1) The 1st Bundesliga
a. Review of the Matches
Results of Matchday 12
FSV Mainz 05 – VfB Stuttgart 3:1 (0:0)
Borussia Dortmund – VfL Wolfsburg 5:1 (2:0)
- FC Nuremberg – SC Freiburg 1:2 (1:1)
Hertha BSC – Borussia Mönchengladbach 1:2 (1:1)
Werder Bremen – 1. FC Cologne 3:2 (0:2)
TSG Hoffenheim – 1.FC Kaiserslautern 1:1 (1:0)
Bayer Leverkusen – Hamburger SV 2:2 (2:1)
Hannover 96 – FC Schalke 04 2:2 (1:1)
FC Augsburg – FC Bayern München 1:2 (0:2)
A few observations:
Please note – and at the same time condemn the author, who is constantly announcing a growing lack of goals due to increasingly rigid referee interpretations – that all teams managed to score at least one goal. Incidentally, attention was drawn to this because an acquaintance (the landlord of a Croatian restaurant) placed a bet on this happening week after week – and thus regularly had to write a 10 into the wind. When, after Augsburg’s goal in the 59th minute, they immediately took their legs under their arms to set off for the congratulatory cure (sure, yes, they had cunningly calculated in at least one free beer), they had to accept the sobering news on arrival: this week the bet had not been placed. The long dry spell and an attentive, because constantly calculating (also permanent) guest had prevented: “Dit kommt do anyway nie.”
However, the question about the odds to be achieved could not be omitted (which he did not know in concrete terms, as they were probably subject to fluctuations from week to week, depending on the pairings; a shrewd mathematician probably at work, right?) and was answered as follows: “Since Augsburg played Bayern (to think: the last and weakest against the best and first), the odds were certainly 150-fold.”
After all, the surprisingly moderately disappointed – as we have long since discovered, by the way, it is often much more fun for people to tell bad-luck stories, but to tell them repeatedly; after all, you really have something to talk about and earn regret and sympathy, whereas winning through luck tends to attract envy, apart from the sneaky freeloaders; In this case, you pocket the money, keep quiet and just wait for the next unlucky story – the host is promised to calculate the probability of the event “all teams score at least one goal”.
This has now been done (one may be amazed: with very little effort, as the software calculates such things in principle; one only has to multiply a few values in Excel for the exact information). The result is: the chance that each team will score at least one goal is 0.32 %, i.e. a little over 3 per mille (which could cost you much more than your driving licence, if your blood alcohol level is high). In the inverse, one would have to get odds of at least 307 for the bet to be profitable from the computer’s point of view. The conscientious oddsmaker (the idea probably came from Cashpoint) had certainly calculated well, since the unlucky person questioned would only have received 150 times. Nevertheless, if the bet had been placed, he would have had (financial) breathing space for the next 150 match days to wait for the next such event – or alternatively, he would have found out about the calculated chance afterwards and, as a purged man, would have dropped this type of bet and gone on a shopping spree – after feeding the guests with sufficient liquid goods he had provided himself, of course.
Although there was another flood of goals, the criticism of the rule officials (legislative and executive) is not getting any quieter. The official side – which extends to the reporting side — is increasingly seeking (and justifying) interpretations of the rules that are directed against the attackers, against the goal action and thus ultimately against good entertainment, i.e. against the spectators financing the whole thing.
As an example, on Monday evening’s match in League 2 there was the winning goal of the Frankfurt Eintracht shortly before the end, which was as regular as a goal can be – and was also given. However, since the word “wrong decision” almost made the rounds afterwards and was used in all sorts of ways, this gives the whistle blowers the chance to disallow such a goal next time. The fact that in the event of a disallowance, one would not be exposed to annoying questions would probably have a motivating effect. Instead, there is a silly discussion that even allows for the possibility that the “mistake” would have cost the Auers the point (which, by the way, was well deserved). In the opposite case – a goal is disallowed, but in retrospect it is actually considered correct – the coach (perhaps also a spokesperson, in a subordinate sentence) would mention it, but would (have to) immediately add that they would by no means blame the referee and so on, so that he would not be suspected of justifying and glossing over everything with subjectivity. Then, at the latest, it would be forgotten.
Conclusion: the focus is always wrongly placed. The (wrongly) disallowed goal situation would have deserved at least the same attention. If the rethinking had been carried out, one would even understand that the attention could also be higher in the sense of all. The result: spectacle in all places. In the sense of a continuing or increasing flood of goals. Who would deny that a match like this week’s is a great source of joy? Would one worry about reaching a saturation point?
The Kicker, by the way, did not recognise the signs of the times (who would have, except for the eternally typing but presumably detached from reality admonisher?), nor, unfortunately, did coach Schaaf (the truly legitimate successor to Otto Rehhagel, whom the author holds in the highest esteem). Because: both were actually worried (as already partly mentioned here in jest, referring to bored speakers and their presumed consideration for heart patients) about the spectators, spoke of “health hazards” on the occasion of Bremen’s drama with the late winning goal (once again) after trailing 0:2 at the break. So: even if it was supposed to be a joke there (and Schaaf even called for a boring victory for his troop), it cannot completely hide the fact that in football, considerations such as spectator entertainment probably never really take place (how else would it be explained that one has to shell out a pile of dough on the pay channel Sky, How else can it be explained that you have to pay a lot of money for Sky, that you are constantly informed of new, upcoming highlights that are not to be missed under any circumstances, but that when one of the highlights takes place, a sleeping pill is put behind the microphone who, after 20 minutes at the latest, announces that the game is both boring and extremely weak? This can only be explained as follows: Football is watched anyway, according to the naïve and even wrong view, and there is no need to tease out anything special, especially not to care about the entertainment value).
Oh well, the Frankfurt goal described briefly here: the ball bounces back and forth in the penalty area, sometimes touching the attacker’s leg, sometimes the defender’s leg, then reaching Idrissou, who sends the ball past the goalkeeper from the shortest distance, but possibly (even this was not completely clear) before the last touch of the ball is closer to the goal than any defender, so from the position could be offside.
In the discussion, which is now opened in a completely nonsensical manner, the question is asked whether the Frankfurt player touching the ball last gives it a deliberate change of direction with the intention of passing it to Idrissou. In that case, the reporters claim (hence “accused” here also the legislature, since the rule passi are presumably written that way somewhere, because, hard as it is to believe, some of the media representatives are capable of reading), an offside position would be in question, but not if it was just a rebound, they further conclude.
