1) The 1st Bundesliga
a. Review of the Matches
Results of Match Day 15
Bayer Leverkusen – TSG Hoffenheim 2:0 (1:0)
FC Bayern Munich – Werder Bremen 4:1 (1:0)
1.FC Kaiserslautern – Hertha BSC 1:1 (1:1)
Borussia Mönchengladbach – Borussia Dortmund 1:1 (0:1)
SC Freiburg – Hannover 96 1:1 (0:1)
VfL Wolfsburg – FSV Mainz 05 2:2 (2:0)
VfB Stuttgart – 1. FC Cologne 2:2 (2:1)
Hamburger SV – 1. FC Nürnberg 2:0 (1:0)
FC Schalke 04 – FC Augsburg 3:1 (1:0)
A few observations:
a) Match reports
Leverkusen kept the upper hand against Hoffenheim. Of course, coach Stanislawski cannot be satisfied with the recent performance. And overall, the performance in Leverkusen was not exactly exhilarating. Nevertheless, one wonders once again what assumptions the reporters are working from when they denounce the performance so much and soon the little word “refusal to work” is doing the rounds? Leverkusen started the season as number 3, have stabilised recently, in every respect, with an outstanding (which really could not have been foreseen after his long period of suffering) Michael Ballack, but also justify the rest of the squad’s ranking in third place. Do we really expect Hoffenheim to create a multitude of chances and to make the most of them? Here, only the expected result occurred, whereby the computer, like the markte, saw the chance at “only” just under 55%. With three possibilities, however, this is overwhelmingly the greatest chance, and it has come to pass. So why is the focus so extensively on the deficiencies of Hoffenheim, when those of Leverkusen would only have been much greater (according to the media) if an alternative result had emerged?
The fact is that the focus is constantly (on the media side) on the negative part. Obviously, no responsibility is taken for the fact that this makes it not only wrong, but even totally boring and off-putting for (possible, new, neutral) spectators. With football, according to the (wrong) view behind it, you are sure of the viewers. “They’ll watch anyway, no matter how much rubbish I spout here.”
Bayern win against Werder. This too was anything but a miracle, which are usually supposed to happen much closer to the Weser. The market even gave Werder a slightly better chance than the computer. So here, too, the totally normal result occurred. The fact that Werder is then supposed to have been “passive” all of a sudden (as the minimum bad thing) is also just the totally misguided perspective. By the way, coach Schaaf also stuttered nothing but nonsense into the microphones after the game, especially since he submitted to the media verdict that one should not simply say (as coach Dutt did after Leverkusen’s defeat, but also Markus Babbel did after Hertha’s) that the opponent was, is and remains clearly better and that Bayern is precisely not the yardstick this season. The attempt to find an “explanation” for the defeat other than the superiority of the opponent overtaxed Schaaf and he cut a sorry figure (surprisingly and never before experienced). Of course, as predecessor Otto Rehhagel already pointed out — and with some justification – the media were to blame for this, as for everything else. Bayern is overpowering and the recent bad results (which, by the way, were again explained “logically” by all the experts during the week; example: kicker editor-in-chief Rainer Holzschuh, who supposedly foresaw this) make them even more dangerous.
Kaiserslautern pretty much played Berlin Hertha up against the wall and, according to all the reports they read and (summarised) pictures they saw, would have deserved a win. But the chance ratio of 5:2 (according to kicker) was not too high in this sense, so you’d better trust the comments, preferably those of the coaches.
In the top match, the “Borussian derby”, one had the overall impression that Dortmund was a little closer, which is also reflected in the 6:7 chances counted. Exactly: a little. Gladbach, even without Reus, was strong enough to stand up to Dortmund, and Mike Hanke scored for the second time in a row. Sadly, as coach Klopp also very discreetly pointed out, the perfect “through ball”, the deadly pass, to Großkreutz, who was breaking through and rushing towards the goal on metres without an opponent, was wrongly whistled back. Typical, however, and proof of the wrong approach: if you play perfectly, at exactly the right moment, there is hardly any chance that you will NOT be whistled back. The whistle is always blown. Always, always, always. And if you are completely free, then anyway. “I don’t have any doubts,” says the assistant, talking to himself. That one was ‘sideways, I raise the flag, and if it wasn’t him, the media sponge over it very soon.” No matter what the rules say, how much it damages football, how unfair it is and how much it (if only un-) decided this game. “Offside is when one is completely free,” as an uninformed spectator once replied with demonstrable genius and absolutely expert rule (interpretation) understanding in an interview during the 2006 World Cup. She derived the rule from its application – and hit the nail on the head. Nobody seems to want to understand that the audience would also leave the cinema after the 10th anti-climax in a film described as a thriller, because absolutely nothing happens and the whistle always blows when it gets exciting. And: the rules would allow it to run, even if there were a doubt.
A quick question: did this greatest of all goal chances count in the chance ratio? Or do we simply say that the chance of him not raising the flag was zero anyway (and that would also be right, but purely by chance and completely without reflection)?
The Sportclub from Freiburg was clearly the better team against Hannover in half 2 and very close to victory. Even if Hannover was slightly better in half 1, the second half clearly counts more for the observer writing here (only in the sense of objectivity for a reasonable game assessment). So when the kicker talks about a fair result (with 5:5 chances, 6:4 corners), on the surface it sounds very reasonable. But it isn’t. Freiburg was better, because of the second half. And this is not because you remember that one better because it is closer in time. It is clearly because you are approaching the final whistle and the final result is close to being signed. In other words, if you concede a goal at the final whistle in half 1, you can still take it quite calmly. “Then we’ll just have to go into half 2…” If it happens towards the end, it is irreparable. Whoever is better at the end is better overall, even if the score is evenly balanced.
This does not apply to the same extent to the Wolfsburg vs Mainz game. Wolfsburg came up with 7:3 scoring chances and with a 2:0 lead at the break, it already smells like a decision at this level. The fact that Mainz were able to come back is of course partly due to quality, but also partly due to the fact that at 0:2 you can adopt a bit of a battered boxer’s mentality: you’ve already lost, now you can try anything, something like that. It’s not that Mainz didn’t deserve the draw, it’s just about who was closer to victory or better overall. You can’t say that about Mainz here, no. Wolfsburg, maybe? Nah, not at all.
In the (live watched) game of Stuttgart against Cologne, one had a different feeling than most observers (including the statements afterwards). Cologne were quite reasonably good and, within the framework of their calculated chances of scoring, did enough to do so. There is absolutely no claim that Cologne were the better team, moreover, it was an away game. But: they took the lead 1:0 and had a huge chance to make it 2:0. Then Gentner, who is not exactly known as a goal-scorer, finished twice – and scored both times. This was by no means a matter of course. It is not surprising that Cologne now came under a bit of pressure and that VfB was quite dominant for a while with these two strengthening goals behind them. Towards the end, Cologne reared up (not only read off the goal, but in the emotionally experienced game already in a couple of situations when one jumped up and longed for the equaliser, as it was close) and came to a 2:2 that felt deserved. The kicker counted 7:4 chances for Stuttgart, which seems quite realistic, but the described course of the game (coupled with the original balance of power) express it better. It was good from Cologne.
