1) The 1st Bundesliga
a. Review of the Matches
Results of the 20th Matchday
- FC Nuremberg – Borussia Dortmund 0:2 (0:0)
VfL Wolfsburg – Borussia Mönchengladbach 0:0
TSG Hoffenheim – FC Augsburg 2:2 (1:1)
FC Schalke 04 – FSV Mainz 05 1:1 (0:1)
Hertha BSC – Hannover 96 0:1 (0:0)
Bayer Leverkusen – VfB Stuttgart 2:2 (1:1)
Hamburger SV – FC Bayern Munich 1:1 (1:0)
SC Freiburg – Werder Bremen 2:2 (1:1)
- FC Kaiserslautern – 1. FC Köln 0:1 (0:0)
A few observations:
1) “Cologne need a win again”.
Don’t worry, people on this side of the keyboard will never tire of pointing out the many shortcomings of those who also want to constantly harp on the alleged shortcomings of others. For their part, however, they do so from the position of being guaranteed to be miles worse than the criticised in everything they themselves criticise. They break the baton over the best footballers there are in this country and seem to be of the opinion that if they didn’t keep making these terrible mistakes, we would finally get to see decent football. The fact that this would then be without goals doesn’t seem to bother them either for the moment.
So, if you elevate yourself above these people by pointing out their mistakes, you wouldn’t be any better, would you? However, at this point you personally claim to have no deficits in babbling compared to these speech bubbles, insofar as you are competing in an area in which there are no proven advantages for this or that side.
However, as far as logical thinking is concerned, one simply pushes past in the most brazen way. The only possibility would be that they can think logically but do not use it for entertainment purposes. Of course, this would be an excellent criterion and would be fully recognised – as long as one did not hear the opposite from all sides: it is not the least bit entertaining, according to the general tenor, from which not a single deviation could yet be captured. It is nerve-killing. All viewers/listeners with whom we have had personal contact so far agree on this.
The discussions, if there are any, remind one a little of Evelyn Hamann in a Loriot film when she looked for her own job and actually found one. She became a chocolate tester! When, on a busy day, she had to test another chocolate and already recognisably had to suppress the nausea that had long since begun to rise, she said, “Well, this one made me a little less sick than that one.” Such are the nuanced differentiations among the commentators.
Here now is the example that could confirm (yet again) the long-held doubts about comprehension. In the first minutes of the Kaiserslautern vs. Cologne match, one had to catch this nonsensical sentence: “The Cologne team urgently needs a win again.” And the reason given was: “So that they can finally calm down again.
Now there is only one problem with the reappraisal: where to start pointing out the nonsense? If it were “Köln Fan TV”, one would have some understanding, but on the other hand it would be superfluous to long for a victory, since everyone knows that this is the optimum, but a draw before losing would at least bring in something countable. Yes, so even then it would not make sense, but it would still not be unusual to make such a statement.
However, since it was a normal Bundesliga match broadcast on Sky, there would be no partisanship. It’s about Bundesliga points would be the maximum he would have to share at this point, and even that statement would not contribute one bit to any enlightenment, but it would – and thus perfectly legal or even desirable – underline his own tension, which is that he, like a small child, is amazed that it’s really starting now and that he was actually allowed to experience this grace of God to be present live at a Bundesliga match. Provided, that is, that he would revive any part of this possibly felt excitement at some later point in the game. No, that cannot be it.
If only it were at least nonsensical, superfluous. What does he imagine he is trying to convey to a spectator? Who, he thinks, will be among the spectators at all? Are they all supposed to be Cologne supporters? Is he himself a Cologne fan? In the latter case, this would require a) a one-off, official confession, then b) careful consideration on the part of the broadcaster to assign fans of individual teams as commentators. If they did confess – which is common in England, by the way, and quite likeable – they would, of course, have to reckon with flax from time to time if their team lost, but they would be allowed to dish it out if their own team won and a colleague had to take over the sad part. It is quite conceivable, as the English example shows.
They need a win, the opponent needs a win, Any such mention is completely superfluous. Taking sides – of which, by the way, no further evidence was given during the game – is more than inappropriate and is the exclusive preserve of designated supporters. What is this nonsense? By the way: if one of the two really needed a win more urgently, it was Kaiserslautern. They already had three points less on their account, now they have six.
In principle, the man should at least have shown his relief at the end of the game, once he had succeeded in what he had set out to do. But these words, quoted at the beginning, he had of course spouted just as carelessly as all the rest of the drivel. Make a reference? What for? After all, one is a football commentator and any use of logic is unnecessary, no, more than that, it is superfluous and undesirable. Just look at Sky’s share prices, how much truth there is in it. Then, to convince yourself further, just look outside the box for once. preferably towards the west, the island. Not only is “Sky” an English word, no, the channel has its roots there and has a long tradition, with functioning marketing. Why, one thinks, is the broadcaster there in the black, even allowing an investment (which is gradually becoming a write-off) across the shore to the mainland?
2) “Are you crazy?”
Lucien Favre really is a sought-after coach now, especially these days, since he not only did the impossible and saved Gladbach from relegation (at rock bottom they had a slim 5% chance of staying in the league and, unless the calculator is wrong, it was a less than 1 in 20 chance of them staying in the league; even if a manageable miracle, it somehow felt like one), but led them to the top of the table the very next season.
Now, as one of the decisive criteria for good coaching, for progress, in all disciplines of sports and areas, the magic word “objectivity” is always cited at this point. Yes, according to their own conviction, it only works with it. Motivational artists who, a la Peter Neururer, want to talk the players into world fame, but neglect the fact that there is also an opponent who not only intends to operate diametrically opposed to one’s own goals, but also has hardly inferior abilities, are increasingly out of fashion. One should allow everyone their own and simply work continuously on perfecting one’s own skills, and best of all do this as a team. The results will come if you follow this route consistently, and indeed the maximum possible, given your own level of ability, which in any case has a limit somewhere. In other words: not everyone can be a Messi or a Mourinho.
When Favre was asked after the game whether the 0:0 was now a setback for him and his team, he spontaneously and almost unreflectively dictated the words “Are you crazy?” into the microphone. When the questioner, in view of this not exactly satisfactory answer (as right as Favre was, of course), repeated the question, slightly modified, it was clear (to anyone with a grain of sense) that Favre had not misheard at all and that his answer, even if spontaneous, was absolutely to the point: “Yes, that’s what you asked me. And I ask you back: are you crazy?”
