 2001. The
last home games to SA were 2009 and 2008 but before that, it was
1998.
It just doesn't happen very often. Two thirds is probably a
reasonable number, much as NZ fans might wish otherwise.
Cheers
Brent
Ben L
> Using the AQB Ratings 7 September 2011:http://www.image.co.nz/aqb/rugby_ratings.html
>
> Probabilities of World Cup victory:
>
> 1 New Zealand 65.1966%
> 3 South Africa 7.9437%
> 4 France 7.3474%
> 5 England 2.1818%
So you're telling me there's a chance? Yeah!
Uncle Dave
Watch out! One of those juvenile whooshes just missed your bonce...
UD
JohnO
didgerman
> Using the AQB Ratings 7 September 2011:
> http://www.image.co.nz/aqb/rugby_ratings.html
>
>
> Probabilities of World Cup victory:
>
> 1 New Zealand 65.1966%
> 2 Australia 16.0248%
> 3 South Africa 7.9437%
> 4 France 7.3474%
> 5 England 2.1818%
Eeeeeeyeah..... So a team that has a track record of doing well to make
the 3-4 playoff is the dead cert.
I suppose this is why we play the game, to prove stat fans wrong.
didgerman
I bow to your expert knowledge on the subject.
didgerman
So? We've beaten the teams that knocked you out, twice, whilst they were
playing at home. It's the RWC, NZ just aren't an issue.
alvey
> "Myk Cameron" <m...@image.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:9cmgn8...@mid.individual.net...
>> Using the AQB Ratings 7 September 2011:
>> http://www.image.co.nz/aqb/rugby_ratings.html
>>
>>
>> Probabilities of World Cup victory:
>>
>> 1 New Zealand 65.1966%
>> 2 Australia 16.0248%
>> 3 South Africa 7.9437%
>> 4 France 7.3474%
>> 5 England 2.1818%
>> 6 Wales 0.5421%
>> 7 Ireland 0.3734%
>> 8 Scotland 0.2265%
>> 9 Argentina 0.1302%
>> 10 Samoa 0.0136%
>> 11 Italy 0.0134%
>> 12 Georgia 0.0045%
>> 13 Japan 0.0014%
>> 14 Fiji 0.0006%
>> 15 Canada 0.0002%
>> 16 Tonga <0.0001%
>> 17 Romania <0.0001%
>> 18 Namibia <0.0001%
>> 19 USA <0.0001%
>> 20 Russia <0.0001%
>>
>
> Just a quick follow-up. Looking at Betfair odds of World Cup victory, it
> appears that if the above probabilities are accurate, that the only teams
> that are good value bets are:
>
> New Zealand @ 1.77
> France @ 19
>
> Related question: Why the hell is Russia paying 500, when Italy is paying
> 910? Not that either of them has much chance, but who's laying those odds?
>
*Whoosh* Someone mentioned Betfair?
Betfair don't "lay" odds like a traditional betting house/bookie Myk. It's
punter v punter. From good 'ol Wikipedia.
"A betting exchange allows punters (gamblers) to bet at odds set and
requested by other punters rather than by a bookmaker. Members can make
both 'back' bets (normal bets on a selection to win) and 'lay' bets (bets
on the opposite side of the Back, against the selection), thereby
eliminating the traditional bookmaker.
Betfair claims on average 20 percent better odds than those offered by a
traditional bookmaker.[3] Betfair charges a commission on all winning bets,
which is set at 5 percent of the net winnings for most markets, although
according to how much a client wagers on the site, it is possible to reduce
the amount of commission paid to as low as 2 percent.[4]"
There's so little money on Russia & Italia that the 'odds' are meaningless.
$106 & $1,880 respectively.
as
BrritSki
If there's a million pounds put on Tonga for the opener and only a
thousand put on the ABs, who do you think will be bookies favourites ?
alvey
>>
>
> Eeeeeeyeah..... So a team that has a track record of doing well to make
> the 3-4 playoff is the dead cert.
> I suppose this is why we play the game, to prove stat fans wrong.
Really? I thought it was for the money & women.
as
Mike Thompson
> ABs were favourites in 1987 (when have they not been favourite to win at
> home?).
WTF? That is complete and utter rubbish. The Wallabies had beaten the All Blacks in '86 in New Zealand (2-1 but it should have been 3-0 except for Bevan's APPALLING decision). So the Wallabies were clear favourites based on form over the previous year. Of course, no one at the time knew what a young and truly brilliant team the '87 All Blacks were to become. That only became obvious over the next few years.
