1) The 1st Bundesliga
a. Review of the Matches
Results of the 10th matchday
FC Augsburg – Werder Bremen 1:1 (0:0)
1st FC Kaiserslautern – SC Freiburg 1:0 (0:0)
- FC Nuremberg – VfB Stuttgart 2:2 (1:0)
TSG Hoffenheim – Borussia Mönchengladbach 1:0 (0:0)
Borussia Dortmund – 1. FC Cologne 5:0 (3:0)
Hertha BSC – FSV Mainz 05 0:0
Hamburger SV – VfL Wolfsburg 1:1 (0:1)
Bayer Leverkusen – FC Schalke 04 0:1 (0:0)
Hannover 96 – FC Bayern München 2:1 (1:0)
A few observations:
Now, one would have the opportunity at this point again and again to vent about the multitude of totally misguided comments, both in terms of football understanding and in terms of excitement, which one would have to spread per se, but does the complete opposite, or about the many referee (mis)decisions, which do not have the characteristic but rather the tendency to always and permanently disadvantage the strikers, but one can also simply try to rework the games one has seen in one’s own way, possibly to put football in a better light than it is put in by the media.
FC Augsburg earned a point against Werder Bremen. The Augsburgs fought back with unheard-of passion, but could not completely blur the picture that Werder were clearly the better team and had a fairly clear advantage in all areas, such as possession, corner kicks and goal chances. Nevertheless, the victory was not only a happy one, due to the fact that Augsburg managed to come up with dangerous counterattacks time and again throughout the entire match. When they actually managed to convert one of these chances – of which there were already two or three before the break, maybe three or four on Werder’s side – shortly after the break, it naturally becomes doubly and triply difficult for the opponent to come back. Double or triple because a) the remaining time of the game is getting shorter and shorter and you are in danger of becoming nervous yourself, b) the opponents themselves, approaching the finish line with the razor-thin lead behind them, can once again mobilise new forces and c) the spectators naturally get into a state of euphoria because of the lead and can thus both push their own team and influence the referee here or there with a few nasty whistles. How Werder mastered this uphill climb was really impressive. Their own attacks were repeatedly delivered with the necessary calmness, but also consistency, so that one could really say that it was only a matter of time (if one didn’t know better long ago: there is no such thing as lasting justice in this sense and, contrary to the aforementioned match conditions, this match could almost as well have been an Augsburg victory) that Werder would equalise.
All this escaped the speaker. He picked on Werder that it was a real splendour (for real sourpusses) – only to then, after the forced equaliser, not only talk about it being deserved of course, but also have the audacity to now predict an extremely long 20 minutes for Augsburg. Yes, it’s easy to be smart – as long as you know the result? Logically, Werder were now in control. They had hit the heroically fighting opponent in the most sensitive spot – but there are not many more possibilities than goals – and now had a while to exploit their playful superiority. The behaviour of the spectators also changed from pure enthusiasm to slight boredom, which was noticeable on the pitch. Augsburg’s defence held, the 1-1 was under wraps and wonderfully and soothingly the subsequent objectivity of the Augsburg players, who acknowledged their superiority and pointed out that against such an opponent they would always be satisfied with any score beyond zero. If only one could hear the coaches’ and players’ voices…
Of the parallel matches on Saturday afternoon, only one could be selected (the conference option was omitted, as this is seen as an even worse abuse of the game of football and, in addition, any commentary is not only seen as false and emotionless, but also misleading), so only the TSG Hoffenheim v Borussia Mönchengladbach match was selected and more details can be told about that one.
Borussia did not play their usual fast combination game that afternoon. But in this case it was not because Hoffenheim had skillfully prevented this (which, in the case of… but which one would recognise and mention in contrast to the commentators), but that Gladbach were standing in their own way. The approaches were there again and again, and they were interrupted in x attempts (x far greater than 20, just to give a clue) by a simple ball pushed into the feet of the opponent by themselves. It was a bit of a shame to see this happen, as you could see the potential (previously so highly praised), but there was almost a tiny bit of suspicion of arrogance here. As if they already knew, acted as if they knew, in their sleep so to speak, where their teammate was standing and poof, — “oh, there was an opponent” — the ball was gone. This bacillus remained with the team throughout the entire match (and thus also corresponds to an observation that has long been made about sport, not just this sport). The comments afterwards also confirmed this. That the deficit nevertheless came about rather unfortunately – ball comes into the penalty area, the Hoffenheim attacker misses, slips over the ball, but he manages, in any case not intentionally, to stop the ball with his own body in such a way that it falls right at Ibisevic’s feet and he scored the 1:0.
Coach Favre and Marco Reus also realised after the game that they could never win this one, but that it “normally” ends 0:0. Of course, it was not a nice game in the sense of few scoring chances (even fewer for Gladbach), but also the numerous so unnecessarily interrupted attacks, on top of that with the completely wrong outcome as far as own intentions and preferences were concerned, but that could hardly be guessed beforehand, even if one likes to mention here that the computer clearly advised an “under” bet, i.e. pleaded for few goals – and was quite right with that.
In the other pairings, one heard that Freiburg was again a bit unlucky at Kaiserslautern and was closer, especially in the first half.
- FC Nürnberg had clear advantages against VfB Stuttgart, but still had to settle for a 2:2 draw.
Borussia Dortmund literally ran over 1. FC Köln, one is only puzzled again by the comments on this. After all, they are the German champions and last season, with almost the same team, they caused real euphoria in the country. Now they got off to a slightly worse start, but have recently improved significantly (and recognised by everyone), but are now not allowed to simply play a good game. When people then talk about the manner of Cologne’s defeat, they are usually people who read the result but think they can spare themselves watching the game and then just blabber away. Since they didn’t see it themselves, there’s no need for further babbling. The only thing we saw in the summary was a few successful combinations with great goals. Are we supposed to be dissatisfied because the opponent supposedly made it easy? No, it’s nice that goals are scored from time to time, it’s nice when many are scored, it’s nice when they are scored so well.
Hertha BSC obviously had a worse (but at this point somewhat predicted) day. The opponent, FSV Mainz 05, had proven to be a very experienced opponent in the games before, who was in a “results crisis”, probably created by Ewald Lienen, but which is often enough not recognised in the capital and the expectations – not only from the fans – go up a bit too quickly and thus rather paralyse the legs. An easy victory was never, ever to be expected. Mainz was even (significantly) closer, as one heard.
In the single match in the early evening between Hamburger SV and VfL Wolfsburg, one was now fully live again. The betting market had tilted entirely towards HSV in view of the euphoria in new coach Fink, so that one still placed a rather high “Lay HSV” (i.e. betting against victory). One simply could not imagine that VfL Wolfsburg – euphoria or no euphoria – would present itself as a willing battle victim here. And so it happened that the Wolves took the lead very early, with their first attack, after just over a minute.
But HSV recovered excellently after a while. They came forward regularly and very systematically and forced not only a preponderance of possession but also a clear one of scoring chances. Now, you know very well that a leading team needs nothing more than the final whistle (regrettably, it is like that everywhere today, due to the lack of goals; in the past, you could have said with some justification that you shouldn’t make the mistake of pulling back too early after a lead, today even home teams do it), but nevertheless it was more than you wanted to allow from Wolfsburg’s point of view. The 1:1 quite soon after the break was decidedly deserved. Nevertheless, Wolfsburg took part in the game a bit more after that and also had some good forward actions. Coach Fink was certainly right after the end of the game when he said that you could see who was the team that dominated the game, but nevertheless you also saw enough good things from Wolfsburg – just after the 1:1 — so that the draw is felt to be fair. Of course, as has been pointed out again and again, there aren’t that many games that have a fair outcome, and the few goals are often misallocated (what separates a 0:1 from a 1:0? Often only one and a half refereeing decisions), and the quality of Hamburg is not to be questioned here. There is just this difference in the score, which for a while was in favour of Wolfsburg and thus inevitably (?!) gave HSV the higher share of the game. After that it was even again, which supports the thesis.