Curiously, the interview was not broadcast further, but returned directly to the studio. Presumably they wanted to make fun of Favre, the “deep con man”, rather than, as would be sensible, orientate themselves towards the content of his statements. They, the Gladbachers, are to be permanently talked into title chances. The way to success is described above: calmly go about your daily work and make the most of your abilities. So: talking about victories, but not bringing them in, will not bring anything in. Proclaiming “the championship” as the season’s goal, preferably from 18 coaches’ throats in agreement, in order to laugh at least 17 of them off at the end (remember that the sacked ones will be replaced by then new market criers), could only provide the media landscape with very temporary (because gloating) satisfaction.
Gladbach never claimed, none of the officials let alone the players, that they would become a serious championship contender. Latterly, though, even Marco Reus was heard to say that they want to stay up as long as possible and have Europe in their sights, but who would blame them, given that the primary goal of the season, staying in the league, has already been secured? Now a draw in an away game at a recognised strong team like Wolfsburg, who have even made plenty of personnel improvements, is supposed to be a setback? Is that what the man wants to have confirmed? No, there was only one sensible answer to the dumb-ass question, “Are you crazy?” This one could have gained some respect if he had replied, “No, not crazy. Just stupid.” But of course that was not seriously to be expected, true as it would be.
A 0-0 away from home in the present situation with such an opponent can in no way be a failure…. If it is, then it is once again about the unjust reward for a draw. But more of that in a moment…
3) “Both are dissatisfied”, “Not fish, not meat”.
Surely there is a special reason this week to talk more and more about the nonsense of the three-point rule. After all, there were six draws on one match day, which is certainly in the upper regions of the statistical maximum that has ever occurred. What more is there to say about this?
The complaints were once based on the officials’ efforts to get more action by offering a special reward for another goal at a remi(e)sem score. The only thing is that a) they have long forgotten what the goal was supposed to be and b) they have never seriously checked whether any of the hoped-for effects have occurred.
In any case, the goal average has not developed positively. With regard to the draws, there was a somewhat curious development, which has already been examined in more detail elsewhere, but in the long term it has by no means had any effect in favour of more fighting power. The reason for this is the fear of losing – extremely promoted by the media by tearing up losers — which far outweighs the ridiculous urge for a win and the seemingly desirable gain of two points (since one would have one, there are two to be gained) versus the risk of losing just one. You are supposed to substitute strikers and order all your men forward in the hope of winning, only to concede a goal, probably far more than 50% of the time, and go away empty-handed, only to be laughed at for tactical indiscipline and, as the responsible coach, to find your chair in front of your door a week later with the request that you try out these silly measures at an amateur club in the near future.
Neither the coach nor the players will go along with that. Intuitively, they would rather have the bird in the hand than the pigeon on the roof. Nor would it be demonstrable that the risk would be worth it at all, since the game of football has evolved so much tactically that it is possible to force a win by less than the required 33.3% compared to the cases where you give away the one point (the mathematics of this should not be explicitly stated here, but it is actually a simple calculation; as Olli Dittrich á la Boris Becker would say, in this case possibly rightly: “That’s a very simple milkmaid’s calculation.”).
So: no one takes the risk. The hoped-for effect has failed to materialise, the spectacle on the courts has not increased, the goal average has remained the same, only injustice has been provoked by the introduction of a random component, thus amounting to a truism, which reads: “If you both fight each other equally for 90 minutes and there is an actual fair draw, then we will, on a whim, deduct half a point from each of you.” Because that’s the actual effect. If it’s three points per win, then it should be one and a half points for a draw. Or revert to the normal and fair rule.
The death of the draw is not to be feared. In a discipline that has a much higher tendency to draw, namely chess, this was already a big issue 100 years ago. It was noted, for example, that Capablanca and Alekhine smoked the peace pipe 26 times in 35 games in the 1927 World Championship match. The danger seemed gigantic, and rule changes of a completely different kind were already being discussed.
Nowadays in chess, despite a clear rise in the level of play, this danger seems less than ever. The top players fight each other to the death and often enough one or the other party manages to accumulate decisive advantages. At the same time, the risk is not shied away from to a reasonable extent, so that entertainment and excitement are always provided for the spectator.
Since the problem in football is much less – if, then one could only observe from time to time (in the past) that teams with an even score from 20 minutes before the end were in a certain way united and hardly made any attacks –, one should return to the old rule.
However, if one were truly interested in greater excitement and greater attractiveness of the game, the measures required for this have been enumerated here x times. Rethinking per striker or simply applying existing rules. Just as in the case of offside the attacker should be given the benefit of the doubt (which is even written down), in a duel the ball should not always be awarded to the defender, in a scramble after a cross the whistle should not always be blown for a striker’s foul or nothing at all (but occasionally for a penalty), and so on and so forth. That would guarantee more goals, fewer draws and maximum entertainment for the spectators. And the injustices would be eliminated at all levels. No penalty for a draw and the permanent injustices against strikers would be a thing of the past. Rethinking and applying rules is all it takes.
That the media representatives have long felt this injustice could be seen at the weekend in the repeated comments they caught. Not only has it long been said, one could almost call it “official”, that “the draw was too little for both”, but this could still be attributed with some goodwill of one’s own to the permanent defeatism, the contemplation of the half-empty glass.
Now there were a few more comments of this kind: “Not fish not fowl.” Yes, you just sense that something is wrong. In the past, one would have simply said, “A fair draw between two evenly matched teams. The points were shared peacefully.” Today, only two of the three points are shared, leaving the rest for the officials to put all collected under their pillows, only to realise that a guilty conscience is an uncomfortable pillow to rest on. Not fish not fowl gives expression to this sentiment.
And, let’s be honest, in which game at the weekend did you get the feeling that the spectator had been put off? Everyone was playing to win, a draw was just the random result and the penalty (of missing a point) just plain nastiness.
Incidentally, the last captured comment on a draw was that after the game “both were unhappy with the draw.” Very right the announcer was about that, only, one fears, he has no idea why?!
4) A “deserved victory
By the way, one could observe a wonderful deserved victory in the 2nd division. Here the mockery resembling a comedy was even visible shortly before. Duisburg played against FSV Frankfurt and in the summary had goal chance after goal chance, some of them of inconceivable size, if you look at the result: no goal. Again and again. FSV Frankfurt wiped the sweat from their brow time and again – and had the rare luck to be successful twice on the very few forays. Duisburg scored one goal from 10 chances, some of which were top-class, while Frankfurt scored two goals from, say, three. The result of the game: 1:2. The announcer, after showing all these Duisburg chances and hardly being able to conceal his bewilderment, concludes with the comment: “All in all, a deserved victory for the Frankfurt team.