And only in retrospect can we now see that Alan Jones' coaching style for the Wallabies was bound to cause eventual burnout. They were going downhill in '87.
>
> Same can be said for 1991, although in hindsight they may have been on the
> wane.
Yes, exactly. It was the turn of the Wallabies to have a young emerging team and for the All Blacks to have a team on the (relative) slide after a period of dominance.
>
> In 1995, perhaps not outright favourites, but certainly up there with Aus
> and SA. Results from the previous year not so good, but they were clearly on
> the up.
Australia was favourite off the back of what had happened over the preceding few years, but anyone with half a brain could see they were a team on the slide and full of dysfunctional older players like bloody Campese (who couldn't even find touch from penalties ... twice in a row in one game, from memory. Infuriating stuff)
>
> Again in 1999, ABs were favourites having won the tri-nations.
A TN win, yes, but that was very misleading and didn't fool many ...
The Wallabies had played the TN without Larkham, Horan & Eales (who were injured). Wasn't Rod Kafer at 10 for part of that TN? The Wallaby team which won the RWC was VASTLY stronger than the TN team. I remember being very, very confident about the Wallabies prospects going into that RWC. Excellent coach, excellent captain, really well balanced team.
Which is not to say the ABs weren't pretty handy too. Just to say that the ABs and Wallabies were equal favourites for me personally, going into that RWC. The TN didn't come into it.
>
> In 2003 ABs are favourites ahead of the Poms.
Very close for favouritism between the two with England slightly in front. Them meeting in the final was an intriguing prospect.
>
> In 2007 ABs are favourites once again.
Yeah probably.
But the Boks were clearly a fantastic side, perfectly adapted for the rules at that time (kicking more than they passed), beautifully coached and fantastically captained.
In retrospect, the Boks should probably have been equal favourites, but, yes, it wasn't that clear going in.
--
Mike
Mentalguy2k8
"Two Dogs" <nzr...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3eee5d13-6866-4414...@hb5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 6, 11:35 am, "Mentalguy2k8" <Mentalguy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "caspar milquetoast" <b...@comswest.net.au> wrote in message
> news:iLOdnWuXh5JBp_vT...@westnet.com.au...
>
> > On 06/09/2011 8:06 PM, Myk Cameron wrote:
> >>http://www.image.co.nz/aqb/rugby_ratings.html
>
> >> Probabilities of World Cup victory:
>
> >> 1 New Zealand 65.1966%
>
> > NZ winning the Tri-Nations?
>
> Probably, because on paper they should have won it. But these stats don't
> reflect the rough trend that although NZ can beat everyone in the world in
> tests without even trying, they're very capable of losing the big games
> that
> *really* matter.
>What's your point?
My point? It's that I think NZ won't win this World Cup, no matter how many
stats are crunched to show that they can't possibly not win it.
Mentalguy2k8
> On 06/09/2011 8:06 PM, Myk Cameron wrote:
>> Using the AQB Ratings 7 September 2011:
>> http://www.image.co.nz/aqb/rugby_ratings.html
>>
>>
>> Probabilities of World Cup victory:
>>
>> 1 New Zealand 65.1966%
>
> So you're saying that New Zealand have a 65% chance of whitewashing a
> three match test series, possibly against Argentina, South Africa and
> Australia?
>
> I'm wondering how many times in the past they have managed three-test
> whitewashes -- less than 65% I'm guessing.
And this is my argument - these are not "just" test matches, they're
huge-pressure, one-off KO matches and that's what I think makes the
difference.
My honest opinion is that the AB players won't have felt this kind of
pressure anywhere except the RWC, and it builds and builds. Lose a game on
tour and you're still on tour & still top of the rankings, lose a 3N game
and you're still in the 3N. Lose a RWC knockout game and it's all over.
There are no second chances after the group stage of the RWC.
Mentalguy2k8
RWC history shows that NZ have a 33% probability of reaching the final, and
a 16.5% chance of winning it. England have a 50% probability of reaching the
final and also a 16.5% chance of lifting the trophy.
NZ are more likely to play in the 3rd/4th place playoff than play in the
final.
Dave
> "Myk Cameron" <m...@image.co.nz> wrote in message
>
> news:9coef3...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Slightly flawed logic in that NZ will be at home. How often have they
won 3 in a row @home against top opposition? Quite often I would
guess.