The match between Bayer Leverkusen and FC Schalke 04 by no means took the fair outcome. The computer – and its creator – were put to a hard test in this match. Because: still the specially fed database showed Bayer Leverkusen as the better team. Were they really? Could they be? Already when looking at the line-up, some doubts arose. Surely it all looked pretty much identical? Sure, a Kiessling here, but a Huntelaar there? Ballack, much improved lately and in this game really with some fantastic actions, but instead, for example, a Raul there? A Jefferson Farfan against a Sidney Sam? Who would be better, who would fetch the higher price on the market? The only problem areas with both were the central defence. And so we also learned that Leverkusen had the worst tackling record of all centre-backs in the Bundesliga. At least Manuel Friedrich was there, on whom one thought one could trust a little more.
In the match, the proof of the scepticism became apparent. Leverkusen struggled all the time to achieve the dominance that one should trust a home team to have in the Bundesliga, provided the teams are on a par (or even the home team is better). But it could hardly ever be achieved. Ballack, by the way, shone especially with those actions that one often observes (oneself) in older players, but which go completely unnoticed by dumb commentators (but also usually otherwise): it’s the tiny little passes that sometimes only go over two metres, tapping the ball once but thus bringing pace into the game, the class was to be seen and felt at all corners – apart from a huge willingness to run and omnipresence, of course also in the defence. But just reading the game the way he did, that showed his world class. And there were even finishes here and there. So: there was no sign of a misalignment or signs of age all around.
So the game was contested all the time, but Leverkusen almost never managed to dominate. Schalke had so much class to counter that it could really only end in a draw. But in the last 20 minutes, they both tightened up again, Leverkusen, however, with now finally, albeit slight, advantages. Now came the corner, all men moved up, the duel between Schürrle and Farfan, which later divided opinions as to whether it should have been stopped by the referee, but in any case Farfan won the ball and rushed across the entire field towards the Leverkusen goal, in an incredible 7.7 seconds over 70 metres, as one heard, and sank the ball placed and in accordance with the rules into the far corner. Justice? Does not exist. Schalke had this luck and that luck. The players and coaches agreed that a draw would have been the fair result. Ballack, too, appeared very relaxed in front of the camera, smiling throughout, safe in the knowledge that he could not blame himself and no one could blame the rest of the team.
It was strange, however, that the permanent faultfinder behind the microphone remained silent this one time. They find mistakes here, mistakes there, all just read off the result of the action or the whole game, and if, for example, an action had taken the other outcome after their performance, then the one who had just been given the mistake would not have the chance to now be praised for having done well, but instead the mistake would change parties.
So: if the dream of a quick counter-attack should come true, in which one has to endure so often at the beginning that “now it has to be quick” and “there would be room, now they have moved up” and so on, i.e. that move just dreamed of so to speak would be realised and would actually lead to a goal, then it would by no means mean that they had played it perfectly, Instead, we would be harassed with the “analysis” that the opponents “can’t let themselves be outplayed like that” and (a very popular saying today) that “it’s all far too easy” and that “the defence is completely unsorted” and that everything about the behaviour of the team that conceded the goal was wrong, bumbling and clumsy. In other words: either they did it wrong or the others did it wrong, depending on the case.
But now that – yes, listen and be amazed – there is actually a real mistake on the pitch, the miserable speech bubble doesn’t recognise anything. At least there was a witness on the spot who could confirm that the exclamation of the mistake – as rare as it would be, since all around there is admiration for all players who permanently make the right decisions, but of which one only realises after the execution that one only has to do it this way and exactly this way, so one could not even imagine it better in front of the screen – took place directly during the defensive action.
What happened was that Farfan drove the ball across the entire field at a rapid and almost irresistible speed, from his own penalty area border to the opponent’s, but of course a defender rushed sideways towards him. Now this defender, just before his own penalty area border, is ready to face the striker, to get into the duel. Only – for better or worse of the quick counter-attack, of the unexpected, perhaps irregular ball loss/win, depending on the perspective –, further teammates of the Schalke attacker have got into position just as close to the goal, who are only insufficiently bothered by counter-attackers. So: the defender must soon expect a pass to an even more favourably positioned Schalke player. This is very true, except that the path to the goal, as seen from Farfan, is still so wonderfully clear and he is by no means pushed to the outside, apart from that the pass is always the more difficult task, not only for egoistic reasons, so the defender should have continued to block the path to the goal, let things take their course on the other side. But all of a sudden, and really at an inopportune moment, he suddenly oriented himself in the direction of other opponents and let Farfan take the last two steps plus the (placed, but just above all, because unchallenged) finish. It was a mistake on the part of the defender, but that in no way means that he could have prevented the goal if he had behaved differently. The coaches, however, only say that they want to see that the players do as much as possible right and do not claim any absolutes and especially not that one achieves victory with this behaviour and incurs defeat with that. It’s about the multitude of decisions that have to be made and each of them should be carried out as well as possible – preferably under the guidance of the coach – and then the desired results will be achieved, but by no means in every game.
Here, the defender did not behave optimally. The chance of conceding the goal would have been smaller if the run towards Farfan had been maintained, so the bold assertion. No summary mentioned this until finally, finally, on Monday evening, the Sport 1 Doppelpass came on. These experts came to the same conclusion: defensive error.
The match between Hannover 96 and FC Bayern München suddenly came under completely unexpected praise from the “chosen one” (Marcel Reif), in the sense of “I can’t remember having seen such a good football match this season.” This was particularly astonishing from the point of view that he gradually attested to almost all the Munich players a departure from normal form (“even Schweinsteiger by no means as good as lately”; “too little comes from Müller” and so on), but on the other hand recognised very well that Bayern had by now “eight clear scoring chances”, where one now has to wonder why they create so many good chances so far away from normal form? He also noted that “Bayern had never conceded more than one goal in 18 games” (one is very much inclined to believe him), “but today they conceded two”. Well, just saying that isn’t very valuable, is it, or how does the reader feel about it? Is it supposed to draw attention to the particular deficiency of today of all days?
Be that as it may: should we now conclude that a good day, a good game is always when Bayern is not good? Only they were good, as you could actually see. Is it a good game when Bayern loses? Is that what gives you the greatest pleasure, completely unreflectively of course, to see the already designated champions stumble? No, the criteria would have to be defined at some point when a game was good and when it was bad. There are simply too many aspects. Surprisingly, therefore, it was pointed out that perennial grantler (and thus the pacemaker, the idol, the champion of the entire guild) Marcel Reif suddenly gushed with praise about the quality of the game. He didn’t get emotional about it for a long time. He just mentioned it once. If you had been busy ironing, washing dishes, dusting (What??? Only women do that, and they don’t watch football, right?) or taking a nap in your TV chair and had been listening to the constant chatter, you wouldn’t have stopped your previous activity to watch the match. Only: if, if and but: for that, there would have had to have been a device on the channel, plus the sound switch on “on”, and in this combination it is roughly like Christmas and New Year (no, not Easter, it is somehow scarcer) on the same day…
Marcel Reif collected a lot of plus points with the following intermezzo: there was a red against Bayern and, quite honestly, you don’t want to get too involved in this discussion in concrete situations, the statements about referees (and their decisions) are much more general and call for a rethink, emphasised often enough, nevertheless about the scene: Boateng, who was sent off, really pushed Pinto a bit more than he had done before (this is, of course, a very personal opinion) and thus made an unequal penalty (yellow for the latter, goal for the latter) seem justifiable after all. Later, however, when a Hannoverian was sent off, the wise guy suddenly exclaimed: “I was going to say it. I would have bet that we wouldn’t finish the game with 11 against 10. Yes, true prophets await events. Embarrassing, more embarrassing, Marcel Reif. How can anyone want to make anything good in this idiotic way? If one had actually guessed it, then surely one should have mentioned it at least once beforehand, please? Maybe just the possibility? “I would have held any bet.” It’s such a nonsensical saying anyway, much more reminiscent of kindergarten. But to have “kept every bet” after the outcome was known? No, well anyone could actually do that from baby onwards.