Yes, is it supposed to be comedy? Well, you couldn’t really feel like laughing, rather you felt a bit sorry for the loser, who really was played pretty hard by fate. On the other hand, we’ve known football long enough and know that it doesn’t always end in favour of the one who plays better or has the most chances. In this case, it was a bit unfair, but you’d put up with it. But with this comment? There is really no “game analysis”. Goals are counted and the final result is written down. What’s the point of even commenting on whether it was deserved or, as is not possible, undeserved? The fact is that, not only at this moment, one has every reason to doubt any expertise on the part of the announcer (and not just this one). Is anyone at all listening to what the broadcaster is saying? Someone must have engaged this man, someone must have assigned him to this summary. Are there any quality controls at any point? It all seems bananas, the speakers babble on in the certain knowledge that no one is listening anyway, that is the only possible explanation (and this is meant very seriously).
b. The table situation
Sp S U N Pkt T GT Diff
1 Borussia Dortmund 20 13 4 3 43 45 – 14 +31
2 FC Bayern Munich 20 13 2 5 41 47 – 14 +33
3 FC Schalke 04 20 13 2 5 41 46 – 25 +21
4 Borussia Mönchengladbach 20 12 4 4 40 31 – 12 +19
5 Werder Bremen 20 9 5 6 32 33 – 34 -1
6 Bayer Leverkusen 20 8 7 5 31 28 – 27 +1
7 Hannover 96 20 7 9 4 30 22 – 24 -2
8 TSG Hoffenheim 20 6 6 24 22 – 24 -2
9 1.FC Köln 20 7 3 10 24 29 – 40 -11
10 VfL Wolfsburg 20 7 3 10 24 24 – 36 -12
11 VfB Stuttgart 20 6 5 9 23 26 – 28 -2
12 Hamburger SV 20 5 8 7 23 25 – 34 -9
13 FSV Mainz 05 20 5 7 8 22 28 – 34 -6
14 1.FC Nürnberg 20 6 3 11 21 19 – 31 -12
15 Hertha BSC 20 4 8 8 20 25 – 31 -6
16 1.FC Kaiserslautern 20 3 9 8 18 15 – 24 -9
17 FC Augsburg 20 3 8 9 17 19 – 33 -14
18 SC Freiburg 20 4 5 11 17 25 – 44 -19
509 509 0
Total number of games 180
Goals ø 2.83
The fantastic four are still (almost) the only ones with a positive goal difference. This “table imbalance” means that Cologne are in the top half of the table with a balance of -3 (this is a chess player’s calculation: only wins are counted against defeats, which gives Cologne 7 – 10 = -3)! Of course, this is not the first time that the three-point rule has been declared wrong and unfair, so that the number of draws causes a certain shift (and Cologne has “only” three draws, which has a favourable effect on their points tally), but it is still curious, since Hoffenheim, on 8, is also -2 (clearly negative).
Once again we look at the rule: 2 points per game is a candidate for the championship, 1 point (or less) is the highest risk of relegation. The two rules are proving to be completely true. Until Gladbach, the top 4 have 2 points or more, and Gladbach, being within striking distance, can by no means be written off, and at the back, Hertha is just above the relegation zone with one point per game, while Freiburg and Augsburg are each only one win away from the magic yield (and are thus in direct contact with Hertha, even if the goal difference were still in favour of the Berliners).
By the way, there is a third rule that has been arrived at in the course of the (nonsensical application of the…) three-point rule: as long as you lose fewer games than you don’t lose, you have reasonable prospects of staying in the class. This season, this rule doesn’t work so well, as especially places 15 to 17 have many draws (and thus unfairly few points). Nevertheless: Hertha has not lost 12 times and only lost 8 times, so a pretty good record, Lautern also decent with the same record (only the further draw makes them worse), even Augsburg still in the green zone with 9 defeats compared to 11 non-defeats, only Freiburg has lost 11 times and 9 times not, so with a deficit record in that sense. Well, everyone is in the relegation battle, it was just said that you have good chances with the yield, because you can obviously somehow keep up quite well (so the intuitive part of the reasoning: less lost than not lost means you are halfway there).
c. The title question
Explanation: these figures are the result of a computer simulation based on the current playing strengths of the teams given below. The games are simulated individually on the basis of goal expectations (also given in the text below) and the final table is used to determine the winner.
Team Number of German champions in 5000 simulations Championships in percent Fair odds as reciprocal of probabilities
1 Borussia Dortmund 2798 55.96% 1.79
2 FC Bayern Munich 1728 34.56% 2.89
3 FC Schalke 04 315 6.30% 15.87
4 Borussia Mönchengladbach 159 3.18% 31.45
Dortmund logically now quite clearly in front. The last results give the positive match strength trend (see below; if the table had come about in such a way that Dortmund had previously been 10 points ahead of Bayern and the latter had stalked them with a gigantic interim spurt against slightly worse results, it would be quite different both in match strength and emotionally), which, apart from the two points AND the pending home match against Bayern (not to be underestimated, this factor, provided it is very close in the table) also give them a small pre otherwise. 20% is a lot as an advantage, let’s see later how the market looks at it.
Chance changes compared to the previous week due to the results of matchday 20
Team Gain/loss absolute compared to previous matchday Gain/loss percentage
1 Borussia Dortmund 662 13.24%
16 Borussia Mönchengladbach -29 -0.58%
17 FC Schalke 04 -118 -2.36%
18 FC Bayern Munich -515 -10.30%
Here the result is appropriately clear: a winner who mainly helps himself to the much-abandoned main rival, but, logically, the other rivals did not receive any direct help from their draws either.
d. The title chances in development
Well, who would have thought it? Of course, there was a question here (around the highest Bayern percentages) whether it would ever shift, even exchange, whether it would at least be exciting again, but nevertheless, one may calmly put it this way: one did not expect it. How could you, with chances around 90%, which Bayern already had? You just have to remember – which is what you hear, but you don’t necessarily believe it – that the experts (in this case the real ones, who are mostly coaches, current or former) say again and again that it’s going to be a long season and that this one will have his crisis, that one will have his crisis. With hindsight, you realise that they were right. “Kloppo, now you’re the favourite.” (Beckenbauer in the BILD).
e. Comparison of title chances with the betting exchange betfair
Back Lay Probability (Back)
FC Bayern Munich 1.99 2.02 50.25%
Borussia Dortmund 2.56 2.6 39.06%
FC Schalke 04 15 16 6.67%
Borussia Mönchengladbach 20 22 5.00%
This is really an interesting phenomenon: the market does not reflect the change in the odds. Now one could really think about this for a while, philosophise. One question is who determines the market. It is certainly the case that people who at an (early) stage had put a LOT of money on Bavaria (in the knowledge that it is not much to be gained, but that it is quite certain) will not get out today. They are holding on, thinking there are still a few good chances, and otherwise saying goodbye to the money. Like the falling stock of a struggling company. They hold on and hope for a (miraculous) turnaround (which in the case of Bayern would really not be that miraculous).