The kicker’s conclusion ridiculous: “VfB should have won the game on more precisely played counters.” Yes, great. But: in order to counterattack, you first had to take the lead. This, one thinks, was inevitable? And: if VfB had won the game 3:1, then the precision of THE (!!! plural, but one would have sufficed) counterattacks would not have been blamed (“VfB deserved to win the game thanks to precisely played counterattacks”; unthinkable, such a thing), but the Cologne defence would have been said to be showing signs of disintegration (“Cologne opened up far too early and revealed numerous defensive weaknesses”). But that’s just by the way…
It was reported that HSV took a step backwards in terms of match culture after numerous good games, but in the end they managed to get another three points. Nuremberg were the better team, had a 7:3 chance advantage, but conceded two goals without being able to score a single one. There is such a thing as well and it should simply be seen as “bad luck” for some and “good luck” for others. Where is the problem?
The Schalke versus Augsburg game could also be followed live over 90 minutes. Schalke were – which shouldn’t and didn’t come as a surprise – clearly better in the first half. The 1:0 was a dream goal, but you really couldn’t be sure whether Hunter wanted to hit the ball with his heel like that. It happened so quickly that you can hardly imagine it, but the movement is so fluid that it could have been. Well, it was certainly tongue-twisting.
But Augsburg came back impressively in the second half. Sure, they were a little bit lucky that their first (but determined) action after the break led directly to a goal, but after that they were really good. Incidentally, the announcer had already ticked off the successful goal action when, in his opinion, the once again very strong Tobias Werner “got lost” and the action “was actually already over”. But he did so in a well-considered manner, slowed down his run, cleverly put the ball back from inside the penalty area, the man moving up played a precise pass into the centre of the attack, which was halfway deserted by Werner’s run, where two attackers went to the ball at once, but only Mölders took it and pocketed it, but not his teammate (who was offside). More about the scene under point c) “DSF Doppelpass”.
Schalke didn’t really get into it anymore and you felt that even Augsburg was a bit closer to a lead. Then the Austrian Fuchs, who is really dangerous with long-distance shots, came in and put the ball in his place on the outside (no, not a defensive mistake; in our own team we were always told: “He threw that one. Or: “He may shoot from there.”) and “let one fly”, fired one. The ball comes very hard and very precisely and surprisingly for the goalkeeper, so there should be no question of a mistake (later chalked up to him). A great goal and you can call it individual class or just luck. In any case, this goal had nothing to do with the game. Of course, it was “a mountain to climb” for Augsburg after that and they still managed to score 1:3. Nevertheless, a lot of respect for another great performance.
b) Interview with a referee, wrong focus, part I
Interesting and the first thing I “devoured” was an interview with a referee in Monday’s edition of kicker. Knut Kircher was the chosen one. Now, one is far from blaming these people, as little as the character traits required for such a career could be reconciled with one’s own. Every referee is just trying to get by as best he can. He would like to win praise and fears censure, as is presumably the case with other people – even those who do not voluntarily put themselves in the spotlight.
The problem that has arisen has been imposed from all sides and leaves them with permanent room for manoeuvre only for decisions that turn out in the wrong direction, namely in the direction that is detrimental to attractiveness, excitement and justice, and thus runs counter to sport itself. In this respect, the only reproach, if any, is the attention of the media or the DFB officials, who also march in the wrong direction with their set of rules or, to put it even more simply, do not ensure that the written paragraphs are observed.
Mr. Kircher gives an absolutely flawless interview, which shows that we are dealing with an educated person. The answers are well-considered and he makes it comprehensible what is attractive about this sideline profession (there also called “hobby”, despite the handsome sum of 3800 euros per game).
There is only one question to which this curious answer is given, even if it actually sounds so nice. The question: “What is your sense of achievement?” (and you rephrase in your mind: “What is a sense of achievement for you?”). Mr Kircher replies: “Among other things, I am happy when I correctly assess an advantage situation in a great attack and a goal is scored. Then I could cheer inside.”
Well, as nice as it sounds. As a questioner, you would hardly have any other chance than to ask: “When did you have such an experience?” because, from your own observation, despite the wonderful words, it has never happened and will never happen. Well, one would have been curious to hear the answer to that, whether it would have been stuttering, hesitant, not at all and without evidence, or whether he would have remembered a friendly match between two lower-class teams in pre-season at 6:1, when he had managed to do that just once 12 years ago.
The fact is that there are more and more reasons to stop the game. The referees take every opportunity and are often very happy if the ball doesn’t even get into the danger zone, they whistle something harmless, already outside the penalty area, just so that the ball doesn’t get in and they are faced with a potentially much more difficult decision. Especially with regard to the interpretation of advantages, it has happened x times recently that every spectator recognises that in the situation it would be more favourable for the team to which the free kick could be awarded if the game were to continue. The referee then often comes up with an apologetic gesture and points to his whistle that it has virtually taken on a life of its own, but in particularly serious cases energetically shows the sinner the yellow card in order to deflect some of the perceived blame. He saw it as so grossly unsportsmanlike that he immediately and spontaneously blew the whistle without paying attention, because, he wants to proclaim, such a gross offence must be punished unyieldingly and immediately with a yellow. The psychological interpretation is that he did not have the opportunity to pay attention to the advantage.
It is the wrong focus, also in this interview, that is set. The dream of justice may be there, as one senses from the answer, but the distance to it is currently becoming greater and greater.
c) DSF Doppelpass – the wrong focus, part II
On Monday evenings, the DSF Doppelpass is something of a must-see programme. In fact, presenter Thomas Helmer is excellent, as he almost always asks the right questions of the assembled (other) experts. However, they don’t respond to him quite as much as would be desirable. This Monday after the 16th matchday, Thomas Strunz and Axel Kruse were there (which is more often the case).
All the games are analysed down to a level of detail that is long past desirable, simply because of the concern that an attempt will be made to find an explanation for everything. Regrettably, they end up thinking they have found the final explanation for every scene. Who went wrong where and when and opened which way, who mismanaged the duel or where the keeper should have been to block or where to run to and where not to intercept the cross. If you think it through to the end, then if these numerous inadequacies were remedied, one day there would be no more goals at all. It is said almost every time a goal is scored, “A goal like that must never, ever be scored.” Not this one and not this one. You can hardly ever hear about “beautifully done” because the focus is on the mistake.