At least one can give oneself credit for having made a phone call during the game in which one pointed out the possibility of a concession decision against Hanover in the sense of a red card when declaring Hanover out of the bet live (logically with a hefty profit). Experience teaches us that the cards are a little looser after a player has already been sent off, and the opponent in particular is affected by this looseness. After the (certainly justified) yellow card against Hannover was given and he possibly activated rudiments of reason, possibly even recognised his own stupidity, he mentioned that with the agility and speed of a Ribery it had to happen sooner or later. But according to this logic, the Frenchman’s opponent would have to take an early shower in every game. Or did he save his skill especially for the scenes after a red card against his own team?
Now the author’s pen has once again slipped a little. Is there any leniency?
b. The table situation
Sp S U N Pkt T GT Diff1 FC Bayern Munich 10 7 1 2 22 26 – 3 +23
2 Borussia Dortmund 10 6 1 3 19 20 – 7 +13
3 FC Schalke 04 10 6 0 4 18 19 – 15 +4
4 Hannover 96 10 5 3 2 18 13 – 13 +0
5 VfB Stuttgart 10 5 2 3 17 16 – 8 +8
6 Werder Bremen 10 5 2 3 17 17 – 13 +4
7 Borussia Mönchengladbach 10 5 2 3 17 11 – 7 +4
8 TSG Hoffenheim 10 5 1 4 16 13 – 9 +4
9 Bayer Leverkusen 10 4 2 4 14 12 – 14 -2
10 Hertha BSC 10 3 4 3 13 12 – 13 -1
11 VfL Wolfsburg 10 4 1 5 13 12 – 17 -5
12 1.FC Köln 10 4 1 5 13 15 – 23 -8
13 1.FC Nürnberg 10 3 3 4 12 12 – 14 -2
14 1.FC Kaiserslautern 10 3 2 5 11 8 – 13 -5
15 FSV Mainz 05 10 2 3 5 9 12 – 19 -7
16 FC Augsburg 10 1 5 4 8 8 – 17 -9
17 Hamburger SV 10 2 2 6 8 12 – 22 -10
18 SC Freiburg 10 2 1 7 14 – 25 -11
252 252 0
Total number of games 90
Goals ø 2.80
Well, very well ordered, with Bayern on 1 and Dortmund on 2, with the gap remaining. But does this have to last? The whole picture seems to be in order otherwise, too. Only Leverkusen is a bit too far behind, certainly Mainz as well, and this does not refer to an (invented) playing ability but much more to performances shown (and more than once not rewarded). This also applies to the last team in the table, SC Freiburg. But it will probably remain the case for all time that someone has to take the back places, even if they have all shown that they don’t necessarily belong there. Augsburg are also fighting for every point – and have already picked up a few. The gap, also in performances shown, is not large, if it exists at all. And coach Luhukay impresses (but thus hardly distinguishing himself from colleagues) with all his comments at every appearance.
c. The title question
Explanation: these figures are the result of a computer simulation based on the current playing strengths of the teams given below. The games are simulated individually on the basis of goal expectations (also given in the text below) and the final table is used to determine the winner.
Team Number of German champions in 5000 simulations Championships in percent Fair odds as reciprocal of probabilities
FC Bayern Munich 3879 77.58% 1.29
Borussia Dortmund 918 18.36% 5.45
FC Schalke 04 51 1.02% 98.04
VfB Stuttgart 41 0.82% 121.95
Hannover 96 34 0.68% 147.06
Werder Bremen 28 0.56% 178.57
Bayer Leverkusen 20 0.40% 250.00
TSG Hoffenheim 14 0.28% 357.14
Borussia Mönchengladbach 9 0.18% 555.56
Hertha BSC 3 0.06% 1666.67
VfL Wolfsburg 3 0.06% 1666.67
1.FC Cologne 0 0.00%
1.FC Kaiserslautern 0 0.00%
Hamburger SV 0 0.00%
1.FC Nuremberg 0 0.00%
FSV Mainz 05 0 0.00%
SC Freiburg 0 0.00%
FC Augsburg 0 0.00%
5000 100.00%
It is logical that such a trend is reflected in the results. The (also) embarrassing Sky90 presenter, Patrick Wasserziehr, asked Jupp Heynckes about the chances of winning the title and whether there would be any excitement again and whether Bayern had imagined it differently, to which Heynckes had to rebuke him, saying that it was not they themselves who had declared themselves champions after only nine matchdays, but that only the (in brackets one had to read: more than annoying) crowd of journalists had provided such headlines. They are always aware that there is a long way to go and that they have to work hard in every game in order, with luck and skill, to pick up enough points compared to the competition.
Change of chances compared to the previous week due to the results of the 10th matchday
Team Win/loss absolute compared to previous matchday Win/loss percentage
Borussia Dortmund 486 9.72%
FC Schalke 04 35 0.70%
Hannover 96 23 0.46%
TSG Hoffenheim 8 0.16%
VfB Stuttgart 2 0.04%
Werder Bremen 2 0.04%
Hertha BSC 1 0.02%
1.FC Kaiserslautern 0 0.00%
1.FC Nuremberg 0 0.00%
FC Augsburg 0 0.00%
FSV Mainz 05 0 0.00%
Hamburger SV 0 0.00%
SC Freiburg 0 0.00%
1.FC Cologne -1 -0.02%
VfL Wolfsburg -1 -0.02%
Borussia Mönchengladbach -9 -0.18%
Bayer Leverkusen -24 -0.48%
FC Bayern Munich -522 -10.44%
0 0.00%
Logically, the antipodes front and back. This time Dortmund with a 5:0, compared to Bayern’s defeat, which only Stefan Effenberg correctly commented on Sky 90 (to those looking for definitive answers and explanations for everything): “To beat Bayern this season you need a whole lot of luck. Hannover had that.” Because: even at 11 against 10, Bayern was still represented with by far the greater number of top-class chances, whereas Hannover’s 2:0 came about through a curious and extremely unfortunate deflected shot, in which even Neuer was left wanting in the true sense of the word (whereby he really was still desperately, except -seeing also -hustling, long since realising the unreachability).
In any case, Patrick Wasserziehr appeased Jupp Heynckes after his rebuke, which was only recognisable to sensitive people (which definitely does NOT include football reporters), by saying: “Mr Heynckes, you can believe me, we are very happy with the tension.” This was only to be understood as an apology in terms of the way he spoke, but hardly in terms of content.