But this is the WC and as you say pressure could tell.
Also the opposition probably want it more than they do in a dead
rubber.
Myk Cameron
news:yibjcfjy1kat.p2t50r6l5xkq$.dlg@40tude.net...
Italy? The question would be kind of pointless if it was a bookmaker,
wouldn't it?
Myk
Sir Leslie Bottocks
"Mike Thompson" <mike.tho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e606639b-952e-4e9d...@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com...
WTF? That is complete and utter rubbish. The Wallabies had beaten the All
Blacks in '86 in New Zealand (2-1 but it should have been 3-0 except for
Bevan's APPALLING decision). So the Wallabies were clear favourites based on
form over the previous year. Of course, no one at the time knew what a young
and truly brilliant team the '87 All Blacks were to become. That only became
obvious over the next few years.
And only in retrospect can we now see that Alan Jones' coaching style for
the Wallabies was bound to cause eventual burnout. They were going downhill
in '87.
there was some disruption in the ABs camp as a result of the 'Cavaliers'
tour to SA. But that was last year. I posed the question, 'When have the ABs
not been favourite to win at home?' If the TAB in NZ was doing sports
betting back then, I'm fairly certain the ABs would have been warm
favourites to win.
Apteryx
best guide to the difficulty of having to win 3 home matches on the trot
is the 4 years in which the ABs have played 3 home Tri Nations matches
(2006, 2008, 2009, and 2010). They won all three matches only twice out
of four, dropping one home match in each of 2008 and 2009. In 2008 that
was despite the fact that they were good enough to win the Tri Nations,
regain the IRB's top ranking spot, and to beat South Africa (the team
that won one of their two games in NZ that year) 19-0 in South Africa.
The odds are tilted in NZ's favour by their being top ranked team in the
world, and playing at home, and playing their knockout games (assuming
they qualify) at Eden Park, where Australia haven't beaten them since
1986 (22-9, in NZ's last home game before the 1987 RWC) and where South
Africa haven't beaten them since 1937.
But is still all depends what happens in the 80 minutes on the field in
each of those 3 games, and that is not a matter that can be reliably
predicted.
Apteryx
Mentalguy2k8
> But is still all depends what happens in the 80 minutes on the field in
> each of those 3 games, and that is not a matter that can be reliably
> predicted.
weather, the referee, the touch judges, the TMO official, the team
selection, the tactics, yellow cards, red cards, player mistakes, fatigue,
substitutions, pressure, kickoff times, player off-day, preparation, etc.
I keep saying it, but if RWCs were decided on paper alone, the ABs would
have been in every final and won at least 3 of them.
Apteryx
There was no TAB sports betting in 1987. But regardless of what you are
certain of, Australia had the lowest quoted odds with the British
bookies. People are confused about the quoted odds in 1987 and 1995,
because by the time they reached the finals in both those years, NZ were
certainly favourites to win it. But they did not start either tournament
in that position. The shortening of the odds on NZ in 1987 was
understandable given that by the time they reached the final against
France, their closest win had been by 30-3 over Scotland in the QF, a
team who had drawn with France in pool play. And they beat Wales 49-6 in
the SF (in Brisbane, because Australia were co-hosting that RWC), and
Wales went on to win the 3/4 play-off against Australia, who France had
beaten to reach the final.
Apteryx
Brent Hadley
> On 7/09/2011 6:30 p.m., Brent Hadley wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 7, 5:20 am, Apteryx<apte...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> >> Much less scientifically than Myk, I'd rate NZ as about a 40% chance,
You seem to have somehow found a third team of the quality of SA/
Australia for us to play in the quarters. Not sure why. Two of the
possible opponents have never beaten us, and the third has lost to us
9 times in a row.
And as far as reliable prediction, I never claimed otherwise - a
winning chance of 66% leaves plenty of room for horrific failure.
Cheers
Brent
Dave
That sample is too small and therefore dodgy.
By those stats SA has a 50% chance of making the final and a 100%
chance of winning it if they get there. So 50% chance of winning?
Yeah right
alvey
> "alvey" <al...@atattat.com> wrote in message
y.
>>
>
> Thanks for that. Hence the question: Who is laying those odds on Russia and
> Italy?
Drunks.
as
Mentalguy2k8
"Dave" <david.b...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c53d2e26-d751-4263...@u19g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
I've included all 6 RWC finals, SA haven't won all of them so their chances
this time can't be 100%.
