mousemousemouse wrote:Sandy Pate Best Stag wrote:In the real game it means diddly squat and the only thing that matters is how many goals you score and conceed.
Forest Green are up there on merit as they've picked the points up and it matters not that the other teams have better stats. They say wise folk look at the stats before placing their bets but I think they are probably a con by the bookies. They certainly haven't paid much out to the people backing the team's Forest Green have played so far.
Actually, that is exactly what xG does
Despite it being 1st v 2nd yesterday, Exeter were odds on and Forest Green were 4/1. Anyone would think the bookies know what they're talking about and take notice of the stats
Oh so it absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Exeter were at home then. The odds were entirely based on the stats and expected goals from previous games by each respective team. If Forest Greens stats were that bad, how come they gave such poor odds? Surely they should have offered something like 7-1 if they were so certain to lose, so more punters would bet and make profits larger.
Sorry but you will never convince me with stats as the system is not complex or sophisticated enough as demonstrated by Forest Green's record so far.[/quote]
Haha mate that’s not how bookies get their odds... “well this team is at home so will give them smaller odds”.
Data driven football analysis works, but just because you don’t believe in facts doesn’t it doesn’t work lol[/quote]
Ha ha mate it's not working very well in respect of Forest Green is it? Just because you get taken in by bovine droppings doesn't mean some of us can't see through the empire building tactics of folks who want a job. You will be telling me they divide football pitches up into squares and give them stupid names next.[/quote]
Ok mate you know better than those pesky multi billion pound betting companies. Bet you think physio therapy is a wet sponge and to run it ofd[/quote]
Of course they know what they are doing which is why they make money out of people daft enough to bet with the stats alone. Bookies have been making money out of punters for thousands of years, it's what they do.
Do you really think they commission and then publish these foolproof stats in order to give the punters a better chance of winning? I think not little puppy, they are ruthless business men who don't care what effect gambling has on their customers but that's a whole different debate.
I will continue to watch and make my own mind up about how a game is going or went and won't worry who has the best stats as they wont effect the result and that includes your Xg stats which never seem to work out as expected anyway. But good luck chasing numbers if it's what you want to do, after all they are so vital to a game.[/quote]
I don't think you know how betting companies come up with their odds, do you? Maybe you should email Brentford and tell them their business model is based on voodoo and enlighten them because, you know, you know best.
Afterall they bought for £6.7m and only sold them for £57.3m using the xG model and other stats.
I'm not sure why you're against data lol. Didn't use data back in your day, eh?
Football is a business, and business requires data, and that data is derived from gameday and training. I'm not sure why you struggle to understand that. Maybe you're not used to being around businesses at that level (I mean that with respect, too.)[/quote]
I'm not against data per se as it is obviously a useful tool when used correctly. What absolutely baffles me is how some debaters (and there are a lot of them) think that it is data that wins football matches and it is absolutely vital that we bow down to facts that are based on sand. As has been demonstrated by the Forest Green stats and their respective position in the league, those stats are totally unreliable when predicting results. It's no good assuming they will even out over a season as teams and form change over a year. There are so many other factors such as injuries, suspensions and poor refereeing decisions that influence an outcome that stats don't and can't take into account. In short, the system is flawed to such an extent that it is unreliable.
You may think I am a dinosaur but I see you as reckless punters who want to put all of their eggs into a broken basket. I don't judge a football match on what the stats say as they are meaningless and unreliable when examined closely. Possession means nothing if it is merely passing a ball sideways in defence or midfield yet statistics show that team to be on top when the best attacking chances probably belong to the other side. We have all witnessed the type of match when we say 'they would never have scored in a month of Sunday's' but statistically the team was well on top.
Statistics have become a very expensive industry but have added very little to the game in my opinion and now carry far too much weight in some supporters eyes. Be honest, examine your betting history based on stats and assess where you stand in monetary gains or losses and I'm sure you will not be in profit. Had you bet on Forest Green based on their actual results not their stats, I'm sure you would have been in profit so which is more reliable?
Hello! Hello! We are the North Stand Boys.