So even if the person approving and writing down the rule had done something sensible with it, on the one hand the referee is always given the opportunity to interpret it that way, but on the other hand, the annoying discussion forces the interpretation downright (!!) the next time it occurs. In the present situation, at any rate, there is no indication that the Frankfurt player would have had any possibility at all of deliberately playing the ball in that direction. It bounces off the shin or somewhere, bounces off at least one other defender’s leg and ends up purely by chance with Mo Idrissou. If he had been offside at all when Frankfurt touched the ball last time.
So the discussion can only be damaging in the sense of future pro-goal decisions. All in all, so many clear goals that were previously beyond discussion have been disallowed recently for the most absurd reasons. For example, there have been several recent examples when direct shots on goal found their way into the net just as directly, but a more than overzealous linesman indicated an offside position of a player whose active intervention – which is supposed to include even the obstruction of vision, completely against the spirit of the game and contrary to earlier interpretation – he cannot even begin to judge – immediately followed by the referee’s whistle, thus providing both with an alibi. “I only indicated the offside position. Whether he intervened is for the man on the whistle to judge.” “I only saw the flag and that’s where I have to interrupt.” Everyone has their alibi, only the neutral fan suffers (because the fan who was the victim of the goal but did not concede it remains silent and the fan who complains about the goal that was correctly scored but conceded is considered biased, as are coaches, managers and players who comment on it or remain silent). If there is to be clarification, then it should not be about such nonsensical, new, partly cryptic and at least freely interpretable paragraphs, but only about who has to pass judgement. As soon as this sole right would again be awarded to the referee, he would at least have the chance again to overlook a wave. “Offside is when the referee blows his whistle”, to interject another bon mot of the almost modern coach (another: “Modern plays who wins”, applicable to the sensational European Championship title of the Greeks in 2004) and, at least in Greece, long since legendary Otto II.
By the way, you can see quite clearly from the players’ reactions how sure they are that they have scored absolutely correct goals. Again at the weekend, a player ran across the entire pitch, already with his shirt off (was that in the Champions League?), and could not be dissuaded from cheering. One can only be so sure when there is actually no doubt (as can be proven in the scene without having to remember it specifically). One must now also take into account these possible consequences, the occurrence of which has already become apparent and has been seen often enough: in itself, it is recognised as disadvantageous that every glance towards the linesman during critical decisions could only animate him to raise the flag after all. So: the pass comes in, you sink the ball directly and start cheering to stop the flag being raised, regardless of whether it was close or less close or even not close to offside at all. This is the conventional and well-tried behaviour (which, incidentally, Maradonna also displayed when he scored his legendary hand-held goal, since any glance at the referee or assistant could only have meant: “I have sinned, did any of you perhaps see it?”). If he had reacted consciously to this guilt, he would have had to allow for the possibility that the English defenders, who had long since protested, would have been proved right after all).
Today, it has long been recognised that there are thousands of possible and impossible reasons for disallowing goals. The possible frustration of being called back from a goal celebration leads to a new reaction, which in itself is a mistake, to look at the assistant again, no matter how sure one is that everything was done right. You simply have to look, even though you had long since gotten out of the habit of this reflex. But in doing so, see the grey past (before Maradonna), you always give the assistant the feeling that something was wrong and thus motivate him again (better: even more, because raising the flag is the actual reflex: “Something must have been wrong. And if not: nothing will happen to me anyway”) to raise the flag.
The fact is that everyone is going in the wrong direction, presumably because, to stay in the picture, they are groping in the dark. Goals are the salt in the soup, There are currently many things that suggest that the attackers are nevertheless always coming up with new ways of overcoming a defence, even standards are increasingly part of it, which often seem perfectly rehearsed. It is also possible that the perfection of the pitch conditions, which always favour the attackers, contributes to this, but it is also quite possible that the technical class of the players is getting better and better, so that the offensive gets more and more possibilities, while defensive play can no longer be improved from a certain level of perfection, so that these effects counteract the clamminess of the referees and the goal average is maintained over the years. Because it is clear that goals are constantly being disallowed that would not have been remotely discussed in the past. Penalties are also awarded very rarely and, in contrast to the past (when it was often not even recorded by cameras), there is much less of a wrong decision per attacker when it comes to offside decisions. So how should the goal average have been maintained?
Imagine now that the rethink took hold. How many more goals would there be to see, how many more dramatic games, in terms of goal sequence and outcome, how much more often would people jump out of their chairs with excitement, how many more fans could be attracted by this spectacle? And not a single rule change is called for or would be required. “The rules say if there’s a foul in the penalty area it’s a penalty, so I gave one, even if it was just a slight push.” And the next ref would do the same. The consequence? Not 10 penalties per game, but restrained defenders who dutifully keep their arms to their bodies (and don’t shimmy around like handball goalkeepers and get absolution when the ball bounces against their outstretched arms: “No, from a distance, it won’t get away at all. “; flimsy, wrong, stray), thus bothering neither the ball nor the opponent, in the knowledge that breaches of the rules will inevitably be punished and that a penalty would always create a more dangerous goal situation than a hold, a tug, a pull or a handball could prevent. We might even see attackers winning headers after corner kicks and not be constantly frustrated with stopping actions: “Striker’s foul. He must have seen something.” Nobody saw anything and certainly nothing against the rules, but if they did, then by no means anything more against the rules by the attacker than the defender.
And when it comes to offside decisions, one would no longer have to deal with the annoying and constant anticlimax that “play has long since been stopped”, whereby about 50% of the time it turns out afterwards that the flag went up wrongly, but the man on the line (especially today this becomes a particular annoyance due to the dullness of the person diagnosing) is showered with praise in the other 50%: “Great eye from the assistant, that was millimetre work and hard to see, but he was right, great compliment!” In fact, this is constantly being awarded at the moment, but the organ grinder with the unbearably monotone voice seems to have forgotten that only three minutes earlier he was wrong with the very same decision (flag up, flag always up).