Boks have appeared in 2 out of 6 finals, so their chances of reaching
another are 1 in 3, or 33%, and their chances of winning the final are half
of that - 16.5%, same as NZ. I think you'd probably have to factor in some
kind of handicap for each team based on how long ago they last reached the
final or won it, so on that basis I'd say the Boks are more likely to reach
and win the final than the ABs.
Mentalguy2k8
Could be anyone, you could lay them if you wanted to. Just lay Russia at
slightly more than the current best, and you might get a few punters
sticking a cheeky rouble on them, some people do back the outsiders as well
as the favourites so that they still make money no matter the outcome. In
theory you could lay them at $50,000 because they're never going to win it.
Or at least you'd hope so if you're laying them at stupid odds.
Presumably Italians are more likely to back their own country out of sheer
jingoism, so their price will fall while Russia's goes up. It's the reason
why England football team always seem to be low-priced at bookies, it's
because so many English fans back them even when they know we don't have a
hope.
Myk Cameron
news:xxfe24111cd2.4...@40tude.net...
Myk
Dave
> "Dave" <david.baker...@gmail.com> wrote in message
"Yeah right"
The Boks though, I still see the denominator being 4.
They entered 4 WCs (or been allowed to enter) and have appeared in 3
semis and 2 finals both of which they won.
Mentalguy2k8
similar to England, maybe not always the best performances but with the
spirit and determination which can make all the difference at a RWC.
ruggeryoda
-R
caspar milquetoast
> revisionist nonsense, if you don't mind me saying.
>
> ABs were favourites in 1987 (when have they not been favourite to win at
> home?).
Only if you were a clueless newbie with the IQ of a peanut. Hmm, that
does sound a lot like you to be honest Mowithey.
Who won the 1986 series Bledisloe Cup? Hint -- it wasn't New Zealand.
The old guard from the cavaliers tour were retiring. The untried youths
of the team dubbed "the Baby Blacks" bore the hopes but not expectations
of a country ready for disappointment.
Australia were favourites. And they didn't even make the final.
> Same can be said for 1991, although in hindsight they may have been on the
> wane.
Blacks were undoubtedly unbackable favourites in the minds of the vast
majority of casual observers. Knowledgeable observers could have pointed
to the two impressive Wallaby wins going into the world cup and the
defections, injuries and retirements that left the All Blacks a mere
shell of their former selves. But you had to wait for hindsight. And
lucky to have seen even that, I suppose.
> In 1995, perhaps not outright favourites, but certainly up there with Aus
> and SA. Results from the previous year not so good, but they were clearly on
> the up.
again, right up your alley. The 1995 All Blacks were a virtually new
unit full of untried debutantes and a few survivors from the humiliating
1994 series loss to France at home.
No one expected much from them but as the tournament unfolded they
produced the best rugby of the cup, daylight second. The favourites were
Australia, having enjoyed an historic period of dominance since the last
world cup including a last gasp win over NZ in 1994. Unfortunately,
neither won, and boring old South Africa ground their way to an unlikely
drop goal in extra time, with the help of a little botulism.
> Again in 1999, ABs were favourites having won the tri-nations.
annus horribilis in 1998 (thank God they didn't play Samoa that year)
and won the 1999 tri-nations on points after drawing with Australia
(draws, not drawers Mowithey, don't get excited!). This one was wide
open -- no favourites.
> In 2003 ABs are favourites ahead of the Poms.
away, coming into the cup. Are you a total fuckwit? (Or am I, for asking
one of the most obvious rhetorical questions of all time?)
> In 2007 ABs are favourites once again.
lap around the jacuzzi.
> So in only one year, 1995 could it be said the ABs were not favourites.
And Mowithey is a slim, young, heterosexual rugby player with a
girl-friend and a job.
And then he woke up.
caspar milquetoast
> On Sep 7, 1:17 am, caspar milquetoast<b...@comswest.net.au> wrote:
>> On 07/09/2011 12:11 AM, Uncle Dave wrote:
>>
>>> I think he's saying that just as New Zealand are consistently better
>>> at winning, so they are consistently better at losing.
>>
>> They must be fucking miracle workers then. How the hell can you be both
>> better at winning AND better at losing?
>
> Watch out! One of those juvenile whooshes just missed your bonce...