It is very questionable whether someone who wants to play something now, after Dortmund has climbed to the top, will buy Dortmund. You might bite yourself in the ass that you didn’t do it two weeks earlier, when you thought you had already foreseen this development and would have been able to get a halfway reasonable price, but to do it now, when they are ahead? No, that’s no fun, it looks staid or even stupid.
So it’s even conceivable that there are no special sales at all. These don’t sell, those don’t get in. On the other hand, one can hardly deny that Dortmund really must be favourites now. 2 points is already something, the goal difference is no longer even clearly in Bayern’s favour, recent performances speak for themselves, the looming Bayern crisis (forced by the media), even their upcoming appearances in three competitions, the somewhat too thin player cover as well as the away game in Dortmund, the statements of all the experts, no, it is too clear: Dortmund are favourites. So the advice here: get in today. It MUST be a good bet to get (well) over 2.0 for Dortmund.
The market is making a mistake here, it can’t be otherwise. However, there are feasible reasons for this. Basically, the mistake is being made by those who are holding Bayern shares.
The changes in betfair’s odds estimates
FC Bayern Munich -5.93%
Borussia Dortmund 10.08%
FC Schalke 04 -2.03%
Borussia Monchengladbach -1.45%
Even if shifts: they are too small.
(The order according to the original rankings)
The development at betfair in the graph
f. The direct Champions League qualification over 2nd place
The probability distribution for 2nd place after matchday 20
Team Number of 2nd places in 5000 simulations 2nd places in per cent
1 FC Bayern Munich 2089 41.78%
2 Borussia Dortmund 1493 29.86%
3 FC Schalke 04 843 16.86%
4 Borussia Mönchengladbach 559 11.18%
5 Bayer Leverkusen 9 0.18%
6 Werder Bremen 4 0.08%
7 Hannover 96 3 0.06%
Here, too, the clear conclusion: Bayern has won the supremacy for 2nd place, Dortmund that for 1st place.
The changes compared to the previous week:
Team Win/Loss absolute vs. previous matchday Win/Loss percentage.
1 FC Bayern Munich 375 7.50%
2 Hannover 96 3 0.06%
14 Bayer Leverkusen -4 -0.08%
15 Werder Bremen -5 -0.10%
16 Borussia Mönchengladbach -53 -1.06%
17 FC Schalke 04 -101 -2.02%
18 Borussia Dortmund -215 -4.30%
An equally clear picture. If one had to think about Schalke, they have lost chances. The reason? They didn’t win at home against Mainz (neither is it good to speak of one point lost, still less of two; the rule is just wrong, a kind of Schildbürgerstreich: we introduce an insane rule and see what funny things will happen for fun; oh yes, it was really stupid), while Bayern achieved the same (unsatisfactory) result away from home.
Otherwise, by winning, Hannover made the most of the many draws and “earned” a tiny chance.
g. The relegation question
The distribution of the percentages for relegation
Note: There would also be a detailed breakdown over 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 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 FC Augsburg 59.22% 5.59% 64.81%
2 SC Freiburg 58.32% 5.46% 63.78%
3 1.FC Kaiserslautern 39.52% 6.51% 46.03%
4 Hertha BSC 14.12% 4.06% 18.18%
5 1.FC Nuremberg 13.28% 3.80% 17.08%
6 1.FC Köln 4.68% 2.14% 6.82%
7 FSV Mainz 05 3.22% 1.56% 4.78%
8 Hamburger SV 2.22% 1.22% 3.44%
9 VfL Wolfsburg 2.34% 1.01% 3.35%
10 TSG Hoffenheim 1.50% 1.00% 2.50%
11 VfB Stuttgart 1.52% 0.93% 2.45%
12 Hannover 96 0.06% 0.05% 0.11%
13 Werder Bremen 0.00% 0.01% 0.01%
200.00% 33.33% 233.33%
Augsburg ahead by a razor-thin margin. Yes, one can understand that. But they have long since arrived in the league, so to speak, and are playing at the same level as the rest of the relegation candidates. Lautern remain in 3rd place, logically, since they lost at home, but Hertha are already in 4th place, very close. Nürnberg also still one of the main suspects.
The change in chances due to the results of the 20th matchday in relation to relegation
Team Change in chances
1 1.FC Cologne 7.98%
2 SC Freiburg 2.37%
3 Hamburger SV 2.26%
4 FSV Mainz 05 2.13%
5 FC Augsburg 1.53%
6 VfB Stuttgart 1.20%
7 Hannover 96 0.39%
8 VfL Wolfsburg 0.31%
9 Bayer Leverkusen 0.01%
15 TSG Hoffenheim -0.15%
16 1.FC Nuremberg -2.30%
17 Hertha BSC -5.89%
18 1.FC Kaiserslautern -9.84%
Not to be expected otherwise: winning away from home in a six-point game is at most favourable for some (Cologne) and at most unfavourable for others (Lautern). Hertha, of course, also a big loser due to home defeat.