Of course, tension would be fine with them, although they constantly talk you out of it, not only with such stupid nonsense as Marcel Reif, but also with the search for explanations (and supposed finding of them) of all phenomena. And: the broadcaster has long since turned to peddling in search of new customers, to a large extent owing to this fact, the spoiled tension.
d. The title chances in development
One thing can be guaranteed: even if these two curves move away from each other again in the following period, this “slump” will still remain graphically and will always be able to evoke the memory: “Do you remember? On the 10th matchday, there was tension once again.” Do they really do it? Well, you don’t know, like so many other things you don’t know….
e. Comparison of title chances with the betting exchange betfair
Back Lay Probability (Back)FC Bayern Munich 1.26 1.27 79.37%
Borussia Dortmund 6.4 6.8 15.63%
Bayer Leverkusen 50 75 2.00%
VfL Wolfsburg 200 380 0.50%
Hannover 96 75 300 1.33%
Werder Bremen 80 290 1.25%
FC Schalke 04 30 55 3.33%
Hamburger SV 1000 0.10%
VfB Stuttgart 100 400 1.00%
FSV Mainz 05 1000 0.10%
Borussia Mönchengladbach 120 300 0.83%
TSG Hoffenheim 110 300 0.91%
1.FC Nuremberg 1000 0.10%
1.FC Cologne 1000 0.10%
SC Freiburg 1000 0.10%
Hertha BSC 700 0.14%
1.FC Kaiserslautern 1000 0.10%
FC Augsburg 1000 0.10%
106.99%
The computer really sets its flag to the wind: now it advises playing Dortmund again (albeit narrowly). 6.4 that one would get, from 5.45 that the computer considers fair.
The changes in betfair’s odds estimates
Change(Back)FC Bayern Munich -5.38
Borussia Dortmund 6.10%
Bayer Leverkusen 0.57%
VfL Wolfsburg 0.19%
Hannover 96 0.75%
Werder Bremen 0.48%
FC Schalke 04 2.00%
Hamburger SV -0.07%
VfB Stuttgart 0.17%
FSV Mainz 05 0.00%
Borussia Mönchengladbach 0.06%
TSG Hoffenheim 0.41%
1.FC Nuremberg -0.03%
1.FC Cologne -0.10%
SC Freiburg 0.00%
Hertha BSC 0.00%
1.FC Kaiserslautern 0.00%
FC Augsburg 0.00%
5.15%
(The order according to the original estimates of the ranking)
The explanation for the more moderate reaction on the betting market: people obviously intuitively assume that the season will be long (which is true, of course), but perceive individual points as less important. Even a single point, however, is “in truth” (i.e. according to computer logic) worth more than one assumes. Dortmund scored three points, which is a gigantic amount, so to speak. In addition, the computer calculates the amount of the victories (what could be wrong with that?). A 5:0 score gives you real courage and self-confidence, doesn’t it?), which is perhaps less the case on the betting market, a win is a win, so to speak.
So: according to the computer Bayern lose more than 10%, on the betting market only about half.
f. The direct Champions League qualification over 2nd place
The probability distribution for 2nd place after the 10th matchday
Team Number of 2nd places in 5000 simulations 2nd places in per cent
Borussia Dortmund 2495 49.90%
FC Bayern Munich 869 17.38%
FC Schalke 04 349 6.98%
Bayer Leverkusen 278 5.56%
VfB Stuttgart 239 4.78%
Hannover 96 207 4.14%
Werder Bremen 188 3.76%
TSG Hoffenheim 153 3.06%
Borussia Mönchengladbach 136 2.72%
VfL Wolfsburg 41 0.82%
Hertha BSC 25 0.50%
FSV Mainz 05 7 0.14%
1.FC Cologne 6 0.12%
1.FC Nuremberg 4 0.08%
1.FC Kaiserslautern 2 0.04%
Hamburger SV 1 0.02%
SC Freiburg 0 0.00%
FC Augsburg 0 0.00%
5000 100.00%
Dortmund, of course, are still way ahead, especially as they have a fairly stable position in the real table.
The changes compared to the previous week:
Team win/loss absolute compared to previous matchday Win/loss percentage
FC Bayern Munich 412 8.24%
FC Schalke 04 88 1.76%
Hannover 96 75 1.50%
Borussia Dortmund 48 0.96%
TSG Hoffenheim 39 0.78%
1.FC Kaiserslautern 1 0.02%
FC Augsburg 0 0.00%
FSV Mainz 05 0 0.00%
Hamburger SV -2 -0.04%
SC Freiburg -2 -0.04%
1.FC Nuremberg -6 -0.12%
1.FC Cologne -11 -0.22%
Hertha BSC -32 -0.64%
VfL Wolfsburg -38 -0.76%
VfB Stuttgart -64 -1.28%
Borussia Mönchengladbach -113 -2.26%
Werder Bremen -160 -3.20%
Bayer Leverkusen -235 -4.70%
0 0.00%
The gain, however, is, just as logically, achieved by FC Bayern. Lost on 1, gained on 2, all clear. Leverkusen loses at most: defeat in their own stadium against a rival. Dortmund even gained. Yes, because the competition (apart from Bayern) has shrunk, especially Leverkusen has moved away.
g. The relegation question
The distribution of relegation percentages
Note: There would also be a detailed breakdown of the individual places. Here, places 17 and 18 count as fully relegated (i.e. in total as 1, for relegated in each case, otherwise the term is “direct relegation”), and a further third of relegated teams are added due to the relegation, whereby the first-division team is generally rated as 2/3 to 1/3 favourite compared to the second-division team. This makes the total number of relegated teams equal to 233.33%. In individual cases, of course, it would be different in reality. So if, for example, Frankfurt were to finish 3rd in League 2 and Augsburg 16th in League 1, one could perhaps speak of a balanced pairing.
Team Direct relegation (17th or 18th place) Relegation by relegation Total1 FC Augsburg 54.54% 5.02% 59.56%
2 SC Freiburg 47.00% 4.71% 51.71%
3 Hamburger SV 24.96% 4.56% 29.52%
4 1.FC Kaiserslautern 22.42% 4.84% 27.26%
5 FSV Mainz 05 15.84% 4.04% 19.88%
6 1.FC Köln 14.00% 3.19% 17.19%
7 1.FC Nürnberg 10.18% 2.61% 12.79%
8 Hertha BSC 3.98% 1.47% 5.45%
9 VfL Wolfsburg 3.28% 1.21% 4.49%
10 Borussia Mönchengladbach 1.14% 0.39% 1.53%
11 TSG Hoffenheim 0.88% 0.32% 1.20%
12 VfB Stuttgart 0.54% 0.22% 0.76%
13 Hannover 96 0.40% 0.25% 0.65%
14 Werder Bremen 0.34% 0.28% 0.62%
15 Bayer Leverkusen 0.36% 0.15% 0.51%
16 FC Schalke 04 0.14% 0.07% 0.21%
17 FC Bayern Munich 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
18 Borussia Dortmund 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
200.00% 33.33% 233.33%
Freiburg with serious competition for Augsburg’s erstwhile supremacy in this unwanted spot. Both with over 50% chances. Well, someone has to bite the dust after all, and it’s even more than one, even more than two.