People are trying to find advocates for the opinion that a team in possession of the ball has enough opportunities to score actively and without having to rely on mistakes, perhaps even to score a goal in every attack, whereas in the Doppelpass (and elsewhere in Germany) the opinion is becoming more and more widespread (since Franz Beckenbauer’s statement) that goals can only be scored through mistakes, which would ultimately mean the completely opposite conclusion: with final perfection, there would be no more goals at all.
When you have the ball — so the logical argumentation for which you seek advocates — then you have the opportunity to find a teammate or, with sufficient skill and depending on the situation, to shake off your opponent, to play off, to create the space for a long, targeted pass, a cross, a shot on goal or a deadly pass. Depending on their physical and playing abilities, including the tactical guidelines, the other players also have to create space for themselves – even if it is only for a short time – in order to receive the pass from the player with the ball and to process the ball in the same way until it finally ends up with a player who actually fires it towards the goal, sometimes with a header after skilful and precise crosses. The main limitation here is that the defenders are usually outnumbered and even more so that they have a large number and higher degree of rights (which would by no means be officially agreed upon, but as is constantly attempted to be proven here) and furthermore that any direction of ball defence is just about good enough for them, as long as the round just doesn’t find its way into the square. These are obstacles (and they are constantly being increased), but they do not change the basic message: whoever has the ball can claim possession and pass it from teammate to teammate until, if necessary, the goal is scored.
Why would the mistake be necessary with this chain? Fortunately, there is the occasional statement from true experts – usually coaches or players — that not everything can be prevented. This is much closer to the truth and also preserves enough of our enjoyment of the game, just from the thought of it. “Take the ball, pass it in time to a better-positioned teammate, run free again as the other teammates do, indicate when you are playable and where you intend to run to, where the free space is and trust in the technical quality of the ball leader to pass the ball to you in that space with appropriate timing, trust in your own skills to get the ball past not only the opponent, by body deception or threatened shot, but also the keeper and let yourself celebrate. “
Now would come quasi already the “wrong focus, part III”, because this derivation and explanation of all goals on the basis of their failures of the defending side is also already a wrong set. Only the topic itself should become a different one, derived from this programme (also observed in previous programmes).
There were two penalties for Bayern in the Bayern vs Werder match. Now this is not only extremely unusual, because as a referee you usually don’t award one, even in the third crystal-clear scene, but if one is awarded, then, so the feeling goes, the advantaged team can’t complain at all in future if further foul actions are not punished, because they had already been awarded a penalty. On DSF the even more dubious opinion was expressed that it was the “Bayern Bonus” that had granted them the 2nd penalty.
All this, unfortunately, complete nonsense and another metre in the wrong direction, one might even say, into the cul-de-sac, with a 30 tonne truck with no turning room. Both foul scenes are indisputable, as people like to claim here. If there were any doubt about this, then one could carry out an experiment in which all lines and players are touched away and the whistle blowers are shown the scene with the question “Foul or not foul”? Now they would have only two answer options: “Yes, foul.” or, the much more revealing one, “Uh, before I can answer that I need to know where the action took place.” This would be the only truth, except that afterwards you would know: the assessment is based on the location on the pitch. The closer to the opponent’s goal, the less foul.
The experts, however, also analysed these two scenes in detail. “No, you don’t have to give a penalty for that,” said Thomas ‘was erlaube?` Strunz.” He even added with brilliant insight that it would always be a foul on the halfway line, no question, but in the penalty area, no, that’s not enough for a penalty. Yes, absurd really, and one is surprised that no follow-up questions are asked: “To what extent is that covered by the rules? Doesn’t it just say ‘if there’s a foul in the penalty area, it’s a penalty’?”
In any case, this has the (by the experts unimagined) consequences that on the next match day there will be even more justification for not giving a penalty, before you have to listen to the referee again on Monday that you “really don’t have to give it”? Alternatively, the many scenes could be dealt with in which there clearly should have been a penalty and which were simply waved away if yellow was not given for (no) swallows?
Exactly the same thing (wrong direction into the cul-de-sac) happened with Augsburg’s equalising goal. As described above, Mölders and only Mölders was played on at the penalty spot, for instance. He took the ball, turned and shot it into the far corner. A great goal, superbly done, a successful attack, perfect. However, directly next to Mölders, a second Augsburg player was closer to the goal line than two players of the opposing team – thus fulfilling the “requirements” for offside. The latter briefly wanted to get to the ball, but was, quite easily and yet recognisably, sent away by Mölders, as the latter wants to do the thing himself, apart from the suspected possible offside position of the teammate. Well, the offside player does not intervene in the game and does not touch the ball. In the commentary, both live and in the summary, the correctness of the goal was granted.
However, Thomas “what allow?” allowed himself something again. “No, the player is standing somewhere near the ball and is therefore an irritation. For me the hit offside, not a regular goal.”
Well, exactly this can only have the same consequence as the veto against the penalties: the assistants will do the devil, even with correct recognition of passive offside, and bother to think about whether active or not here. No more Monday analyses and proofs of error: raise the flag as fast and as soon as you can, then you’ll always be on the safe side. The consequences are clear: more and more decisions are being made against the attackers, which can mean goal situations and ultimately goals.
And nobody notices anything?!
b. The table situation
Sp S U N Pkt T GT Diff
1 FC Bayern Munich 15 10 1 4 31 38 – 9 +29
2 Borussia Dortmund 15 9 3 3 30 30 – 10 +20
3 Borussia Mönchengladbach 15 9 3 3 30 24 – 10 +14
4 FC Schalke 04 15 9 1 5 28 31 – 21 +10
5 Werder Bremen 15 8 2 5 26 26 – 25 +1
6 Bayer Leverkusen 15 7 4 4 25 22 – 19 +3
7 VfB Stuttgart 15 6 4 5 22 22 – 17 +5
8 Hannover 96 15 5 6 4 21 19 – 23 -4
9 Hertha BSC 15 4 7 4 19 22 – 23 -1
10 TSG Hoffenheim 15 5 3 7 18 16 – 18 -2
11 1.FC Köln 14 5 2 7 17 22 – 31 -9
12 Hamburger SV 15 4 5 6 17 20 – 26 -6
13 VfL Wolfsburg 15 5 2 8 17 21 – 30 -9
14 FSV Mainz 05 14 4 4 6 16 21 – 27 -6
15 1.FC Nürnberg 15 4 3 8 15 14 – 26 -12
16 1.FC Kaiserslautern 15 3 5 7 14 11 – 19 -8
17 SC Freiburg 15 3 4 8 13 20 – 31 -11
18 FC Augsburg 15 2 5 8 11 13 – 27 -14
392 392 0
Total number of games 134
Goals ø 2.93
Another example of bringing out the negative in our reporting. The Kaiserslautern vs. Hertha match is adorned with the headline “Torschusspanik” (goal panic), an intended pun, which of course refers to the Lauter players. Not only in the following article is it emphasised again and again that Lautern are at the bottom of the table with the 11 goals they scored, and it is even pointed out – for further emphasis – that two of the goals they scored were own goals, so that in reality they only scored 9 goals.
