1) The 1st Bundesliga
a. Review of the Matches
Results of the 22nd Matchday
TSG Hoffenheim – FSV Mainz 05 1:1 (1:1)
Hertha BSC – Borussia Dortmund 0:1 (0:0)
- FC Kaiserslautern – Borussia Mönchengladbach 1:2 (0:2)
Hamburger SV – Werder Bremen 1:3 (0:2) - FC Nuremberg – 1. FC Cologne 2:1 (1:0)
Bayer Leverkusen – FC Augsburg 4:1 (1:0)
SC Freiburg – FC Bayern Munich 0:0
FC Schalke 04 – VfL Wolfsburg 4:0 (2:0)
Hannover 96 – VfB Stuttgart 4:2 (2:0)
A few observations:
1) Nobody talks about Götze (or: the Bayern crisis)
If you look closely at the games of the best two teams, you can hardly notice any difference. Neither played particularly well, that may well be. But even more so, both met competitors who made the most of their situation of having at least absolutely nothing to lose in this game. Hertha had a very special state of emergency anyway due to the recent dismissal of the coach and the temporary appointment of Tretschok, as the players were aware that the new start would only come after the game. In other words, expectations were low, even from the public’s point of view. If something succeeds, everything is even fancier. If nothing sticks: no problem, from Monday on things will really start under Rehhagel.
The situation in Freiburg is similar, of course. Coach Streich has ensured a good line-up (and attitude; because notice, further down, Rehhagel is back: “It’s not the line-up but the attitude that counts.”) in all the games he’s managed so far, the team had presented itself brilliantly and it’s not for nothing that many coaches say, to take the burden off their players: “The easiest games of the season are the ones against Bayern.” Here there are bonus points to be won, here you can set a monument for yourself (like back then with the legendary 5:1). And if it doesn’t work out? The main thing is that you fought for 90 minutes. Because the audience will still applaud.
So: both underdogs slipped perfectly into this role and made the best of it. Of course, the top teams always know that they are coming, especially away from home, against an opponent who, carried by the crowd and without the pressure of expectation, is red-hot. What actually makes the players of the underdogs weaker than their opponents? It is not the market value or the salary that makes them so. The differences are marginal and mainly to be found in the area of self-confidence. Bayern’s “mir san mir” is legendary and has already put the fear of God into this or that team. Of course, as champions, current league leaders and serial winners (at the moment), Dortmund also acts like that, no question about it. How did the “praeceptor Germaniae”, the legendary chess master Dr. Siegbert Tarrasch, once put it, and even if he was referring to chess, it can easily be applied to football or any other sport? “It is not enough to be a good player. You also have to play well.”
The performances of the top teams differed only in this one point: Dortmund scored the one goal (and came within a hair’s breadth of conceding it a couple of times), Bayern didn’t, but also didn’t concede one (and, just like Dortmund at Hertha, almost did a couple of times).
Sure, here and now it’s all about success. But we should please bear in mind that it’s all about that one scene, that one millimetre here, that nanosecond there, that both games have the exact opposite outcome. One should enjoy the fact that it remains unpredictable, that we are always left with some tension, and that the pendulum (of luck) swings soon for this one soon for that one.
What you get to hear is quite the opposite. The games are dissected on Sport 1 Doppelpass. In every scene they try to prove that these games could only have this outcome. The Dortmund goal scene is used to prove that they are hungry for goals, that they go for it, that they are in the penalty area with five men, that they have this class, and they act as if such a goal is inevitable, whereas the opposite is the case with Bayern in comparably selected (opposing) scenes: they COULDN’T score a goal because they do it wrong, they don’t move, they don’t offer themselves and the latter misses the moment of the clearance and the latter exaggerates the individual play. You can even tell from individual scenes that the team doesn’t work, whereas Dortmund demonstrably do. It’s all ridiculous and silly, as one argues here. King Chance has directed the game, especially when you compare these two games with their identical courses. An expert is he who recognises this.
Doesn’t it get boring when you can work out exactly (always in retrospect, of course!) that there could only be THIS ONE OUTCOME? Wouldn’t it be much nicer if we always put a large part of the blame on chance? Wouldn’t we be much more tense and at the same time much closer to the truth?