Goals, goals, goals and a really spicy (and by no means oversalted) soup, of course anything but “one-size-fits-all”. How many goals would it have to be before people turned away? This would have to be found out experimentally, but the worry is quite small (and would a FIFA official even foresee it, fear it, use it as an argument?) that one would hear this dialogue: “Are you coming to the football? I got two tickets, Hertha vs Dortmund, tonight.” “Football? No, football is no fun, goals are scored all the time. It used to be much better. It was always 0-0 and when a goal was scored, you knew who’d win.”
b. The standings
Sp S U N Pkt T GT Diff1 FC Bayern Munich 12 9 1 2 28 32 – 4 +28
2 Borussia Dortmund 12 7 2 3 23 26 – 9 +17
3 Werder Bremen 12 7 2 3 23 23 – 16 +7
4 Borussia Mönchengladbach 12 7 2 3 23 15 – 9 +6
5 FC Schalke 04 12 7 1 4 22 24 – 18 +6
6 Hannover 96 12 5 4 3 19 16 – 17 -1
7 VfB Stuttgart 12 5 3 4 18 18 – 12 +6
8 Bayer Leverkusen 12 5 3 4 18 15 – 16 -1
9 TSG Hoffenheim 12 5 2 5 17 15 – 13 +2
10 Hertha BSC 12 4 4 16 16 – 17 -1
11 1.FC Köln 12 5 1 6 16 20 – 26 -6
12 1.FC Kaiserslautern 12 3 4 5 13 10 – 15 -5
13 VfL Wolfsburg 12 4 1 7 13 15 – 25 -10
14 FSV Mainz 05 12 3 3 6 12 16 – 23 -7
15 1.FC Nürnberg 12 3 3 6 12 13 – 20 -7
16 Hamburger SV 12 2 4 6 10 15 – 25 -10
17 SC Freiburg 12 3 1 8 10 16 – 27 -11
18 FC Augsburg 12 1 5 6 8 9 – 22 -13
314 314 0
Total number of games 108
Goals ø 2.91
As announced, the check is carried out from time to time: two points per game: title candidate, less than one point per game: relegated. Bayern has 28 points in 12, almost 2.2 per game, but 24 (exactly 2 per game) would have been enough for first place. Dortmund is “title contender” with just under that, in unpleasantly-unschön German: “Bayernjäger Nummer 1.” Who had doubts when? Although the reporters would have the excuse of wanting to create suspense (which they are demonstrably not interested in – watch and above all listen to just one game): only they had any, whereas the betting market never had any with stoic composure (and neither did the computer). It is not, however, that one now believed that this would last forever. It is rather a stocktaking. What tomorrow will bring? No, no one would know less than the author here. There is a probability for it and a probability for it. Now and then a small one occurs, less often an even smaller one, and more often a larger one. The bigger, the more frequent. Without any guarantees, not even regarding the calculation of the size.
At the back it looks like this: Augsburg with 8 in 12, i.e. 0.667 per game, almost beaten, and also Freiburg and HSV with 10 in 12 each under one per game and thus in relegation and relegation places. Above them, Nuremberg, with exactly one per game, is in a relegation spot. So: the rule of thumb works quite reliably.
c. The title question
Explanation: these figures are the result of a computer simulation, which is 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 probabilities1 FC Bayern Munich 4101 82.02% 1.22
2 Borussia Dortmund 766 15.32% 6.53
3 FC Schalke 04 52 1.04% 96.15
4 Werder Bremen 34 0.68% 147.06
5 Bayer Leverkusen 20 0.40% 250.00
6 Borussia Mönchengladbach 16 0.32% 312.50
7 VfB Stuttgart 3 0.06% 1666.67
8 Hannover 96 3 0.06% 1666.67
9 TSG Hoffenheim 3 0.06% 1666.67
10 Hertha BSC 2 0.04% 2500.00
5000 100.00%
The number of serious contenders is reducing. Already over 97% to the two heavyweights. Whereby it should be noted that before the end of the first round, there is no way that even a single applicant (in this case: participant in the competition) would actually have 0%, even if the chance were far below 1/5000 (and thus would not occur in the simulation). The simple reasoning, which is tantamount to a mathematical proof: in the second round, one could simply reverse all the results of the first round and occasionally give the last-placed team at the end of the first round one more goal. Then they would be guaranteed winners, apart from the fact that there would of course be completely different ways of doing this in practice, so this would still be possible even with 17 first-leg defeats by one team compared to 17 victories by another team.
This is only mentioned here because the following absurd words were once again heard (although comparable information is usually reliable, as it is usually copied from other foreign sports journalists who are capable of calculating and thinking) from the reporter’s (German-speaking) mouth: “Unique, and no team has ever managed that before: Sporting Lisbon is already one round further in the Euroleague group stage after only three games.” This caused far more than astonishment. Sporting had won all three games, sure, but in a group of four this is exactly the three games against each opponent once. Now what if you reversed all the results and attributed one more goal to an opponent? Surely it can’t be? How did the man come to make that statement?
Changes in chances compared to the previous week due to the results of matchday 12
Team Win/loss absolute compared to previous matchday Win/loss percentage1 Borussia Dortmund 203 4.06%
2 Borussia Mönchengladbach 4 0.08%
3 TSG Hoffenheim 2 0.04%
12 Hertha BSC -1 -0.02%
13 Hannover 96 -8 -0.16%
14 Werder Bremen -8 -0.16%
15 FC Schalke 04 -14 -0.28%
16 VfB Stuttgart -15 -0.30%
17 Bayer Leverkusen -19 -0.38%
18 FC Bayern Munich -144 -2.88%
0 0.00%
Of course, it is much more interesting to ask whether Bayern can lose chances with continued victories. Question answered: yes, they can. Even with 2.88% quite a lot. But the reasoning is obvious: the computer takes into account (for good reason, as you like to add) the level of the result, and, even more obviously, the level of the hurdle overcome, if it will. Bayern took the hurdle of Augsburg, if you like, by (legally) bumping into it, but Dortmund took the somewhat higher hurdle of Wolfsburg rather with bravura. The bravura has a measurable character here, as does the knock-on effect: Bayern’s playing strength suffered slightly, while Dortmund’s got a boost. Who would now dare to claim that this was unjustified? One remembers very well last season, when Dortmund went to Munich with a proud chest and took away far more than just the points (the honour, too?) with a fantastic 3:1. Why shouldn’t they be trusted to do it again now? Yes, sure, it’s all a question of probability…. No real statements are necessary. A “confidence” is expressed in numbers expressed much further down in the succinct, if rather compact, answer like this: Dortmund wins by 19.87%. Any more questions? Funny, this mathematics… Actually, the only question that remains is: who believes in more than this, who believes in less? Let’s have a look at the betting market. If those believe in less (the intelligent masses), then betting, out of reverence for mathematics.
d. The title odds as they develop
Yes, kind of exciting to see how it develops. To 74.77%, though, there will be a more formidable jag after the weekend (namely, whenever the 25.23% for the draw doesn’t materialise). After all, this is a six-point game. Who would benefit more from a draw? Probably Dortmund, even though they are kept at a distance? In view of the ambiguity of the (untested, let’s see what happens in practice, maybe it will be a draw?) statement, please bear in mind that although a draw would be a favourable result for Dortmund, since they are underdogs, it would, for example, inevitably destroy all remaining chances of winning the title two matchdays before the end, when they are also 5 points behind.
