1) The 1st Bundesliga
a. Review of the Matches
Results of Match Day 8
1st FC Kaiserslautern – VfB Stuttgart 0:2 (0:0)
Bayer Leverkusen – VfL Wolfsburg 3:1 (1:0)
Borussia Dortmund – FC Augsburg 4:0 (2:0)
- FC Nuremberg – FSV Mainz 05 3:3 (2:2)
TSG Hoffenheim – FC Bayern Munich 0:0
SC Freiburg – Borussia Mönchengladbach 1:0 (1:0)
Hertha BSC – 1. FC Köln 3:0 (3:0)
Hannover 96 – Werder Bremen 3:2 (2:1)
Hamburger SV – FC Schalke 04 1:2 (1:1)
Since the entire weekend was filled with chess events on the part of the authors, there was no live observation of all the matches. Under these circumstances, one has to rely to a large extent on the little-appreciated judgement of the reporters, which of course should be supported by the selected but few pictures.
Once again, it was striking how often clear penalty situations were mentioned but denied, which is remarkable because it obviously does not seem to be noticeable that the decision is always one-sided to the disadvantage of the attacking side demanding the penalty, thus virtually inviting one to search for the reasons for this – which has already been done quite extensively here, but gladly emphasised again and again: as a referee, one does not want to make a mistake in such an important decision. The mistake is only really felt to be one if an awarded penalty is subsequently proven to be unjustified. So you shy away from it, never give one “to be on the safe side”, but in reality you have caused an injustice that is just as great, but which is not perceived as such (great), and consequently you are “covered” as far as possible, so to speak, by the reporters, the media. “Yes, a difficult decision. He was right to let the ball go”, or “I wouldn’t have dared to point to the spot either”, whereas otherwise the verdict is: “Tricky situation, yes, but it should have been a penalty, as you can see here. Often enough, it is followed by (and thus no different from offside decisions): “…no reproach to the referee.” This is absolution. The referees know that they will not be further troubled if they rule in the direction against the goal action (both offside and penalty). Suffering: justice, the game of football, the neutral spectator (which is precisely why it doesn’t exist). And: the aspect of justice should not be set too low. For it is very possible that many people turn away from this game because of these perceived but hardly articulable permanent injustices (they have probably done so for a long time and only ever say: “Football? No, I don’t watch it, it doesn’t interest me”).
To be specific, let’s look at the games today:
Kaiserslautern had a lot of very good chances and very well deserved a more favourable result. When you then hear this ridiculous saying that it was “a deserved Stuttgart victory because of the lack of chances”, then the translation to a reasonable judgement is easy: the victory was lucky. Why is it so difficult to say this in this country? Every now and then you read the paradox: “Lucky, but not undeserved.” There is only the “either – or”. Lucky or deserved. In this way, even the German language (and not only in this place) is abused for the sake of imposed expertism. The true expert, he says, does indeed recognise the fortunate circumstances, but he looks even deeper, sees even more – and thus teases out the “not undeserved”.
The emotionless, purely analytical approach, which is denounced often enough and is held in such low esteem, but which does not do justice to the matter at hand, is once again aptly supported by the following terms taken from kicker online: “Lautern missed some of their own chances through gross negligence” and “lost in the end to a more cool-headed opponent”. Whoever came up with this word creation: since then it has been firmly anchored in the linguistic usage of the reporters and everyone who thinks anything of himself expresses himself in such a stupid way. “Grossly negligent”. Is it actually supposed to be funny in its original version, using legalese? It certainly can’t be an accurate and fitting description of the individual goal scenes – and in itself it wasn’t meant to be. So what is meant by “grossly negligent”? Somehow it seems that the fans are encouraged to whistle. Because their own team was so “grossly negligent” with their chances. It’s so sad to have to read such nonsense again and again.
Furthermore: How did one come up with the idea of being able to increase the word “callous”? If anything, it should be “cold-beaked”. Well, what language can do in relation to logic (because not even the “Word” programme makes a mistake here). Nevertheless, it is worth thinking about the term used, even if it were logical. Somehow, the Lauterers have been really smacked in the face with it? “Take a leaf out of their book.” Or something. Apart from that, if we have already landed on the abuse of language and logic: what could actually be the meaning of the increase? As well as saying that the opponents were “more cool-headed”, surely the Lauter team was also cool-headed? They were, yes, but the opponent was more so. Lautern were cool-headed, Stuttgart were cool-headed. Well, such defacements have become such a habit in reporters’ German that one is almost inclined to overlook them in view of the multitude of their other shortcomings – which, by the way, they constantly want to attribute to the players.
Bayer Leverkusen were clearly superior in the match against VfL Wolfsburg, but still managed to draw 1-1 in the meantime, but in the end they got a deserved victory. Wolfsburg once again failed to show that they belong in the upper regions of the table (where they would have originally been placed).
Borussia Dortmund came to a clear victory against FC Augsburg, about which not so much could be said. Dortmund still have a great team and are always capable of scoring goals – against any opponent, including Arsenal and Marseille in the Champions League, where the results of 1:1 and 0:3 did not correspond at all to the performances — and especially against FC Augsburg, which was already ranked at the bottom at the beginning of the season for lack of alternatives, they managed to score four times. Not unusual or surprising. Coach Luhukay also remained very appreciative and sober, realistic in his analysis.
Nuremberg against Mainz was of course “typical Bundesliga” in terms of the way it went and an example of why the league demonstrably stands out internationally in terms of excitement, even in the lower statistics. A team leads by 2 goals? No problem, go for the catch-up. Done. So what? We’re going for the win. 3:2 Mainz! But it’s not over yet. Nuremberg comes back. 3:3. It’s nice that there are games like this. Football is simply played and the aim of the game is to score goals (and not to forget to entertain spectators!). Just not tactics and above all, please, no new-German “result management”. A terrible term – not to mention the fact itself. More of it automatically means more fans. One also already senses that if there were more results of the type that the reflexes in the assistant’s wrist, related to offside decisions, and that penalty-denying gesture of the referees energetically crossing their arms, waving them several times, would well be absent more often. Because: what would a goal mean? At least not the deciding goal. 0:2? Let’s go on, let’s see who does it today. Nothing is decided yet. Penalty here, no offside there, even if “extremely close”.
TSG Hoffenheim probably played a very good game against FC Bayern München, who are so highly praised here, but they couldn’t make use of their many good chances either. The “kicker”, however, said that although they were happy about the good performance, they regretted a little that it was not more, because, as one has to conclude, it would have been deserved. What the assessment “not very efficient” is supposed to mean, however, can be easily counted on zero fingers. The man counted the goals – and lo and behold, they were zero! That’s how you playfully become an expert. “Lack of efficiency” – poof, expert. What would you have expected? Manuel Neuer, whose “lack of goals conceded” is already counted in minutes and has passed the 1000 mark, had to intervene from time to time. And he held! The “world’s best goalkeeper”, who in the meantime has simply been thrown into the room (among others by Olaf Thon, who used to be held in such high esteem on “Sky 90”; simply ridiculous and what can he be judged on? He keeps it. Amazement and problem recognised by the opponent: “Not very efficient”. Only: if the ball had hit the goal just once, it would have been said: “Manuel Neuer – never gets a ball on goal, but when one comes up, it’s already in. In any case, the analysis would definitely not have said that Hoffenheim was “efficient”. That much is certain.
Freiburg managed to inflict a defeat on Gladbach’s Borussia
(and thus not fail due to “lack of efficiency” or “grossly negligent miss of chances”). They shoot, the ball is deflected and hops over the line. The 1:0, which lasted until the end.