Certainly Lautern will not be entirely satisfied with the way the season has gone so far. There were a few games that could easily have ended differently. They have proven their Bundesliga fitness in many appearances. With a total of 66 scoring chances (source: kicker), they are on a par with teams like Hoffenheim, HSV or Hertha. One would have liked to have scored this or that goal more. But there are still two teams behind them and they still have an excellent record in terms of goals conceded, even better than Schalke, who are fourth in the table. Why is it always necessary to emphasise the negative? Especially since we are in Germany and write about the German first division. If not Lautern, then it would be some other team where one could (and would, no question) point out the shortcomings.
Equally, one would have the alternative of highlighting the positives, with all teams and with all games. If you take a look at the match grades, for example, which are also awarded by kicker in boundless subjectivity without ever having defined any criteria, then you hardly ever regret not having missed a match either on TV or live in the stadium. Only the Gladbach vs. Dortmund game gets a 2, otherwise two 3s, the rest 4 to 4.5. If one were to calculate a grade point average for all match days, as teachers are instructed to do in a class assignment, then this “teacher”, the eternally clever kicker, would have been dismissed long ago because he has not succeeded in passing on his knowledge to the man over the years. Rating: “Failed”.
Oh, yes, Bayern are back in front because their rivals are slowing each other down, of course partly due to the unspeakable and unfair three-point rule, which would never have been introduced anyway if the rules had been applied (in the case of a foul or a handball in the penalty area: penalty kick, in the case of offside decisions: in case of doubt for the attacker, that’s what it says). “Stir it up”, mix it all up a bit, maybe it will be fun?) and there would have been no need for it at all, as excitement and goals would have been guaranteed and the “death of the draw” – if there ever was such a concern – would not have been a danger.
c. The title question
Explanation: these figures are the result of a computer simulation, which has as its basis the respective 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
1 FC Bayern Munich 2871 57.42% 1.74
2 Borussia Dortmund 1833 36.66% 2.73
3 Borussia Mönchengladbach 146 2.92% 34.25
4 FC Schalke 04 90 1.80% 55.56
5 Bayer Leverkusen 37 0.74% 135.14
6 Werder Bremen 17 0.34% 294.12
7 VfB Stuttgart 4 0.08% 1250.00
8 Hertha BSC 1 0.02% 5000.00
9 Hannover 96 1 0.02% 5000.00
Bayern, of course, again with the lion’s share of the chances. Dortmund nevertheless keeps it open, because of course you can’t speak of a setback with a 1:1 after an away game. Partly, however, the losses, see above, are also due to the unfairness of the three-point rule.
Change in chances compared to the previous week due to the results of matchday 15
Team Gain/Loss absolute compared to previous matchday Gain/Loss percentage
1 FC Bayern Munich 430 8.60%
2 Bayer Leverkusen 20 0.40%
3 FC Schalke 04 15 0.30%
4 Borussia Mönchengladbach 1 0.02%
5 Hertha BSC 1 0.02%
16 VfB Stuttgart -1 -0.02%
17 Werder Bremen -9 -0.18%
18 Borussia Dortmund -457 -9.14%
Again, the same evidence: such a loss at Dortmund sounds unfair in view of a not bad result. Incidentally, coach Klopp impressed once again with one of his bon mots after the game, which incidentally completely escaped the interviewer. When asked if he was satisfied, he first listed the good situations, went on to say that they were a wee bit closer, as he felt, and that, in a key scene, it was ruled offside when it demonstrably wasn’t and that it was these little things that weren’t in their favour but can be decisive in such a close game, but then concluded by saying: “It’s all ok, we just decided in the dressing room not to break up the club after the draw.”
The announcer in the studio (after returning there) also did not take the steep pass and passed over it. Fortunately, the experts on DSF Doppelpass mentioned it, but only to highlight the increased self-confidence of Dortmund’s Borussians, not to make a successful joke.
d. The title chances in development
Here, the latest development looks a little more modest, from a purely visual point of view. Especially after the curves were already “miles apart”, around matchday 8.
e. Comparison of title chances with the betting exchange betfair
Back Lay Probability (Back)
FC Bayern Munich 1.46 1.49 68.49%
Borussia Dortmund 4.4 4.8 22.73%
Bayer Leverkusen 65 90 1.54%
VfL Wolfsburg 750 0.13%
Hannover 96 500 1000 0.20%
Werder Bremen 120 160 0.83%
FC Schalke 04 38 46 2.63%
Hamburger SV 1000 0.10%
VfB Stuttgart 500 990 0.20%
FSV Mainz 05 1000 0.10%
Borussia Mönchengladbach 21 22 4.76%
TSG Hoffenheim 650 0.15%
1.FC Nuremberg 1000 0.10%
1.FC Cologne 600 0.17%
SC Freiburg 1000 0.10%
Hertha BSC 1000 0.10%
1.FC Kaiserslautern 1000 0.10%
FC Augsburg 1000 0.10%
It remains the same: the computer now consistently guesses a “lay” on Bayern or a “back” for Dortmund. Interpretation? The market thinks Bayern is superior to the computer and the season is longer than it is. It’s hard to have an argument, just bet or leave it alone. If betting, then counting money afterwards: has it become more or less?
The changes in betfair’s odds estimates
FC Bayern Munich 5.20%
Borussia Dortmund -5.05%
Bayer Leverkusen 0.00%
VfL Wolfsburg -0.03%
Hannover 96 -0.05%
Werder Bremen -0.60%
FC Schalke 04 0.13%
Hamburger SV 0.00%
VfB Stuttgart -0.09%
FSV Mainz 05 -0.07%
Borussia Mönchengladbach 0.41%
TSG Hoffenheim -0.09%
1.FC Nuremberg 0.00%
1.FC Cologne 0.00%
SC Freiburg 0.00%
Hertha BSC -0.05%
1.FC Kaiserslautern 0.00%
FC Augsburg 0.00%
(The order according to the original rankings)
The well-known phenomenon: mass intelligent sobriety: Bayern do it. No reason to panic because of individual results. However, gladly repeated at this point: one would have to know the market volume to be able to speak of “mass intelligence” at all. The claim is this: for big players, long-term bets are not very interesting because of the capital commitment. So if there is trade, it is that of many small players. Thus not necessarily representative as far as the correct assessment of the odds is concerned. The basic idea remains the same: Small players tend to play what comes along, so to speak. And these are usually favourite tips. So the prices on favourites are still occasionally “underpriced”.
at betfair in the graph
Here is an attempt to graphically capture the development at betfair. You can see that the development is much less jagged than that of the computer. Right-wingedness? Inappropriate. Observe, think, if, bet.
f. Direct Champions League qualification via 2nd place
The probability distribution for 2nd place after matchday 14
Team Number of 2nd places in 5000 simulations 2nd places in per cent
1 Borussia Dortmund 2246 44.92%
2 FC Bayern Munich 1585 31.70%
3 Borussia Mönchengladbach 467 9.34%
4 FC Schalke 04 362 7.24%
5 Bayer Leverkusen 224 4.48%
6 Werder Bremen 81 1.62%
7 VfB Stuttgart 23 0.46%
8 Hannover 96 7 0.14%
9 Hertha BSC 2 0.04%
10 FSV Mainz 05 2 0.04%
11 VfL Wolfsburg 1 0.02%
Dortmund always keeps its nose in front here (so far). At least a few other teams are much more involved in the awarding of 2nd place than they are for the title.
