1) The 1st Bundesliga
a. Review of the Matches
Results of Match Day 16
Hertha BSC – FC Schalke 04 1:2 (1:2)
1st FC Nuremberg – TSG Hoffenheim 0:2 (0:1)
- FC Cologne – SC Freiburg 4:0 (1:0)
FC Augsburg – Borussia Mönchengladbach 1:0 (0:0)
FSV Mainz 05 – Hamburger SV 0:0
Werder Bremen – VfL Wolfsburg 4:1 (2:0)
Hannover 96 – Bayer Leverkusen 0:0
Borussia Dortmund – 1.FC Kaiserslautern 1:1 (1:0)
VfB Stuttgart – FC Bayern München 1:2 (1:1)
A few observations:
1) The DSF Doppelpass
The DSF Doppelpass has to be watched, but. At least it managed to build up and (hopefully) establish an alternative programme in a very alternative format. Presenter Thomas Helmer in particular is great fun. By the way, he has secured his absolute credibility on the part of the author for his lifetime through a special feature: he was the one defender who not only won his header duels with the most beautiful regularity, but at the same time found his teammate with each of these headers. That was truly an outstanding ability, for which, however, one never received any confirmation from experts. Did anyone even notice it, did he know about it himself?
He is always giving the flak to his experts – of which last Monday the not so overly fond and heard Thomas “was erlaube?” Strunz, and at his side Stefan Schnoor, who is more or less in line with Strunz. The reason for the dislike, however, is one that applies to almost all areas of life, but is observed specifically in this country: the supposedly successful search for definitive answers. “Germany turned the semi-final back in 1970 against England because Alf Ramsey substituted Bobby Charlton.” Nonsense, but that’s how it’s virtually recorded in the history books. If there was a correlation, it was in the very small percentage range that shifted the chance of victory in this direction or that. But it is common practice to turn this into an inevitability. But this fact is very specific to Germany, and even more specific to football experts in Germany. In the end, they think, they have worked out exactly why that goal was scored or why that team lost, gave away the title (Schalke, what was it…) or why that team had to bite the dust of relegation. This not only spoils the fun of football, as it recruits a good deal of its excitement from unpredictability, but at the same time it is also totally wrong.
Chance is the director and no one knows what will happen. Those experts, if asked, would deny involvement in betting, even though they always try to prove the predictability of events afterwards. Chance remains the main factor, but those in charge try to control it a little more with small, medium or large measures, which, by the way, makes it more fun. As a spectator, you want a little predictability, to put it mildly, but not too much. A pure dice competition is just as uninteresting as a chess tournament would presumably be, in which one could read the future winner in most cases from the Elo number even before the tournament (this is only said a little provocatively for the many readers from the chess community, but nevertheless to stimulate thinking about it; the predictability is too great in chess, which possibly stands in the way of its greater spread).
The English, by the way, are leading the way with all their comments – as one could witness for years. It is absolutely exemplary how they, without ever coming across as pushy, know-it-all, smart-alecky or prophetic in retrospect, nevertheless always get to the heart of the individual situations in their analysis. All one has to do is look beyond the end of one’s nose – something a German would have absolutely no need to do in view of the number of titles he has won. Here, one thinks, one has eaten wisdom with spoons and an expert who should only once give the answer that he doesn’t know or that it could have been right this way or that way must fear that he will soon be sorted out as such. “He’s just dithering around and doesn’t know what he means.” Final answers are demanded – and they are delivered, so that everyone knows exactly that it could only have happened the way it did and under no circumstances otherwise.
Thomas Helmer, as I said, repeatedly provided the answers by only contrasting the different views – in a very pleasant way. The invited, supposed experts did not get involved. Thomas Helmer once commented on Stuttgart’s 1:0 lead against Bayern that they would occasionally point out the beauty and class of a goal that had been scored and would not always only search for mistakes. That, he said, was just great work – and he was in line with the opinion of at least one of his (attentive) spectators.
The two experts left this view uncommented, not even acknowledged with a smile. Immediately, the search for errors began. What brought Thomas Helmer to the unifying, conciliatory “we” remains a mystery (and will probably not be repeated). But with this goal now, especially with that chosen one, offering to let it stand as “simply well done” now the fault-finding extended not only over so far maximum 5 minutes, no, they concerned in the end probably at least 9 of the 11 players, who all got their fat.
In front the ball was lost and Kroos lamented after the wrong pass by … and should have gone straight there, the latter was out of the game anyway because of the missed chance before and Timoschtchuk should not have gone there … and Rafinha was not allowed to do so and he should have stopped the cross and Lahm is wrong anyway, too far away and the goalkeeper … and nobody in the back … and … and … and.
Now the goal has been explained completely flawlessly and all the mistakes have been revealed. The only question is whether there has ever been a comparable scene in any other game in which the goal was not scored in the end, the ball went past the goal (because, by God, this goal was not simply scored by Gentner, no, but Gentner of all people scored almost as inevitably, because he had already scored twice in the previous game and the coach should have known and probably, according to the fantasised thinking, should have put a man on his feet). Would the same chain of errors on the part of the defence then have been exposed just as shamelessly or would it not have been said, after a game perhaps won 2:0, that the defensive chain had proved to be absolutely solid and stable and had allowed nothing, apart from perhaps the one chance which the opponent failed miserably to create? Are these mistakes then recognised, in the whole development, regardless of the outcome of the scene? No, no and no again, crowned with a “never”.
If one had any doubts about it, the further experiment is always and constantly suggested: play scenes for the experts in which one sees everything, the complete development, only the goal finish remains open, similar to the famous “goal stop”, whether successful or not. Then, one would like to claim, all the experts would make themselves thin. That would remove the only breeding ground for their lazy magic, it would finally expose the deception as just that, no expert could open his otherwise so chattering mouth even by a tenth of an inch. Silence – and perhaps, if he were truly interested, he would gradually begin to concern himself with football.
2) “Whatever he can do wrong, he will do wrong”.
Well, in a certain variation of the famous Murphy’s law, this actually applies here to the chance of one of the chattering pundits, “commenting” according to himself, to embarrass himself. In this case, however, one dares to say, it would be the only country in Germany where such a thing would happen unnoticed and unpunished. It is about European Cup arithmetic, which, according to common opinion, would be so unspeakably complicated, but which, according to the opinion represented here, cannot under any circumstances eclipse the multiplication table – and which children learn in the 2nd – 3rd school year.
Marcel Reif, the head Indian, once made good use of this opportunity when Werder Bremen, in the previous year’s qualification for the Champions League, conceded the 1:3 in the first leg at Sampdoria Genoa shortly before the end, at home, and also conceded the 0:3 in the away match in Genoa shortly before the end (85th minute, for example), which caused Mr. Reif, after a 90-minute swan song for Werder, to bleat “that’s the end of the Champions League” into the microphone. When the first horrified housewives called and said that the situation was unchanged and that, just like in the first leg, Werder still only needed one goal to reach extra time, he soon corrected them.