So, as has been proven, Bayern have a crisis, or so one must now read in all the gazettes at least until Wednesday. There was only this one possible outcome, that’s just how it was. Now they are four points behind and cannot make it on their own.
What they have to learn now is hardly worthy of the cow skin that has become so famous. Stefan Effenberg – as one may read, as soon as he appears in the picture on Sky, he is a “Sky expert” – may have a far higher level of knowledge and understanding than the other reporters, as one dares to claim, but he has long since been “washed clean”, presumably since signing his contract, and has co-signed that he has to adopt the reporters’ jargon. So he thinks he has recognised that “Dortmund works as a team, but Bayern doesn’t.” Yes, sure, he can read the table and is not positively different from the others.
The proof is also provided. Bayern would mention that Schweinsteiger was missing, whereas at Dortmund nobody talks about Götze. Well, sure, Bayern might have mentioned in some subordinate sentence that they were missing Bastian Schweinsteiger, who, by the way, has been attested world class for some time. They probably shouldn’t have done that, but it’s only human, comprehensible and understandable that after a match with an unfavourable outcome they realise that a man of world-class calibre could have helped. Who could actually doubt that? They are not saying that they would have won for sure, but it is equally impossible to prove that the match would have had the same outcome if he had been there. It is logical to mention it and it is merely a fact that he was absent. Obviously, this is no longer admissible and is tantamount to looking for excuses.
But the fact that proof is now being provided by Bayern mentioning the absence of a central player, while no one at Dortmund talks about the absence of the player with perhaps a similar status within the team, namely Mario Götze, is really ridiculous and, when you get right down to it, actually embarrassing. What should Dortmund have done? Lament before the game? In front of everyone without Götze? After the victory, which was obviously clinched – not only in this match – lament that they would have won much more easily and clearly with him? How embarrassing would that be? How derisive would it be towards the opponents? How much would it be reported, how much would they be laughed at for such an aberration, violating all the rules of decency and fair play at once?
No, if they had played at least one draw recently, then there would be any chance at all that the name would have been mentioned. But like this? “No one is talking about Götze at Dortmund. There’s peace and quiet there. That’s why they’re so successful.” They are such silly analyses that you could actually just run away. If you didn’t write about it….
2) Thomas Helmer and slow motion
It was mentioned a long time ago by authors that the Sky channel makes a mistake in its conference broadcast with the playing of ONLY slow motion after a goal. The commentator there calls out “Goal in Dortmund” or “Goal in Cologne”, then they switch to it and you see the goal from about seven different perspectives, but all in slow motion. This way you don’t get an impression of how the goal was made, according to the claim made about it. There is a simple reason for this: as precisely as you can see everything in slow motion from the images alone, you are not familiar with the speed of the sequence of events – and you never will be, even if you repeat each or every one of these scenes many times. Because we are only used to “normal speed” in our daily lives.
Only in this “normal speed” can you see whether the goalkeeper reacted well, whether the attacker was fast, even whether the opponent really hindered him or not, whether the shot was hard or just placed. You will never be able to read all these things from a slow motion. On the other hand, it is true that a slow-motion shot can bring clarity EXACTLY WHEN you have seen the scene IN ORIGINAL SPEED beforehand. So it is actually a matter of course that all goals, before they are repeated in slow motion, are played once completely in the original speed, by the way, urgently including the creation, as is usual in England…. After that, slow motion can be used if one wants to or if one expects something from it in the specific case.
Now Sport1 expert and presenter Thomas Helmer – who has already been praised here on several occasions – made a similar observation. He reported in the Monday evening programme “Doppelpass” that he had recently spoken with Markus Babbel during the assessment of a slow-motion scene that one could not judge at all in this slowed-down speed whether it was a foul play or not. See above for the reasoning.
Well, it’s amazing that someone finally thought of that. That it only happened now may be surprising, but that Thomas Helmer, of all people, figured it out is another plus point attributed to him. Why was it so difficult to find out? On the other hand, there is the satisfaction of not being a lone fighter who always makes his observations for himself alone and finds no advocates anywhere in the world, even though logically things seem so perfect.