The changes compared to the previous week:
Team win/loss absolute compared to previous matchday Win/loss percentage
1 Borussia Dortmund 248 4.96%
2 Bayer Leverkusen 89 1.78%
3 FC Schalke 04 69 1.38%
4 VfB Stuttgart 6 0.12%
5 Borussia Mönchengladbach 3 0.06%
6 1.FC Kaiserslautern 0 0.00%
7 1.FC Cologne 0 0.00%
8 1.FC Nuremberg 0 0.00%
9 FC Augsburg 0 0.00%
10 Hamburger SV 0 0.00%
11 SC Freiburg 0 0.00%
12 VfL Wolfsburg 0 0.00%
13 FSV Mainz 05 -2 -0.04%
14 Hertha BSC -3 -0.06%
15 TSG Hoffenheim -6 -0.12%
16 Hannover 96 -12 -0.24%
17 Werder Bremen -81 -1.62%
18 FC Bayern Munich -311 -6.22%
Logical: Bayern and Dortmund the main contenders. Dortmund scored for this place (as the competitor from below was kept “at bay”, but the one from above slipped away).
g. The relegation question
The distribution of the percentages for relegation
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 a further third of relegated teams are added through the relegation, whereby the first division team is generally rated as 2/3 to 1/3 favourites over 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 Total
1 FC Augsburg 63.78% 4.23% 68.01%
2 SC Freiburg 36.62% 5.59% 42.21%
3 1.FC Kaiserslautern 36.68% 5.53% 42.21%
4 1.FC Nuremberg 27.04% 5.04% 32.08%
5 1.FC Cologne 11.00% 3.31% 14.31%
6 Hamburger SV 6.82% 2.27% 9.09%
7 VfL Wolfsburg 5.90% 1.99% 7.89%
8 FSV Mainz 05 4.62% 1.63% 6.25%
9 TSG Hoffenheim 3.78% 1.61% 5.39%
10 Hertha BSC 2.34% 1.02% 3.36%
11 Hanover 96 1.06% 0.62% 1.68%
12 VfB Stuttgart 0.36% 0.39% 0.75%
13 Werder Bremen 0.00% 0.07% 0.07%
14 Bayer Leverkusen 0.00% 0.02% 0.02%
15 FC Schalke 04 0.00% 0.01% 0.01%
200.00% 33.33% 233.33%
Augsburg extended their lead despite a really good performance in parts. Otherwise, the order is also easy to follow, as it corresponds pretty much exactly to the (rotated) table order. “If you want to see us at the top, you have to rotate the table.” Gladbach has completely left the ranks of the “relegation candidates”.
The change in chances due to the results of the 15th matchday in relation to relegation
Team Change in chances
1 Hamburger SV 7.03%
2 1.FC Cologne 2.28
3 SC Freiburg 2.19%
4 FSV Mainz 05 1.09%
5 VfL Wolfsburg 0.31%
6 VfB Stuttgart 0.25%
7 Bayer Leverkusen 0.09%
8 Hannover 96 0.04%
9 Hertha BSC 0.02%
10 1.FC Kaiserslautern 0.01%
11 Borussia Dortmund 0.00%
12 Borussia Mönchengladbach 0.00%
13 FC Bayern Munich 0.00%
14 FC Schalke 04 0.00%
15 Werder Bremen 0.00%
16 TSG Hoffenheim -1.43%
17 FC Augsburg -4.11%
18 1.FC Nuremberg -7.76%
The direct duel went quite undeservedly to HSV. The consequences can be read off. Augsburg, despite “only” losing as glaring outsiders in Schalke, nevertheless with rough losses. Why? The competition scored, albeit mostly easily. That costs.
h. The relegation question in development
It jags so nicely that it soon reminds you of an oscillograph?! It is clear, however, that there can be no steady developments unless, as with Augsburg at the beginning, every defeat costs the same or, as with Lautern or Freiburg, a series of good results happens to bring in the same amount. Otherwise, every result provides a jagged movement.
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 absolute
1 Borussia Mönchengladbach 20.14 30 9.86 9.86
2 FC Schalke 04 23.15 28 4.85 4.85
3 Werder Bremen 22.45 26 3.55 3.55
4 Borussia Dortmund 28.35 30 1.65 1.65
5 1.FC Köln 15.60 17 1.40 1.40
6 Bayer Leverkusen 24.15 25 0.85 0.85
7 Hertha BSC 18.69 19 0.31 0.31
8 Hannover 96 21.23 21 -0.23 0.23
9 VfB Stuttgart 22.86 22 -0.86 0.86
10 Hamburger SV 18.24 17 -1.24 1.24
11 TSG Hoffenheim 19.65 18 -1.65 1.65
12 FC Bayern Munich 32.95 31 -1.95 1.95
13 FSV Mainz 05 18.01 16 -2.01 2.01
14 FC Augsburg 13.51 11 -2.51 2.51
15 1.FC Kaiserslautern 16.61 14 -2.61 2.61
16 1.FC Nürnberg 17.74 15 -2.74 2.74
17 SC Freiburg 16.90 13 -3.90 3.90
18 VfL Wolfsburg 21.08 17 -4.08 4.08
ø Deviation 2.57
One maximum winner, otherwise all moderate deviations. Due to the many draws, the total deviation of all teams is negative for the first time, which means that there were too many draws in total. Wasn’t this development predicted here a week ago with reference to the upcoming winter months with points battles, or at least declared possible?
The Bavarians with negative results. 1.95 points is not much, but it is hardest for them to make up for this deficit, as they can usually only just exceed the expectation with high win probabilities. Of course, due to objectivity, on the other hand, it is easiest for them (and thus banally as difficult or easy overall as for any other team), because they are the best.
The foreign comparison for the average point deviation
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 are bad at their trade)
Rank Country League 1 ø Point deviation Change from previous week Number of games
1 Germany, 2.BL 6.09 0.53 153
2 England 1 3.65 -0.01 129
3 France 1 3.58 -0.17 160
4 Italy 1 2.98 0.24 129
5 Spain 1 2.88 0.12 140
6 Germany, 1.BL 2.57 0.17 134
Although no one would dare to speak of boredom in League 1, it remains (computer) objectively the league with the fewest or least surprises. League 2, on the other hand, is way out in front, as internationally all the tables are currently quite well sorted, in line with advance expectations.