e. Comparison of title chances with the betting exchange betfair
Back Lay Probability (Back)FC Bayern Munich 1.21 1.22 82.64%
Borussia Dortmund 9.2 11 10.87%
Bayer Leverkusen 55 70 1.82%
VfL Wolfsburg 250 780 0.40%
Hannover 96 200 350 0.50%
Werder Bremen 100 160 1.00%
FC Schalke 04 30 36 3.33%
Hamburger SV 1000 0.10%
VfB Stuttgart 150 290 0.67%
FSV Mainz 05 1000 0.10%
Borussia Mönchengladbach 190 290 0.53%
TSG Hoffenheim 160 300 0.63%
1.FC Nuremberg 1000 0.10%
1.FC Cologne 230 1000 0.43%
SC Freiburg 1000 0.10%
Hertha BSC 600 0.17%
1.FC Kaiserslautern 1000 0.10%
FC Augsburg 1000 0.10%
103.59%
For the moment, the computer decides quite clearly in favour of Dortmund: one would get a 9.2, while the fair price is 6.53. Well, if not now, then when, if not here, tell me where and when? In any case, it is not due to a Bayern misjudgement that one should play Dortmund, because the market and the computer have them identically.
The changes in the odds estimates at betfair
Change(Back)FC Bayern Munich 0.00%
Borussia Dortmund 2.29%
Bayer Leverkusen -0.64%
VfL Wolfsburg -0.20%
Hannover 96 0.75%
Werder Bremen 0.54%
FC Schalke 04 -0.39%
Hamburger SV 0.00%
VfB Stuttgart -0.35%
FSV Mainz 05 0.00%
Borussia Mönchengladbach 0.38%
TSG Hoffenheim -0.20%
1.FC Nuremberg 0.00%
1.FC Cologne -0.31%
SC Freiburg 0.00%
Hertha BSC -0.06%
1.FC Kaiserslautern 0.00%
FC Augsburg 0.00%
1.82%
(The order according to the original estimates of the ranking).
It looks like this is not the first time that the masses (if there is any trading at all here; it would always be about the amount of possible stakes at the odds offered) have reacted more moderately to a result level. The computer, at any rate, sees the odds as having grown more – but one also feels that Dortmund, especially thanks to the 5:1 compared to Bayern’s stuttering victory with only 4 goal-scoring chances, now has a chance in Munich, that they are back in full force and that even the kicker went over to raving?
f. Direct Champions League qualification via 2nd place
The probability distribution for 2nd place after matchday 11
Team Number of 2nd places in 5000 simulations 2nd places in per cent1 Borussia Dortmund 2810 56.20%
2 FC Bayern Munich 720 14.40%
3 FC Schalke 04 491 9.82%
4 Werder Bremen 340 6.80%
5 Borussia Mönchengladbach 237 4.74%
6 Bayer Leverkusen 172 3.44%
7 Hannover 96 94 1.88%
8 VfB Stuttgart 68 1.36%
9 TSG Hoffenheim 42 0.84%
10 Hertha BSC 16 0.32%
11 FSV Mainz 05 4 0.08%
12 1.FC Cologne 3 0.06%
13 VfL Wolfsburg 2 0.04%
14 1.FC Kaiserslautern 1 0.02%
5000 100.00%
Well, it’s not really exciting, although more teams have their chances here.
The changes compared to the previous week:
Team win/loss absolute compared to previous matchday Win/loss percentage.1 Borussia Dortmund 234 4.68%
2 FC Bayern Munich 149 2.98%
3 Werder Bremen 63 1.26%
4 Borussia Mönchengladbach 60 1.20%
5 FSV Mainz 05 2 0.04%
6 1.FC Kaiserslautern 0 0.00%
7 FC Augsburg 0 0.00%
8 Hamburger SV 0 0.00%
9 SC Freiburg 0 0.00%
10 1.FC Köln -7 -0.14%
11 1.FC Nuremberg -7 -0.14%
12 VfL Wolfsburg -16 -0.32%
13 Hertha BSC -29 -0.58%
14 TSG Hoffenheim -46 -0.92%
15 Hannover 96 -50 -1.00%
16 FC Schalke 04 -70 -1.40%
17 VfB Stuttgart -120 -2.40%
18 Bayer Leverkusen -163 -3.26%
0 0.00%
Dortmund is gaining, clearly because they are keeping their rivals at a distance – after all, the goal difference counts and they have improved this in combination with their playing strength. Bayern also gains, which is logical since they have lost their chances of winning the title. Leverkusen, Dortmund’s original main rival – and by some distance – of course with maximum loss, although a 2:2 is not even a defeat.
g. The relegation question
The distribution of relegation percentages
Note: There would also be a detailed breakdown across 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 another 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 68.50% 3.84% 72.34%
2 SC Freiburg 37.68% 5.22% 42.90%
3 Hamburger SV 21.70% 4.72% 26.42%
4 1.FC Nürnberg 19.30% 4.65% 23.95%
5 1.FC Kaiserslautern 19.00% 4.59% 23.59%
6 FSV Mainz 05 12.16% 2.97% 15.13%
7 1.FC Köln 7.88% 2.53% 10.41%
8 VfL Wolfsburg 8.04% 2.14% 10.18%
9 Hertha BSC 2.92% 1.18% 4.10%
10 TSG Hoffenheim 1.26% 0.59% 1.85%
11 VfB Stuttgart 0.74% 0.29% 1.03%
12 Hannover 96 0.44% 0.31% 0.75%
13 Bayer Leverkusen 0.20% 0.13% 0.33%
14 Borussia Mönchengladbach 0.08% 0.06% 0.14%
15 FC Schalke 04 0.08% 0.05% 0.13%
16 Werder Bremen 0.02% 0.06% 0.08%
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%
Augsburg are quite clearly ahead at first, even though their performance against Bayern was certainly more than ok, they had a huge chance to equalise (and 4:4 chances in general), which Neuer thwarted with a brilliant save. Freiburg, despite the last-minute victory, is candidate number 2. Well, the others also scored (except Nuremberg).