This embarrassing faux pas, however, did nothing to stop his loose mouth. Not only did he smile at the spectators after the actual 1:3 in the last minute and the subsequent 2:3 in extra time, which was so typical for Germany (and thus caused blind arrogance by this luck), no, he bothered the spectator/listener with the recalculation of all possibilities, including the arithmetic, which had just become totally confused.
Now there was another chance to embarrass himself in the Champions League on Wednesday – and this one was also used to good effect. Anderlecht had won 2:0 in Moscow. The match was now Anderlecht against Moscow. Moscow could draw level on points, but had to make up for the first leg result. This, he explained, could only be done with a victory with a three-goal difference, but he called it more concretely a 3:0, so that one could just let it pass.
In the match, Moscow actually managed to score 1:0, so that he spoke of emerging tension (surely not entirely unjustifiably, because after all, the group runner-up gets a Champions League relegation draw, and thus a tougher draw), and at the same time the score promised this. A short time later – in the competition – he shouted “goal in Anderlecht” again. It was the equaliser. Now, however, the recalculation began – only he didn’t do it, like the second-grader, merely in front of the whole class, whereupon the teacher would have exclaimed a “Sit down, 6” if he missed the sequence of 4 (“3*4 is 14 or so”), but he did it in front of a ——— yes, you’re right, a much smaller audience, because who listens to this nonsensical drivel anyway? Volunteers!
So he calculated that the task would be much harder now that they needed a 4:1. There were no horrified housewives in this case, because – needless to say, a 3:1 would be enough for the away team since they would then have the higher number of goals scored away from home with the same difference – there were neither housewives nor any other people in front of the TV, except for the never-smart one, but it was far more than just a “misconception” that he was planning to (unsuccessfully) spread (no spectators – no spread). Not only did he have the chance to “prepare” for such developments before the game, let alone take advantage of the opportunity to put the few convolutions of his brain into operation, no, he babbled on, just like the chief Indian, and the bigger the nonsense, the louder the babbling.
Because: at some point in the second half it was 4:2 for Anderlecht, with maybe 12 minutes left. One was also astonished that the Muscovite who scored the 2:4 rushed into the goal to get the ball out. The announcer, however, was neither informed by the broadcaster nor by outraged spectators, let alone the only correct measure to remove HIM (who could possibly step in?). No, it’s no use, that’s right, one like the other) and he calculated again that Moscow now needed 5 more goals (yes, dear reader, here too it is embarrassing to clarify: it was actually 4 that were missing)! The only thing missing was that after the 5:2 shortly afterwards, but long after the 80th minute, he would have spoken of 7 missing goals, but at the same time would have asked for more broadcasting time, as it was about to become exciting who would actually win the group. By the way: Moscow still managed to score 3:5 and in the end “only” 4 goals were missing…
Unthinkable and put your hand in the fire for it: neither in England nor in Italy nor in Spain nor in Denmark nor in Holland (yes, yes, the Netherlands) could such a mistake happen and also elsewhere in the world it seems quite impossible (for the other countries you have examples of how exact and adept they are at it, but of course it is a matter of course).
In this country, people say to themselves, firstly, who cares about Moscow and Anderlecht, secondly, they sense that no one is listening anyway and that they are only talking to walls, which, like the paper, turn out to be extremely patient and lacking in contradiction, thirdly, as a German, you don’t need to calculate, because no one can do that here anyway, fourthly, as the sole reporter (another contrast to other countries), you have the sole right to say and when you say that it should be three goals (until the 4th goal), you have the right to say it: 1, although a 3:1 was enough), then it’s three, that’s it, that’s it, and hugh, I’ve spoken.
“Yes, oh, my God.”
b. The table situation
Sp S U N Pkt T GT Diff
1 FC Bayern Munich 16 11 1 4 34 40 – 10 +30
2 Borussia Dortmund 16 9 4 3 31 31 – 11 +20
3 FC Schalke 04 16 10 1 5 31 33 – 22 +11
4 Borussia Mönchengladbach 16 9 3 4 30 24 – 11 +13
5 Werder Bremen 16 9 2 5 29 30 – 26 +4
6 Bayer Leverkusen 16 7 5 4 26 22 – 19 +3
7 VfB Stuttgart 16 6 4 6 22 23 – 19 +4
8 Hannover 96 16 5 7 4 22 19 – 23 -4
9 TSG Hoffenheim 16 6 3 7 21 18 – 18 +0
10 1.FC Köln 16 6 3 7 21 27 – 32 -5
11 Hertha BSC 16 4 7 5 19 23 – 25 -2
12 FSV Mainz 05 16 4 6 6 18 22 – 28 -6
13 Hamburger SV 16 4 6 18 20 – 26 -6
14 VfL Wolfsburg 16 5 2 9 17 22 – 34 -12
15 1.FC Kaiserslautern 16 3 6 7 15 12 – 20 -8
16 1.FC Nürnberg 16 4 3 9 15 14 – 28 -14
17 FC Augsburg 16 3 5 8 14 – 27 -13
18 SC Freiburg 16 3 4 9 13 20 – 35 -15
413 413 0
Total number of games 144
Goals ø 2.87
Tuesday’s Köln – Mainz match is already included. Bayern virtually secure the autumn championship title, unless a miracle happens like in the Champions League, when Lyon had to make up 7 goals against Ajax (the direct comparison was exactly par), and managed to do so with a (strange) 7:1 in Zagreb against Ajax 0:3 home defeat against Real Madrid(s B-elf). But unthinkable in the Bundesliga (because the 12:0 wasn’t enough then either…).