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 deviation
1 Borussia Mönchengladbach 20.14 24 21.44 10 15.29
2 FC Bayern Munich 32.90 38 12.80 9 8.90
3 Borussia Dortmund 25.17 30 13.51 10 8.34
4 FC Schalke 04 22.10 31 18.36 21 6.26
5 Hertha BSC 19.46 22 23.01 23 2.55
6 VfB Stuttgart 24.57 22 21.24 17 1.68
7 TSG Hoffenheim 19.96 16 21.58 18 -0.38
8 Werder Bremen 24.40 26 21.93 25 -1.47
9 Hamburger SV 19.88 20 24.26 26 -1.62
10 1.FC Kaiserslautern 17.38 11 23.55 19 -1.83
11 Bayer Leverkusen 23.99 22 18.84 19 -2.16
12 1.FC Köln 18.46 22 25.09 31 -2.37
13 FC Augsburg 13.53 13 24.27 27 -3.27
14 FSV Mainz 05 18.78 21 20.87 27 -3.91
15 SC Freiburg 18.46 20 24.78 31 -4.68
16 Hannover 96 21.14 19 20.26 23 -4.88
17 1.FC Nürnberg 17.70 14 22.62 26 -7.08
18 VfL Wolfsburg 20.80 21 20.44 30 -9.36
378.83 392 378.83 392 0.00
Goals ø expected: Goals ø scored: ø Deviation 4.78 2.83 2.93
Gladbach also here with a lead of a whopping (over) 6 goals, but already followed by Bayern, which of course actually speaks for their strength, they merely, in the sense of a higher points yield, distributed their goals uneconomically (in contrast to Hannover for example).
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 provide 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 8.57 0.45 153
2 Germany, 1.BL 4.78 -0.02 134
3 England 1 4.36 -0.25 129
4 Spain 1 3.98 0.12 140
5 Italy 1 3.69 0.94 129
6 France 1 3.43 0.09 160
The 1st division with at the top, which means: in the results there are rows of outliers, but, taking into account the statistics beforehand, these nevertheless often favour the favourites, and thus the “outlier” refers only to the height.
k. The Strength of Play Ranking
Note: 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.
Team For Against Quotient For/Counter Change in Quotient Shift
1 FC Bayern Munich 2.22 0.90 2.47 +0.01 +1
2 Borussia Dortmund 1.86 0.76 2.46 -0.01 -1
3 Bayer Leverkusen 1.64 1.27 1.29 +0.04 +1
4 FC Schalke 04 1.60 1.24 1.29 +0.01 -1
5 Borussia Mönchengladbach 1.47 1.20 1.23 +0.02 +0
6 Werder Bremen 1.63 1.55 1.06 -0.03 +0
7 VfB Stuttgart 1.50 1.51 1.00 -0.03 +0
8 Hannover 96 1.39 1.46 0.95 -0.00 +0
9 Hertha BSC 1.42 1.54 0.92 -0.00 +0
10 FSV Mainz 05 1.46 1.61 0.91 +0.01 +2
11 VfL Wolfsburg 1.44 1.60 0.90 -0.01 +0
12 TSG Hoffenheim 1.23 1.39 0.88 -0.03 -2
13 Hamburger SV 1.29 1.55 0.83 +0.02 +0
14 1.FC Köln 1.44 1.88 0.76 +0.02 +0
15 SC Freiburg 1.22 1.72 0.71 -0.00 +1
16 1.FC Nürnberg 1.10 1.60 0.69 -0.03 -1
17 1.FC Kaiserslautern 1.00 1.50 0.67 +0.01 +0
18 FC Augsburg 0.93 1.58 0.59 -0.01 +0
25.84 25.83 +0
Goals ø expected 2.87
Bayern has place1 back, but it is extremely close. From a performance point of view, you wouldn’t have to cut Dortmund any slack either. What did they do wrong? Nothing, actually. Otherwise Hoffenheim loses 2 places to Mainz, but they’re probably prepared to accept that, since Mainz has shone with a few outstanding performances and Hoffenheim hasn’t managed anything for weeks? Leverkusen, too, in the place they were originally allocated. Is Gladbach better than Leverkusen? Who would dare to say that? Possible nonetheless, sure. After all, the gap is small….
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.
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
Country Matches Equalisation Home Leading Goals Away Leading Goals Total per Match
1 1st Bundesliga 125 66 25 18 109 0.872
2 France 150 78 19 18 115 0.767
3 2nd Bundesliga 144 64 23 19 106 0.736
4 England 129 56 16 19 91 0.705
5 Spain 129 51 22 11 84 0.651
6 Italy 118 46 15 13 74 0.627
Total balance 795 361 120 98 579 0.728
Overall, slightly fewer changes in tendency so far this season than in the previous one. However, it would be far too early to conclude that tactics have improved, even if it can be assumed that coaches are constantly striving to fine-tune them and, as sad as the word sounds — but Otto Rehhagel, the rather modern Sepp Herberger, is right in saying that “modern plays who wins” – results management is made the main word. “How do I swing a lead over time?” Answer, “stall for time,” as one way.
Taking stock of the trend changes from last week:
Instead of enumerating the changes of tendency, from now on a small table of the changes of tendency from the past weekend shall be included here.
Country Matches Equalisation Home Leading Goals Away Leading Goals Total per Match
1 1st Bundesliga 9 8 3 0 11 1,222
2 France 10 6 2 3 11 1,100
3 2nd Bundesliga 9 5 1 1 7 0,778
4 Italy 11 1 0 0 1 0,091
5 Spain 11 5 3 1 9 0.818
6 England 10 3 2 0 5 0.500
Total balance 60 28 11 5 44 0.733
The total balance of all leagues in this year’s average. The . league but with plenty of action (once again), and France was also mighty busy.
Trend changes in the major leagues in the 2011/2012 season.
Country Matches Equalisation Home Leading Goals Away Leading Goals Total per Match
1 1st Bundesliga 134 74 28 18 120 0.896
2 France 160 84 21 126 0.788
3 2nd Bundesliga 153 69 24 20 113 0.739
4 England 139 59 18 19 96 0.691
5 Spain 140 56 25 12 93 0.664
6 Italy 129 47 15 13 75 0.581
Total balance 855 389 131 103 623 0.729
The 1st division clearly maintains the lead, as it did in the previous season. Questions don’t always have to be asked. The Bundesliga is fun, if it weren’t for … and there aren’t…. Well, it could probably still be better?!
m. The mathematical review of the results of matchday 15.