The change in chances due to the results of matchday 12 with regard to relegation
Team Change in chances1 SC Freiburg 11.49%
2 FSV Mainz 05 9.19%
3 Hamburger SV 1.33%
4 1.FC Kaiserslautern 0.75%
5 Borussia Mönchengladbach 0.35%
6 Werder Bremen 0.12%
7 Hannover 96 0.02%
8 Borussia Dortmund 0.00%
9 FC Bayern Munich 0.00%
10 FC Schalke 04 -0.06%
11 Bayer Leverkusen -0.08%
12 TSG Hoffenheim -0.51%
13 VfB Stuttgart -0.67%
14 Hertha BSC -2.06%
15 1.FC Cologne -2.76%
16 FC Augsburg -3.21%
17 VfL Wolfsburg -4.69%
18 1.FC Nuremberg -9.23%
0.00%
Freiburg nevertheless the big winner. Sure, Nürnberg was the better team at home against Freiburg, but it was only nuances. You had the feeling with every Freiburg advance that they could score a goal, especially thanks to the agility – coupled with technical perfection – of the two dark-skinned (what word can you even use for that?) players. How discriminatory is the word “white”?) attackers Cissé and Makiadi, who actually lack better protection by the referees from time to time – possibly and a suspicion long observed but hardly daring to express – perhaps even because of the colour of their skin? In any case, such a player really must not allow himself much, also in terms of complaints. The two of them always stand up quite well after fouls and hope that they might get a free kick (while a local would perhaps already in the act of falling indicate the irregularity committed against him with an indignant exclamation, and once on the ground would also demand a yellow. This, quite seriously, the foreigner with the complementary skin colour could never allow himself – and would perhaps not even consider it for {advantageous} character reasons).
h. The descent question in development
Every single curve has its movements. Augsburg recently went upwards again, i.e. in the direction they did not want to go, while Freiburg’s incision is clearly visible. Lautern with a constant downward movement of late. HSV also moved slightly downwards, although Finke’s three draws are not really convincing (main reason: the unpleasant and long since reprimanded three-point rule). Nevertheless, it has been ok so far in terms of avoiding relegation that the situation has improved somewhat. “The rest” fluctuates very constantly. This time Mainz, which is included there, scored a win and thus ensured a downturn.
i. The point expectations and the deviations
Explanation: for each match, 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 victory * 3 points + probability of draw * 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 16.07 23 6.93 6.93
2 FC Schalke 04 18.17 22 3.83 3.83
3 Werder Bremen 19.18 23 3.82 3.82
4 1.FC Köln 13.52 16 2.48 2.48
5 Hannover 96 17.01 19 1.99 1.99
6 FC Bayern Munich 26.41 28 1.59 1.59
7 TSG Hoffenheim 15.51 17 1.49 1.49
8 Hertha BSC 14.60 16 1.40 1.40
9 VfB Stuttgart 17.56 18 0.44 0.44
10 1.FC Kaiserslautern 12.99 13 0.01 0.01
11 Borussia Dortmund 23.72 23 -0.72 0.72
12 Bayer Leverkusen 19.21 18 -1.21 1.21
13 1.FC Nürnberg 14.46 12 -2.46 2.46
14 FC Augsburg 11.14 8 -3.14 3.14
15 SC Freiburg 13.22 10 -3.22 3.22
16 VfL Wolfsburg 16.29 13 -3.29 3.29
17 Hamburger SV 13.98 10 -3.98 3.98
18 FSV Mainz 05 16.26 12 -4.26 4.26
1.69 46.28
ø Deviation 2.57Gladbach are simply the surprise team, as much as we like to remember giving them special praise from matchday 1, especially the renewed double goal scorer Marco Reus. Once again, both goals were absolutely top-notch and the rumour mill has been bubbling for a long time about when he will join Bayern. Well, you have to pat yourself on the back again.
Nevertheless, one should look for the fly in the ointment. This is: if one had supposedly foreseen the qualities so well, couldn’t this have been reflected in the expectations? In other words, Gladbach’s playing strength could have been assessed in advance on the basis of the observations made – and repeatedly noted every week – in such a way that their expectations would have been much closer to the results achieved, so that the surprise reported here would not have been so great?
After all, as a counter-argument: quite a few times one could still increase the money with the assessment, since the market foresaw this point yield even less than the computer. So: from the market’s point of view, the surprise would have been even bigger. Schalke, Werder, Cologne and Hannover are all still ahead of Bayern, which only underlines the fact that Bayern’s gigantic haul was almost expected of them, so there was no mistake in the assessment. The others are just small surprises, but even bigger than Bayern’s, surprises that are both moderate and will never fail to materialise – positively and negatively.
Mainz remain at the bottom, despite their victory, while Freiburg, previously 17th, have moved up to 15th place.
The international comparison for the average point difference
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 don’t know their business very well)
Rank Country League 1 ø Goal difference Change from previous week Number of games
1 Germany, 2.BL 5.16 0.18 126
2 France 1 3.32 -0.36 130
3 England 1 3.20 0.19 109
4 Italy 1 2.85 0.02 98
5 Spain 1 2.59 0.18 110
6 Germany, 1.BL 2.57 -0.18 108
Here is proof that the deviations in League 1 are currently very moderate. One has taken the last place in this category of surprises. The 2nd league is sovereignly in 1st place, which only gives the hint that actually in all top leagues the standings are sorted quite normally this season. You can even see from the minor changes (even with two negative values) that there is not so much exciting going on in terms of upside down tables at the moment.
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 26.53 32 10.29 4 11.75
2 Borussia Mönchengladbach 16.22 15 17.49 9 7.27
3 Borussia Dortmund 21.21 26 10.30 9 6.08
4 VfB Stuttgart 18.77 18 17.23 12 4.46
5 TSG Hoffenheim 15.74 15 17.35 13 3.61
6 FC Schalke 04 17.48 24 14.98 18 3.50
7 Werder Bremen 20.35 23 16.19 16 2.84
8 Hertha BSC 15.42 16 18.92 17 2.50
9 1.FC Kaiserslautern 13.89 10 19.37 15 0.48
10 1.FC Köln 15.83 20 21.27 26 -0.56
11 Hannover 96 16.81 16.07 17 -1.74
12 1.FC Nuremberg 14.45 13 18.05 20 -3.39
13 FC Augsburg 10.94 9 18.96 22 -4.98
14 Bayer Leverkusen 19.36 15 15.38 16 -4.98
15 SC Freiburg 14.61 16 20.21 27 -5.40
16 Hamburger SV 15.61 15 20.14 25 -5.48
17 FSV Mainz 05 16.56 16 16.99 23 -6.57
18 VfL Wolfsburg 16.12 15 16.72 25 -9.40
305.89 314 305.89 314 0.00
Goals ø expected: Goals ø scored: ø Deviation 4.72
2.83 2.91 Bayern remain in front, Gladbach behind, but the other Borussia from Dortmund, which was supposed to have a crisis at the beginning of the season (while they supposedly had one in the Champions League, where they merely did not get the reward for their good first performances, but now had a very unconvincing, actually lucky victory against Olympiakos – and the crisis is over already?!). At the back now the VfL from Wolfsburg, the one suffering from Dortmund’s gala, but otherwise never quite playing up to expectations.