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 probabilities
1 FC Bayern Munich 3541 70.82% 1.41
2 Borussia Dortmund 1207 24.14% 4.14
3 FC Schalke 04 148 2.96% 33.78
4 Borussia Mönchengladbach 48 0.96% 104.17
5 Werder Bremen 29 0.58% 172.41
6 Bayer Leverkusen 26 0.52% 192.31
7 VfB Stuttgart 1 0.02% 5000.00
Bayern with a lion’s share of over 70%, Dortmund only with a slim1/4 chance. Was the revival just a flash in the pan? (Talking about a break in the picture)
Change in chances compared to previous week due to matchday 16 results
Team Win/loss absolute compared to previous matchday Win/loss percentage
1 FC Bayern Munich 670 13.40%
2 FC Schalke 04 58 1.16%
3 Werder Bremen 12 0.24%
13 Hannover 96 -1 -0.02%
14 Hertha BSC -1 -0.02%
15 VfB Stuttgart -3 -0.06%
16 Bayer Leverkusen -11 -0.22%
17 Borussia Mönchengladbach -98 -1.96%
18 Borussia Dortmund -626 -12.52%
Strange that there is such a slump every matchday: is it always a good result against a bad result for the main contenders?
d. The title chances in development
Once again, the stark development is astounding. One minute they are very close and the next minute there is a huge gap.
e. Comparison of title chances with the betting exchange betfair
Back Lay Probability (Back)
FC Bayern Munich 1.35 1.36 74.07%
Borussia Dortmund 5.5 5.8 18.18%
Bayer Leverkusen 70 80 1.43%
VfL Wolfsburg 1000 0.10%
Hannover 96 900 0.11%
Werder Bremen 85 100 1.18%
FC Schalke 04 29 30 3.45%
Hamburger SV 1000 0.10%
VfB Stuttgart 700 0.14%
FSV Mainz 05 1000 0.10%
Borussia Mönchengladbach 44 65 2.27%
TSG Hoffenheim 950 0.11%
1.FC Nuremberg 1000 0.10%
1.FC Cologne 800 0.13%
SC Freiburg 1000 0.10%
Hertha BSC 1000 0.10%
1.FC Kaiserslautern 1000 0.10%
FC Augsburg 1000 0.10%
The “lay” on Bayern is becoming less interesting. The bet on Dortmund is also no longer so clearly recommended. Should one bet or not?
The changes in betfair’s odds estimates
FC Bayern Munich 5.58
Borussia Dortmund -4.55%
Bayer Leverkusen -0.11%
VfL Wolfsburg -0.03%
Hanover 96 -0.09%
Werder Bremen 0.34%
FC Schalke 04 0.82%
Hamburger SV 0.00%
VfB Stuttgart -0.06%
FSV Mainz 05 0.00%
Borussia Mönchengladbach -2.49%
TSG Hoffenheim -0.05%
1.FC Nuremberg 0.00%
1.FC Cologne -0.04%
SC Freiburg 0.00%
Hertha BSC 0.00%
1.FC Kaiserslautern 0.00%
FC Augsburg 0.00%
(The order according to the original estimates of the ranking)
The development at betfair in the graph
The market thinks: we always knew it. German champion 2011: Bayern Munich.
f. Direct Champions League qualification via 2nd place
The probability distribution for 2nd place after matchday 16
Team Number of 2nd places in 5000 simulations 2nd places in per cent
1 Borussia Dortmund 2542 50.84%
2 FC Bayern Munich 1113 22.26%
3 FC Schalke 04 607 12.14%
4 Borussia Mönchengladbach 308 6.16%
5 Bayer Leverkusen 205 4.10%
6 Werder Bremen 192 3.84%
7 VfB Stuttgart 11 0.22%
8 Hannover 96 7 0.14%
9 TSG Hoffenheim 6 0.12%
10 FSV Mainz 05 4 0.08%
11 1.FC Cologne 2 0.04%
12 Hertha BSC 2 0.04%
13 VfL Wolfsburg 1 0.02%
Dortmund continue to confidently defend 1st place in the dispute for 2nd place. Certainly, Klopp & Co. would be satisfied at the moment if they finished there, as it would guarantee participation in the Champions League (which is why the chances were included here in the first place).
The changes compared to the previous week:
Team Win/Loss absolute vs. previous matchday Win/Loss percentage.
1 Borussia Dortmund 296 5.92%
2 FC Schalke 04 245 4.90%
3 Werder Bremen 111 2.22%
4 TSG Hoffenheim 6 0.12%
5 1.FC Köln 2 0.04%
6 FSV Mainz 05 2 0.04%
7 1.FC Kaiserslautern 0 0.00%
8 1.FC Nuremberg 0 0.00%
9 FC Augsburg 0 0.00%
10 Hamburger SV 0 0.00%
11 Hannover 96 0 0.00%
12 Hertha BSC 0 0.00%
13 SC Freiburg 0 0.00%
14 VfL Wolfsburg 0 0.00%
15 VfB Stuttgart -12 -0.24%
16 Bayer Leverkusen -19 -0.38%
17 Borussia Mönchengladbach -159 -3.18%
18 FC Bayern Munich -472 -9.44%
The redistribution of chances understandable. Bayern increases its chances of finishing first and reduces its chances here accordingly. Piquant: Schalke is moulting into a formidable competitor to the already maximum district rival.
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 a further third of relegated teams are added due to the relegation, whereby the first division team is generally rated as 2/3 to 1/3 favourite compared to the second division team. This makes the total number of relegated teams equal to 233.33%. In individual cases, of course, it would be different in reality. So if, for example, Frankfurt were to finish 3rd in League 2 and Augsburg 16th in League 1, one could perhaps speak of a balanced pairing.
Team Direct relegation (17th or 18th place) Relegation by relegation Total
1 SC Freiburg 52.62% 5.01% 57.63%
2 FC Augsburg 47.08% 5.55% 52.63%
3 1.FC Nuremberg 39.12% 5.59% 44.71%
4 1.FC Kaiserslautern 27.96% 5.28% 33.24%
5 VfL Wolfsburg 9.78% 2.71% 12.49%
6 Hamburger SV 6.74% 2.41% 9.15%
7 FSV Mainz 05 6.02% 1.91% 7.93%
8 1.FC Köln 4.70% 1.81% 6.51%
9 Hertha BSC 2.94% 1.45% 4.39%
10 TSG Hoffenheim 1.70% 0.82% 2.52%
11 Hannover 96 0.86% 0.47% 1.33%
12 VfB Stuttgart 0.44% 0.28% 0.72%
13 Bayer Leverkusen 0.02% 0.01% 0.03%
14 Borussia Mönchengladbach 0.02% 0.00% 0.02%
15 Werder Bremen 0.00% 0.01% 0.01%
200.00% 33.33% 233.33%
Freiburg have overtaken Augsburg! Whether it is true or not: in any case, suspense in the relegation question – as announced long ago – is guaranteed and surprisingly (?!) made even greater by such a development. Nuremberg, too, has meanwhile become more active. HSV, on the other hand, is polishing up week after week in terms of sinking chances here. Problem: they’re probably not filing for a polish, who would, right? (Topic: image break).