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 Deviation
Leverkusen Hoffenheim 1.77 1.04 2.81 2 0 0.23 -1.04
FC Bayern Werder 2.67 0.82 3.49 4 1 1.33 0.18
Kaiserslautern Hertha 1.28 1.39 2.67 1 1 -0.28 -0.39
Gladbach Dortmund 0.90 1.31 2.21 1 1 0.10 -0.31
Freiburg Hannover 1.41 1.34 2.75 1 1 -0.41 -0.34
Wolfsburg Mainz 1.73 1.34 3.07 2 2 0.27 0.66
Stuttgart FC Cologne 2.37 1.31 3.68 2 2 -0.37 0.69
HSV Nuremberg 1.59 1.04 2.64 2 0 0.41 -1.04
Schalke 04 Augsburg 1.95 0.68 2.62 3 1 1.05 0.32
15.67 10.27 25.94 18 9 2.33 -1.27
Expected goal total Expected goal average Scored goal average 25.94 2.88 3.00
ø expected goal difference 1.89 ø goal difference 1.05
Again, a bit too many goals, whereas the average goal deviation is more than modest, which speaks for very normal results. Presumably the draws have a tendency (if it’s not a 3:3) to provide for low deviations.
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
Leverkusen Hoffenheim 54.85% 22.82% 22.33% 40.28%
FC Bayern Werder 76.70% 14.25% 9.05% 61.68%
Kaiserslautern Hertha 34.95% 25.06% 39.99% 34.49%
Gladbach Dortmund 25.88% 27.61% 46.52% 35.95%
Freiburg Hannover 39.16% 24.57% 36.27% 34.53%
Wolfsburg Mainz 47.09% 22.84% 30.06% 36.43%
Stuttgart FC Cologne 61.28% 18.69% 20.03% 45.05%
HSV Nuremberg 50.52% 24.41% 25.07% 37.77%
Schalke 04 Augsburg 67.60% 20.22% 12.18% 51.27%
4.58 2.00 2.42 3.77
Average expected fixing: 41.94%
To repeat only above the expected numbers given in last week’s text. However, the Cologne vs Mainz pairing is excluded here. Since it was a fairly even match, the average expected commit on the remaining 8 games goes up a bit (38.74% vs. 38.41% that would have been expected if all games had been played).
The determination arrived
Pairing 1 X 2 Tendency
Leverkusen Hoffenheim 54.85% 22.82% 22.33% 1 54.85%
FC Bayern Werder 76.70% 14.25% 9.05% 1 76.70%
Kaiserslautern Hertha 34.95% 25.06% 39.99% 0 25.06%
Gladbach Dortmund 25.88% 27.61% 46.52% 0 27.61%
Freiburg Hannover 39.16% 24.57% 36.27% 0 24.57%
Wolfsburg Mainz 47.09% 22.84% 30.06% 0 22.84%
Stuttgart FC Cologne 61.28% 18.69% 20.03% 0 18.69%
HSV Nuremberg 50.52% 24.41% 25.07% 1 50.52%
Schalke 04 Augsburg 67.60% 20.22% 12.18% 1 67.60%
4 5 0 3.68
average determination arrived: 40.94%
Despite the many favourite wins, such as Leverkusen, Bayern, HSV and Schalke: the draws ensure a slight undercutting of the expected determination.
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 no longer has any 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 deviation of 3.98 goals) and carry out this procedure for each match result, you get the expected average goal deviation.
The statistics of the results so far Matches Hsiege Drais Asiege Htore Atore Heimvort
arrived 134 64 32 38 237 155 1.209
expected 134 62.26 30.66 41.06 214.9 163.8 1.135
abs Deviation 0 1.74 1.34 -3.06 22.10 -8.80 0.07
rel. Deviation 0 2.72% 4.19% -8.05% 9.32% -5.68% 6.14%
Determination expected Determination received 40.17% 40.09% ø Goal deviation ø Goal deviation expected 1.83 1.88
The home advantage grows and grows, however, as mentioned, the computer regularly trails it. The question now was whether it was reacting sufficiently forcefully, since it was being confirmed week after week. Well, the setting of the parameters has not only proven itself over years and over many leagues, but has even been confirmed. So: no reason to panic, especially since individual results (Dortmund, Nuremberg) were not exactly favourable for the away teams. Nevertheless, one is well aware that such tendencies have a tendency to confirm themselves. In this respect, the follow-through is justified.
The target was missed only minimally, which is in any case a good sign that the figures are consistent, and the goal deviation is also close to the expectation, or even below it, which, to use a linguistic term, speaks rather for “too good” predictions. They should have deviated a bit more for the predictions to be really good.
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 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
Leverkusen Hoffenheim 1.82 3.90 5.00
FC Bayern Werder 1.35 5.70 11.00
Kaiserslautern Hertha 2.56 3.50 2.92
Gladbach Dortmund 3.75 3.65 2.14
Freiburg Hannover 2.58 3.50 2.90
Wolfsburg Mainz 2.38 3.60 3.10
Stuttgart FC Cologne 1.47 4.70 8.60
HSV Nuremberg 1.96 3.70 4.30
Schalke 04 Augsburg 1.38 5.00 10.00
Goals scored 2.18
Goals scored 1
Money score -4.65
Well, a depressing record, no question. Nevertheless, you know very well that something like this can happen and that you have been rather lucky so far. The individual bets have nevertheless had their quality, regardless of whether they occurred or not:
Hoffenheim at Leverkusen was probably not that great, as the visitors really have a weak phase and never really look dangerous going forward, not like they did at the beginning of the season. Apart from that, they are also behind Leverkusen to some extent, so you didn’t like making the bet and wouldn’t like to repeat it.
With Bayern against Werder, an analysis is almost superfluous, as is unusual, however, since you rarely get the pleasure of playing a clear favourite (at least in the Bundesliga). Sure, you get a little excited when it happens. The market has already made Bayern too bad. Really? The result speaks for it, but at least it was 1-1 in between….
Wolfsburg against Mainz was still a good bet by all accounts. The 2:0 lead, the multitude of chances. Even if loyalty to Wolfsburg has been punished a few times so far: you would do it again, absolutely.
Cologne in Stuttgart must have been good, given the final result (which was close), but also after watching the game and counting the number of chances (7:4 for Stuttgart). That’s enough to declare an 8.6 good.