The change in chances due to the results of matchday 10 in relation to relegation
Team Change in chances1 1.FC Kaiserslautern 8.42%
2 FC Augsburg 4.19%
3 1.FC Nuremberg 1.10%
4 Hannover 96 1.04%
5 FSV Mainz 05 0.81%
6 FC Schalke 04 0.75%
7 TSG Hoffenheim 0.71%
8 Werder Bremen 0.17%
9 Borussia Dortmund 0.00%
10 FC Bayern Munich 0.00%
11 VfB Stuttgart -0.15%
12 Hertha BSC -0.17%
13 Bayer Leverkusen -0.19%
14 VfL Wolfsburg -0.21%
15 Borussia Mönchengladbach -0.62%
16 Hamburger SV -1.00%
17 1.FC Cologne -5.87%
18 SC Freiburg -8.97%
0.00%
Kaiserslautern on the winning pitch for the second time in a row. Sure, they won at Schalke before, which of course, scored away from home and against a heavyweight, brings plenty, this time at home against a rival. But the rest of the team doesn’t have anything similar to offer. Augsburg with a point at home? Yes, it was achieved against a top-ranked opponent, but such a gain? That’s because of the results of their rivals.
HSV even loses because they also score at home, but against a weaker opponent (Wolfsburg), but at the same time because the computer expected more from them in advance. This speaks in favour of Ausgsburg. But Augsburg, of course, had more chances of relegation beforehand, of which they could give away.
h. The relegation question in development
Yes, but it looks interesting. Well, as promised; there is always entertaining movement in the relegation question (no doubt in large part because of the more than two relegations) and usually until the very end. The jags show in every single movement, which is by no means due to a lack of quality in the programming, Here it is just documented that everything is very close, and that nothing exact is known either.
i. The point expectations and the deviations
Explanation: For each game, the computer has calculated the chances for 1, X and 2. On the basis of these, a point expectation is mathematically calculated for each team per game according to the formula probability of winning * 3 points + probability of drawing * 1 point. The deviations given below compare the points actually achieved with those expected by the computer.
In total, the deviation does not have to be 0 for all teams, as the number of expected draws does not have to be congruent with those that have occurred (nor can it even be), but an imbalance is forced by the three-point rule. Too many points scored means that there were too few draws.
Team Name Points scored Deviation Deviation absolute1 Borussia Mönchengladbach 13.33 17 3.67 3.67
2 Hannover 96 14.39 18 3.61 3.61
3 TSG Hoffenheim 12.57 16 3.43 3.43
4 FC Schalke 04 15.19 18 2.81 2.81
5 1.FC Köln 10.96 13 2.04 2.04
6 VfB Stuttgart 14.99 17 2.01 2.01
7 Werder Bremen 15.64 17 1.36 1.36
8 Hertha BSC 11.96 13 1.04 1.04
9 FC Bayern Munich 21.41 22 0.59 0.59
10 1.FC Kaiserslautern 11.05 11 -0.05 0.05
11 1.FC Nürnberg 12.34 12 -0.34 0.34
12 Borussia Dortmund 19.73 19 -0.73 0.73
13 VfL Wolfsburg 14.09 13 -1.09 1.09
14 Bayer Leverkusen 15.47 14 -1.47 1.47
15 FC Augsburg 9.81 8 -1.81 1.81
16 Hamburger SV 11.58 8 -3.58 3.58
17 SC Freiburg 11.16 7 -4.16 4.16
18 FSV Mainz 05 13.65 9 -4.65 4.65
2.69 38.46
ø Deviation 2.14Gladbach is ahead, yes, but only by 3.67 points. In second place Hannover, due to the sensational win. Hoffenheim are also over three points above their target, Bayern are still marginally ahead.
At the bottom, meanwhile, Mainz, although the draw in Berlin was also more of a top-flight achievement. Also Freiburg with a (unlucky) bid for the very back. But if you look at the deviations, there are usually only one or two results that could easily make up for everything – which of course also applies to the teams that are in the plus. So: the season is not currently providing excessive tension, which could also be represented by surprise teams. No, there are hardly any such teams, neither positive nor negative.
The international comparison for the average point differential
Note: the theory is that the German Bundesliga is the most exciting among Europe’s top leagues. This finding is rather intuitively derived, but so far “accepted” both in this country and abroad. Of course, the higher goal average is an indication of this, as well as the(perceived) lower predictability when it comes to the title, relegation, but also other issues. Balance is a criterion and possibly the main reason for this.
The measure used here for the deviation in average points expectation provides measurable information about this, but it was probably a “problem” specific to the 2010/2011 inaugural season (the fan thanked) that the Bundesliga produced a particularly large number of surprises. This was reflected in the figures. Now the phenomenon can be observed further. Is the Bundesliga also exciting in this respect? More exciting than elsewhere?(At the same time, a large deviation in this category could simply mean that computers or feeders do not know their business well)
Liga 1 ø Deviation Change from previous week
Germany, 1. BL 2.14 0.10
Italy 2.30 0.07
Spain 2.59 0.08
France 3.75 0.41
England 2.92 0.17
Germany, 2.BL 4.60 0.18
Germany’s 1st division is at the top, but this season it’s more like the boredom top. All well-ordered, that’s right. It’s reflected here in numbers. The 2nd division, on the other hand, leads the table of surprises (even if it remains the case that the number of match days promotes disorder; many games have been played everywhere by now). France is also in the mix, which would be obvious if you looked at the table: teams like Marseille and Bordeaux, who should always be at the top, are pretty far behind.
j. Goal expectations and their deviations
Explanation: Almost the same applies to goals as to points. The expected goals scored and the expected goals conceded are compared with reality. Too few goals scored count negatively just as too many goals conceded count negatively, the reverse counts positively in each case. Here, the sum of the deviations must be 0, because all expected and not scored goals were not conceded somewhere. However, the goal average may show a deviation.
Team Name Goal expectation Goals scored Goals conceded expected Goals conceded Total deviation1 FC Bayern Munich 21.69 26 9.16 3 10.48
2 VfB Stuttgart 16.06 16 14.27 8 6.21
3 TSG Hoffenheim 13.06 13 14.93 9 5.87
4 Borussia Mönchengladbach 13.72 11 15.00 7 5.28
5 Borussia Dortmund 17.54 20 8.53 7 3.99
6 Hertha BSC 12.95 12 16.28 13 2.33
7 FC Schalke 04 14.66 19 12.48 15 1.83
8 Werder Bremen 16.23 17 13.36 13 1.13
9 1.FC Nürnberg 12.04 12 14.22 14 0.18
10 1.FC Kaiserslautern 11.92 8 16.24 13 -0.69
11 Hannover 96 14.28 13 13.35 13 -0.92
12 1.FC Köln 12.85 15 17.74 23 -3.11
13 FC Augsburg 9.41 8 15.12 17 -3.29
14 Bayer Leverkusen 15.64 12 13.15 14 -4.49
15 VfL Wolfsburg 13.83 12 13.42 17 -5.41
16 Hamburger SV 13.12 12 17.01 22 -6.11
17 SC Freiburg 12.18 14 16.72 25 -6.46
18 FSV Mainz 05 13.56 12 13.74 19 -6.82
254.72 252 254.72 252 0.00
Goals ø expected: Goals ø scored: ø Deviation 4.14
2.83 2.80 In terms of goal expectations, Bayern remain ahead thanks to their continued superior goal differential. You can also already see a huge jump to Stuttgart with over four goals behind. Stuttgart’s goal difference (no, the difference, yes, yes) is also exceptionally good at 16-8 and the place is justified in this respect. Hoffenheim is already behind them, ahead of Gladbach.
The sorting at the very back corresponds to that of the points expectation. This means that the three teams there have scored their points regularly with quite normal (i.e. no outlier) results. It is already apparent that it was often only the one goal and that the outcome could have been different.
The foreign comparison for the average goal deviation
(Note: crazy results do not necessarily have to be reflected in the tendency. So a 5:3 or even a 7:0 may cause large deviations here, in terms of goals, but not at all in terms of points, since, for example, the favourite would have won in each case. So there is an alternative method of comparing with other countries: are there the most “surprises” in the Bundesliga in this respect too)?