Lucien Favre after the game to a usual stupid reporter’s question was already slightly indignant (since the questioner of course, as usual, only wanted to hear that the result was deserved or to make fun of silly “excuses”), reacted like this: “Well, you saw the game too, didn’t you?” Which should mean nothing else, that there is more to judgement than just “deserved”, because especially in this game it just wasn’t like that: the victory was lucky, Gladbach had enough good chances to score in the second half and were only behind because of a deflected shot.
Hertha BSC managed another home win (after the long series without) against 1. FC Köln. The 3:0 score simply allows no other verdict: deserved. Above all, it looked really great up front how the Berliners played and scored the goals. They had been extremely unlucky in Bremen the week before and had put in an equally good performance, so you kind of begrudged them the result. Cologne had the two great wins before – the 4:1 in Leverkusen and the 2:0 against Hoffenheim — so they could also cope with a defeat for a change.
Hannover, on the other hand, made another of their really great plays against Werder Bremen. Jan Schlaudraff always makes the difference, even if the triple scorer Abdellaoue was the even more celebrated hero of the day. However, this is only thanks to the media, who highlight someone like that and also like to spout completely silly phrases like “defeated the opponent single-handedly”, which are extremely unpopular with all football teachers. What is the point of singling out an individual like that? You know one way or the other that he could not do anything on his own? The coaches have to admonish the players, some of whom tend to get carried away by such widespread theories, appeal to their team spirit and bring them back down to earth.
HSV showed a very good performance at home against FC Schalke 04, but the final result is not always what is deserved. Schalke were certainly not bad, but in this game – which, by the way, you could see for yourself at the end of the weekend – a draw would have been a much fairer final result. In any case, HSV’s performance was absolutely fine, and however the media treat losers – usually disgracefully, but in any case never either empathetically or fairly — there is no need to think about mistakes in management when the team is playing well – and not only when the results are also being achieved. The spectators, at any rate, were consistently pleased with the performance and celebrated and cheered incessantly. The result – as any really attentive observer simply had to conclude – did not do justice to these efforts.
b. The table situation
Sp S U N Pkt T GT Diff
1 FC Bayern Munich 8 6 1 1 18 21 – 1 +20
2 Werder Bremen 8 5 1 2 16 16 – 10 +6
3 Borussia Mönchengladbach 8 5 1 2 16 9 – 4 +5
4 FC Schalke 04 8 5 0 3 12 17 – 13 +4
5 Hannover 96 8 4 3 1 12 11 – 10 +1
6 Borussia Dortmund 8 4 1 3 12 13 – 7 +6
7 VfB Stuttgart 8 4 1 3 10 12 – 6 +6
8 TSG Hoffenheim 8 4 1 3 10 12 – 7 +5
9 Bayer Leverkusen 8 4 1 3 10 10 – 11 -1
10 Hertha BSC 8 3 2 10 12 – 9 +3
11 1.FC Nürnberg 8 3 2 3 10 9 – 10 -1
12 1.FC Köln 8 3 1 4 9 13 – 18 -5
13 VfL Wolfsburg 8 3 0 5 9 9 – 15 -6
14 FSV Mainz 05 8 2 2 4 7 12 – 18 -6
15 SC Freiburg 8 2 1 5 13 – 22 -9
16 1.FC Kaiserslautern 8 1 2 5 4 5 – 12 -7
17 FC Augsburg 8 0 4 4 6 – 16 -10
18 Hamburger SV 8 1 1 6 4 9 – 20 -11
209 209 0
Total number of games 72
Goals ø 2.90
Bayern are giving away points, the competition even more. In the past, you used to read the equally nonsensical sentence on this subject that “the competitors are simply too stupid and unable to exploit Bayern’s weaknesses.” Of course, this too is pure nonsense. Because the fact is: all teams give away points from time to time. That has always been the case and is even the case in all leagues worldwide. It’s just that the best ones do it least often and therefore usually end up in front. Besides, the “stupidity of the competition” in 46 years of Bavarian Bundesliga membership looked something like this: once Bayern won the title, once they did not. Just under 50%. If that’s not enough “unpredictability” for you, there’s no helping you. Unless you were interested in a question other than simply: “Will Bayern do it or won’t they do it this season?”
There is, however, a long-standing “golden rule” that applies to virtually all leagues, even worldwide. It is particularly suitable for finding a kind of yardstick for the three-point rule, which has long been declared nonsensical. Those who score 2 points per game have all chances for the very top places, mostly chances for first place, those who do not score more than one point per game have to deal with relegation. This rule has proven to be so helpful that people practically look at every table they see this way.
For the Bundesliga this year, for a start (please bear in mind that 8 matchdays is still a bit early to apply this “rule”, but of course you can still look at it this way), Bayern have scored over 2 points per game for a start (18/8 = 2.25), Gladbach and Werder exactly 2 each: 16/8.
At the very back – and here you may like to look at earlier tables or trust your authoritative experience – it will certainly still add up to something like this. HSV, Lautern and Augsburg have only 0.5 points per game each (4/8), Freiburg has 0.625 (5/8) and even Mainz is still in the endangered zone with 7/8 = 0.875 points per game.
It will be a pleasure to look at it for the future throughout the season with the help of this Golden Rule at this point and go into it.
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 as given below. The games are simulated individually on the basis of goal expectations (also given in the text below) and the final table is used to determine the winner.
Team Number of German champions in 5000 simulations Championships in percent Fair odds as reciprocal of probabilities
FC Bayern Munich 4174 83.48% 1.20
Borussia Dortmund 448 8.96% 11.16
Bayer Leverkusen 87 1.74% 57.47
FC Schalke 04 80 1.60% 62.50
Werder Bremen 75 1.50% 66.67
Hannover 96 38 0.76% 131.58
Borussia Mönchengladbach 32 0.64% 156.25
TSG Hoffenheim 29 0.58% 172.41
VfB Stuttgart 21 0.42% 238.10
Hertha BSC 9 0.18% 555.56
FSV Mainz 05 3 0.06% 1666.67
1.FC Nuremberg 2 0.04% 2500.00
VfL Wolfsburg 2 0.04% 2500.00
1.FC Cologne 0 0.00%
1.FC Kaiserslautern 0 0.00%
Hamburger SV 0 0.00%
SC Freiburg 0 0.00%
FC Augsburg 0 0.00%
83.48% remains a crushing amount. Nevertheless: since Dortmund won, and won clearly, it did not directly increase, as we will see in a moment…
Change in chances compared to the previous week due to the results of matchday 8
Team Win/loss absolute compared to previous matchday Win/loss percentage
Borussia Dortmund 200 4.00%
Bayer Leverkusen 41 0.82%
FC Schalke 04 24 0.48%
Hannover 96 16 0.32%
Hertha BSC 5 0.10%
TSG Hoffenheim 3 0.06%
FSV Mainz 05 1 0.02%
1.FC Kaiserslautern 0 0.00%
1.FC Nuremberg 0 0.00%
FC Augsburg 0 0.00%
SC Freiburg 0 0.00%
Hamburger SV -1 -0.02%
VfB Stuttgart -1 -0.02%
1.FC Cologne -5 -0.10%
VfL Wolfsburg -8 -0.16%
Borussia Mönchengladbach -19 -0.38%
Werder Bremen -77 -1.54%
FC Bayern Munich -179 -3.58%
Dortmund as the “big winner” and Bayern even as the loser, despite the defeats of the competition in the standings, which may seem a little absurd for the moment. Nevertheless, it will soon become clear that it is not the competition in the table but the one with the highest playing strength (as is simply assumed here, but look later at the view of the “mass intelligence”, namely the betting market) that is primarily responsible for the development of the odds. Dortmund wins, 4:0, Bayern only 0:0 Bayern’s chances are reduced, Dortmund’s increase. Full stop.