h. The relegation question in development
i. The point expectations and the deviations
Explanation: for each match, the computer has calculated the odds 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 27.47 40 12.53 12.53
2 FC Schalke 04 32.25 41 8.75 8.75
3 Borussia Dortmund 39.45 43 3.55 3.55
4 Werder Bremen 29.78 32 2.22 2.22
5 Hannover 96 28.11 30 1.89 1.89
6 1.FC Köln 22.29 24 1.71 1.71
7 Hamburger SV 23.89 23 -0.89 0.89
8 Bayer Leverkusen 32.64 31 -1.64 1.64
9 FC Augsburg 18.70 17 -1.70 1.70
10 1.FC Nürnberg 22.80 21 -1.80 1.80
11 TSG Hoffenheim 26.52 24 -2.52 2.52
12 VfL Wolfsburg 26.89 24 -2.89 2.89
13 FC Bayern Munich 43.92 41 -2.92 2.92
14 FSV Mainz 05 25.32 22 -3.32 3.32
15 1.FC Kaiserslautern 22.44 18 -4.44 4.44
16 VfB Stuttgart 28.08 23 -5.08 5.08
17 SC Freiburg 22.54 17 -5.54 5.54
18 Hertha BSC 25.59 20 -5.59 5.59
ø Deviation 3.83
No change up front. Gladbach remains the surprise team, Schalke follows in 2nd place. From rank 7 already negative values, as there are no particular outliers downwards. Hertha now already in 18th place, as they have three more points than Freiburg, but just a little more than three more were expected. HSV, for example, is barely in the red. One of the really big crisis clubs at the start of the season. Sure, you can just pin it on Torsten Fink. But who knows whether his predecessor (was that Armin Veh? Oh, you fast-moving times…) wouldn’t have managed the turnaround! FC Köln, the club where peace hardly ever returns (which was so much in demand…), has nevertheless exceeded expectations, despite all the critical remarks about the coach, tactics and playing ability. What does that tell us?
The foreign comparison for the average point differential.
Note: the theory is that the German Bundesliga is the most exciting among Europe’s top leagues. This finding is rather intuitively derived, but so far “accepted” both in this country and abroad. Of course, the higher goal average is an indication of this, as well as the(perceived) lower predictability when it comes to the title, relegation, but also other issues. Balance is a criterion and possibly the main reason for this.
The measure used here for the deviation in average points expectation provides measurable information about this, but it was probably a “problem” specific to the 2010/2011 inaugural season (the fan thanked) that the Bundesliga produced a particularly large number of surprises. This was reflected in the figures. Now the phenomenon can be observed further. Is the Bundesliga also exciting in this respect? More exciting than elsewhere?(At the same time, a large deviation in this category could simply mean that computers or feeders are bad at their trade)
Rank Country League 1 ø Point deviation Change from previous week Number of games
1 Germany, 2.BL 6.04 -0.22 180
2 England 1 4.63 0.56 240
3 France 1 4.02 -0.11 217
4 Germany, 1.BL 3.83 0.46 180
5 Spain 1 3.27 0.32 210
6 Italy 1 2.86 0.02 213
At least there was a slight regression in League 2, which may seem strange in so far as numerous favourites stumbled and the matchday just did not meet expectations…! Logical reasoning: all those at the top of the league had so far scored far more than expected, those at the bottom far too little. The adjustment is therefore unexpected, but it does reduce the overall discrepancy.
The 1st division is languishing in the 2nd half of the table. But this does not mean that it is boring for a long time. All the decisions are contested and the games, of course, too. Nevertheless, there are fewer surprise teams than “normal”, at least in comparison with the rest of Europe (the top leagues). Nevertheless, as you can see, there was an increase just this weekend.
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 26.86 31 27.48 12 19.61
2 FC Schalke 04 31.51 46 24.32 25 13.81
3 Borussia Dortmund 34.79 45 16.78 14 12.99
4 FC Bayern München 44.90 47 17.45 14 5.55
5 TSG Hoffenheim 26.11 22 27.98 24 -0.13
6 1.FC Köln 26.83 29 36.91 40 -0.92
7 FC Augsburg 17.98 19 30.94 33 -1.05
8 1.FC Kaiserslautern 22.81 15 30.69 24 -1.12
9 FSV Mainz 05 27.27 28 30.96 34 -2.30
10 Hertha BSC 26.35 25 29.85 31 -2.49
11 VfB Stuttgart 30.70 26 30.06 28 -2.64
12 Hamburger SV 25.78 25 32.11 34 -2.67
13 Hannover 96 27.59 22 26.66 24 -2.93
14 Werder Bremen 32.61 33 29.50 34 -4.11
15 1.FC Nürnberg 22.90 19 30.60 31 -4.31
16 Bayer Leverkusen 32.64 28 25.07 27 -6.57
17 VfL Wolfsburg 27.79 24 29.77 36 -10.02
18 SC Freiburg 24.70 25 33.00 44 -10.71
510.11 509 510.11 509 0.00
Goals ø expected: Goals ø scored: ø Deviation 5.77 2.83 2.83
The same picture: Gladbach and Schalke in front. It’s always interesting to see that all of the top 4 really are in front, which is by no means a matter of course. Sure, you wouldn’t have expected Gladbach and Schalke to be so far ahead in the real table, but with Dortmund and Bayern it could be surprising. Why should they of all teams exceed expectations, even if they are at the top? That’s exactly what was expected! Well, there are statistical miracles now and then. This is one of them. Of course, as an observer you have the right to ask the computer programmer and feeder: didn’t you perhaps rate Bayern and Dortmund a little too badly before the season? Possibly, yes, of course, always. But experience teaches us that the values in the rules are quite accurate. It just so happens that this season the two teams have risen to the top.
The international comparison for the average goal difference
(Note: crazy results do not necessarily have to be reflected in the tendency. So a 5:3 or even a 7:0 may cause large deviations here, in terms of goals, but by no means in terms of points expectations, since, for example, the favourite would have won in each case. So there is an alternative method of comparing with other countries: are there the most “surprises” in the Bundesliga in this respect too)?
Rank Country League 1 ø Goal difference Change from previous week Number of games
1 Germany, 2.BL 9.02 -0.07 180
2 England 1 6.42 0.55 240
3 Germany, 1.BL 5.77 -0.24 180
4 Spain 1 4.58 0.17 210
5 Italy 1 3.69 0.09 213
6 France 1 3.47 -0.07 217
Germany 1 here with a negative development, as with the points (so to speak in the direction of the expectation), while in England some surprises arrived as far as the amount or tendency of the results is concerned. Sure, England had 2 matchdays, but still: Rank 2 is gone for now.