Or alternatively, you could be talking shit again.
caspar milquetoast
> On 07/09/2011 01:17, caspar milquetoast wrote:
>>>
>>> "caspar milquetoast" <bo...@comswest.net.au> wrote in message
>>>>> Using the AQB Ratings 7 September 2011:
>>>>> http://www.image.co.nz/aqb/rugby_ratings.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Probabilities of World Cup victory:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1 New Zealand 65.1966%
>>>>
>>>> forecasting NZ winning the Tri-Nations?
>>>
>>> Probably, because on paper they should have won it. But these stats
>>> don't reflect the rough trend that although NZ can beat everyone in the
>>> world in tests without even trying, they're very capable of losing the
>>> big games that *really* matter.
>>
>> test sides are very capable of losing tests from time to time without
>> any particular pattern.
>>
>> It is tempting to cherry pick the "big games" from that selection and
>> accord them different status, but that's just making things up after the
>> fact to suit personal prejudice.
>
> I bow to your expert knowledge on the subject.
An approach you would do well to adopt on virtually everything. And with
virtually everybody, I suspect.
caspar milquetoast
> On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 10:26:28 +1000, caspar milquetoast
>
>> On 06/09/2011 8:06 PM, Myk Cameron wrote:
>>> Using the AQB Ratings 7 September 2011:
>>> http://www.image.co.nz/aqb/rugby_ratings.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Probabilities of World Cup victory:
>>>
>>> 1 New Zealand 65.1966%
>>
>> three match test series, possibly against Argentina, South Africa and
>> Australia?
>>
>> I'm wondering how many times in the past they have managed three-test
>> whitewashes -- less than 65% I'm guessing.
>>
>> What's the basis of the maths you're using here, without confusing my
>> simple brain with complicated equations and things?
>
refer to it.
caspar milquetoast
lost games by playing badly with no extra pressure at all, there's
nothing that reliably tells us the same poor play in world cups is due
to mystery pressure or just normal random poor games.
Mentalguy2k8
>
>
>> revisionist nonsense, if you don't mind me saying.
>>
>> ABs were favourites in 1987 (when have they not been favourite to win at
>> home?).
>
> Only if you were a clueless newbie with the IQ of a peanut. Hmm, that does
> sound a lot like you to be honest Mowithey.
>
> Who won the 1986 series Bledisloe Cup? Hint -- it wasn't New Zealand. The
> old guard from the cavaliers tour were retiring. The untried youths of the
> team dubbed "the Baby Blacks" bore the hopes but not expectations of a
> country ready for disappointment.
>
> Australia were favourites. And they didn't even make the final.
Mentalguy2k8
"ruggeryoda" <rugge...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4cb67787-0585-49a4...@y39g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
and just pretend they wouldn't have reached the final anyway. and of course
it allowed me to include the ABs' magnificent win all those years ago so
that they'd have a better than 0% chance this year.
Sir Leslie Bottocks
"Mentalguy2k8" <Mental...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:j4ajhl$c8i$1...@dont-email.me...
combined with an informed historical knowledge.
As Rick points out, Aus had won the Bledisloe Cup the previous year. This
was the first time they had won a series in NZ for nearly 40 years. But the
tag of favouritism should not be so fickle as to vary on the result of a
single past performance, or two. The ABs were, and still are, the winningest
side in rugby history. They possess a strength of player base unmatched by
any other rugby nation. They also possess a national rugby culture unlike
any other nation. In '87 they would have been the favourite, by any sensible
calculation. That's not to say Aus would have been out of the reckoning.
They would have been a clear second favourite. Sport betting wasn't very
widespread back then, certainly it was not available in NZ at the time. But
if it had been, the ABs would have been favourite. I can not recall a single
instance when the ABs would not have been favourites to win at home?
caspar milquetoast
to some people, it's the strength of the brand,
higgs
<Ernest_the_Sh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Mentalguy2k8" <Mentalguy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:j4ajhl$c8i$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "caspar milquetoast" <b...@comswest.net.au> wrote in message
That's Concord, NSW 2137
Australia were favourites, at least here in Australia.
My recollection was one of overwhelming optimism, basically all Aus
had to do was turn up and play whoever else made it.
Probably daylight.
The incredulity when Aus bombed out in the SF was a sight to behold
Sir Leslie Bottocks
"higgs" <kenh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:09a6b7fa-a523-4ffa...@t30g2000prm.googlegroups.com...