Rank Country League 1 ø Goal difference Change from previous week Number of games
1 Germany, 2.BL 6.70 0.48 108
2 Germany, 1.BL 4.14 0.18 90
3 France 1 3.62 0.13 110
4 Spain 1 3.31 0.45 80
5 England 1 3.23 0.30 89
6 Italy 1 2.83 0.53 70
Here the sorting is now done according to the average deviation, additionally the number of games is given, so that one can compare a bit better. So: the 2nd league is also in front here. So there are surprises (Paderborn, FSV Frankfurt positive, Bochum, Duisburg negative) but also some surprisingly high results. The 1st league is far ahead, which is understandable due to the partly very high results. France, for example, with more games, but a clearly lower deviation. That means: from the tendency there are many surprises (see above, PunktEW), but most of them are only scored with a 1:0 or 0:1.
The deviations have become bigger in all leagues (which is also not always the case). So: there were surprises everywhere on this matchday.
k. The playing strength ranking
Note: The playing strength is measured in goals expected against the average team (which does not exist in practice). There is offensive strength, which is measured in expected goals scored, and defensive strength, which is measured in expected goals conceded. The quotient of these two values is the measure of playing strength. The more expected goals scored, the higher the value; the fewer expected goals conceded, the higher the value.
Goal expectations
Team For Against Quotient For/Counter Change in Quotient Shift1 FC Bayern Munich 2.20 0.82 2.69 -0.17 +0
2 Borussia Dortmund 1.78 0.83 2.15 +0.12 +0
3 Bayer Leverkusen 1.58 1.29 1.23 -0.04 +0
4 FC Schalke 04 1.46 1.25 1.16 +0.04 +0
5 VfB Stuttgart 1.58 1.43 1.10 -0.00 +1
6 Werder Bremen 1.59 1.45 1.10 -0.01 -1
7 Hannover 96 1.42 1.35 1.05 +0.05 +2
8 TSG Hoffenheim 1.36 1.31 1.03 +0.02 -1
9 Borussia Mönchengladbach 1.29 1.30 0.99 -0.01 -1
10 VfL Wolfsburg 1.37 1.40 0.97 -0.01 +0
11 Hertha BSC 1.30 1.42 0.91 -0.02 +0
12 FSV Mainz 05 1.34 1.58 0.85 +0.01 +0
13 1.FC Nürnberg 1.22 1.49 0.81 +0.00 +0
14 Hamburger SV 1.25 1.66 0.75 -0.01 +1
15 1.FC Köln 1.40 1.86 0.75 -0.05 -1
16 1.FC Kaiserslautern 1.08 1.55 0.70 +0.01 +1
17 SC Freiburg 1.23 1.78 0.69 -0.01 -1
18 FC Augsburg 0.90 1.55 0.58 +0.01 +0
25.33 25.33 +0
Goals ø expected
2.81 Stuttgart swaps places with Werder, but they were almost equal before (both now with 1.10). Hannover gains two places: clearly, whoever beats the big Bavarians has earned a mighty reputation. Hoffenheim and Gladbach lose one place each: yes, Hoffenheim wins (+0.02), but Hannover wins more (+0.05). HSV overtakes Cologne: the 0:5 has an effect because, as you can see, HSV also loses (-0-01). Kaiserslautern overtake Freiburg with their +0.01 compared to Freiburg’s -0.01.
l. The frequency of tendency changes
Note: a “change of tendency” is considered to be a goal that equalises a lead or scores a lead. The 1:0 is not counted, because without this goal it would not even begin to have anything to do with tension in the goal sequence. Every now and then, a statistical comparison is made here with other countries. This shows that there are more changes of tendency in Germany than elsewhere, which on the one hand points to perceived tension in the Bundesliga – which is possibly envied abroad – and on the other hand points to possible tactical deficiencies, which, following an old tradition, make one advise to urgently go for a second goal after a 1:0 – and not to dull and insipidly, as is usual abroad, rock this goal over time. International comparisons provide more information about the effectiveness or weakness of German behaviour.
Of course, it is and will remain desirable that “something happens”, that games ripple back and forth, that teams that take an early lead nevertheless still lose later, that teams come back from two or three goals down in dramatic comebacks, equalise or even still win. The claim here: it actually happens too rarely in football. It would be desirable to allow more goals so that there is more drama in this point as well. More goals guarantee more changes of tendency, but it is possible that there is an upper limit. So: in ice hockey there are more goals and thus more changes of tendency, no question. But are there more in handball, for example, than in ice hockey? Probably not. Because: if there are a lot of goals, one team can be in the lead by five, six, seven without ever thinking of a comeback by the losing team.
For comparison, here are the statistics from last season. You can at least compare them a little bit to see if the trend is similar.
2010/2011 season
Country Matches Equalisation HF AF Total per match
1st Bundesliga 306 158 60 49 267 0.873
England 380 198 66 46 310 0.816
2nd Bundesliga 306 145 56 41 242 0.791
Italy 380 169 58 48 275 0.724
France 380 175 49 40 264 0.695
Spain 380 146 48 46 240 0.632
Season 2011/2012
Country Matches Equalisation Home Leading Goals Away Leading Goals Total per match
Country Matches Equalisation Home Leading Goals Away Leading Goals Total per Match1 1st Bundesliga 90 44 18 12 74 0.822
2 France 110 60 13 12 85 0.773
3 Italy 70 30 9 11 50 0.714
4 2nd Bundesliga 108 44 15 12 71 0.657
5 England 89 31 8 47 0.528
6 Spain 80 27 10 4 41 0.513
Total balance 547 236 73 59 368 0.673
The review of the changes in tendency:
Werder equalise Augsburg’s lead. 1 TW.
Stuttgart equal twice out at Nuremberg. 2TW.
HSV equalise against Wolfsburg. 1 TW.
That was it, that was all the matchday offered. Bayern came within 1:2, but that doesn’t count in these statistics (wrongly?), but otherwise only one team scored at most.
In the 2nd league it was even more pathetic: Paderborn equalised in Munich and Union in Aue. The rest were one-way streets.
So nothing happened in Germany, but 1st place was still preserved (by Liga 1).
In the other leagues it was the same:
In Italy, there were 8 tendency changes, which is above the average (8 in 10 = 0.8).
In England there were even 10 in 10 games, which ensured that the red lantern passed to Spain, where there were only 2 changes of tendency in 10 games.
In France there were also only a meagre four, so that this league did not put the Germans in danger.
m. The mathematical review of the matchday 10 results.
Note: here the deviation of the expected goals with the goals scored is calculated for each match. To determine the total deviation, the values are added up in absolute terms (not visible here, this column). So: if one team deviates positively by 0.35 goals, the other negatively by -0.62, then the absolute total deviation is 0.35 + 0.62 = 0.97 goals. To determine the average deviation, all these values are added up and divided by the number of pairings – usually 9.