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 the offensive strength, which is measured in expected goals scored, and the 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 Borussia Dortmund 2.03 0.79 2.57 +0.08 +0
2 FC Bayern Munich 2.11 0.91 2.31 -0.03 +0
3 FC Schalke 04 1.78 1.17 1.52 -0.04 +0
4 Borussia Mönchengladbach 1.48 1.07 1.38 +0.02 +0
5 Bayer Leverkusen 1.55 1.34 1.16 -0.03 +0
6 Werder Bremen 1.60 1.56 1.02 -0.01 +0
7 Hannover 96 1.27 1.29 0.99 +0.03 +0
8 FSV Mainz 05 1.41 1.51 0.93 +0.02 +0
9 VfB Stuttgart 1.43 1.58 0.90 +0.02 +1
10 TSG Hoffenheim 1.21 1.38 0.88 -0.02 -1
11 Hamburger SV 1.31 1.50 0.87 +0.02 +1
12 VfL Wolfsburg 1.30 1.49 0.87 +0.00 -1
13 Hertha BSC 1.28 1.58 0.81 -0.03 +0
14 1.FC Köln 1.37 1.80 0.76 +0.02 +0
15 1.FC Nürnberg 1.09 1.50 0.73 -0.01 +0
16 1.FC Kaiserslautern 0.95 1.43 0.66 -0.03 +0
17 SC Freiburg 1.18 1.87 0.63 +0.00 +0
18 FC Augsburg 0.98 1.56 0.63 +0.02 +0
25.34 25.34 +0
Goals ø expected 2.83
The shifts moderate, but at least HSV overtook Wolfsburg, despite similar results on both sides with home draws against top teams. Sure, HSV had the somewhat more difficult task. But emotionally justified, even if it’s only nuances: HSV has played so well, almost for months, that one can imagine that, despite Wolfsburg’s improved performance. Stuttgart also make up one rank on Hoffenheim. Well, why not? Hoffenheim first has to cope with the personnel bloodletting, but now also, as coach Stanislawski noted, a team on the pitch that does not follow instructions. This is also called “indiscipline”, for which, however, he took responsibility in the interview. But this is in no way conducive to positive development. Stuttgart, with a late forced 2:2 in Leverkusen, has more of a good perspective, even if things have simply not been going well there for months.
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 from the past weekend will be included here.
Country Matches Equalisation Home Leading Goal Away Leading Goal Total per match
1 1st Bundesliga 9 8 2 1 11 1,222
2 France 7 3 1 0 4 0,571
3 2nd Bundesliga 20 9 2 2 13 0,650
4 Italy 9 6 4 1 11 1,222
5 Spain 11 10 3 3 16 1,455
6 England 14 9 5 3 17 1,214
Total balance 70 45 17 10 72 1,029
A very lively match day in this category. However, as you can see, the data was not quite perfectly maintained. For example, there were 20 more games in the 2nd division compared to the last evaluation (two Spieltaeg plus presumably two old Monday games; since the statistics are usually compiled on Monday, the two were missing), and in Spain there was a “catch-up game” that had already been played before. Well, in times of match cancellations it can happen. Nevertheless, in total a clear positive shift with more than one change of tendency per game over the 70 games evaluated (even if not all were played in the week).
Trend changes in the major leagues in the 2011/2012 season
Country Matches Equalisation Home Leading Away Leading Total per match
1 1st Bundesliga 180 95 31 24 150 0.833
2 France 217 110 31 28 169 0.779
3 2nd Bundesliga 180 85 30 23 138 0.767
4 England 240 112 31 38 181 0.754
5 Spain 210 92 37 23 152 0.724
6 Italy 213 86 30 21 137 0.643
Total balance 1240 580 190 157 927 0.748
Here, the 1st division holds the top position. So it’s always lively in this respect (it was in the previous season, after all), which somehow means: “no matter what the score, we want to score a goal.” And the ability to do that is there. Exaggerated tactical considerations play a slightly lesser role.
m. The mathematical review of the matchday 20 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
Nuremberg Dortmund 0.73 1.82 2.55 0 2 -0.73 0.18
Wolfsburg Gladbach 1.20 1.26 2.46 0 0 -1.20 -1.26
Hoffenheim Augsburg 1.44 0.72 2.16 2 2 0.56 1.28
Schalke 04 Mainz 2.24 1.00 3.24 1 1 -1.24 0.00
Hertha Hannover 1.35 1.24 2.59 0 1 -1.35 -0.24
Leverkusen Stuttgart 1.91 1.18 3.08 2 2 0.09 0.82
HSV FC Bayern 1.00 1.99 2.99 1 1 0.00 -0.99
Freiburg Werder 1.45 1.61 3.05 2 2 0.55 0.39
Kaiserslautern FC Cologne 1.52 1.25 2.77 0 1 -1.52 -0.25
12.83 12.07 24.91 8 12 -4.83 -0.07
Expected goal total Expected goal average Goal average achieved 24.91 2.77 2.22
ø expected goal difference 1.85 ø goal difference 1.41
For the sake of self-congratulation, here is a short excerpt from the text of the previous week: “… so that the argumentation of the previous week is somewhat confirmed: there is no fundamental problem with the home advantage. It’s been a bit too big this season, but it can easily correct itself. It’s a random swing, probably temporary in nature.”
After all, last weekend was a confirmation: not a single home win. The goal average significantly undercut, which is mainly attributed to the phase of the season, much less to poor playing conditions (except, of course, that it can just happen by chance). Still, the reasoning: at this stage of the season, more emphasis is placed on scoring, as decisions are in the offing. The referees also sense this and whistle a bit more clammily, i.e. directed against the goals, out of concern that a (such) mistake will decide a game (even if the disallowance of regular goals is objectively not a bit better; here, however, the subjective feeling counts).
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
Nuremberg Dortmund 14.40% 22.09% 63.52% 47.29%
Wolfsburg Gladbach 34.95% 27.13% 37.92% 33.95%
Hoffenheim Augsburg 54.14% 26.98% 18.88% 40.16%
Schalke 04 Mainz 65.37% 18.97% 15.66% 48.78%
Hertha Hannover 39.57% 26.29% 34.14% 34.22%
Leverkusen Stuttgart 54.37% 22.22% 23.41% 39.98%
HSV FC Bayern 18.45% 21.21% 60.34% 44.31%
Freiburg Werder 34.61% 23.88% 41.51% 34.91%
Kaiserslautern FC Cologne 43.60% 25.04% 31.36% 35.11%
4.55 2.05 2.41 3.82
average expected fixing: 42.40%
Always as a reminder, the expected values from the previous week’s text. What has reality brought?