The bet on Augsburg was as good as a bet can be, if you take this course of the game as a basis. Augsburg did so many things right in the 2nd half that you became really proud of that bet. After the equaliser, they were closer, but the 2:1 came from a Sunday shot — admittedly from someone specially qualified for that – and after the 1:2, Augsburg had another huge chance when Mölders appeared alone in front of the goalkeeper, but failed. There the 2:2 and who knows…
All in all, the bets were very good, only the result disastrous. Results crisis? Not by a long shot, if you look at the…
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
13 6 4 2.77 +1.23 +5.37
14 7 2 2.63 -0.63 +4.68
15 6 1 2.18 -1.18 -4.65
Last week’s nice gain fully “eaten up” again. Sob…
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
81 30 +18.82 23.23% 29.31 +0.69
88 32 +23.50 26.70% 31.38 +0.62
94 33 +18.85 20.05% 34.12 -1.12
But over 20% is clearly too much. It is a pity, one could still have given out how many hits one would have needed minimally for a balanced result (here, after all, imaginary advantage bets are always made that promise a profit; for pari one would need less, according to the advantage). in any case, this number would then also be black, in contrast to the actual hit yield compared to the computer expectation (the hit yield compared to the minimum number of hits for pari would be black).
q. The preview of the 16th 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 Total
Hertha Schalke 04 1.36 1.42 2.77
Nürnberg Hoffenheim 1.28 1.19 2.47
FC Cologne Freiburg 1.87 1.42 3.30
Augsburg Gladbach 0.86 1.37 2.23
Mainz HSV 1.74 1.36 3.10
Werder Wolfsburg 2.17 1.27 3.44
Hannover Leverkusen 1.42 1.50 2.92
Dortmund Kaiserslautern 2.24 0.46 2.70
Stuttgart FC Bayern 1.10 1.91 3.01
14.05 11.91 25.95
Expected goal total Expected goal average 25.95 2.88
The computer is dragging its feet a bit on the goal average. Otherwise: flood of goals in Cologne and Bremen, lack of goals in Augsburg and Nuremberg, if you believe the expectations.
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, 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
Hertha Schalke 04 36.21% 24.93% 38.86% 34.43%
Nürnberg Hoffenheim 38.78% 26.70% 34.52% 34.08%
FC Cologne Freiburg 48.36% 22.18% 29.46% 36.99%
Augsburg Gladbach 23.64% 27.38% 48.98% 37.07%
Mainz HSV 46.71% 23.05% 30.24% 36.27%
Werder Wolfsburg 58.12% 20.14% 21.74% 42.56%
Hannover Leverkusen 35.99% 24.19% 39.82% 34.66%
Dortmund Kaiserslautern 78.31% 15.57% 6.12% 64.13%
Stuttgart FC Bayern 21.61% 21.93% 56.46% 41.35%
3.88 2.06 3.06 3.62
Average expected fixing:
At 40.17% expected, right on average this season: an average matchday in terms of favourites.
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
Hertha Schalke 04 2.76 4.01 2.57
Nürnberg Hoffenheim 2.58 3.74 2.90
FC Cologne Freiburg 2.07 4.51 3.39
Augsburg Gladbach 4.23 3.65 2.04
Mainz HSV 2.14 4.34 3.31
Werder Wolfsburg 1.72 4.97 4.60
Hannover Leverkusen 2.78 4.13 2.51
Dortmund Kaiserslautern 1.28 6.42 16.35
Stuttgart FC Bayern 4.63 4.56 1.77
Comparison with the betting exchange betfair
(The betting recommendations)
Pairing 1 X 2 % Average
Hertha Schalke 04 2.86 3.55 2.58 101.89%
Nürnberg Hoffenheim 2.40 3.45 3.15 102.40%
FC Cologne Freiburg 2.32 3.55 3.20 102.52%
Augsburg Gladbach 4.10 3.70 1.95 102.70%
Mainz HSV 2.28 3.55 3.30 102.33%
Werder Wolfsburg 1.64 4.10 5.40 103.88%
Hannover Leverkusen 2.76 3.55 2.62 102.57%
Dortmund Kaiserslautern 1.26 6.00 14.50 102.93%
Stuttgart FC Bayern 5.70 4.20 1.63 102.70%
Goal expectation 2.13
A quick comment on the betting recommendations:
Hoffenheim to play at Nuremberg? Well, if it has to be again? Somehow you know they’ve got something in them, don’t you? Even if Babel couldn’t keep up his early form, he really impressed once and rocked the league? Well, it’s all a whitewash: Nuremberg were very strong in the last game, even if they didn’t get their reward. Yes, you have to, and you bet. After all, there are numbers.
Cologne against Freiburg, of course, you have to play as well, especially since a rate of 2.32 almost suggests that Freiburg are seen as the better team by the market. Why should they be? Cologne are ahead and have the better goal difference. However, admittedly: in the table of chance conversion Cologne is in 1st place, which translated (only for the author and his followers…) means that they were lucky though (and Podolski of course). Freiburg actually impressively strong recently, so it wouldn’t be a bet 10/10 units (provided they played staggered) but rather 4/10. Incidentally, the longstanding average on a home team (thus the benchmark for teams of equal strength) is a rate of 2.16 (the computer expectation over the last 10 years of this stat was 2.15). Since the whole season so far has been a home season, maybe 5/10 after all?
Mainz against HSV seems almost the best bet (8/10). Surely HSV always scored under Fink, surely they were more stable and much better lately. But Mainz as well, just the last game from HSV not really good anymore (Mainz? Well, cutbacks there too, ok), and Mainz in the home games without any fear of names. They will go forward and believe in victory. Almost perfect.
The loyalty to Wolfsburg has endured. The number is a 5.4, for which you can always find justifications, even in (clear) failure. Wolfsburg didn’t look that bad in the home game against Mainz and weren’t really the worse team in the lost away game in Augsburg before that. Werder with a 1:4 and before the last (celebrated) home win against Stuttgart with the 0:5 defeat in Gladbach, where everything was already threatening to crumble (if one should believe the media). All in all, that makes 3:9 goals, and at least Aaron Hunt, who was sent off in Munich, should be missing. Verdict: good, but due to the odds at most 3/10.
Leverkusen can be propped up under all circumstances. Tuesday’s (CL) game hardly counts as a burden, as they were already through, and the form curve is clearly pointing upwards. They turned the last away game in Berlin with a strong performance from 0:2 to 3:2, only not taking the 3 points due to the 3:3 equaliser conceded directly afterwards (and, according to all the players, see also the topic “result management”) which was completely unnecessary and urgently avoidable. The opponent is certainly appreciated, but their (poor) goal ratio and recent performances clearly speak in favour of Leverkusen. These are games that a budding top team should win at all costs – and have both the ability and the belief to do so. The price of 2.62 is really “juicy”. Verdict: 7/10.
The (possible) Stuttgart victory should not be commented on too much. It is a high rate, but Bayern already have three defeats, all of which were fully “skimmed” by virtual bets, how could one doubt now? Curious, however, is the market reaction, which generously grants you the bet (once) on Bayern, but after a 4:1 (scored with a sending-off and two penalties; according to ultimate experts even more doubtful) immediately changes again for the following game. Here the computer reacts a little more calmly and remains of the opinion that one swallow does not make a summer (of all things, the swallow, right? Hehe…) and the Swabian is first capable of very special performances in winter. 2/10, that’s quite enough.
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