The international comparison for the average goal difference
(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 expectations, 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 7.61 -0.14 126
2 Germany, 1.BL 4.72 -0.07 108
3 England 1 4.60 0.19 109
4 Spain 1 3.58 0.53 110
5 France 1 3.47 -0.04 130
6 Italy 1 3.01 -0.19 98
The 2nd division is also ahead internationally here. That the values do not have to go hand in hand is shown by the example of League 1: there were not so many surprises in the tendencies, but there were surprises in the level of the results (and thus their deviation from the expectation). So there was a lot of life in it, although quite often the designated favourite prevailed.
k. The strength of play 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 2.23 0.81 2.75 -0.05 +0
2 Borussia Dortmund 1.86 0.83 2.24 +0.09 +0
3 FC Schalke 04 1.54 1.24 -0.00 +1
4 Bayer Leverkusen 1.56 1.29 1.21 -0.04 -1
5 Werder Bremen 1.65 1.47 1.13 -0.01 +0
6 VfB Stuttgart 1.56 1.47 1.07 -0.05 +0
7 Borussia Möncheng 1.34 1.29 1.03 +0.04 +1
8 Hannover 96 1.43 1.40 1.02 -0.01 -1
9 TSG Hoffenheim 1.34 1.36 0.98 -0.01 +0
10 Hertha BSC 1.36 1.48 0.92 -0.03 +0
11 VfL Wolfsburg 1.40 1.56 0.90 -0.05 +0
12 FSV Mainz 05 1.37 1.61 0.85 +0.04 +0
13 1.FC Köln 1.45 1.85 0.79 +0.00 +0
14 Hamburger SV 1.27 1.65 0.77 +0.02 +1
15 1.FC Nürnberg 1.17 1.57 0.75 -0.03 -1
16 1.FC Kaiserslautern 1.08 1.51 0.72 +0.02 +0
17 SC Freiburg 1.21 1.73 0.70 +0.03 +0
18 FC Augsburg 0.89 1.59 0.56 +0.02 +0
25.70 25.69 +0
Goals ø expected
2.85 Bayern’s 2:1 was below expectation, so they forfeit. Dortmund with a clear gain, Wolfsburg with a smaller loss than Dortmund’s gain (which always has to do with the fact that they are quotients and sometimes the smaller changed value is in the denominator, sometimes in the numerator). Otherwise one would have to ask: doesn’t Gladbach belong even higher? Maybe ahead of Stuttgart, maybe ahead of Leverkusen? The temporary performances may support this view, the computer trusts a little more in potential (although even this is perceived to be less important nowadays, as everyone has been working with mental coaches for a long time, who constantly try – perhaps successfully – to shift performance limits and strengthen the belief in performance). Augsburg is lagging behind, while the rest is even moving closer together.
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 tendency is similar this season.
2010/2011 season
Country Matches Compensation 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
Total 2132 991 337 270 1598 0.750
Season 2011/2012
Country Matches Equalisation Home Leading Goals Away Leading Goals Total per Match
1 1st Bundesliga 108 59 23 17 99 0.917
2 France 130 69 16 13 98 0.754
3 2nd Bundesliga 126 56 19 16 91 0.722
4 Italy 98 41 13 67 0.684
5 Spain 110 45 18 9 72 0.655
6 England 109 42 11 14 67 0.615
Total balance 681 312 100 82 494 0.725
Well, in this measurable tension category the 1st division is again clearly ahead, even with a higher value than last year. This suggests that other outcomes were also possible (and that the small point deviations were thus rather coincidental), because if you want to win, you have to lead at least at some point. And this is something that outsiders have achieved sufficiently often.
The 2nd division does not even have 2 and the rest also keep a proper distance. In the overall balance, too, the value is below that of last season.
Balance of tendency changes from last week:
Instead of listing the changes of tendency, a small table with the changes of tendency of the past weekend will be included here from now on.
Country Matches Equalisation Home Leading Goals Away Leading Goals Total per Match
1st Bundesliga 9 8 3 2 13 1,444
England 10 4 2 8 0,800
2nd Bundesliga 9 8 3 3 14 1,556
Italy 8 0 0 0 0,000
France 10 6 2 0 8 0,800
Spain 10 7 4 1 12 1,200
Balance from WE 56 33 14 8 55 0.982
Maximum drama in the 1st Bundesliga. 13 changes of tendency are an outstanding value and the spectator – who hasn’t felt that way? – appreciates that. For the international appearances, the possible tactical deficiency cannot really worry at the moment. The league is good and can currently keep up well internationally, even with the very big leagues, although surely this season it is the two Spaniards Barca and Real who should really be ahead by a wide margin. The rest of Europe – including England – seems to be within striking distance (which the next duels could show).
An even higher value – and thus the record for the time being – was achieved by the 2nd division, so that one can confidently say: there is something going on here on the football fields. It’s worth watching, but please always bear in mind: never switch on the sound, then the joy is gone after two minutes at the latest (and the first captured “serious mistake by…” and the soon following “a very weak game”, all delivered in a tone that destroys everything anyway).
m. The mathematical review of the results of matchday 12.
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 DeviationMainz Stuttgart 1.49 1.65 3.14 3 1 1.51 -0.65
Dortmund Wolfsburg 2.20 0.70 2.90 5 1 2.80 0.30
Nuremberg Freiburg 1.81 1.17 2.98 1 2 -0.81 0.83
Hertha Gladbach 1.37 1.05 2.42 1 2 -0.37 0.95
Werder FC Cologne 2.52 1.33 3.85 3 2 0.48 0.67
Hoffenheim Kaiserslautern 1.60 0.87 2.47 1 1 -0.60 0.13
Leverkusen HSV 2.04 0.97 3.00 2 2 -0.04 1.03
Hannover Schalke 04 1.42 1.27 2.68 2 2 0.58 0.73
Augsburg FC Bayern 0.53 2.19 2.72 1 2 0.47 -0.19
14.98 11.18 26.16 19 15 4.02 3.82
Expected Goal Total Expected Goal Average Scored Goal Average
26.16 2.91 3.78 ø expected goal difference 1.89 ø goal difference 1.46
Well, 26.16 goals expected, 34 scored. A rather clear deviation upwards, but this did not affect the average goal deviation, which remained very small at 1.46, far smaller than expected. This value now means that despite the many goals, there were no major deviations in the individual goal balances. Almost all teams deviated from the expectation by less than one goal – mostly upwards. Dortmund scored 2.8 goals too many and Mainz 1.51, only HSV with 1.03 still just over one goal, also too many, the rest under one. That gives this result, which is remarkable in any case (since normally too many goals favour a higher average goal difference).