The determination arrived
Pairing 1 X 2 Tendency
Nürnberg Dortmund 14.40% 22.09% 63.52% 2 63.52%
Wolfsburg Gladbach 34.95% 27.13% 37.92% 0 27.13%
Hoffenheim Augsburg 54.14% 26.98% 18.88% 0 26.98%
Schalke 04 Mainz 65.37% 18.97% 15.66% 0 18.97%
Hertha Hannover 39.57% 26.29% 34.14% 2 34.14%
Leverkusen Stuttgart 54.37% 22.22% 23.41% 0 22.22%
HSV FC Bayern 18.45% 21.21% 60.34% 0 21.21%
Freiburg Werder 34.61% 23.88% 41.51% 0 23.88%
Kaiserslautern FC Cologne 43.60% 25.04% 31.36% 2 31.36%
0 6 3 2.69
average committed: 29.92%
Well, one of the rare matchdays on which it would have been better, like an alien, not to commit at all. Because if you had, you would at least have scored the 33.33%. The attempt to identify favourites tripped itself up: the result was less than the 33.33%.
Now, on the other hand, we know very well that it happens from time to time, even if the forecasts were not bad. It was mainly the many draws that did it. Because the other two away wins (except Dortmund as the clear favourite) hurt even less than the draws, as you can see from the values. Hannover with 34.14% and Cologne with 31.36%, each around 33% and moreover higher than all the draw values.
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.
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 180 81 49 50 300 209 1,179
expected 180 82.96 41.31 55.72 288.4 221.6 1.131
abs Deviation 0 -1.96 7.69 -5.72 11.60 -12.60 0.05
rel. Deviation 0 -2.42% 15.69% -11.44% 3.87% -6.03% 4.06%
Determination expected Determination received 40.33% 39.96% ø Goal deviation ø Goal deviation expected 1.84 1.88
It is clear that the determination that arrived has now moved a little further away from the expected one. But it is always possible that it will converge again. After all, it is not a shockingly large deviation. The average goal expectation, on the other hand, has been undercut, which speaks for “too good” forecasts in that sense. Only this is nonsensical. You can either forecast perfectly or worse. So “too good” is not possible at all, the statistics therefore only speak for “good” forecasts.
The home victories have even been undercut since Sunday, but so have the away victories, so that the draws have clearly occurred too often. Of course, this is a trend that would cause concern unless the computer were to make the adjustments on its own. So: it will adjust the predicted draw probabilities as adequately as possible, increase them accordingly. Whether one takes note of this right away is questionable, but it happens.
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 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
Nuremberg Dortmund 6.40 4.20 1.63
Wolfsburg Gladbach 3.00 3.55 2.52
Hoffenheim Augsburg 1.64 4.10 6.40
Schalke 04 Mainz 1.64 4.20 5.90
Hertha Hannover 2.50 3.50 3.10
Leverkusen Stuttgart 1.79 3.90 5.00
HSV FC Bayern 6.60 4.50 1.57
Freiburg Werder 3.25 3.60 2.26
Kaiserslautern FC Cologne 1.83 3.80 5.00
Goals scored 2.32
Goals scored 2
Money score 0.63
Well, once again a blatant outsider tip blew the weekend, but this bet was fully supported and therefore highly recommended. Cologne’s victory was of course favoured by the sending-off, but nevertheless the impression even beforehand was that Cologne was the better team, and that the bet was exceptionally good.
Dortmund won anyway, so there should be no need for critical remarks. Nevertheless, Nuremberg had a series of such dangerous standards in half 1 that it’s fair to say Dortmund were a little lucky in that phase. However, even after a conceded 0:1 (was the ball perhaps with its full circumference behind Kagawa’s save on the line after all?) they would still have had enough time, of course, as well as the undisputed ability to score goals. Still, the feeling – relayed to a colleague by phone during the game, by the way — that the bet was not really a good one, despite Dortmund’s superior qualities.
Augsburg at Hoffenheim, on the other hand, was an excellent bet. Not only does the 2:2 suggest that they “came close”, but the pictures also proved: if anyone could win, after the 2:2, it was Augsburg. It was a little unlucky in the sense that the bet was really that good and only a little bit of luck was missing to reap the harvest with 6 units won.
Schalke on the other hand was again not a good bet. It wasn’t that they didn’t try hard enough, no, it was much more due to the performance presented by Mainz. They were excellent and gave a big boost to their pre-season goal of finishing in the top half of the table.
The bet on HSV was almost as good as the one on Augsburg, also in terms of odds. Not only because they were in the lead, no, even after the 1:1, one had the feeling that HSV was even a little closer to scoring the winning goal. Heiko Westermann said in an interview after the game – remember: if you want an objective opinion, listen to the coaches and players; they can do it better than any reporter – that they could have won the game. He was not disappointed, of course, but pleased with the quality of the performance. Nevertheless, he felt very well that Bayern was up for grabs that day. There was also a bit of bad luck involved, because the bet was “outstanding”.
Likewise, it would hardly be possible to talk the bet on Freiburg down. It was high odds, they were on all game, it was only the outstanding class of Claudio Pizarro that led to the two goals conceded, and yet there were enough chances. It was a good bet, but of course you won’t win every good bet in the future.
The whole matchday should have brought a much better result, that seems clear. Of course, one should not complain as long as there is any profit at all, even if it is only virtual.
Betting recommendation 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
16 6 2 2.13 -0.13 -0.53
17 7 3 3.13 -0.13 -0.54
18 7 3 2.57 +0.43 +2.34
19 4 1 1.51 -0.51 -1.70
20 6 2 2.32 -0.32 +0.63
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
107 38 +17.78 16.62% 39.38 -1.38
114 41 +20.12 17.65% 41.95 -0.95
118 42 +18.42 15.61% 43.46 -1.46
124 44 +19.05 15.36% 45.78 -1.78
Well, in percentage terms the result actually deteriorated from 15.61% to 15.36%. Nevertheless, it remains very respectable, of course.
