Evaluation of the bets from the 28th matchday
Pairing 1 X 2
| Dortmund | Stuttgart | 1.32 | 5.70 | 13.00 |
| Nürnberg | FC Bayern | 9.80 | 5.20 | 1.37 |
| Kaiserslautern | HSV | 2.62 | 3.40 | 2.90 |
| Augsburg | FC Köln | 2.00 | 3.60 | 4.00 |
| Werder | Mainz | 2.10 | 3.60 | 3.65 |
| Leverkusen | Freiburg | 1.71 | 4.00 | 5.30 |
| Hertha | Wolfsburg | 2.46 | 3.50 | 3.05 |
| Hannover | Gladbach | 2.68 | 3.40 | 2.82 |
| Hoffenheim | Schalke 04 | 3.20 | 3.45 | 2.40 |
Goals scored 2.21
Goals scored 1
Money score -3.10
Of course, the final result is absolutely frustrating. However, one is inclined to regard this matchday as a failure in terms of the result, but to approve of the quality of the bets. Although doubts were raised about this just a week ago.
One important remark beforehand: the betting amounts were quite moderate, so that a more differentiated view would not have been so bad. But now to the individual bets:
The bet on Stuttgart was of course excellent in that we actually had the desired result 8 minutes before the final whistle. On the other hand, Dortmund’s performance was so gigantically overwhelming over a long period of time that one can hardly find anything good about the bet. In the end, however, the rate of 13.0 is so “juicy” again that the quality must simply have been there, especially since Stuttgart actually made the comeback in the game. A little ambivalent, but still a good bet that lacked that little bit of luck to reap the rich harvest – from which one could feed for a good while.
The bet on Nuremberg was almost better still. Sure, the price was a bit smaller and the game could not be watched live (because I had chosen Lautern against HSV). However, some of the chances were so excellent for Nuremberg, and a good part of them before they went behind, that the bet definitely had sufficient quality. It was good – not much was missing.
The bet on HSV had been called good a week ago here. That rate had to be too high – and it was. Still, Lautern needn’t have lost, because the penalty situation was of course also recognised as such. Why penalties are never given can be read elsewhere (but discussed again). Nevertheless, it remains: the bet was very good, since the odds were also 2.90 (and already almost one goal in three attempts would suffice).
Werder was not unlucky, of course, even if one may note here that the warning was given to look at the injury list before the match. Otherwise Werder had a few good chances and the 1:2 by Pizarro was as correct as a goal can be. It was disallowed for the well-known reasons explained in more detail elsewhere. Any decision against a goal, against the goal action, against the attackers is a good one and can do no harm to the referee.
One should also not lose too many words about the bet on Leverkusen against Freiburg. When it gets to the point that a defeat for the bet team can cost the coach his job, it’s certainly not a good one. The players know that, they feel it, and occasionally even have the alibi: if we lose, he’s gone. But there were warnings about it, too.
On the other hand, the bet on Schalke was considered good again. That’s not because of the first half, in which Hoffenheim were very, very strong. No, what was impressive was that Schalke gradually took control of the game and almost forced a win in the end. About the two penalties, which are both greedily picked apart by the media and one could only offend with the opinion “clear penalty, from my point of view”, this much is said: for the referee it is quite easy, after he has awarded the first one, which he knows is considered doubtful, to award a comparable one on the other side. That’s just the way decisions are made. Not only does this man not have a guilty conscience, no, on the contrary, he feels the compensatory justice and therefore gladly awards it, the second. The analyses of the experts, who tend to smile at this decision and give both of them at most a “can be done, don’t have to”, pounce on it so greedily because the permanent disallowance of clear goals, goal situations and penalty kicks registered by everyone is intuitively (but inarticulately) striking. In this respect, everyone is highly reassured that things can be done differently. Incidentally, the effect achieved with this analysis, which boils down to the result “wasn’t one”, is totally the wrong one. Every referee will squirm a bit more at the next disputed scene – and NOT award this one either.
So all in all, the bets were ok, even if the good result failed to materialise this time.
Evaluation of the individual match days
This is the evaluation of the individual match days, sorted chronologically.