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
Mainz Stuttgart 35.21% 22.74% 42.05% 35.25%
Dortmund Wolfsburg 71.93% 17.59% 10.48% 55.93%
Nuremberg Freiburg 52.89% 22.39% 24.72% 39.10%
Hertha Gladbach 44.76% 26.23% 29.01% 35.33%
Werder FC Cologne 63.61% 17.72% 18.67% 47.09%
Hoffenheim Kaiserslautern 54.93% 24.49% 20.59% 40.40%
Leverkusen HSV 62.46% 20.31% 17.23% 46.10%
Hanover Schalke 04 41.10% 24.81% 34.09% 34.67%
Augsburg FC Bayern 7.61% 16.63% 75.76% 60.74%
4.35 1.93 2.73 3.95
average expected fixing: 43.85%To repeat only above the expected numbers given in last week’s text.
The determination arrived Pairing 1 X 2 Tendency
Mainz Stuttgart 35.21% 22.74% 42.05% 1 35.21%
Dortmund Wolfsburg 71.93% 17.59% 10.48% 1 71.93%
Nuremberg Freiburg 52.89% 22.39% 24.72% 2 24.72%
Hertha Gladbach 44.76% 26.23% 29.01% 2 29.01%
Werder FC Cologne 63.61% 17.72% 18.67% 1 63.61%
Hoffenheim Kaiserslautern 54.93% 24.49% 20.59% 0 24.49%
Leverkusen HSV 62.46% 20.31% 17.23% 0 20.31%
Hanover Schalke 04 41.10% 24.81% 34.09% 0 24.81%
Augsburg FC Bayern 7.61% 16.63% 75.76% 2 75.76%
3 3 3 3.70
average determination arrived at: 41.09%This result is also surprising from a mathematician’s point of view: since the average goal deviation is so low, surely most of the favourite events should have occurred? Well, there is an explanation for this as well: the first, that two of the outsider results were achieved with very moderate deviations (respectively the 2:1 away wins of Freiburg and Gladbach, and a 2:1 is always halfway to expectations), and even more so the three draws, which are small in terms of chance, but likewise in terms of deviation. So: despite the pacemakers’ favourites winning with over 70% chance, the average arrived down at 41.09% is below the expected one of 43.85%. Apart from the three main favourites – including Werder – there was not a single favourite event, the goal deviations nevertheless very small thanks to the closeness of the results (two times 2:1 and three times draw). All insightful?
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 guaranteed to be nothing new.
o. League statistics
Note: such a statistic is regularly produced by 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
108 50 23 35 185 129 1.178
Statistics of expected results Matches Home wins Draws Away wins Goals Conceded Home advantage
108 50.16 24.68 33.15 173.5 132.3 1.135
Statistics of absolute deviations Matches Home wins Draws Away wins Goals Conceded Home advantage
0 -0.16 -1.68 1.85 11.5 -3.3 0.04362
Percentage difference statisticsMatches Home wins Draws Away wins Goals conceded Home advantage
0 -0.32% -7.30% 5.29% 6.22% -2.56% 3.70%
Determination expected Determination arrived
40.22% 40.28%
ø Goal difference ø Goal difference expected
1.87 1.88 The home wins were almost exactly hit, also the deviation in the draws decreased in the last weeks and is now only at a measly 1.68 below expectation. Logically, the away wins have also been pretty well hit. Only in the case of goals are there somewhat larger deviations, which have resulted from the sometimes very high home victories – such as Dortmund’s last 5:1 against Wolfsburg.
The deviation between the number of goals scored and the number expected is very small, as is the goal deviation – where the expected value was even undercut, which is not possible in the long term. One must always bear in mind that the expectation could only be achieved if every assessment of the match outcome were correct (which is not possible), otherwise one must reckon with deviations that would not come about by chance in the long term (in this case, coincidence would be the only possible goal), but only due to misjudgements (which would also inevitably occur; just consider that the computer gives Dortmund 19. 87% to win and they have exactly 19.87%; that cannot be, even for the best philosopher and mathematician; but, not enough, that would have to apply to every game and, moreover, to every individual result on which the goal difference is based; no, that is impossible; there must be a difference and the size of the difference would measure the quality of the assessments, which is also how the number was intended).
p. Review of the betting recommendations
More explosive, however, is always this question: which bets should/must have occurred according to the computer? Where would it have messed with the betting market? And: if he messes with it, with the great mass intelligence, does he have good reasons for doing so? 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
Mainz Stuttgart 2.84 3.50 2.72
Dortmund Wolfsburg 1.36 5.30 11.00
Nuremberg Freiburg 1.80 3.90 5.00
Hertha Gladbach 2.26 3.55 3.40
Werder FC Cologne 1.54 4.50 7.20
Hoffenheim Kaiserslautern 1.75 3.85 5.50
Leverkusen HSV 1.71 4.10 5.50
Hannover Schalke 04 2.92 3.50 2.64
Augsburg FC Bayern 20.00 7.00 1.22
Goals scored 2.07
Goals scored 1
Money evaluation -2.00
Well, the -2.00 units are of course a miserable result. Nevertheless, we may go into a little detail at this point: it is certain that the Freiburg victory in the last second could have been missed (and almost was), but the fact remains, when watching the game, that it was an excellent bet. The kicker counted 5:5 chances, and even if one saw Nuremberg rather slightly ahead, the odds of 5.00 achieved remain a gift, of course. It could hardly be better. However, for the sake of objectivity, we should not omit to point out the fortunate circumstances of the realisation of the good bet.
Stuttgart was also quite ok, although Mainz was really strong. Here, too, the kicker comes up with a balanced ratio of 7:7, but that only made the bet borderline in that case, because of the very slight favourite odds one got (only) of 2.72.
It is not worth saying much about the bet on Wolfsburg. The fact remains that the team has hardly been able to fulfil the expectations (which were attributed to them here) in any game so far. So is this a misjudgement overall? It almost looks like it.