q. Preview of the 21st 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
Wolfsburg Freiburg 2.06 1.01 3.07
FC Bayern Kaiserslautern 2.48 0.51 2.99
Dortmund Leverkusen 2.12 0.79 2.91
Werder Hoffenheim 1.89 1.15 3.04
Mainz Hannover 1.45 1.19 2.64
Stuttgart Hertha 1.82 1.30 3.12
Gladbach Schalke 04 1.45 1.18 2.63
Augsburg Nuremberg 1.18 1.04 2.22
FC Cologne HSV 1.57 1.45 3.02
16.02 9.61 25.64
Expected goal total Expected goal average 25.64 2.85
The 2.85 expected goals (per game) absolutely average. There should be many goals in Wolfsburg, Bremen, Stuttgart and Cologne, but few in Augsburg (and really few). Now Augsburg in particular has played so actively in the last few victories (as, by the way, announced in the same place a week ago) that one does not strongly recommend the “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
Wolfsburg Freiburg 61.53% 20.83% 17.64% 45.31%
FC Bayern Kaiserslautern 80.63% 13.71% 5.65% 67.22%
Dortmund Leverkusen 67.94% 19.36% 12.69% 51.52%
Werder Hoffenheim 54.53% 22.66% 22.82% 40.07%
Mainz Hannover 42.70% 26.40% 30.91% 34.75%
Stuttgart Hertha 49.36% 23.29% 27.35% 37.27%
Gladbach Schalke 04 43.19% 26.41% 30.41% 34.87%
Augsburg Nuremberg 38.87% 29.39% 31.73% 33.82%
FC Köln HSV 40.25% 24.63% 35.13% 34.60%
4.79 2.07 2.14 3.79
average expected commitment: 42.16
Looking now at the expected draws, it would be a little nonsensical to interpret the expected number of 2.05 from last week compared to that of this week, since it is supposed to be 2.07, as a reflection of the adjustment effect. This change is rather triggered by the type of pairings, for which one would have to look very closely whether they now smell comparatively more like a draw, or just less.
The expected determination of 42.16% points to a favourites’ matchday, which, as in this case, is usually linked to home appearances by the big favourites. Dortmund and Bayern with home games.
The fair odds
Note: the fair odds are merely 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
Wolfsburg Freiburg 1.63 4.80 5.67
FC Bayern Kaiserslautern 1.24 7.29 17.70
Dortmund Leverkusen 1.47 5.16 7.88
Werder Hoffenheim 1.83 4.41 4.38
Mainz Hannover 2.34 3.79 3.24
Stuttgart Hertha 2.03 4.29 3.66
Gladbach Schalke 04 2.32 3.79 3.29
Augsburg Nuremberg 2.57 3.40 3.15
FC Cologne HSV 2.48 4.06 2.85
Comparison with the betting exchange betfair
(The betting recommendations)
Pairing 1 X 2 % Average
Wolfsburg Freiburg 1.83 3.65 5.00 102.04%
FC Bayern Kaiserslautern 1.17 9.90 21.00 100.33%
Dortmund Leverkusen 1.48 4.40 8.20 102.49%
Werder Hoffenheim 1.97 3.80 4.10 101.47%
Mainz Hannover 2.00 3.60 4.20 101.59%
Stuttgart Hertha 1.89 3.85 4.50 101.11%
Gladbach Schalke 04 2.44 3.55 3.15 100.90%
Augsburg Nuremberg 2.72 3.30 2.88 101.79%
FC Köln HSV 3.10 3.65 2.38 101.67%
Goal expectation 3.02
A short comment on the betting recommendations:
The bet on Wolfsburg seems very good, even if Freiburg played quite appealingly. However, Wolfsburg is still strong at home, the 0:0 against Gladbach is completely ok, and also otherwise the squad simply gives a bit more. Overall, there was an upward trend with them, and this is an excellent chance to really put some distance between themselves and the bottom. 6/10.
Kaiserslautern in Munich is, of course, rather a joke from that point of view and one regrets not having set the units at 20. Otherwise it would be 1/20. But: Bayern play in Stuttgart on Wednesday and woe betide them if they lose there. Sure, you can still make it dependent on that, but you don’t have to. Bayern’s crisis, even if essentially talked about, cannot be completely dismissed. Much criticism for the stars Robben and Ribery, who are not making it easy for coach Heynckes: with them or without one or the other? Robben, by the way, is currently confirming the criticism that has already been levelled at him from Real Madrid’s times: when he has the ball in attack, he makes a goal or he doesn’t make one. There is quite little interplay. 1/10 of course.
The time to bet on Werder can hardly be more favourable. Hoffenheim have pretty much lacked everything and now you can already read in the BILD that Hopp is criticising them for not having a line. While this cannot be confirmed at all – he makes a perfectly clear impression in all interviews – these are the signs of a dismissal that he himself has stumbled upon by taking the non-implementation of his guidelines on his own head (worthy of all honour, of course). Werder always play well, in line with their position in the table, and have the chance to move even closer or gain some breathing space, especially at home. An 8/10, and that at least.
Hannover at Mainz is a must play at these odds, even if Mainz have just been praised. Hannover have been decidedly little to blame all season and play really well time and time again. Still, to Mainz’s credit, only 2/10.
Hertha at Stuttgart can’t make a special impression. Especially as the odds of 4.5 are barely above those of Hannover at Mainz. The computer’s contention, so to speak, is that Hertha are an away team (which is true in the sense that, as we have heard again and again, they have won only two of their last 26 home games), and that they are not that far behind Stuttgart even with the halfway goal difference. It should also be noted here that the performance against Hannover was absolutely ok and they were rather unlucky not to have scored the 1:0 long ago. So there is something to be said for Hertha, so that you can also sign a 2/10.
Gladbach against Schalke doesn’t make an outstanding impression at first glance either, of course. Schalke ahead of Gladbach, the geographical proximity and generally the feeling that Schalke is the better team after all. On the other hand, one may like to mention that Gladbach is currently displaying that ease – despite the great chance missed by Reus in Wolfsburg, with a post-match apology to the team — that you can always muster when you can only win (and lose nothing). At Schalke, it could be grown expectations that paralysed the legs, as manager Müller also noted when he criticised the fans who started whistling early on when they saw unsuccessful actions. So according to that, a brave 3/10.
The bet on Augsburg must be a good one. They have embraced Bundesliga football and are fighting back against relegation by every means at their disposal – except, mentioned here outspokenly, unsporting behaviour. The performances were worthy of all honour and the victory at Hoffenheim was only inches away. The fans will support their team unconditionally, as they are far from having the exaggerated demands of – as mentioned recently, besides Schalke also Stuttgart affected by this – many a traditional club. They have a chance against Nuremberg and will do everything to succeed with optimistic football. Even if Nuremberg could impress with many a performance: 4/10 the recommendation.
Cologne against HSV is also a good bet, even if HSV is one of the most difficult teams to assess in the league. Do they really belong in the top half of the table? In any case, Cologne has shown a very solid team performance even without Podolski, is even ahead of HSV in the standings and otherwise hasn’t done that much wrong, even if coach Solbakken’s words during the week sounded a bit like farewell. It’s fair to say that every foreign coach finds the German media landscape very strange, but at the same time his linguistic ability may allow for unfortunate interpretations. There is hardly any reason to doubt the quality of his work. So: 4/10.
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