By the way, just a reminder: the coaches (and perhaps the media?) have also been looking for a line of approach since the introduction of the three-point rule. So people always like to talk about the 40 points being enough to stay in the class. Sure, there’s not that much wrong with that. It’s just that it’s difficult to aim for 40 points, unlike always trying to get the maximum out of every game – until you have them, or not. Instead, the (target) points per game rule is easy to review week by week. “Have we also scored more than one point per game so far? Yes, we have. Everything is good. We are on target for our season (minimum) goal of staying in the league.”
Apart from that, the 40 points are a good approximation to be really safe (where is there real safety these days?). After long philosophical considerations, which would go beyond the scope at this point, the conclusion was reached that there wasn’t, but never has been. And this even refers to past events: was it really like that? Oh, no, so many things come to mind that one prefers to close the parenthesis now and abruptly; there you have it. Close the parenthesis. Although, although: how easy it would be to construct a table in which a) a team with 40 points becomes champion and b) one, because 40 points are not even enough for 17th place. But now: close the brackets). However, the past has shown that it is possible to stay in the league with 35, 36 or 37 points.
Oh, that brings to mind something that would have been much more fun to follow if the rules had been fairer: who were the best relegated teams? From memory (but almost vouched for), in the old days it was 1. FC Nürnberg, who were relegated as German champions in 1969 with the actually still solid yield of 29:39 points, but at that time they still had to reach 17th place for relegation! Offenbach, in 18th place, had 28:40 points. Later, in 1980, Hertha BSC, then in 16th place, were relegated with 29:39 points.
Example: Gladbach had 36 points last year (with the three-point rule, of course; according to the old calculation it would have been 26:42 points) and thus reached relegation place 16. Frankfurt was relegated directly with 34 points (=exactly one per game) in 17th place. Wolfsburg’s 38 points were enough to save 15th place, with a record of 9 wins, 11 draws and 14 defeats, which would have corresponded to 29:39 points under the two-point rule, i.e. the Hertha and Nuremberg yields of 1969 and 1980 respectively.
The year before, Nuremberg, in 16th place, also the relegation place, had only 31 points, which would have corresponded to an earlier yield of 23:45 points with the balance. In that season, Hannover only needed 33 points to be saved, which would have meant a meagre 24:44 points according to the old calculation.
The year before, by the way, 33 points were enough for Frankfurt to finish 13th, while Bochum, with 32 points, and Gladbach, with 31 points, were also saved. Only Cottbus was in a critical 16th place with 30 points. By earlier reckoning, Frankfurt and Bochum had 25:43, Gladbach 23:45 and Cottbus 22:46.
So, all in all, 40 points have always been sufficient, practically speaking. A yield of about one point per game regularly meant maximum danger. A little more than one, however, usually meant salvation, at least relegation. It will be followed up accordingly.
In the title decision in those years it looked like this: 2009 Wolfsburg champion with 69 points, behind them Bayern with 67 (so: 2 or more are enough, less than 2 per game exactly not). In 2010 Bayern were champions with 70 points, just over 2 per game, Schalke on 2 with 65. The same description: 2 or more is enough, less is not enough. In 2011 Dortmund scored 75 points, Leverkusen on 2 exactly 68. Even if these were not enough: they were also ONLY EXACTLY 2 per game. The statement (already made before the review) was: from 2 points per game you play for the title. It turned out amazingly well for that.
d. The title chances in development
The first time a small regression. However, it was noticeable (also in the Champions League against Manchester City on the Tuesday before) that Bayern are beatable. In this respect, surely one is looking forward a little more to this graph next week? Something has moved in the direction of “more exciting”.
e. Comparison of title chances with the betting exchange betfair
Back Lay Probability (Back)
FC Bayern Munich 1.25 1.26 80.00%
Borussia Dortmund 11.5 13.5 8.70%
Bayer Leverkusen 27 32 3.70%
VfL Wolfsburg 240 590 0.42%
Hannover 96 90 350 1.11%
Werder Bremen 46 55 2.17%
FC Schalke 04 30 32 3.33%
Hamburger SV 500 0.20%
VfB Stuttgart 90 100 1.11%
FSV Mainz 05 810 0.12%
Borussia Mönchengladbach 70 100 1.43%
TSG Hoffenheim 85 100 1.18%
1.FC Nuremberg 600 0.17%
1.FC Cologne 500 1000 0.20%
SC Freiburg 800 0.13%
Hertha BSC 500 1000 0.20%
1.FC Kaiserslautern 1000 0.10%
FC Augsburg 1000 0.10%
The betting exchange reacts absolutely calmly. There is, of course, one possible interpretation: no trading is taking place at the moment. One does not want to get entangled, nobody does. Neither on Bayern nor against them. The title question has not been declared an exciting question for the time being. Nothing is moving, which it would only do if traded. Now those willing to bet are waiting for something to emerge: “We’ll watch the next matchday first. If something (surprising) happens there, we’ll get back in.” Something like that.
The changes in betfair’s odds estimates
FC Bayern Munich 0.00%
Borussia Dortmund 1.00%
Bayer Leverkusen 0.93%
VfL Wolfsburg -0.08%
Hannover 96 0.52%
Werder Bremen -0.95%
FC Schalke 04 0.70%
Hamburger SV -0.05%
VfB Stuttgart 0.40%
FSV Mainz 05 0.00%
Borussia Mönchengladbach -0.57%
TSG Hoffenheim -0.07%
1.FC Nuremberg -0.03%
1.FC Cologne -0.23%
SC Freiburg -0.03%
Hertha BSC -0.14%
1.FC Kaiserslautern -0.08%
FC Augsburg -0.05%
(The order according to the original rankings)
The composure becomes much clearer here. However, one may also readily concede that, after all, there is an international match week coming up, insofar as other questions seem more interesting for the time being (i.e. the movement will start next Monday).
f. Direct Champions League qualification via 2nd place
The probability distribution for 2nd place after matchday 8
Team Number of 2nd places in 5000 simulations 2nd places in per cent
Borussia Dortmund 1765 35.30%
FC Bayern Munich 565 11.30%
Bayer Leverkusen 555 11.10%
Werder Bremen 492 9.84%
FC Schalke 04 472 9.44%
Hannover 96 296 5.92%
Borussia Mönchengladbach 255 5.10%
TSG Hoffenheim 216 4.32%
VfB Stuttgart 196 3.92%
Hertha BSC 85 1.70%
VfL Wolfsburg 48 0.96%
1.FC Nuremberg 24 0.48%
FSV Mainz 05 17 0.34%
1.FC Cologne 8 0.16%
SC Freiburg 4 0.08%
Hamburger SV 2 0.04%
1.FC Kaiserslautern 0 0.00%
FC Augsburg 0 0.00%
Dortmund, of course, are the clear favourites for this place. The media already tried to make you believe that Werder would be “Bayernjäger Nummer 1”. It always remained Dortmund, as the betting market also conclusively expressed.
(How nice it would be if the self-appointed experts, the reporters, had to bet money on their ridiculous statements. They would burst on the betting market).
The changes compared to the previous week:
Team win/loss absolute compared to previous matchday Win/loss in per cent.
Borussia Dortmund 245 4.90%
FC Bayern Munich 114 2.28%
Bayer Leverkusen 89 1.78%
Hannover 96 70 1.40%
VfB Stuttgart 39 0.78%
FC Schalke 04 36 0.72%
Hertha BSC 30 0.60%
SC Freiburg 1 0.02%
FC Augsburg 0 0.00%
1.FC Kaiserslautern -1 -0.02%
1.FC Nuremberg -6 -0.12%
Hamburger SV -6 -0.12%
FSV Mainz 05 -7 -0.14%
1.FC Cologne -20 -0.40%
TSG Hoffenheim -40 -0.80%
VfL Wolfsburg -48 -0.96%
Borussia Mönchengladbach -220 -4.40%
Werder Bremen -276 -5.52%
Well, the winners are Dortmund AND Bayern. In case it didn’t seem conclusive: Bayern did suffer a loss of 1st place. Where do these percentages go? Dortmund’s gain is logical without mentioning Bayern: they help themselves to the teams ranked ahead of them, which also lost their games (and thus their maximum chances).