The change in chances due to the results of matchday 16 in terms of relegation
Team Change in chances
1 FC Augsburg 15.38%
2 1.FC Kaiserslautern 8.97%
3 1.FC Köln 7.79%
4 TSG Hoffenheim 2.87%
5 Hannover 96 0.35%
6 Werder Bremen 0.06%
7 VfB Stuttgart 0.03%
8 FC Schalke 04 0.01%
9 Borussia Dortmund 0.00%
10 FC Bayern Munich 0.00%
11 Bayer Leverkusen -0.01%
12 Borussia Mönchengladbach -0.02%
13 Hamburger SV -0.07%
14 Hertha BSC -1.03%
15 FSV Mainz 05 -1.67%
16 VfL Wolfsburg -4.59%
17 1.FC Nuremberg -12.63%
18 SC Freiburg -15.42%
Augsburg, of course, as the maximum winner, especially since two of the main rivals lost, Freiburg even by a houseful. Augsburg was in a zone of danger, where it has an optimal effect. The score was quite ok with competitors within reach and a three-pointer clinched. The downer of not having done it against a rival turns out to be … none at all. Because the counter-effect is that they beat a very good opponent, against whom it was logically much more difficult. This not only leads to a (greater) increase in their playing strength but also in their self-confidence that they can really do it against anyone (and who doesn’t remember that game against Bayern when they were already so close to a 2:2…).
As mentioned and logically concluding: the big losers Freiburg and Nürnberg. The one with a high defeat against a potential rival, the other with a home defeat.
h. The relegation question in development
That’s where these two lines actually cross! Just as there was the brief moment in the title question (no, it didn’t quite happen), so here too: it seemed so clear with Augsburg, but now? It’s certainly not to the detriment of fans everywhere when an outsider interferes in this way, is it? It creates tension. But whether the lines should now be clearly separated again, just like the 1st place? One will see…
i. The point expectations and the deviations
Explanation: For each game, the computer has calculated the chances for 1, X and 2. Based on these, a point expectation is mathematically calculated for each team per game according to the formula probability of winning * 3 points + probability of drawing * 1 point. The deviations given below compare the points actually achieved with those expected by the computer.
In total, the deviation does not have to be 0 for all teams, as the number of expected draws does not have to be congruent with those that have occurred (nor can it even be), but an imbalance is forced by the three-point rule. Too many points scored means that there were too few draws.
Team Name Points scored Deviation Deviation absolute
1 Borussia Mönchengladbach 21.89 30 8.11 8.11
2 FC Schalke 04 24.57 31 6.43 6.43
3 Werder Bremen 24.40 29 4.60 4.60
4 1.FC Köln 17.28 20 2.72 2.72
5 Bayer Leverkusen 25.58 26 0.42 0.42
6 Borussia Dortmund 30.86 31 0.14 0.14
7 TSG Hoffenheim 20.96 21 0.04 0.04
8 FC Augsburg 14.50 14 -0.50 0.50
9 Hannover 96 22.56 22 -0.56 0.56
10 FC Bayern Munich 34.86 34 -0.86 0.86
11 Hertha BSC 20.03 19 -1.03 1.03
12 Hamburger SV 19.38 18 -1.38 1.38
13 VfB Stuttgart 23.73 22 -1.73 1.73
14 1.FC Kaiserslautern 16.95 15 -1.95 1.95
15 FSV Mainz 05 19.64 17 -2.64 2.64
16 1.FC Nürnberg 19.17 15 -4.17 4.17
17 VfL Wolfsburg 21.94 17 -4.94 4.94
18 SC Freiburg 18.00 13 -5.00 5.00
ø Deviation 2.62
Gladbach remains at 1 despite defeat. Schalke is already lining up, but Werder is also making competition. As you can see, the negative yield already starts from 8th place, which is due to the fact that some clearly stand out at the front, while at the back everything is pretty evenly distributed, with not too huge absolute deviations. Freiburg just behind Wolfsburg, which is a bit surprising. Augsburg in 8th place with only 0.5 points missed!
Hertha and Bayern already with minus values. Bayern despite 1st place (which just shows again how highly they are valued, even by the computer), Hertha despite a perceived successful start to the season. Sure, yes, there was a bit of a lack of results recently, but in the red straight away?
The international comparison for the average point difference
Note: the theory is that the German Bundesliga is the most exciting of 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 6.02 -0.07 162
2 France 1 3.74 0.16 170
3 England 1 3.67 0.02 139
4 Italy 1 2.87 -0.11 139
5 Spain 1 2.66 -0.22 150
6 Germany, 1.BL 2.62 0.05 143
The 1st league remains at the bottom, the 2nd at the top. Overall, there was even a regression in the deviation (the minus values of the change add up to 0.4, the plus values only to 0.23), so that one can say that things are pretty normal in all leagues.
j. The 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 21.52 24 22.30 11 13.78
2 FC Bayern Munich 34.81 40 13.90 10 9.09
3 FC Schalke 04 23.51 33 19.71 22 7.20
4 Borussia Dortmund 27.41 31 13.97 11 6.56
5 TSG Hoffenheim 21.15 18 22.86 18 1.70
6 Hertha BSC 20.82 23 24.43 25 1.61
7 VfB Stuttgart 25.66 23 23.15 19 1.49
8 1.FC Köln 20.33 26 26.51 31 1.18
9 Werder Bremen 26.58 30 23.20 26 0.62
10 1.FC Kaiserslautern 17.84 12 25.79 20 -0.05
11 Hamburger SV 21.24 20 26.01 26 -1.24
12 FC Augsburg 14.39 14 25.64 27 -1.76
13 Bayer Leverkusen 25.50 22 20.25 19 -2.24
14 FSV Mainz 05 20.52 21 22.23 27 -4.29
15 Hannover 96 22.56 19 21.76 23 -4.80
16 SC Freiburg 19.88 20 26.65 35 -8.23
17 1.FC Nürnberg 18.98 14 23.81 28 -9.17
18 VfL Wolfsburg 22.07 22 22.62 34 -11.45
404.78 412 404.78 412 0.00
Goals ø expected: Goals ø scored: ø Deviation 4.80 2.83 2.88
Gladbach holds 1st place. The lead was very large, but has melted away. At the back, Wolfsburg successfully applied, with another 1:4 defeat. Nuremberg are also in free fall, whereas Ausgburg have almost lived up to expectations, despite maintaining last place in the real table. Overall, however, the deviations were smaller than last year.
The international comparison for the average goal deviation
(Note: crazy results do not necessarily have to be reflected in the trend. So a 5:3 or even a 7:0 may cause large deviations here, in terms of goals, but not at all in terms of points, since, for example, the favourite would have won in each case. So there is an alternative method of comparing with other countries: are there the most “surprises” in the Bundesliga in this respect too)?