On the other hand, you can hardly get much closer to a win than Cologne did. Going into the dressing room with a 2-0 lead is quite a cushion. The sending off and Werder’s actual comeback (which really does have a certain tradition in Bremen) saw them still carry off the victory. Nevertheless, one would immediately make the bet again, since a week ago particular reference was made to the outstanding abilities of Lukas Podolski and he actually had his feet in the game once again with both goals.
Leverkusen also took a 2:0 lead and played excellent football. Of course, they were much closer to scoring than Cologne, as they were favourites going into the game and had the home advantage. The 1:2 really came out of nowhere, after that there was a break in Leverkusen’s game. The bet was good, even if one would have liked to see a little more substance from the home side, especially not a collapse after conceding an unexpected goal.
Hannover’s victory was also very much within the realm of possibility, as they had been in the lead twice. According to Kicker, the chance ratio is also balanced, so with odds of over 2.9, it is definitely a good bet.
There’s not much to say about Augsburg, but anyone who creates 4:4 chances against Bayern – regardless of whether they came after falling behind – has to justify 20.0. Neuer’s brilliant performance on the last chance did the rest to justify the bet, especially as the possible equaliser would certainly have been followed by some more playing time.
All in all, the reward failed to materialise once again, so that the balances are gradually coming closer to expectations. After all, Cologne, Leverkusen and Hannover were three of the teams bet on, two of them even by two goals. At this point, we can only assure you that you can never have enough luck in this respect, because the unlucky days always come at some point. So it would have been easy to save these leads over time.
Recommended bets Statistics of the individual match days
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
Another red number. Not pleasing, of course, but enough about that.
Statistics in total
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
The first time hit yield is below expectation. As the overall balance with +13.45 is still very positive, it is proven: too many of the high odds come (like last time again only the Freiburg win for 5.00), the small ones stay away too often. Let’s see what happens next.
q. The preview of the 13th matchday
Note: The computer uses a specially developed – of course explainable and highly logical – algorithm to calculate the goal expectations (and the individually maintained home advantage not shown here) to these goal expectations. 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 TotalKaiserslautern Leverkusen 1.15 1.44 2.59
Gladbach Werder 1.57 1.31 2.88
Schalke 04 Nuremberg 1.90 0.86 2.77
FC Cologne Mainz 1.73 1.47 3.20
Freiburg Hertha 1.40 1.39 2.79
Wolfsburg Hannover 1.52 1.25 2.77
FC Bayern Dortmund 1.54 0.81 2.35
Stuttgart Augsburg 1.93 0.78 2.71
HSV Hoffenheim 1.42 1.35 2.76
14.18 10.66 24.83
Expected goal total Expected goal average
24.83 2.76 Note: The determination 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
Kaiserslautern Leverkusen 30.33% 25.32% 44.35% 35.28%
Gladbach Werder 44.09% 23.82% 32.09% 35.41%
Schalke 04 Nuremberg 62.17% 21.31% 16.51% 45.93%
FC Cologne Mainz 44.39% 22.55% 33.06% 35.72%
Freiburg Hertha 38.21% 24.33% 37.45% 34.55%
Wolfsburg Hannover 44.09% 24.35% 31.56% 35.33%
FC Bayern Dortmund 54.91% 25.23% 19.87% 40.46%
Stuttgart Augsburg 64.87% 20.74% 14.39% 48.45%
HSV Hoffenheim 39.34% 24.51% 36.15% 34.55%
4.22 2.12 2.65 3.46
Average expected fixing: 38.41%
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
Kaiserslautern Leverkusen 3.30 3.95 2.25
Gladbach Werder 2.27 4.20 3.12
Schalke 04 Nuremberg 1.61 4.69 6.06
FC Cologne Mainz 2.25 4.43 3.03
Freiburg Hertha 2.62 4.11 2.67
Wolfsburg Hannover 2.27 4.11 3.17
FC Bayern Dortmund 1.82 3.96 5.03
Stuttgart Augsburg 1.54 4.82 6.95
HSV Hoffenheim 2.54 4.08 2.77
Comparison with the betting exchange betfair
(The betting recommendations)
Pairing 1 X 2 % Average
Kaiserslautern Leverkusen 3.25 3.60 2.36 100.92%
Gladbach Werder 2.66 3.60 2.84 100.58%
Schalke 04 Nuremberg 1.71 4.00 5.80 100.72%
FC Cologne Mainz 2.64 3.55 2.86 101.01%
Freiburg Hertha 2.74 3.55 2.66 102.26%
Wolfsburg Hannover 2.34 3.60 3.20 101.76%
FC Bayern Dortmund 1.63 4.30 6.00 101.27%
Stuttgart Augsburg 1.40 4.80 11.00 101.35%
HSV Hoffenheim 2.44 3.45 2.96 103.75%
Goal expectation 2.21
A short comment on the betting recommendations:
Gladbach, always Gladbach. Impossible to turn your back on them. But also otherwise: how should such odds not be favourable? Werder have not only had some luck in the last game (remember the even luckier game against Hertha). Gladbach plays at the highest level throughout. There was definitely no difference in quality for Werder in the games so far – and there isn’t in the points tally either. It will certainly be a difficult game, whereby teams that are above expectation (also recognised by fans, coaching staff, media, not just “calculated” by the computer) should actually play with increased ease (and usually do).
Schalke seems almost ideal as a bet. Nuremberg didn’t disappoint, no, not at all, not play-wise. But Schalke was clearly the better team with very clear claims to a top place. 1.71 sounds too high. Only the fan friendship could stand in the way a little (to an absolute top bet).
Cologne against Mainz also obeys the same laws as Gladbach against Werder (even the odds are almost identical). What has Mainz really done better than Cologne so far this season? The computer even gives Mainz the slightly higher quality, but only “slightly”. 2.64 is too much, the bet is good.
You simply have to play Dortmund in Munich. Not only according to the above argumentation is Dortmund prepared for the match. A 6.0 is simply a bit too much for the high quality of the Dortmund team, which seems to be available again at the moment. The players will certainly like to recall the 3:1 from last year from time to time (because most of them were there).
Augsburg in Stuttgart is a pure odds-on tip. But: at least it’s not a long trip and Augsburg have certainly gained some confidence after their good performance against Bayern. They will give it a go and possibly become even more dangerous due to being in the (glaring) underdog role. They certainly have no reason to tense up.
Hoffenheim in Hamburg is not such a great bet emotionally. There is no question that Hoffenheim have the quality. Recently, it was not available and HSV was clearly on the up. But for 2.96 you do it anyway, yes.
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