Intuitively, one often likes to put it this way: the favourites set themselves apart. Here, first in the (predictive) statistics. Whether this picture will later be reflected in the table remains to be seen.
g. The relegation question
The distribution of relegation percentages
Note: There would also be a detailed breakdown of the individual places. Here, places 17 and 18 count as fully relegated (i.e. in total as 1, for relegated in each case, otherwise the term is “direct relegation”), and a further third of relegated teams are added due to the relegation, whereby the first division team is generally rated as 2/3 to 1/3 favourite compared to the second division team. This makes the total number of relegated teams equal to 233.33%. In individual cases, of course, it would be different in reality. So if, for example, Frankfurt were to finish 3rd in League 2 and Augsburg 16th in League 1, one could perhaps speak of a balanced pairing.
Team Direct relegation (17th or 18th place) Relegation by relegation Total
1 FC Augsburg 66.28% 4.21% 70.49%
2 1.FC Kaiserslautern 42.18% 5.67% 47.85%
3 Hamburger SV 30.04% 5.19% 35.23%
4 SC Freiburg 24.74% 5.20% 29.94%
5 1.FC Köln 12.46% 3.61% 16.07%
6 FSV Mainz 05 8.64% 2.62% 11.26%
7 1.FC Nürnberg 6.54% 2.50% 9.04%
8 VfL Wolfsburg 4.46% 1.63% 6.09%
9 Hertha BSC 1.64% 0.77% 2.41%
10 TSG Hoffenheim 0.82% 0.36% 1.18%
11 VfB Stuttgart 0.66% 0.49% 1.15%
12 Hannover 96 0.66% 0.31% 0.97%
13 Borussia Mönchengladbach 0.52% 0.40% 0.92%
14 Werder Bremen 0.12% 0.14% 0.26%
15 FC Schalke 04 0.14% 0.12% 0.26%
16 Bayer Leverkusen 0.10% 0.10% 0.20%
17 Borussia Dortmund 0.00% 0.02% 0.02%
18 FC Bayern Munich 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
200.00% 33.33% 233.33%
Of course, the teams at the bottom of the table “dominate” here. HSV ahead of Lautern still results from the higher playing strength. However, both teams actually played well at the weekend and did not quite lose justifiably.
The change in chances due to the results of match day 8 with regard to relegation
Team Change in chances
1 SC Freiburg 10.68%
2 Hertha BSC 4.82%
3 FSV Mainz 05 2.25%
4 VfB Stuttgart 1.99%
5 1.FC Nuremberg 1.31%
6 Hannover 96 1.11%
7 FC Schalke 04 0.62%
8 Bayer Leverkusen 0.61%
9 TSG Hoffenheim 0.45%
10 Borussia Dortmund 0.04%
11 FC Bayern Munich 0.00%
12 Werder Bremen -0.03%
13 Borussia Mönchengladbach -0.27%
14 VfL Wolfsburg -1.51%
15 Hamburger SV -3.50%
16 1.FC Cologne -4.12%
17 FC Augsburg -6.51%
18 1.FC Kaiserslautern -7.93%
A win is of course the best medicine against the danger of relegation. Of the main contenders, only Freiburg has managed this. That really pays off, as you can see. A good 10% gain. Lautern loses almost 8% because they probably had the weaker opponent than HSV, but the result of 0:2 compared to 1:2 also puts them at a slight disadvantage in terms of playing strength, which will have an effect in the long term.
h. The relegation question in the development
It is best to look at the individual curves. If you see a fluctuating development there, it creates tension to a certain extent. Only that of FC Augsburg is somehow boring. At least so far…
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 10.78 16 5.22 5.22
2 Werder Bremen 12.70 16 3.30 3.30
3 TSG Hoffenheim 9.83 13 3.17 3.17
4 FC Schalke 04 12.02 15 2.98 2.98
5 Hannover 96 12.19 15 2.81 2.81
6 Hertha BSC 9.85 12 2.15 2.15
7 FC Bayern Munich 16.94 19 2.06 2.06
8 VfB Stuttgart 11.93 13 1.07 1.07
9 1.FC Nürnberg 10.06 11 0.94 0.94
10 1.FC Köln 9.16 10 0.84 0.84
11 Bayer Leverkusen 12.41 13 0.59 0.59
12 SC Freiburg 8.43 7 -1.43 1.43
13 VfL Wolfsburg 10.95 9 -1.95 1.95
14 FSV Mainz 05 10.62 8 -2.62 2.62
15 Borussia Dortmund 15.79 13 -2.79 2.79
16 1.FC Kaiserslautern 8.75 5 -3.75 3.75
17 FC Augsburg 7.99 4 -3.99 3.99
18 Hamburger SV 8.98 4 -4.98 4.98
ø Deviation 2.59
Gladbach and Werder remain ahead despite the defeats. So it should actually have converged, i.e. the average deviation should be getting smaller. But it is not the case, as you can see below. Why? A bit of a mystery, only explainable by other changes, which one notices less, in the middle of the table. HSV, in any case, has lost, right at the bottom, and thus increased its own absolute deviation (which is responsible for the average deviation).
The international comparison for the average point deviation
Note: the theory is that the German Bundesliga is the most exciting among Europe’s top leagues. This finding is rather intuitively derived, but so far “accepted” both in this country and abroad. Of course, the higher goal average is an indication of this, as well as the(perceived) lower predictability when it comes to the title, relegation, but also other issues. Balance is a criterion and possibly the main reason for this.
The measure used here for the deviation in average points expectation provides measurable information about this, but it was probably a “problem” specific to the 2010/2011 inaugural season (the fan thanked) that the Bundesliga produced a particularly large number of surprises. This was reflected in the figures. Now the phenomenon can be observed further. Is the Bundesliga also exciting in this respect? More exciting than elsewhere?(At the same time, a large deviation in this category could simply mean that computers or feeders do not know their business well)
Liga 1 ø Deviation Change from previous week
Germany, 1. BL 2.59 0.09
Italy 2.10 0.29
Spain 2.30 0.09
France 3.03 -0.05
England 2.54 0.38
Germany, 2.BL 4.03 0.00
It remains the same: no clear picture, as it is too early in the season. In any case, the 2nd league seems to provide a bit more liveliness (despite the 2 more match days played). In any case, the 1st league is not top this season, as France (about the same number of match days) also provides more variety.
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 FC Bayern Munich 17.36 21 7.58 1 10.22
2 TSG Hoffenheim 10.38 12 12.20 7 6.83
3 Borussia Mönchengladbach 11.31 9 12.32 4 6.01
4 Hertha BSC 10.51 12 12.52 9 5.01
5 VfB Stuttgart 12.96 12 11.60 6 4.64
6 Werder Bremen 13.48 16 10.89 10 3.41
7 FC Schalke 04 11.59 17 10.02 13 2.43
8 1.FC Nürnberg 9.71 9 11.23 10 0.52
9 Hannover 96 11.87 11 10.09 10 -0.78
10 Borussia Dortmund 13.63 13 6.55 7 -1.08
11 1.FC Köln 10.60 13 13.73 18 -1.87
12 Bayer Leverkusen 12.68 10 10.63 11 -3.05
13 1.FC Kaiserslautern 9.45 5 13.04 12 -3.41
14 SC Freiburg 9.26 13 13.73 22 -4.53
15 FSV Mainz 05 10.51 12 11.07 18 -5.45
16 FC Augsburg 7.42 6 11.76 16 -5.66
17 VfL Wolfsburg 10.85 9 10.96 15 -5.88
18 Hamburger SV 10.31 9 13.95 20 -7.35
203.88 209 203.88 209 0.00
Goals ø expected: Goals ø scored: ø Deviation 4.34 2.83 2.90
Bayern maintain the top position, with a lead of over 3 goals (sum of deviation). Sure, the goal ratio of 20:1 is outstanding, no doubt about it. At the bottom remains HSV, but also Wolfsburg is far below value (even if parts of this are “invented” by the programme maintainer; so others might have sorted Wolfsburg further back before the season and in this way ensured somewhat lower expectations – with the values 10.85 and 10.96, of course, once less, with those scored, once more, with those to be conceded – and in this way ensured a lower negative deviation).