Goal expectation
Home Away Total DeviationAugsburg Werder 1.04 1.56 2.60 1 1 -0.04 -0.56
Kaiserslautern Freiburg 1.68 1.30 2.98 1 0 -0.68 -1.30
Nuremberg Stuttgart 1.37 1.44 2.81 2 2 0.63 0.56
Hoffenheim Gladbach 1.38 1.06 2.45 1 0 -0.38 -1.06
Dortmund FC Cologne 2.49 0.80 3.28 5 0 2.51 -0.80
Hertha Mainz 1.73 1.24 2.97 0 0 -1.73 -1.24
HSV Wolfsburg 1.50 1.43 2.93 1 1 -0.50 -0.43
Leverkusen Schalke 04 1.67 1.17 2.84 0 1 -1.67 -0.17
Hannover FC Bayern 0.88 1.81 2.69 2 1 1.12 -0.81
13.74 11.82 25.56 13 6 -0.74 -5.82
Expected goal total Expected goal average Scored goal average
25.56 2.84 2.11 ø expected goal difference 1.89 ø goal difference 1.80
So, both in the number of goals (19 instead of 25.56 expected) and in the deviation (which usually goes hand in hand), it was not so sparkling here either.
n. The determination
Note: The fixing is calculated for each game as the sum of the squares of the individual probabilities. This measures how much one can commit to a favourite in a certain pairing. The higher the favourite position, the higher the sum of the squares, but also the more “certain” the occurrence of the (favourite) event. The mathematical question in itself is even more how far one can commit, since one cannot really determine this value. Events are predicted whose probabilities are unknown. Nevertheless, one can check the quality of the estimates made here in the long term by comparing expected/occurred. This is done week by week, but of course also overall.
The determination expected
Pairing 1 X 2 Determination
Augsburg Werder 25.77% 24.42% 49.82% 37.42%
Kaiserslautern Freiburg 46.98% 22.90% 30.12% 36.39%
Nürnberg Stuttgart 36.50% 23.84% 39.66% 34.74%
Hoffenheim Gladbach 44.82% 25.86% 29.32% 35.37%
Dortmund FC Cologne 74.50% 15.53% 9.96% 58.91%
Hertha Mainz 49.28% 22.74% 27.98% 37.28%
HSV Wolfsburg 39.93% 23.31% 36.75% 34.89%
Leverkusen Schalke 04 49.54% 23.22% 27.25% 37.35%
Hannover FC Bayern 18.08% 22.15% 59.77% 43.90%
3.85 2.04 3.11 3.56
average expected fixing: 39.58%To repeat only above the expected figures given in last week’s text.
The determination arrived Pairing 1 X 2 Tendency
Augsburg Werder 25.77% 24.42% 49.82% 0 24.42%
Kaiserslautern Freiburg 46.98% 22.90% 30.12% 1 46.98%
Nürnberg Stuttgart 36.50% 23.84% 39.66% 0 23.84%
Hoffenheim Gladbach 44.82% 25.86% 29.32% 1 44.82%
Dortmund FC Cologne 74.50% 15.53% 9.96% 1 74.50%
Hertha Mainz 49.28% 22.74% 27.98% 0 22.74%
HSV Wolfsburg 39.93% 23.31% 36.75% 0 23.31%
Leverkusen Schalke 04 49.54% 23.22% 27.25% 2 27.25%
Hanover FC Bayern 18.08% 22.15% 59.77% 1 18.08%
4 4 1 3.06
average determination received: 33.99%Further note: No comparable model has yet been discovered in mathematics. Not even by a mathematician who had set himself the task of proving to the author that there was definitely nothing new.
Clearly, the outlier of the Hanover victory was one too many and thus the expected determination of 39.58% was clearly undercut by the 33.99% that arrived. But, logically, the many draws (four in number) played their part: they are almost always surprising.
o. Overall league statistics
Note: such a statistic is regularly produced by the computer. It is generally used for quality control of the individual figures, Each figure has its meaning and is explained in more detail. The goal average is not repeated here. The home advantage is calculated by dividing the goals scored by the home team by half of the total goals. In this way, you can see how many more goals the home teams score than they would score without home advantage. 1,116 is 11.6% more for the home team, 11.6% less for the away team.
Note: For arithmetic foxes, here is a brief explanation of the calculation method for the expected goal deviation: The computer gives each result from 0:0 to 20:20 a probability (it is actually sufficient up to 10:10, as the rest has no significant probability). There would be a goal deviation for each result. So if you multiply the probability of, for example, a 3:4 by the deviation that would then occur (in the case of the match Mainz – Gladbach, with goal expectations of 1.77:1.25, this would be 3 – 1.77 = 1.23 for Mainz plus 4 – 1.25 = 2.75 for Gladbach, i.e. a total of 3.98 goal deviation) and carry out this procedure for each match result, you get the expected average goal deviation.
1st Football Bundesliga 2011/2012
Statistics of the actual results Matches Home wins Draws Away wins Goals conceded Home advantage
90 43 18 29 149 103 1.183
Statistics of expected results Matches Home wins Draws Away wins Goals Conceded Home advantage
90 41.63 20.69 27.67 144.2 110.4 1.133
Statistics of absolute deviations Matches Home wins Draws Away wins Goals Conceded Home advantage
0 1.37 -2.69 1.33 4.8 -7.4 0.04978
Percentage deviation statisticsMatches Home wins Draws Away wins Goals conceded Home advantage
0 3.19% -14.94% 4.59% 3.22% -7.18% 4.21%
Determination expected Determination arrived
39.87% 39.86%
ø Goal difference ø Goal difference expected
1.95 1.88 Here, however, there was some convergence. The draws, which were previously underrepresented, have caught up and are now only undercut by 2.69. Also, the expected and arrived determination are almost in cover at the moment and ensure that one pats oneself on the back appreciatively at least once. Only, as of next week, there may already be another deviation (one is aware of this). But snapshots can also be simply beautiful, can’t they?
The home advantage has been a bit too big so far, as you can see from the goals scored: 4.8 too many scored at home (against expectation), and 7.4 too few conceded.
p. Review of the betting recommendations
But this question is always more explosive: which bets should/must have been made according to the computer? Where would he have messed with the betting market? And: if he messes with it, with the great mass intelligence, does he have good reasons for it? Could one possibly win, can one even prove long-term advantages? Up to now, such “dry swim” exercises have been made for oneself, if at all. Now, at least, it is documented.
Pairing 1 X 2
Augsburg Werder 3.80 3.75 2.08
Kaiserslautern Freiburg 2.02 3.65 3.90
Nuremberg Stuttgart 2.66 3.50 2.86
Hoffenheim Gladbach 2.00 3.65 4.00
Dortmund FC Cologne 1.33 5.70 12.50
Hertha Mainz 2.04 3.70 4.00
HSV Wolfsburg 2.38 3.60 3.15
Leverkusen Schalke 04 2.08 3.65 3.85
Hannover FC Bayern 9.20 4.70 1.45
Goals scored 1.92
Goals scored 1
Money score 2.20
Of course, Hannover’s victory was the highlight of the weekend. They are already financially in the plus with only one goal. Commentary on the other games (and bets):
Freiburg was a good bet. SC was closer in the first half (or so we heard, but of course the pictures show scenes and scoring chances that make you confirm).
Stuttgart wasn’t that great, the bet. Nuremberg were the better team after all, and have perhaps been somewhat underestimated so far.
Gladbach, of course, was not a good bet in this game, because, as Favre also said, they could of course (O-Ton Favre) never win the game. Nevertheless, there were enough signs of class in Borussia’s performance. And you don’t score 4.0 every day. Gladbach have also provided a good bet (and won a few) in almost every game so far. So they are judged more mildly anyway.
Cologne in Dortmund is comparable to all odds above 10 so far: it looks like completely without a chance, but a (above) 10 is an event where everything has to go right for you. This was not the case, but does not automatically make the bet bad. Nevertheless, one would have expected a better performance from Cologne.
Wolfsburg in Hamburg was definitely a good bet. However, the quality only really showed after the equaliser. Wolfsburg was also on and a 3.15 is still an outsider’s odds.