Apart from that, the proof has been found (for a long time) that football can be marketed and prepared better. For this is what happens in England, as one could convince oneself over the years.
Even if the English are said – this already happened in the old Asterix volume “Asterix and the Brits”, when they were always put in the mouth with sentences like “I’m not saying I haven’t seen it, but I’m not saying yes either” — to be hesitant and deliberative, if only in the way they express themselves, where a “maybe” or a “possibly” or “I’m not too sure, but. .”, but on the one hand this is British politeness, where you always concede that someone else has a better, more conclusive view, but at the same time this is much closer to reality, isn’t it?
With us, you only find final judgements and if there isn’t one, then you poke around until you think you’ve found it (even if Thomas Helmer, in particular, occasionally makes an effort to leave a judgement open; he simply moves on to the next scene or the next game with very moderate words, without a consensus having been reached).
3) Otto Rehhagel
How could one refrain from leaving the return of the great master uncommented? It is, after all, that coach whom one came to appreciate the most personally, especially as he was one of the first to stand up to the dimwitted journalists and was not prepared to make himself the media’s plaything. If a question was stupid enough, the questioner had to expect to have the microphone figuratively shoved in his mouth.
It was certainly one of those very prominent, at the same time very early examples with which he proved that there was someone who swam on the wavelength that was closest to oneself. It was a match between the top teams of the time, Bayern Munich and Werder Bremen, which ended in a 1-1 draw and which obviously did not go to the taste of the assembled journaille. Now, to this day, we have no idea what a game should look like to which the demigods would award the title “sensational”, but this is considered more of a contemporary phenomenon, and at the same time we would like to see the one action in which the commentator simply tips over out of his pantines because he is so enthusiastic and wants to make this enthusiasm appear palpable and audible. However, in the 80s, one thinks, it was still somewhat different times (even if the line of march was already set).
In any case, one journalist asked why the top match once again failed to live up to the promise of a top match. This went against Otto Rehhagel’s grain, and he saw fit to give the questioner a good talking to. He replied: “The football you want to see does not exist. He probably didn’t know how right he was at the time of his rather emotional remark. Because: in fact, one gets the impression that not a single reporter would ever like a football match. So, in truth, he does NOT want to watch ANY football (and not specifically just the kind Bayern and Werder were playing at the time).
It only brought one to the realisation that actually no better football could be expected just because the names of the players or the clubs or the table positions sounded bigger, better, higher. Because: how was it stated often enough, even by those who were asking so stupidly at that very moment? “The attack wins games, the defence wins championships.” And wasn’t it Franz Beckenbauer who remarked at the start of this year’s season, when Bayern were doing perfectly well and conceding no goals, that it was precisely the low number of goals conceded that excited him the most? Wasn’t it Huub Stevens who not only brought success (back) to Schalke, back in 1997, but at the same time declared the saying “the zero must stand” to be a firm trademark of success for everyone? So what can be expected when the best attackers meet the equally highly regarded defenders? Is it going to be a goal festival? Is it more likely to be a goal-prevention festival? No, neither, is the answer. The game will have roughly the same entertainment value as any other game would have, provided the teams meet on roughly equal terms – and the spectator is a football fan. For a commentator, there would basically be the additional condition, unfortunately almost never fulfilled, that he should know about it.
The football that YOU, so (lowly) esteemed reporters, want to see, really doesn’t exist. Nail on the head. (By the way, the commentator at last week’s Tuesday night game between Milan and Arsenal tried to make you believe that he had been looking forward to the game all day; during the game you didn’t get the slightest hint of that. One wonders, therefore, whether he doesn’t enjoy staring at his own four walls considerably more and should rather choose this as his “evening programme” next time?! It would certainly be a treat for the viewer/listener).
When Greece won the European championship title in 2004, the whole country was at his feet, in this country they certainly honoured him a little more, and at the same time the world bowed down to him. Now, authors often take the view that the importance of coaches is somewhat exaggerated. Not that they are not appreciated, no, quite the opposite. It’s just that sentences like “Rehhagel won the 2004 European Championship title” are both often heard and – rather (too) much of an honour. The players won the title in equal measure, as people tend to forget. A coach can’t do it alone. He has to have a competitive ensemble, usually he has to take over a team where he has only influenced or can only influence the squad to a minimal extent.