Rank Country League 1 ø Goal difference Change from previous week
1 Germany, 1.BL 4.34 0.26
2 Italy 1 2.98 0.39
3 Spain 1 3.09 -0.01
4 England 1 3.87 0.85
5 France 1 2.97 -0.07
6 Germany, 2.BL 6.33 0.41
The 2nd division underlines its liveliness a little. But in this category, the 1st league is also doing well. Of course, if you look back and reflect, there were enough many outlier results, high and surprising ones too. But the other leagues (Italy, Spain) have yet to move into higher (matchday) dimensions for anything to emerge.
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.
Goal expectations Team For Against Quotient For/Counter Change of Quotient Shift
1 FC Bayern Munich 2.16 0.82 2.64 +0.03 +0
2 Borussia Dortmund 1.68 0.88 1.92 +0.11 +0
3 Bayer Leverkusen 1.62 1.28 1.27 +0.03 +0
4 FC Schalke 04 1.49 1.26 1.18 +0.03 +1
5 Werder Bremen 1.65 1.44 1.15 -0.03 -1
6 VfB Stuttgart 1.56 1.45 1.07 +0.04 +2
7 TSG Hoffenheim 1.42 1.33 1.06 +0.03 -1
8 Hannover 96 1.43 1.36 1.05 +0.02 +1
9 Borussia Mönchengladbach 1.30 1.29 1.00 -0.03 -2
10 Hertha BSC 1.39 1.41 0.98 +0.06 +1
11 VfL Wolfsburg 1.37 1.41 0.97 -0.03 -1
12 FSV Mainz 05 1.44 1.64 0.88 +0.01 +0
13 1.FC Nürnberg 1.19 1.46 0.81 -0.00 +0
14 1.FC Köln 1.41 1.83 0.77 -0.04 +0
15 Hamburger SV 1.25 1.69 0.74 -0.01 +0
16 SC Freiburg 1.29 1.78 0.72 +0.02 +0
17 1.FC Kaiserslautern 1.06 1.62 0.66 -0.04 +0
18 FC Augsburg 0.90 1.63 0.55 -0.03 +0
Goals ø expected 2.84
Bayern even with a gain? If you look for explanations (and you can’t help it here, only you already have some experience), then you come across this: the game was quite a difficult one, an away game at an above-average team. The quotient was already very high, so that (forfeited) goal expectations for those scored as a result of the 0:0 have an effect, but have an even greater effect on the denominator value of the conceded goal expectation.
Hertha has really established itself and, thanks to a scored value of 0.98 in the meantime, is ready to break into the upper half of the table – with continued good results.
By the way, here’s a little guideline: quotients of 2 or more entitle you to play for the title. Bayern is clearly above that, but they are also said to be as good as never before this season. Dortmund is just below that, so they are co-candidates, if you like.
Conversely, however, the reciprocal value of this, i.e. a 0.5, would be far too small to be suitable for the league. You need values of 0.65 upwards (but this applies more to German football, in England it’s a bit different) to have a reasonable chance of staying in the league. So Lautern is already at a critical limit. The rest, on the other hand, are fully in the mix, but 2(1/3) teams will still be caught out this season.
l. The frequency of tendency changes
Note: a “change of tendency” is considered to be a goal that equalises a lead or scores a lead. The 1:0 is not counted, because without this goal it would not even begin to have anything to do with tension in the goal sequence. Every now and then, a statistical comparison is made here with other countries. This shows that there are more changes of tendency in Germany than elsewhere, which on the one hand points to perceived tension in the Bundesliga – which is possibly envied abroad – and on the other hand points to possible tactical deficiencies, which, following an old tradition, make one advise to urgently go for a second goal after a 1:0 – and not to dull and insipidly, as is usual abroad, rock this goal over time. International comparisons provide more information about the effectiveness or weakness of German behaviour.
Of course, it is and will remain desirable that “something happens”, that games ripple back and forth, that teams that take an early lead nevertheless still lose later, that teams come back from two or three goals down in dramatic comebacks, equalise or even still win. The claim here: it actually happens too rarely in football. It would be desirable to allow more goals so that there is more drama in this point as well. More goals guarantee more changes of tendency, but it is possible that there is an upper limit. So: in ice hockey there are more goals and thus more changes of tendency, no question. But are there more in handball, for example, than in ice hockey? Probably not. Because: if there are a lot of goals, one team can be in the lead by five, six, seven without ever thinking of a comeback by the losing team.
For comparison, here are the statistics from last season. You can at least compare them a little bit to see if the trend is similar.
Country Matches Equalisation HF AF Total per match
1st Bundesliga 306 158 60 49 267 0.873
England 380 198 66 46 310 0.816
2nd Bundesliga 306 145 56 41 242 0.791
Italy 380 169 58 48 275 0.724
France 380 175 49 40 264 0.695
Spain 380 146 48 46 240 0.632
Here are the statistics of the changes in tendency in the current season. Whereby it is difficult to judge whether the review of the individual matches in the non-German leagues is really of interest? So it should be dropped again for the time being. Even if the verifiability is somewhat lost in the process. However, the computer works quite reliably and incorruptibly in this respect. Now only transmission errors – intentional or unintentional – could cause a falsification. Only: what would be the occasion?
So: in Germany 1 there were those “entertaining” goals:
Wolfsburg actually managed to equalise in the meantime – contrary to the course of the game — but this could not prevent the defeat. 1:3 with two changes of tendency, but certainly enough perceived suspense for the spectators.
The spectacle in Nuremberg, which cannot fail to be a spectacle when the score is 3:3, no matter how many changes of tendency there would be beforehand, namely even with a single one, even if scored after 0:3, it would hardly be less. In this game it was like this: 2:0 Nuremberg, 3:2 Mainz, 3:3. Makes 2 equalisers and one leading goal, altogether “only” 3 changes of tendency.
In Hannover, there was not a single change of tendency despite a 3:2 – that is, five goals with a close finish. Hannover led 2:0, Werder came back to 1:2, Hannover went up again to 3:1, Werder again (only) came close.
In the HSV – Schalke match, on the other hand, there were again 2: HSV equalised and Schalke took the lead for the final result of 2:1.
That makes a matchday with 7 changes of tendency, which is about average.
In Germany’s 2nd league this came out:
Aachen took the lead against FSV Frankfurt but ended up losing 1:3. Makes 2 TW.
Ingolstadt led 2:0 and 3:1, but lost 3:5 in the end. Makes 2 TW, but lots of spectacle, which is of course always guaranteed when there are many halfway evenly distributed goals and is a joy for every friend of football. More of the same – one of the essential claims repeatedly made here – would surely attract even more friends, win new fans or better entertain old ones. Contradiction?
Fürth took the lead in Karlsruhe, later trailed 1:2, equalised for a final score of 2:2. Makes 3 TW.