Rank Country League 1 ø Goal difference Change from previous week Number of games
1 Germany, 2.BL 8.87 0.30 162
2 Germany, 1.BL 4.80 0.02 143
3 England 1 4.31 -0.05 139
4 Spain 1 3.48 -0.50 150
5 France 1 3.06 -0.37 170
6 Italy 1 2.97 -0.72 139
Well, the German leagues in the top two places, with the 2nd division leading by a mile. You can also see that all the leagues produced “normal” results at the weekend, thus reducing the variance, while Germany’s leagues continued to pull away with positive scores. The conclusion that there are tactical deficiencies or even that teams that are behind give up and get shot down cannot be confirmed here. There have been the runaway results in the Bundesliga, perhaps even quite a few of them this season, but nevertheless the whole season is rather one of moderate deviations, which refers to all leagues. And: internationally, the German Bundesliga has proven to be competitive.
k. The playing strength 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 0.89 2.49 +0.03 +0
2 Borussia Dortmund 1.81 0.78 2.33 -0.13 +0
3 FC Schalke 04 1.62 1.23 1.32 +0.03 +1
4 Bayer Leverkusen 1.59 1.22 1.30 +0.01 -1
5 Borussia Mönchengladbach 1.43 1.21 1.18 -0.05 +0
6 Werder Bremen 1.69 1.54 1.10 +0.05 +0
7 VfB Stuttgart 1.50 1.51 1.00 -0.00 +0
8 Hannover 96 1.34 1.41 0.94 -0.00 +0
9 TSG Hoffenheim 1.26 1.34 0.94 +0.06 +3
10 FSV Mainz 05 1.41 1.56 0.90 -0.01 +0
11 Hertha BSC 1.41 1.56 0.90 -0.02 -2
12 VfL Wolfsburg 1.43 1.66 0.86 -0.04 -1
13 Hamburger SV 1.25 1.49 0.84 +0.01 +0
14 1.FC Köln 1.49 1.85 0.81 +0.04 +0
15 1.FC Kaiserslautern 1.01 1.45 0.69 +0.03 +2
16 SC Freiburg 1.18 1.77 0.67 -0.04 -1
17 1.FC Nürnberg 1.06 1.63 0.65 -0.04 -1
18 FC Augsburg 0.94 1.54 0.61 +0.02 +0
25.63 25.62 +0
Goals ø expected 2.85
Schalke have overtaken Leverkusen for the (third) place and of course you will find confirmation for this view not only in the table: the team has impressed with quite a few great performances throughout the season so far. Hoffenheim with a huge jump, but it remains very tight in that area. Wolfsburg continue to slip, now only 12th. Lautern also lift themselves up two places with the great 1:1 in Dortmund (understandable), while Nuremberg are already beginning to give Augsburg competition for 18th place. Another upside-down result, and maybe … ? Augsburg, however, deserved the improvement, even if it is not enough to leave the bottom position. They have shown themselves to be competitive.
l. The frequency of tendency changes
Note: a “change of tendency” is considered to be a goal which equalises a lead or gives 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
Balance of the trend changes from last week:
Instead of listing the changes of tendency, from now on a small table with the changes of tendency of the past weekend will be included here.
Country Matches Equalisation Home Leading Goal Away Leading Goal Total per Match
1 1st Bundesliga 9 3 0 2 5 0.556
2 France 10 5 2 1 8 0.800
3 2nd Bundesliga 9 3 1 0 4 0,444
4 Italy 10 7 0 3 10 1,000
5 Spain 10 5 1 1 7 0.700
6 England 10 4 3 1 8 0.800
Total balance 58 27 7 8 42 0.724
Not much exciting in Germany in this category at the weekend. Both League 1 and League 2 were down at the end. Italy caught up with 10 changes of tendency in 10 games. Overall, however, the matchday was average.
Trend changes in the major leagues in the 2011/2012 season
Country Matches Equaliser H Leading goal A Leading goal Total per match
1 1st Bundesliga 143 77 28 20 125 0.874
2 France 170 89 23 22 134 0.788
3 2nd Bundesliga 162 72 25 20 117 0.722
4 England 149 63 21 20 104 0.698
5 Spain 150 61 26 13 100 0.667
6 Italy 139 54 15 16 85 0.612
Total balance 913 416 138 111 665 0.728
The 1st German league remains clearly in front, which confirms the perception of the richness of events. Italy this season, despite the plus balance on the WE, with the confirmation of the reputation of being artists in managing results.
m. The mathematical review of the matchday 16 results.
Note: here, the deviation of expected goals with 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
Hertha Schalke 04 1.36 1.42 2.77 1 2 -0.36 0.58
Nürnberg Hoffenheim 1.28 1.19 2.47 0 2 -1.28 0.81
FC Cologne Freiburg 1.87 1.42 3.30 4 0 2.13 -1.42
Augsburg Gladbach 0.86 1.37 2.23 1 0 0.14 -1.37
Mainz HSV 1.74 1.36 3.10 0 0 -1.74 -1.36
Werder Wolfsburg 2.17 1.27 3.44 4 1 1.83 -0.27
Hannover Leverkusen 1.42 1.50 2.92 0 0 -1.42 -1.50
Dortmund Kaiserslautern 2.24 0.46 2.70 1 1 -1.24 0.54
Stuttgart FC Bayern 1.10 1.91 3.01 1 2 -0.10 0.09
14.05 11.91 25.95 12 8 -2.05 -3.91
Expected goal total Expected goal average Goal average achieved 25.95 2.88 2.22
ø expected goal difference 1.90 ø goal difference 2.02
Clearly too few goals, but again the away teams missed their mark more than the home teams, which overall increases the home advantage (already inflated before). The average goal deviation is a bit too high, which is mainly due to the high Cologne victory, but furthermore (and surprisingly) due to the two 0:0 games, in which the computer expected comparatively many goals in each case (and was proved wrong with this expectation).
n. The determination
Note: The determination 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
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: 40.17%
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
Hertha Schalke 04 36.21% 24.93% 38.86% 2 38.86%
Nürnberg Hoffenheim 38.78% 26.70% 34.52% 2 34.52%
FC Cologne Freiburg 48.36% 22.18% 29.46% 1 48.36%
Augsburg Gladbach 23.64% 27.38% 48.98% 1 23.64%
Mainz HSV 46.71% 23.05% 30.24% 0 23.05%
Werder Wolfsburg 58.12% 20.14% 21.74% 1 58.12%
Hannover Leverkusen 35.99% 24.19% 39.82% 0 24.19%
Dortmund Kaiserslautern 78.31% 15.57% 6.12% 0 15.57%
Stuttgart FC Bayern 21.61% 21.93% 56.46% 2 56.46%
3 3 3 3.23
average commitment received: 35.86%
Further note: No comparable model has yet been discovered in mathematics. Not even by a mathematician who had set himself the task of proving to the author that there was definitely nothing new.