This importance of coaches is probably exaggerated so much because it is those who (very often wrongly) have to take the rap, who are seen as the weakest link, the first to break out of the chain. That’s really how it happens. The coach has to take his hat off if there is only a rudimentary lack of success, which, from a purely statistical point of view, can also creep in from time to time through no fault of his own, because there is the element of “bad luck”.
Rehhagel’s success with his team was soon stamped “a miracle”. And with some justification, since hardly anyone had Greece on their radar before the tournament. It was already considered a great success to have reached the top 16 at all, the country’s inhabitants certainly agreed. Everything else is a bonus. People are excited, they go along, they hope for a few good games, a few good actions, maybe a few goals, and if everything goes right, they will make it to the quarter finals. Even the biggest Greek optimists (of which there are a few more in southern countries, as we all know) would not have dared to dream of the title. He did it with his team. A miracle.
Now he (and his team) have qualified again for the next tournament in 2008. Please continue to regard this as a success (here is a research result: they achieved a balance of 10 wins, one draw and one defeat; certainly a great result, but this did not make them one of the favourites by any means). When they then lost all three of their matches in the preliminary round, against Sweden, Russia and Spain (also a research result; nations against which you don’t automatically become favourites just by winning the title?), he was immediately accused of archaic football. Tortured with such questions in the interview, he reminded the questioner that he (or one of his questioning representatives) had coined the term “miracle” four years ago. Would she really expect this miracle to be repeated right away? Miracles every four years?
One of those snubs that one can now look forward to again for a while. For it is quite certain that Rehhagel has grown older and wiser. Only, on the opposite side, one may be just as convinced that he cares even less about his standing with the media (he was, by the way, from memory, the first to call a complete press boycott for all representatives of his club; it was in a situation when FC Homburg stood before them as promoted teams, after 11 matchdays {research}, and Werder had lost four in a row).
So, dear reporters – who are currently still raving about his return: dress warmly, because from now on your transgressions will once again be mercilessly exposed by questioned parties. Hans Meyer, who had taken on this role so well, has also been absent for a while. So it was about time again that there was someone who defied the media laws (if you want positive headlines, you have to be nice to us).
b. The table situation
Sp S U N Pkt T GT Diff1 Borussia Dortmund 22 15 4 3 49 47 – 14 +33
2 Borussia Mönchengladbach 22 14 4 4 46 36 – 13 +23
3 FC Bayern Munich 22 14 3 5 45 49 – 14 +35
4 FC Schalke 04 22 14 2 6 44 50 – 28 +22
5 Werder Bremen 22 10 6 36 37 – 36 +1
6 Bayer Leverkusen 22 9 7 6 34 32 – 29 +3
7 Hannover 96 22 8 10 4 34 27 – 27 +0
8 VfL Wolfsburg 22 8 3 11 27 27 – 42 -15
9 VfB Stuttgart 22 7 5 10 26 33 – 32 +1
10 TSG Hoffenheim 22 6 8 26 24 – 26 -2
11 Hamburger SV 22 6 8 26 27 – 37 -10
12 1.FC Nürnberg 22 7 4 11 25 21 – 32 -11
13 FSV Mainz 05 22 5 9 8 24 30 – 36 -6
14 1.FC Köln 22 7 3 12 24 30 – 43 -13
15 Hertha BSC 22 4 8 10 20 25 – 37 -12
16 1.FC Kaiserslautern 22 3 9 10 18 16 – 28 -12
17 FC Augsburg 22 3 9 10 18 20 – 37 -17
18 SC Freiburg 22 4 6 12 18 27 – 47 -20
558 558 0
Total number of games 198
Goals ø 2.82
A quick review taught one that Bayern’s seemingly dismal season only appears so because there are three teams this season that have still scored more than two points per game at such a late stage. Two points is the borderline, above which one should actually be satisfied and one pretty much always plays for the championship (in Germany).