Düsseldorf managed to equalise the Braunschweig lead in a great (Monday night) game. Even if both goals came from penalties: it was an offensive game on both sides and the Düsseldorf team in particular proved their top position with this terrific performance. A serious candidate for promotion.
So: all in all there were 8 changes of tendency in the 2nd league, a good value.
Another quick note: Spain really went for it (and they moved up mightily with it): there were 13 changes of tendency in 10 games, which is pretty much the highest figure seen since records began.
Country Matches Equalisation Home Leading Goal Away Leading Goal Total per match
1 1st Bundesliga 72 35 15 10 60 0.833
2 France 90 53 11 10 74 0.822
3 Spain 50 24 10 4 38 0.760
4 Italy 40 17 5 7 29 0.725
5 2nd Bundesliga 90 39 14 11 64 0.711
6 England 69 19 6 3 28 0.406
Overall balance 411 187 61 45 293 0.713
But Germany 1 remains in front, France behind and only then Spain.
Let’s review the change of tendency statistics of previous years, even if already found here last week (and surely studied by all?!).
Country/League Matches Equalisation Home Leading Goals Away Leading Goals Total per Match
1 1st Bundesliga 1530 761 259 221 1241 0.811
2 2nd Bundesliga 1530 734 274 170 1178 0.770
3 Italy 1 1900 909 315 237 1461 0.769
4 England 1 1900 867 319 206 1392 0.733
5 Spain 1 1900 825 305 229 1359 0.715
6 France 1 1900 787 252 187 1226 0.645
Total balance 10660 4883 1724 1250 7857 0.737
Well, actually it turns out that BOTH German leagues are at the top. However, one can also see that the differences are quite narrow, and this, one readily admits, comes as something of a surprise. Because: the higher goal average alone almost inevitably leads to a higher occurrence of changes in tendency (as once explained, there may be an upper limit, a “saturation limit”, so to speak, with regard to this phenomenon in connection with an increasing goal average), so that one must expect a lead, but intuitively it is rather too narrow.
Here are the statistics for the goal average in all these leagues since 2007:
League Goal average
Germany, 1st division 2,845
Germany, 2nd division 2,726
Spain, Primera Division 2.703
England, Premier League 2,576
Italy, Serie A 2,564
France, Ligue 1 2,306
So: Germany is also ahead here, with both leagues, but just as close as in the tendency change statistics. In this respect, one would have to say: apart from the fact that Germany plays more offensively, there are no tactical deficiencies whatsoever that could lead to even more “ups and downs” – i.e. changing leads, etc. – in Germany. — can be observed. France has the red lantern in both statistics, which of course is no proof of a lack of quality per se. At most, it is possible that the spectators will become (even more) bored.
Alternatively, of course, this approach is always considered possible, necessary or beneficial: here in Germany, one would first have to realise how football actually works, especially as far as reporters are concerned. It is rare to watch a game – if you include the organ grinders with microphones – that is not marked by the reporters as lacking in entertainment or (going hand in hand) having considerable quality deficiencies. If one had understood that this is not at all due to this individual game, but to the sport of football, then one could – like an Italian commentator, for example – not limit oneself to the few moments of goal celebrations – which, by the way, are also criticised in Germany with the error analysis carried out during the action – but bring the individual actions, even if they do not directly lead to the goal, closer to the viewer in their beauty and quality.
Translated: goal actions, especially successful ones with a bulging net, are so rare (and there is neither a decreasing nor an increasing trend to be observed) that one is actually forced to focus on other things in terms of entertainment value. An Englishman is quite capable of stating a “good tackling”, if it takes place, which would be illuminated here exclusively from the other perspective: “There he goes again.” or “Too stubborn” or “he has to separate himself from the ball faster.” A successful action can also be a successful tackle, provided it is executed with mastery, precision and fairness. A very nice, captured English comment went like this: “If Tackling is an art, then surely he is a master of the art.”
Translated, (redundantly), “If tackling is an art, then surely he is a master of the art.” It almost gives you goosebumps just writing it.
m. The mathematical review of matchday 8 results.
Note: here the deviation of expected goals with scored goals 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.
Home Away Total Deviation
Kaiserslautern Stuttgart 1.37 1.52 2.89 0 2 -1.37 0.48
Leverkusen Wolfsburg 1.78 1.10 2.87 3 1 1.22 -0.10
Dortmund Augsburg 2.02 0.52 2.54 4 0 1.98 -0.52
Nuremberg Mainz 1.45 1.17 2.62 3 3 1.55 1.83
Hoffenheim FC Bayern 0.95 1.89 2.84 0 0.95 -1.89
Freiburg Gladbach 1.31 1.40 2.72 1 0 -0.31 -1.40
Hertha FC Cologne 1.88 1.40 3.29 3 0 1.12 -1.40
Hannover Werder 1.50 1.32 2.82 3 2 1.50 0.68
HSV Schalke 04 1.32 1.47 2.79 1 2 -0.32 0.53
13.57 11.81 25.37 18 10 4.43 -1.81
Expected goal total Expected goal average Scored goal average 25.37 2.82 3.11
ø expected goal difference 1.88 ø goal difference 2.13
A bit too many goals, once again, as pleasing as it may be for the spectator. Of course, the statistician has to be critical: did he miss recognisable trends or misinterpret them? Insightful, too, surely: the deviations are far too small to have any serious fears. If there is one, it is this: at the beginning of the season – as the recently compiled statistics also indicated – there are often a little too many goals, so it would be predictable. There would also be reasons: summer weather, many expectant fans who are not yet worried about missing the season’s goals, i.e. they only push their teams forward in a positive way. But there are already doubts about the latter: the media already start their hunts from matchday 1 (for lack of other, more newsworthy things around football). So that leaves the summer weather, and perhaps referees who aren’t quite as clammy yet, since they don’t have to take responsibility for entire clubs’ fates with one wrong decision. Well, it’s always worth thinking about…
n. The Determination
Note: The fixing is calculated for each match 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
Kaiserslautern Stuttgart 34.71% 23.66% 41.63% 34.98%
Leverkusen Wolfsburg 53.75% 22.64% 23.61% 39.59%
Dortmund Augsburg 73.01% 18.45% 8.53% 57.44%
Nuremberg Mainz 44.01% 25.01% 30.97% 35.22%
Hoffenheim FC Bayern 18.72% 21.58% 59.70% 43.80%
Freiburg Gladbach 35.56% 24.55% 39.89% 34.58%
Hertha FC Cologne 49.21% 21.75% 29.05% 37.38%
Hannover Werder 41.93% 23.97% 34.10% 34.95%
HSV Schalke 04 34.29% 24.15% 41.57% 34.86%
3.85 2.06 3.09 3.53
average expected fixing: 39.20%
To repeat only above the expected figures given in last week’s text.
The determination arrived
Pairing 1 X 2 Tendency arrived
Kaiserslautern Stuttgart 34.71% 23.66% 41.63% 2 41.63%
Leverkusen Wolfsburg 53.75% 22.64% 23.61% 1 53.75%
Dortmund Augsburg 73.01% 18.45% 8.53% 1 73.01%
Nuremberg Mainz 44.01% 25.01% 30.97% 0 25.01%
Hoffenheim FC Bayern 18.72% 21.58% 59.70% 0 21.58%
Freiburg Gladbach 35.56% 24.55% 39.89% 1 35.56%
Hertha FC Cologne 49.21% 21.75% 29.05% 1 49.21%
Hannover Werder 41.93% 23.97% 34.10% 1 41.93%
HSV Schalke 04 34.29% 24.15% 41.57% 2 41.57%
5 2 2 3.83
average determination received: 42.58%
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.
Here, too, the expected determination was exceeded. If such “normal” results are too frequent, then one could also fear here: The games allow a higher determination, the favourites win with greater reliability – and thus predictability. However, even for this, the signs – read: deviations – are far too small.