Hanover, of course, was a top bet not only because of the goal. No, that’s the way it is with high odds: everything has to fit and it did here. But still, of course, Hannover impressed extremely (but had done so a few times before this game as well). They have a lot of self-confidence (maybe since the progress against Sevilla?) and of course an excellent coach.
So, most bets are considered good. One has to think about the assessments of Nürnberg and possibly those of Hoffenheim, who also have an excellent squad with a few previously unknowns (Firminho).
Recommended bets Statistics of the individual match days
Matchday Nr 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
Of course, one always likes to look at these statistics. Mostly the results are positive. But mainly this one is for documentation.
Total statistics
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
A little mathematical curiosity (which at first made one think there was a mistake): the 31.40% of the previous week remained exactly the same. Yes, fact: 2.2 units in 7 bets makes 2.2/7, and that is almost exactly 31.4%.
Well, so hits still in the plus, all values in the plus, what more could you want? But again there was only one hit on high odds, so that the hits are just comparatively few in front, so on average the odds are a bit too high.
q. The preview of the 11th matchday
Note: The computer calculates the goal expectations (and the individually maintained home advantage not shown here) to these goal expectations according to a specially developed – naturally explainable and highly logical – algorithm. These in turn are offset against the probabilities of occurrence, in the past by simulation, today long since by a function derived from the simulation results). These goal expectancy values have also long since proved to be competitive in goal number betting on the betting market.
Goal expectation
Home Away TotalFreiburg Leverkusen 1.26 1.68 2.94
FC Bayern Nuremberg 2.66 0.59 3.25
Gladbach Hannover 1.45 1.12 2.57
Schalke 04 Hoffenheim 1.55 1.08 2.64
Stuttgart Dortmund 1.06 1.47 2.54
Wolfsburg Hertha 1.59 1.10 2.69
Mainz Werder 1.51 1.60 3.11
FC Köln Augsburg 1.65 1.00 2.65
HSV Kaiserslautern 1.53 1.09 2.63
14.27 10.74 25.01
Expected goal total Expected goal average
25.01 2.78 Well, the expected goal total is going down. You can see from this the permanent readjustment of the computer: there were few goals? Well, then I expect a little less for the next week. Maybe it’s a trend? After all, it’s only minimal adjustments: 2.80 expected before, now 2.78, which seems reasonable in any case. Many goals are expected in Munich, of course (the betting market certainly does), but also in Mainz – where the advice would rather be to place an “over” bet. Few goals in almost any game really. IN Stuttgart perhaps an “under” play?
Note: The fixing is calculated as the sum of the squares of the individual probabilities. This measures how much one can commit to a favourite in a certain pairing. The higher a favourite position is, the higher the sum of the squares, but also the more “certain” the occurrence of the event. The mathematical question in itself is even more how far one can commit, since one cannot really determine this value. Events are predicted whose probabilities are unknown. Nevertheless, the quality can be checked in the long term by comparing expected/occurred events.
The determination expected
Pairing 1 X 2
Freiburg Leverkusen 29.03% 23.23% 47.73% 36.61%
FC Bayern Nürnberg 81.37% 12.68% 5.95% 68.17%
Gladbach Hannover 45.18% 25.29% 29.53% 35.53%
Schalke 04 Hoffenheim 48.76% 24.57% 26.68% 36.92%
Stuttgart Dortmund 27.69% 25.32% 46.99% 36.16%
Wolfsburg Hertha 49.12% 24.25% 26.64% 37.10%
Mainz Werder 36.42% 22.90% 40.68% 35.06%
FC Köln Augsburg 52.99% 23.85% 23.16% 39.13%
HSV Kaiserslautern 47.82% 24.72% 27.46% 36.52%
4.18 2.07 2.75 3.61
Average expected determination: 40.13%
The expected fairly high commitment points to a favourites matchday. Apart from Bayern at home, there is little confirmation. It’s just maths, but the value is right.
The fair odds
Note: the fair odds are just the inverse of the probabilities. However, this is how the games are offered on the betting market or traded on the betting exchanges (“betfair”). You can gladly compare what the computer guesses. The deviations will not be enormous, but theoretically every bet is a good bet (from the computer’s point of view) if the odds paid on the market are above the fair odds. “Good” is the bet insofar as it promises long-term profit. If you consistently make bets in this way, you should make a profit in the long run. Of course, there are no guarantees for this either.
Pairing 1 X 2
Freiburg Leverkusen 3.44 4.30 2.09
FC Bayern Nuremberg 1.23 7.89 16.80
Gladbach Hannover 2.21 3.95 3.39
Schalke 04 Hoffenheim 2.05 4.07 3.75
Stuttgart Dortmund 3.61 3.95 2.13
Wolfsburg Hertha 2.04 4.12 3.75
Mainz Werder 2.75 4.37 2.46
FC Cologne Augsburg 1.89 4.19 4.32
HSV Kaiserslautern 2.09 4.05 3.64
Comparison with the betting exchange betfair
(The betting recommendations)
Pairing 1 X 2 % Average
Freiburg Leverkusen 3.75 3.70 2.10 101.31%
FC Bayern Nuremberg 1.19 8.00 20.00 101.53%
Gladbach Hannover 2.10 3.55 3.90 101.43%
Schalke 04 Hoffenheim 1.97 3.60 4.40 101.27%
Stuttgart Dortmund 3.40 3.55 2.26 101.83%
Wolfsburg Hertha 2.18 3.60 3.50 102.22%
Mainz Werder 2.78 3.60 2.65 101.48%
FC Cologne Augsburg 1.96 3.75 4.10 102.08%
HSV Kaiserslautern 1.95 3.65 4.30 101.94%
Goal expectation 2.79
A short comment on the betting recommendations:
You just have to believe in the quality of the bet on Freiburg. Freiburg have been so good in so many games that you can trust them to win in any case. The crowd will be there anyway and you can even imagine that they can determine the game. Leverkusen also play in the Champions League.
Nuremberg in Munich is practically without comment. But at least it’s a derby and Bayern lost before and they play Champions League afterwards. So: unit in the bin, don’t look.
You don’t play against Gladbach, even if it’s Hannover and the computer is minimally guessing.
Hoffenheim is definitely a good bet, a recommended bet. Schalke have shown class, in all games so far, undisputed. But so has Hoffenheim, and after all Schalke lost their last home game (showing vulnerability).
Dortmund in Stuttgart is hardly indicated, but is represented here in any case, despite subsequent royal class appearance: they always have the quality to dominate the game and outplay the opponent. And: Stuttgart have not been convincing lately.
Werder in Mainz is also only minimally shown and they did advertise Mainz here. Nevertheless: Werder has the quality and certainly the will to win the game.
Cologne must be represented against Augsburg anyway, because there must always be good reasons for odds around 2.0. Cologne knows what is at stake and will certainly do everything to win the game.
Lautern in Hamburg can also be signed immediately. HSV were improved, but that was before Fink. They are who they are, but Lautern showed everything they are made of in the last away game at Schalke. Why not do the same in Hamburg? They certainly have nothing to give away, not even in the home debut of the saviour.
2) The 2nd Bundesliga
a. The table situation
b. The chances of promotion
Note: the simulation of League 2 runs exactly like that of League 1. 5000 runs were also made. Third place logically gives a 1/3 chance of promotion, although it might still depend on the pairing. Since the top favourites are ahead here, it could well be 50% that the second division third place team has against the first division third last.
c. Point expectations and discrepancies
d. Evaluation of the 5th second division matchday
e. Preview of the 7th Second League Matchday