When Franz Beckenbauer took over Bayern at the winter break in 1994, Bayern had a record of 9 – 6 – 3, which according to the new calculation gives a score of 33 in 17 games. This is just under 2 per game; even then it was not enough for first place, which was occupied by the Frankfurt Eintracht (this is the result of research, not memory; the latter only steered the research in the right direction). The bosses were not satisfied then either and installed Beckenbauer, the eternal saviour.
It is quite possible to remember that Beckenbauer was celebrated as the hero back then, because Bayern really did become champions. But if you look at the balance sheets, the spectacle becomes much smaller. After all, at the end of the season Bayern had the comparatively ridiculous balance of 17 – 10 – 7. On the one hand, this would correspond to only 61 points in 34 games, i.e. well under 2 per game, and on the other hand, Beckenbauer’s score of 8 – 4 – 4, i.e. only 28 points in 17 games, would be average at best (by Bayern standards) and would be enough to win the title, because the competition was taking points from each other.
This should only serve to maintain a little objectivity. Bayern’s season is by no means bad, as it is currently being portrayed everywhere. The outstanding series of Dortmund AND Gladbach makes a decent result seem catastrophic. A Beckenbauer achieved hero status (not only because of this) without being able to back this up with results. If only one team had achieved a reasonably above-average result in the season (a fact that you can hardly influence as Bayern coach?!), he would probably have been kicked out after 7 games and his comeback attempt, which was later made out of sheer cockiness, would have been laughed at for the rest of his life. And this with exactly the same record that propelled him to the coaching Olympus. Curious enough?
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 probabilities1 Borussia Dortmund 3421 68.42% 1.46
2 FC Bayern Munich 1054 21.08% 4.74
3 Borussia Mönchengladbach 379 7.58% 13.19
4 FC Schalke 04 146 2.92% 34.25
5000 100.00%
Bayern with only 21% left! In view of this and the fact that they thought the title was as good as secure in the first half of the season, it is understandable that the bosses are sounding the alarm. Do they suspect that only 20% are left? Do they think it’s possible that, as happened during the week, appeals could turn that 20% back into 30, 40 or even more? Well, all these are questions that will probably never be answered. At least you can see below what the betting market is “thinking” on this subject….
Change in chances compared to the previous week due to the results of Matchday 22
Team Gain/Loss absolute compared to previous matchday Gain/Loss percentage1 Borussia Dortmund 446 8.92%
2 Borussia Mönchengladbach 118 2.36%
3 FC Schalke 04 45 0.90%
18 FC Bayern Munich -609 -12.18%
0 0.00%
Of course, the results have only this one motto: there is a big loser. It’s also clear that the leader’s mastered tasks will now bring it gains with nice regularity. This is so high because the main competitor has NOT won. There has already been enough philosophising about the wrong way to punish the additional half-point deduction – for Bayern and Freiburg. It remains wrong, in fact increasingly wrong, the longer you think about it.
d. The title chances in development
This is roughly reminiscent of a backgammon match in which a player was not only behind, but was also playing with two checkers on the bar against a closed board, would have been out in a gammon, but got the “lucky shot” from the bar – and scored. After the game, the score was 13:13 on 17, now the score is 14:13 – and the score is already better. Oh, you don’t know the game? Nu is too late…
e. Comparison of title chances with the betting exchange betfair
Back Lay Probability (Back)FC Bayern Munich 2.96 3.05 33.78%
Borussia Dortmund 1.84 1.86 54.35%
FC Schalke 04 32 38 3.13%
Borussia Mönchengladbach 10.5 11.5 9.52%
102.18%
Clearly a slump at Bayern, still not quite on the computer. So the appeals do have an influence after all? Can one influence the objective chances oneself? Shouldn’t this effect already have been included in the calculation? Well, it is a complicated world, especially the one in which one has to deal with probabilities, thus with apparent truths. On the other hand, the only coherent world view – to be represented by the author. The very big alternative question: would life be worth living if one could actually gain insight into the future? Try as one might, as soon as there was an authoritative answer as to what would happen, one’s enjoyment of life would almost certainly be gone. Let alone knowing it more than once but permanently.