Winning favourites were: Stuttgart, Leverkusen, Dortmund, Hertha, Hannover and Schalke. A bit too much of that, so the expectation of 39.20% was exceeded by 42.58%.
o. Overall league statistics
Note: such a statistic is regularly produced by the computer. It is generally used for quality control of the individual figures. Each figure has its meaning and is explained in more detail. The goal average is not repeated here. The home advantage is calculated by dividing the goals scored by the home team by half of the total goals. In this way, you can see how many more goals the home teams score than they would score without home advantage. 1,116 is 11.6% more for the home team, 11.6% less for the away team.
Note: For arithmetic foxes, here is a brief explanation of the calculation method for the expected goal deviation: The computer gives each result from 0:0 to 20:20 a probability (it is actually sufficient up to 10:10, as the rest has no significant probability). There would be a goal deviation for each result. So if you multiply the probability of, for example, a 3:4 by the deviation that would then occur (in the case of the match Mainz – Gladbach, with goal expectations of 1.77:1.25, this would be 3 – 1.77 = 1.23 for Mainz plus 4 – 1.25 = 2.75 for Gladbach, i.e. a total of 3.98 goal deviation) and carry out this procedure for each match result, you get the expected average goal deviation.
1st Football Bundesliga 2011/2012 Statistics of the actual results
Matches Home wins Draws Away wins Goals conceded Home advantage
72 35 13 24 122 87 1.167
Statistics of expected results
Matches Home wins Draws Away wins Goals Conceded Home advantage
72 33.28 16.62 22.09 115.5 88.36 1.133
Statistics of absolute deviations
Matches Home wins Draws Away wins Goals Conceded Home advantage
0 1.72 -3.62 1.91 6.5 -1.36 0.03433
Statistics of the percentage deviations
Matches Home wins Draws Away wins Goals Conceded Home advantage
0 4.91% -27.85% 7.96% 5.33% -1.56% 2.94%
Determination expected Determination arrived 39.79% 40.77% ø Goal difference ø Goal difference expected 2.01 1.87
As you can see here, the determination arrived was a little too high over the whole season. One must always take into account that the software developed in-house maintains the central parameters itself and automatically. So if it becomes a trend for the favourites to win more easily, then it will have these consequences: gradually the favourites will be considered more likely to win.
This statement is of course as false as it is in principle for any generalisation, because one does not do justice to the individual case. More concretely, it would be the case that of course VfB Stuttgart would not automatically become a higher favourite in the home match against 1.FC Köln (just to have an example) just because they are favourites anyway. Of course, that’s not how the adjustment works.
It would actually be like this: because every victory of a team basically gives it a gain in playing strength (with very few exceptions: if Bayern won only 3:2 against Augsburg, for example, then they would lose playing strength, which also makes sense somehow: what, so close? Then Augsburg would almost have… Well, maybe next time), each favourite win would make victory in the following match a little more likely (of course, they have to be favourites first; they may have to face a higher-ranked team or play away instead of at home). If these favourite victories occur too often, each favourite would receive a slightly more favourable classification and thus combat the effect as successfully as possible. The expected determination would increase a little and thus gradually approach the actual one.
After all, it is always only nuances of small percentages; it should only be explained that parameter maintenance is automatic for most values (this also applies, for example, to the home advantage, which is hardly ever examined here).
p. Review of the betting recommendations
More explosive, however, is always this question: which bets should/must have occurred according to the computer? Where would it have messed with the betting market? And: if he messes with it, with the great mass intelligence, does he have good reasons for doing so? Could one possibly win, can one even prove long-term advantages? Up to now, such “dry swim” exercises have been made for oneself, if at all. Now, at least, it is documented.
Pairing 1 X 2
Kaiserslautern Stuttgart 3.35 3.55 2.32
Leverkusen Wolfsburg 1.76 3.95 5.20
Dortmund Augsburg 1.27 6.40 13.50
Nuremberg Mainz 2.18 3.60 3.45
Hoffenheim FC Bayern 6.60 4.70 1.56
Freiburg Gladbach 3.20 3.50 2.42
Hertha FC Cologne 1.99 3.70 4.00
Hannover Werder 2.84 3.60 2.70
HSV Schalke 04 2.78 3.75 2.56
Goal expectation 1.28
Money evaluation -2.16
Well, as already indicated in the “recommendations”, this was a purely technical game, without any particular persuasive power. The poor result had to be expected somehow, but not only because of this deficiency. Because: the selection of the odds was in the upper range. You don’t get a 6.6 or a 5.2 every day, let alone a 13.5. The cushion is created by the recent goal from Cologne’s win in Leverkusen, but you don’t necessarily want to make it a principle to “give away” a few games (and thus units) just like that. So it’s a case of looking at the quality of the bets.
Kaiserslautern against Stuttgart looked like a good (to very good) bet with the home win tip. Because: you had the underdog, so you didn’t expect a chance plus at all, but you still scored it with the 6:5 shown by the “Kicker”, with a corner ratio of 9:4 per Lautern. Since the goals also only came in half 2, the phenomenon (pretty much) that Stuttgart pulled back after an early lead and thus Lautern inevitably came to a few chances, which were generously granted to them, since they were leading anyway, does not apply. It wasn’t like that, Lautern worked systematically, even for a long time on the lead, and was in itself the better team in that time (as you can see between the lines also both the match report in the Kicker and the pictures and commentaries of the summary; this distinction only made, because in live view you come from time to time to completely different judgements than the much loved, but so permanently completely wrong reporters; more interesting are anyway usually both player and and especially coach statements, even if they react and answer long since adapted to the media reactions). So: a good bet, unfortunately lost.
Wolfsburg at Leverkusen was of course not a good bet in my opinion, as I would have expected Wolfsburg to be on an almost equal footing, just an outstanding performance in a single match, which they should be capable of. Of course, with a 5.20 you don’t expect superiority, just that they fight back a bit more and create their own chances more often. The chance ratio of 11:2 expresses it: the bet was simply bad.
Not too many words should be said about the possibility of Augsburg winning in Dortmund (with a still less than 10% chance). Only this: in relation to Wolfsburg’s win at Leverkusen, when Wolfsburg should have scored a win with 2:11 chances but the reward would have been only 4.2 units, Augsburg’s bet at 3:9 chances was an excellent one (from their point of view) to snatch 12.5 units. Of course, there’s still a gameplay issue now (did Augsburg have the chances late? Wolfsburg at least got the equaliser in the 2nd half, so they were somehow closer) and it’s also just as clear: you couldn’t know that this chance ratio existed, so in the next game it could look completely different again. Not easy, life as a “prophet”, right?
But the best bet was definitely the one on Hoffenheim. Because you could really feel everywhere (even in the Kicker match report) that they were proud of their performance, but somehow had the possible victory within their grasp and didn’t bring it in. Hoffenheim was the better team in the game and for that a (possible) reward of 5.2 units is of course a fat haul. That would have really boosted the balance (and even provided more suspense in the title question, which is threatening to become boring). Somehow it’s a pity, although the hypercritical kicker only comes up with a chance ratio of 3:2. Holger Stanislawski, Hoffenheim’s coach, said after the game that they had 17 shots on goal, Bayern only 4. That is perhaps a little closer to the truth (why would he have made that up?), even if not every shot on goal, which is readily conceded here, corresponds to a goal-scoring chance (or rather the term “goal-scoring chance” would have to be narrowed down for that; every shot certainly has a percentage, but some are in the very low percentage range).
The Hanover victory also didn’t have that much to do with luck, although according to the odds given they would have been slight underdogs (according to the betting market, the computer saw them slightly ahead with fair odds of 2.39 against Werder’s of 2.93; no, this is NOT a number crunch; these turned on their own).