Once again, the outsider events predominated, as the expected determination was clearly undercut. Mainly responsible for this: Dortmund’s draw, partly responsible for Augsburg’s win against Gladbach’s high-flyers, who probably miss Marco Reus more than it showed in the home match against Dortmund. Furthermore, the draws are (almost) always an underdog event. The three away wins, on the other hand, were less the surprises, as only Hoffenheim was one at all, and that one very close.
o. Overall league statistics
Note: statistics of this kind are regularly compiled 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 143 67 35 41 249 163 1,209
expected 143 66.14 32.72 44.12 228.9 175.7 1.131
abs deviation 0 0.86 2.28 -3.12 20.10 -12.70 0.08
rel. Deviation 0 1.28% 6.51% -7.61% 8.07% -7.79% 6.39%
Determination expected Determination received 40.17% 39.82% ø Goal deviation ø Goal deviation expected 1.84 1.88
The home wins have come up just short and only less than one too many, put into perspective with the computer expectations. The away wins are, despite the 3 al last WE, still quite clearly undercut, as a little more than 3 (still) are missing. But in the meantime the draws are on the rise and at this point the same was oraculated, referring to the upcoming “dark days of winter” with the battles for points and positions? Who remembers, who would have to dig up old texts for this?
Of course, expectation remains expectation, especially in mathematical terms, and it is precisely not possible to expect the expected draws to be exceeded. If it was, then the fulfilment of the expected draws – which was undercut when the oracle was pronounced – but not the exceeding of them had been predicted. If it were the case that one could expect the surpassing, then it would be a systematic effect, which, as a predictable effect, could be mapped mathematically. For example, by depressing the draw factor for the representative (winter) months a little and thus increasing the expected draws.
Since we can’t get rid of the ghosts we called, we found it necessary to compile the statistics of the estimated winter matchdays, based on the last 10 seasons between matchday 15 and 25. That the choice fell on those was almost coincidental, since it could just as well have been those from 14 to 23 or from 16 to 27 or, or…. Nevertheless, it seemed to make sense insofar as, on the one hand, the time of year promises coolness and darkness, coupled with (only guessed at) lower spectator numbers and poorer pitch conditions, as well as the phase of the season in which certainly no decisions have yet been made, but in which the teams are nevertheless endeavouring to gradually set their sights firmly on their goals for the season and, if possible, not to miss them under any circumstances, whereby the latter could also mean relegation.
A basic idea here: in this phase there are more draws and fewer goals. Possible causes: the poorer pitch conditions and/or a somewhat greater tightening of the players/teams out of the fear of coming out of the sometimes decisive games without any points at all, which can even spill over to the referees and make them vote even less often for the goal action, mindful of the fear they share of plunging an entire region into deepest mourning with a single whistle or no whistle.
Two further comments: the statistics were compiled without knowing the result. The wording and statements here made it necessary to take a closer look. So if it is only a perceived effect, it would be just as appropriate to put it here (and draw conclusions from it) as if it were to confirm the statements.
Lastly, to avoid a widely observed error of statisticians and their statistics, the current season was deliberately excluded. It is often enough the case that one intuitively observes an effect and then has it confirmed with the help of statistics for the period of this observation. This leads to a fallacy. One would have to exclude exactly this period and take an independent but comparable period. This has been done here, even if the influence would only be small at less than 1/11.
Statistics matchdays 15-25 from the years 2002-2011
Matches Hsiege Draw Asiege Htore Atore Heimvort
arrived 990 458 273 259 1551 1150 1.148
expected 990 462.57 241.95 285.46 1607.0 1181 1.153
abs deviation 0 -4.57 31.05 -26.46 -56.00 -31.00 0.00
rel. Deviation 0 -1.00% 11.37% -10.22% -3.61% -2.70% -0.38%
Goal average expected Goal average arrived 2.82 2.73 Determination expected Determination arrived 40.09% 39.44% ø Goal Deviation ø Goal Deviation expected 1.85 1.86
Intuition is not deceiving. There are fewer goals and more draws. The possible causes have already been listed. Whether one should now set about implementing this programmatically (or by parameters) is left open. In any case, it looks as if one should take a closer look when planning a bet on an over, as well as when betting on an away win or, for the true experts, who like to bet on a “Lay X”, to at least consider this a little more carefully.
For the home wins, the deviation is only slight, so the expected (but missing) away wins shift to the draws. However, since the home teams, as can be seen, missed their expected goals scored by even more (i.e.: undercut them) than the away teams and still scored more points, this suggests that pure results football is played, but that the matches are always contested and close. This is further confirmed by the goal difference arrived at, which at 1.85 is just below that expected.
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 he 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
Hertha Schalke 04 2.86 3.55 2.58
Nürnberg Hoffenheim 2.40 3.45 3.15
FC Cologne Freiburg 2.32 3.55 3.20
Augsburg Gladbach 4.10 3.70 1.95
Mainz HSV 2.28 3.55 3.30
Werder Wolfsburg 1.64 4.10 5.40
Hannover Leverkusen 2.76 3.55 2.62
Dortmund Kaiserslautern 1.26 6.00 14.50
Stuttgart FC Bayern 5.70 4.20 1.63
Goals scored 2.13
Goals scored 2
Money Evaluation -0.53
The bets on Hoffenheim and Cologne can hardly be doubted, as they were both very clear from the match reports, the match progressions, the chance ratios and ultimately also from the results.
The bet on Mainz was also a good one, after all that one could see for oneself and later heard and read about it (including the actually relevant coaching insights). The new signing Choupo-Moting, acquired by HSV before the start of the season, missed two of the best opportunities when he once broke through alone (albeit on the outside) and looked for a finish instead of crossing the ball, and the other time, wonderfully played free in a central position, chased the well-timed pass into the clouds quite unchallenged, and also otherwise the chance ratio and the share of the game were positive. Especially in the final minutes, Mainz pressed firmly for the winning goal, which is usually a good indicator of how the players feel on the pitch: who is happy with the result, who is playing for time, who is rushing and playing forward as fast as they can?
The bet on Wolfsburg was as bad (or as good) as any on that team. Believing the coach’s words, they had everything quite well under control until 0:1. To win a 5.40 in general, however, you need something more than this, admittedly, but above all this: a little luck, and, the higher the odds, this (demanded) size usually increases.
The bet on Leverkusen in this game was not a good one, which means that with the (watched this game live 90 minutes) game shares and this course of the game, the odds of 2.62 were too low. In 0:0 games, by the way, as an observer you have the huge advantage that no “disturbing” goal scores mean cuts for the course of the game. The game runs for 90 minutes under exactly the same conditions.