The changes in betfair’s odds estimates
Change(Back)FC Bayern Munich -13.84%
Borussia Dortmund 10.87%
FC Schalke 04 0.00%
Borussia Mönchengladbach 3.07%
0.11%
(The order according to the original estimates of the ranking)
The development at betfair in the graph
After all, there are clear similarities between the two curves.
f. The direct Champions League qualification over 2nd place
The probability distribution for 2nd place after the 22nd matchday
Team Number of 2nd places in 5000 simulations 2nd places in percent1 FC Bayern Munich 2148 42.96%
2 Borussia Mönchengladbach 1088 21.76%
3 Borussia Dortmund 1070 21.40%
4 FC Schalke 04 682 13.64%
5 Bayer Leverkusen 6 0.12%
6 Hannover 96 3 0.06%
7 Werder Bremen 2 0.04%
8 TSG Hoffenheim 1 0.02%
5000 100.00%
Gladbach already pushes into 2nd place for 2nd place! Well, Dortmund has exchanged its chances for this place for title chances, and after all Gladbach currently holds 2nd place.
The changes compared to the previous week:
Team win/loss absolute compared to previous matchday Win/loss percentage1 FC Schalke 04 323 6.46%
2 Borussia Mönchengladbach 260 5.20%
3 Hannover 96 3 0.06%
4 Bayer Leverkusen 1 0.02%
5 TSG Hoffenheim 1 0.02%
15 VfB Stuttgart -1 -0.02%
16 Werder Bremen -1 -0.02%
17 FC Bayern Munich -171 -3.42%
18 Borussia Dortmund -415 -8.30%
0 0.00%
The “loser” is as clear as day. But Bayern also with losses. Schalke as the (even bigger) winner, clearly due to the size of the victory.
g. The relegation question
The distribution of relegation percentages
Note: There would also be a detailed breakdown across the individual places. Here, places 17 and 18 count as fully relegated (i.e. in total as 1, for relegated in each case, otherwise the term is “direct relegation”), and a further third of relegated teams are added 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 Total1 FC Augsburg 66.00% 5.27% 71.27%
2 SC Freiburg 53.58% 6.38% 59.96%
3 1.FC Kaiserslautern 43.14% 6.97% 50.11%
4 Hertha BSC 19.90% 5.45% 25.35%
5 1.FC Köln 9.40% 3.45% 12.85%
6 1.FC Nürnberg 3.60% 2.39% 5.99%
7 FSV Mainz 05 1.84% 1.25% 3.09%
8 Hamburger SV 0.98% 0.61% 1.59%
9 VfL Wolfsburg 0.64% 0.64% 1.28%
10 TSG Hoffenheim 0.66% 0.59% 1.25%
11 VfB Stuttgart 0.26% 0.35% 0.61%
200.00% 33.33% 233.33%
Now Augsburg push past Freiburg again. Lost 1:4, albeit away, but mainly the one point in favour of Freiburg against a top team helps them.
The change in chances due to the results of the 22nd matchday with regard to relegation
Team Change of chances1 1.FC Nürnberg 8.53%
2 SC Freiburg 8.09%
3 FSV Mainz 05 0.39%
4 Hannover 96 0.08%
5 TSG Hoffenheim 0.05%
6 Hertha BSC 0.04%
7 Werder Bremen 0.01%
13 VfB Stuttgart -0.16%
14 VfL Wolfsburg -0.37%
15 Hamburger SV -0.70%
16 1.FC Köln -3.99%
17 1.FC Kaiserslautern -4.33%
18 FC Augsburg -7.65%
0.00%
Nuremberg with the very late winning goal against Cologne – a rival — as the clear winner. Freiburg clearly with the point and the favourable match performance, almost equal. Augsburg loses at most, also Lautern with losses in view of the home defeat, and of course Cologne.
h. The relegation question in development
Kind of nice to look at the lines of Augsburg and Freiburg like this.
i. The point expectations and the deviations
Explanation: for each game the computer has calculated the chances for 1, X and 2. On the basis of these, a point expectation is mathematically calculated for each team per game according to the formula probability of victory * 3 points + probability of draw * 1 point. The deviations given below compare the points actually achieved with those expected by the computer.
In total, the deviation does not have to be 0 for all teams, as the number of expected draws does not have to be congruent with those that have occurred (nor can it even be), but an imbalance is forced by the three-point rule. Too many points scored means that there were too few draws.