So, all in all, it was really good betting for which the reward was missing this time, at a loss of 2.16 units.
Recommended bets Statistics of the individual match days
Matchday Nr Number of bets Number of hits expected hit deviation win/loss
1 7 5 2.84 +2.16 +7.96
2 7 3 2.77 +0.23 +1.75
3 2 0 1.00 -1.00 -2.00
4 3 1 1.14 -0.14 -0.28
5 6 2 2.54 -0.54 -2.33
6 8 3 2.29 +0.71 +8.10
7 8 4 3.55 +0.45 +0.00
8 5 1 1.28 -0.28 -2.16
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
Nevertheless, the overall balance remains positive and thus pleasing. All values well up, which is somehow enough to confirm an overall good selection….
q. The preview of the 9th matchday
Note: The computer uses a specially developed – of course explainable and highly logical – algorithm to calculate the goal expectations (and the individually maintained home advantage not shown here) to these goal expectations. These in turn are offset against the probabilities of occurrence, in the past by simulation, today long since by a function derived from the simulation results). These goal expectancy values have also long since proved to be competitive in goal number betting on the betting market.
Goal expectation Home Away Total
Werder Dortmund 1.18 1.42 2.61
FC Bayern Hertha 2.52 0.71 3.23
Gladbach Leverkusen 1.35 1.30 2.65
Stuttgart Hoffenheim 1.66 1.30 2.96
Mainz Augsburg 1.80 0.94 2.75
Wolfsburg Nuremberg 1.55 0.96 2.51
Schalke 04 Kaiserslautern 1.89 0.79 2.68
Freiburg HSV 1.70 1.24 2.93
FC Köln Hannover 1.46 1.53 2.98
15.11 10.18 25.29
Expected goal total Expected goal average 25.29 2.81
Actually, hardly any comment is needed on this. The expected goal average is even lower (despite the fact that it was exceeded again on the last matchday). Explanations? It must be the pairings. Only Bayern against Hertha exceeds the 3 goals, otherwise the matches are perhaps too even?
Note: The determination is calculated as the sum of the squares of the individual probabilities. This measures how much one can commit to a favourite in a certain pairing. The higher a favourite position, the higher the sum of the squares, but also the more “certain” the occurrence of the event. The mathematical question in itself is even more how far one can commit, since one cannot really determine this value. Events are predicted whose probabilities are unknown. Nevertheless, one can check the quality in the long term by comparing expected/occurred events.
The determination expected
Pairing 1 X 2
Werder Dortmund 31.78% 25.11% 43.12% 34.99%
FC Bayern Hertha 76.93% 14.71% 8.36% 62.04%
Gladbach Leverkusen 38.72% 24.92% 36.36% 34.42%
Stuttgart Hoffenheim 46.46% 23.15% 30.39% 36.18%
Mainz Augsburg 58.07% 22.35% 19.59% 42.55%
Wolfsburg Nuremberg 51.65% 24.81% 23.54% 38.37%
Schalke 04 Kaiserslautern 63.72% 21.16% 15.11% 47.37%
Freiburg HSV 48.69% 23.06% 28.25% 37.00%
FC Köln Hannover 36.81% 23.28% 39.91% 34.90%
4.53 2.03 2.45 3.68
Average expected commitment: 40.87%
The value is within the league average for this season. Nevertheless, one will of course not go so far as to have already vividly got the “adjustment effect” described above here.
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
Werder Dortmund 3.15 3.98 2.32
FC Bayern Hertha 1.30 6.80 11.96
Gladbach Leverkusen 2.58 4.01 2.75
Stuttgart Hoffenheim 2.15 4.32 3.29
Mainz Augsburg 1.72 4.47 5.11
Wolfsburg Nuremberg 1.94 4.03 4.25
Schalke 04 Kaiserslautern 1.57 4.73 6.62
Freiburg HSV 2.05 4.34 3.54
FC Köln Hannover 2.72 4.30 2.51
Comparison with the betting exchange betfair
(The betting recommendations)
Pairing 1 X 2
Werder Dortmund 3.05 3.65 2.44
FC Bayern Hertha 1.21 7.20 16.50
Gladbach Leverkusen 2.82 3.40 2.76
Stuttgart Hoffenheim 2.12 3.65 3.85
Mainz Augsburg 1.72 3.90 5.60
Wolfsburg Nuremberg 2.16 3.65 3.65
Schalke 04 Kaiserslautern 1.49 4.60 8.00
Freiburg HSV 2.68 3.60 2.74
FC Köln Hannover 2.46 3.70 2.64
Goal expectation 2.36
A bit livelier again next weekend as far as betting recommendations are concerned. In any case, there are a few tips included that can be recommended with some conviction, should the odds hold up.
Dortmund at Werder is included, although the advantage is so small that you could well overlook it. However, you can very well take your gut feeling into account when making close calls. This is the case: Dortmund won the last away game, in the last minute, in Mainz, thus ending a long drought. The home game was won 4:0, even if against the weakest team in the league. Werder not only lost the game, but also Arnautovic (temporarily). That gives a small plus for the entire bet. Dortmund can definitely be expected to win, especially against an active opponent (who has ever experienced Werder defensively at home?).
Hertha at Bayern also has to be played somehow. Even if Bayern can’t be talked into a crisis directly by one game (complete nonsense, of course), but their vulnerability was also on display before against Man City, they have Champions League in front of them, Hertha have delivered a series of brilliant games and with Lell and Ottl two ex-Bayern in the team who will surely be eager for a good game. In addition, Hertha will go into the game without high expectations. Well, that should be the end of the argument about a 16.50.
Gladbach will logically remain loyal here. They are at home, even if Leverkusen is a neighbour. They’ve played well all season, chosen darling Marco Reus made his international debut (finally) on Friday, so why shouldn’t they have the chance to beat a Leverkusen team still not reliably playing at a consistently high level?
Hoffenheim must also be trusted with everything in Stuttgart. The potential is there in the team to shift into forward gear and score goals even in an away game. Maybe one more than the opponent?
Well, the computer remains a Wolfsburg supporter, so to speak. But after all, they won the last home game, for a long time with ten players, against a similarly good team as Nürnberg (Lautern) with 1:0. So why not do it again? There is still time for a turnaround and a good season. Magath will come up with something.
The Lautern bet at Schalke is of course (as almost always with very high odds) a technical bet. You don’t believe in a win, Schalke have impressed too much over the first phase of the season for that, but you believe that an 8.0 is too high (since fair is 6.60), so insofar as the payout ratio is in favourable proportion to the probability of occurrence. Nevertheless, mentioned here: the 0:2 against Stuttgart did not do justice to the Lauterers.
Freiburg against HSV is such an absurdly high discrepancy that one is almost inclined to mouth a non-word. How could it be possible that a team like Freiburg, which has played quite normally up to now, is hardly favourite against a weakening HSV team? Sure, there was an upward trend, yes, even the last defeat wasn’t really deserved (despite the 4:6 chances counted by kicker), but a 2.68 in a home game against two teams from the first division that should be of roughly a similar level? Well, the layman is amazed – and the expert is surprised. In the long run, however, such bets (crassly against the market) have not really proved their worth. Somehow it is usually the case that when there is such a discrepancy, someone knows something more (without saying the word and without really being able to believe in it, no, not in the first football Bundesliga).
Cologne vs Hannover hasn’t been in there long enough at betfair (and the text should finally be out). But: if, as it looks, the betting recommendation should lean towards Hannover, one would be most reluctant to take it anyway. No, not against Cologne, even if always happy to bet on Hannover.
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 league third place team has against the first league third last.
c. Point expectations and discrepancies
d. Evaluation of the 5th second division matchday
e. Preview of the 7th Second League Matchday