If one now starts to find arguments pro Leverkusen (and thus pro bet) in the game really played by Hannover first class (and thus as a better team), then it goes like this: On the one hand, the course of a game and the balance of power is not always predictable. Occasionally (apart from the possible, coincidental, scoring of goals), small, individual, successful actions by one team — even more so in the case of the home team, with which one gets the spectators behind one — are enough to spontaneously boost self-confidence and at the same time impress the opponents a little, so that even these relationships arise a little by chance. But that’s not the decisive aspect, that’s just always in the back of your mind.
No, the decisive aspect here is this: towards the end of the game Leverkusen were suddenly ready – analogous to the Mainz vs. HSV game — to look for their own chances that came their way. Suddenly they went for the winning goal – even if it was only the last 10 minutes – suddenly they seemed to have the greater saved strength, suddenly there was fire in the Hannover penalty area. You could feel that a top team was playing here, the kind of team you’ve only seen from Bayern over the years. By the way, there is no question that if the winning goal had been scored, all the match reports would have said that “the victory was ultimately deserved, as Hannover failed to capitalise on their chances and Leverkusen were ice-cold and, with their opponents’ forces flagging, converted the one they had”. So: there were a few clues after all to make the bet again if the match was played straight away.
The bet on VfB from Stuttgart could of course be talked up at will in view of the high odds. In fact, FCB looked so superior in the opening phase that one had no hope at all. After the incredible missed chance of Gomez, who did not get the ball over the line from about one and a half metres, after an actually precise pass by Ribery from the baseline, however, the DSF experts worked out quite correctly that Gomez is pushed or shoved a little by the opponent at the moment of the finish, “to put himoff balance”, as the Englishman says, and thus had a decisive influence. However, there is no question that this “push” (so perfectly clear, since this small, tiny obstruction was enough to prevent a goal; what other criteria would there be for a clear foul, apart from preventing a goal?) was not classified as a “foul worthy of a penalty”. Absurd, yes, that’s how it is. In the direct countermove, VfB scored a wonderfully played-out goal and, sure, you now have your hope and, in a way, your justification for the bet.
But Bayern’s play was irresistible until, if you like, the equaliser was scored. In the next few minutes, Stuttgart had almost nothing but unpleasant foul actions to counter the whirlwind of Bayern, until, one had this urgent feeling in front of the TV, Molinaro was shown a yellow card.
After that, however – and this was also to be feared – it was a far from enjoyable game. The Bavarians were initially content with the numerical superiority, so they did not necessarily press as before, while VfB from this moment on just wanted to get the 1:1 over time. The good game becomes a bad game. When Bayern then took one of the two scoring chances after the restart, there was another change in the game. Now Bayern played mainly for ball security and no longer looked for the finish. After about 70 minutes, VfB summoned up the last of their courage (lost is lost anyway) and Labbadia brought on two attacking players. It is this phase that gives you the courage to have been right with your bet. Because: there were two equalising chances, two excellent ones at that (albeit one after a back-passing mistake), and one would almost be inclined to give VfB credit for a deserved draw, especially as this pressure was built up in the final phase with 10 against 11.
So: one would certainly repeat this bet, too, as difficult as it remains to judge a 5.60 on the one hand, to hit it on the other.
The overall result with -0.53 units of course unpleasant, but certainly, given the quality of the bets and the balances before, bearable (what choice would one have?).
Recommended betting statistics for the individual match days
Matchday No. No. of bets No. of hits Expected hits Hit deviation Win/loss
1 7 5 2.84 +2.16 +7.96
2 7 3 2.77 +0.23 +1.75
3 2 0 1.00 -1.00 -2.00
4 3 1 1.14 -0.14 -0.28
5 6 2 2.54 -0.54 -2.33
6 8 3 2.29 +0.71 +8.10
7 8 4 3.55 +0.45 +0.00
8 5 1 1.28 -0.28 -2.16
9 7 3 2.36 +0.64 +5.60
10 7 1 1.92 -0.92 +2.20
11 8 2 2.79 -0.79 -3.39
12 7 1 2.07 -1.07 -2.00
13 6 4 2.77 +1.23 +5.37
14 7 2 2.63 -0.63 +4.68
15 6 1 2.18 -1.18 -4.65
16 6 2 2.13 -0.13 -0.53
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
100 35 +18.32 18.32% 36.25 -1.25
Clearly a better result was possible (and only with some bad luck a worse one). The 18.32% remains pleasing and also clearly too much. The advantage cannot be that great. The negative figure in the hit expectation statistics continues to prove that one has hit too high odds.
In any case, a few more statistical values will be added next season. For example, the minimum number of hits required for pari, presumably the expected average rate hit in relation to the rate hit, as well as the expected profit in units and as a percentage. It is even possible to record the staggered units and evaluate them accordingly. In this season, it would be too much effort retrospectively (to record the statistical figures; the last part would even be impossible, except for the last two weeks perhaps).
q. The preview of the 17th matchday
Note: The computer calculates the goal expectations (and the individually maintained home advantage not shown here) to these goal expectations according to a specially developed – of course explainable and highly logical – algorithm. These in turn are offset against the probabilities of occurrence, in the past by simulation, today long since by a function derived from the simulation results). These goal expectancy values have also long since proved to be competitive in goal number betting on the betting market.
Goal expectation Home Away Total
FC Bayern FC Cologne 3.51 0.81 4.33
Hoffenheim Hertha 1.53 1.18 2.71
Leverkusen Nuremberg 2.01 0.78 2.79
HSV Augsburg 1.53 0.85 2.38
Freiburg Dortmund 0.71 1.73 2.43
Wolfsburg Stuttgart 1.68 1.48 3.16
Schalke 04 Werder 2.03 1.24 3.27
Kaiserslautern Hannover 1.19 1.19 2.37
Gladbach Mainz 1.77 1.09 2.86
15.97 10.34 26.31
Expected goal total Expected goal average 26.31 2.92
Lots of expected goals this weekend, mainly thanks to the Bayern vs Cologne game, but Wolfsburg and Schalke are also expected to “hail”. The games in Hamburg and Kaiserslautern, on the other hand, promise to be low-scoring (if anyone wants to bet on over/under).
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
FC Bayern FC Köln 86.32% 8.81% 4.87% 75.52%
Hoffenheim Hertha 45.71% 25.03% 29.25% 35.72%
Leverkusen Nuremberg 66.26% 20.14% 13.61% 49.80%
HSV Augsburg 53.58% 25.59% 20.83% 39.59%
Freiburg Dortmund 14.91% 23.10% 61.99% 45.99%
Wolfsburg Stuttgart 42.64% 23.24% 34.13% 35.22%
Schalke 04 Werder 55.78% 21.21% 23.01% 40.91%
Kaiserslautern Hannover 36.27% 27.51% 36.22% 33.84%
Gladbach Mainz 53.43% 23.18% 23.39% 39.39%
4.55 1.98 2.47 3.96
Average expected fixing:
A very high expected betting, mainly thanks to the Bayern home game, of course. Leverkusen and Dortmund also solid favourites, due to their bottom of the table opponents, so the figure grows to 44%.