Matchday No. Number of bets Number of hits expected hit deviation win/loss
| 1 | 7 | 5 | 2.84 | +2.16 | +7.96 |
| 2 | 7 | 3 | 2.77 | +0.23 | +1.75 |
| 3 | 2 | 0 | 1.00 | -1.00 | -2.00 |
| 4 | 3 | 1 | 1.14 | -0.14 | -0.28 |
| 5 | 6 | 2 | 2.54 | -0.54 | -2.33 |
| 6 | 8 | 3 | 2.29 | +0.71 | +8.10 |
| 7 | 8 | 4 | 3.55 | +0.45 | +0.00 |
| 8 | 5 | 1 | 1.28 | -0.28 | -2.16 |
| 9 | 7 | 3 | 2.36 | +0.64 | +5.60 |
| 10 | 7 | 1 | 1.92 | -0.92 | +2.20 |
| 11 | 8 | 2 | 2.79 | -0.79 | -3.39 |
| 12 | 7 | 1 | 2.07 | -1.07 | -2.00 |
| 13 | 6 | 4 | 2.77 | +1.23 | +5.37 |
| 14 | 7 | 2 | 2.63 | -0.63 | +4.68 |
| 15 | 6 | 1 | 2.18 | -1.18 | -4.65 |
| 16 | 6 | 2 | 2.13 | -0.13 | -0.53 |
| 17 | 7 | 3 | 3.13 | -0.13 | -0.54 |
| 18 | 7 | 3 | 2.57 | +0.43 | +2.34 |
| 19 | 4 | 1 | 1.51 | -0.51 | -1.70 |
| 20 | 6 | 2 | 2.32 | -0.32 | +0.63 |
| 21 | 8 | 2 | 3.02 | -1.02 | -3.73 |
| 22 | 8 | 4 | 2.85 | +1.15 | +2.19 |
| 23 | 5 | 1 | 2.19 | -1.19 | -3.24 |
| 24 | 9 | 2 | 3.24 | -1.24 | -0.30 |
| 25 | 6 | 2 | 2.63 | -0.63 | -1.67 |
| 26 | 7 | 5 | 2.54 | +2.46 | +8.43 |
| 27 | 7 | 3 | 3.51 | -0.51 | -0.94 |
| 28 | 6 | 1 | 2.21 | -1.21 | -3.10 |
Yes, the red predominates in frequency — but not in size.
Overall betting statistics
This is the running total after evaluating the individual match days.
Total number of bets Total number of hits Total balance G/V in% Total expected hits Total hit deviation
| 7 | 5 | +7.96 | 113.71% | 2.84 | +2.16 |
| 14 | 8 | +9.71 | 69.36% | 5.61 | +2.39 |
| 16 | 8 | +7.71 | 48.19% | 6.61 | +1.39 |
| 19 | 9 | +7.43 | 39.11% | 7.74 | +1.26 |
| 25 | 11 | +5.10 | 20.40% | 10.28 | +0.72 |
| 33 | 14 | +13.20 | 40.00% | 12.57 | +1.43 |
| 41 | 18 | +13.20 | 32.20% | 16.12 | +1.88 |
| 46 | 19 | +11.04 | 24.00% | 17.40 | +1.60 |
| 53 | 22 | +16.64 | 31.40% | 19.76 | +2.24 |
| 60 | 23 | +18.84 | 31.40% | 21.68 | +1.32 |
| 68 | 25 | +15.45 | 22.72% | 24.47 | +0.53 |
| 75 | 26 | +13.45 | 17.93% | 26.54 | -0.54 |
| 81 | 30 | +18.82 | 23.23% | 29.31 | +0.69 |
| 88 | 32 | +23.50 | 26.70% | 31.94 | +0.06 |
| 94 | 33 | +18.85 | 20.05% | 34.12 | -1.12 |
| 100 | 35 | +18.32 | 18.32% | 36.25 | -1.25 |
| 107 | 38 | +17.78 | 16.62% | 39.38 | -1.38 |
| 114 | 41 | +20.12 | 17.65% | 41.95 | -0.95 |
| 118 | 42 | +18.42 | 15.61% | 43.46 | -1.46 |
| 124 | 44 | +19.05 | 15.36% | 45.78 | -1.78 |
| 132 | 46 | +15.32 | 11.61% | 48.80 | -2.80 |
| 140 | 50 | +17.51 | 12.51% | 51.65 | -1.65 |
| 145 | 51 | +14.27 | 9.84% | 53.84 | -2.84 |
| 154 | 53 | +13.97 | 9.07% | 57.08 | -4.08 |
| 160 | 55 | +12.30 | 7.69% | 59.71 | -4.71 |
| 167 | 60 | +20.73 | 12.41% | 62.25 | -2.25 |
| 174 | 63 | +19.79 | 11.37% | 65.76 | -2.76 |
| 180 | 64 | +16.69 | 9.27% | 67.97 | -3.97 |
For today, the total is 9.27% on all bets. We should be satisfied with that, even if there was a downward trend. Overall, the result is ok, last weekend a little bit of luck could have given plenty of air, but of course, as we all know, the gambler’s life does not run in the subjunctive either…