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
FC Bayern FC Cologne 1.16 11.35 20.55
Hoffenheim Hertha 2.19 4.00 3.42
Leverkusen Nuremberg 1.51 4.97 7.35
HSV Augsburg 1.87 3.91 4.80
Freiburg Dortmund 6.71 4.33 1.61
Wolfsburg Stuttgart 2.35 4.30 2.93
Schalke 04 Werder 1.79 4.71 4.35
Kaiserslautern Hannover 2.76 3.64 2.76
Gladbach Mainz 1.87 4.31 4.28
Comparison with the betting exchange betfair
(The betting recommendations)
Pairing 1 X 2 % Average
FC Bayern FC Cologne 1.16 9.40 23.00 101.30%
Hoffenheim Hertha 1.99 3.60 4.10 102.42%
Leverkusen Nuremberg 1.54 4.30 8.00 100.69%
HSV Augsburg 1.63 3.95 6.20 102.80%
Freiburg Dortmund 6.20 4.00 1.64 102.10%
Wolfsburg Stuttgart 2.70 3.65 2.64 102.31%
Schalke 04 Werder 2.12 3.70 3.65 101.59%
Kaiserslautern Hannover 2.38 3.50 3.35 100.44%
Gladbach Mainz 1.86 3.60 4.60 103.28%
Goal expectation 3.13
A quick comment on the betting recommendations:
After heavily campaigning for a Hoffenheim win last week – and that one becoming one of the few success stories — should we now go against them? Especially with the Berlin Hertha, who only had one goal-scoring chance in their last match against Schalke? One could at least cite the home-away ratio of BOTH teams, which makes the bet palatable. Hertha did well away from home, Hoffenheim had a harder time at home and could not beat Freiburg and Kaiserslautern. So: a 3/10 bet.
Of course, the bet on Leverkusen against Nuremberg is not really tempting either, considering that the percentages given to the organiser at betfair (in case of a win) wipe out the entire advantage. One could say that the bet is only placed so that there is something to settle next week (and invoke the saved percentages, which are waived in the virtual bet). The conviction is there, however, that Leverkusen have enough playing qualities to bring their opponents to their knees. Under the circumstances: 5/10.
FC Augsburg are really fun at the moment, and this has been demonstrated even after losing games, starting with that so sad (in terms of result) game in Stuttgart, when they were 0:1 down in clear superiority in half 1 and the 1:1 finally scored was immediately wiped out by an individual action by Harnik, thus losing the game 1:2. It would have been more than just a phrase if coach Luhukay had said afterwards (did he?) that they were strengthened rather than weakened by this defeat, as it proved that you can play at the same level as the other contenders. Still not all performances were fairly rewarded (even the loss at Schalke came as a surprise at the time of the 1:2). HSV, on the other hand, have wobbled mightily in the last two games and still didn’t concede a goal, so they took 4 points with them, as it could have been 0. Surely they will try to keep the (fink) streak going in the home game and have the crowd behind them, but you are still talking about a 6.20 here, at which you can’t really go wrong (even if you lose the unit). 3/10 the brave decision.
The same goes for Dortmund’s game at Freiburg. Freiburg also held up quite well for a while in Cologne, were just no match for Podolski. In terms of play, it looked very decent in parts – as was the case not only in this game — but one may equally note that this is true for the entire Bundesliga and all teams. Football is really fun to watch – as long as you don’t just wait for clever, appropriate, entertaining commentary or even permanently and exclusively for entertainment purposes for goals, but are instead content with other successful actions, which, in the attacking sense, can mean an unsuccessful finish, but in the defensive sense can also include quite successful defensive actions. The advantage is so small that it is not really worth it because of the percentage loss. Dortmund, on the other hand, can certainly be trusted. Their self-confidence will certainly not have been knocked, neither by the Champions League exit nor by the 1:1 against Lautern.
Well, the attachment to Wolfsburg has repeatedly been called into question, honestly. However, whenever there was a new pairing, they found reasons enough to prop up the team again in this game of all games. Certainly, the problems are well recognised by the DSF experts – example: with a constantly changing squad and line-up, as well as newly traded names, the team is never trusted by those in charge, apart from the lack of a fixture effect — so that they have not been successful up to now according to the standards.
Nevertheless, every game has its story. The one a fortnight ago against Mainz was an unfortunate one. They met an opponent who had just regained strength and who had beaten Bayern shortly before, but the chance ratio remained clearly positive at 7:3. Also in Bremen, according to coach Magath, whom one absolutely trusts with his judgement (as a chess player, which he actually is; one once found his name at HSK so about the 13th team), they had the game well under control until 0:1 and Werder remained without a scoring chance. The goal changes the course of the game (as once noted by coach Daum, smiled at by all), you are forced to do something going forward and with an already slightly unsettled team against such an offensively strong opponent, it can easily happen that you catch a few more. Besides, Stuttgart have only won one of their last seven games, and that one – against Augsburg – has already been mentioned. What made them so strong that you can pay a 2.70 on Wolfsburg? And: Molinaro might well be missing. Still, only 4/10.
Schalke’s home win against Werder is clearly overpaid. Werder were subject to major performance fluctuations throughout the season. Two of the home victories were only achieved with extreme luck, namely those against Cologne and Hertha, when they were outnumbered (against Hertha even with two men) and only scored the celebrated winning goals shortly before the final whistle. The last two away games were lost with 0:5 and 1:4, after which the end of the high flight was already heralded by the media. 2.12 would be almost exactly the rate with equally strong teams (over the last 10 years; i.e. the home teams have won almost exactly 1/2.12 = 47.6% of all games). How could Werder be exactly as good as Schalke? Not even in the table are they, not nearly in goal difference. No, if there are 10 units to be awarded, they have to be placed here: 10/10!
Likewise, Hannover made such a strong impression just in the last game that there’s no way you can avoid playing them in Lautern. Lautern did look very good in Dortmund and held up brilliantly (even if the point remains lucky given the numerous aluminium goals) and the same feat was achieved in some away games before (win at Schalke!), the last home game against Hertha was ok, with a 1-1 and the better chances, but before that there was a 0-1 in Nürnberg with almost no chance. No win for 6 games, and even the one in the cup in Frankfurt came only in the 119th minute, with the 1:0 winner. Sure, Hannover also has a negative streak, but against Leverkusen they were extremely impressive and before that they only just missed the wins in always competitive games (against good opponents). A good bet, maybe (only) 5/10 due to the price.
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