Team Name Points scored Deviation Deviation absolute1 Borussia Mönchengladbach 30.80 46 15.20 15.20
2 FC Schalke 04 35.60 44 8.40 8.40
3 Borussia Dortmund 43.88 49 5.12 5.12
4 Werder Bremen 32.85 36 3.15 3.15
5 Hannover 96 30.96 34 3.04 3.04
6 1.FC Nürnberg 25.65 25 -0.65 0.65
7 Hamburger SV 26.74 26 -0.74 0.74
8 1.FC Köln 24.89 24 -0.89 0.89
9 Bayer Leverkusen 35.30 34 -1.30 1.30
10 VfL Wolfsburg 29.59 27 -2.59 2.59
11 FC Augsburg 20.86 18 -2.86 2.86
12 TSG Hoffenheim 28.97 26 -2.97 2.97
13 FC Bayern Munich 48.67 45 -3.67 3.67
14 FSV Mainz 05 28.06 24 -4.06 4.06
15 VfB Stuttgart 30.88 26 -4.88 4.88
16 1.FC Kaiserslautern 23.68 18 -5.68 5.68
17 SC Freiburg 23.89 18 -5.89 5.89
18 Hertha BSC 27.25 20 -7.25 7.25
-8.51 78.33
ø Deviation 4.35Numbers 1 and 2 remain crystal clear in front. Dortmund at 3 also makes sense, Werder behind – well, understandable thanks to an away win and generally a decent season. Hannover have shown great games and results, but have the misfortune of being hit most often by remi(e)sen point deductions. On 6 already Nuremberg, but, as you can see, with only a minimal positive value.
Berlin’s Hertha is already at the bottom. Sure, the results were depressing, but the performance was clearly better. Let’s see how it develops under Rehhagel.
The foreign comparison for the average point deviation
Note: the theory is that the German Bundesliga is the most exciting among Europe’s top leagues. This finding is rather intuitively derived, but so far “accepted” both in this country and abroad. Of course, the higher goal average is an indication of this, as well as the(perceived) lower predictability when it comes to the title, relegation, but also other issues. Balance is a criterion and possibly the main reason for this.
The measure used here for the deviation in average points expectation provides measurable information about this, but it was probably a “problem” specific to the 2010/2011 inaugural season (the fan thanked) that the Bundesliga produced a particularly large number of surprises. This was reflected in the figures. Now the phenomenon can be observed further. Is the Bundesliga also exciting in this respect? More exciting than elsewhere?(At the same time, a large deviation in this category could simply mean that computers or feeders are bad at their trade)
Rank Country League 1 ø Point deviation Change from previous week Number of games
1 Germany, 2.BL 6.15 0.02 197
2 England 1 4.63 0.00 250
3 France 1 4.45 0.40 236
4 Germany, 1.BL 4.35 0.54 198
5 Spain 1 3.34 0.04 230
6 Italy 1 3.09 0.17 234
It’s not every week that you can expect exciting developments or commentary here – if it was ever possible.
j. Goal expectations and their deviations
Explanation: Almost the same applies to goals as to points. The expected goals scored and the expected goals conceded are compared with reality. Too few goals scored count negatively just as too many goals conceded count negatively, the reverse counts positively in each case. Here, the sum of the deviations must be 0, because all expected and not scored goals were not conceded somewhere. However, the goal average may show a deviation.
Team Name Goal expectation Goals scored Goals conceded expected Goals conceded Total deviation1 Borussia Mönchengladbach 29.61 36 29.40 13 22.79
2 FC Schalke 04 34.96 50 26.76 28 13.80
3 Borussia Dortmund 38.88 47 18.31 14 12.43
4 FC Bayern München 49.59 49 18.87 14 4.27
5 TSG Hoffenheim 28.65 24 31.02 26 0.37
6 VfB Stuttgart 33.70 33 32.98 32 0.27
7 Hannover 96 30.40 27 29.29 27 -1.10
8 1.FC Kaiserslautern 24.06 16 34.46 28 -1.60
9 FSV Mainz 05 29.86 30 33.55 36 -2.31
10 Werder Bremen 35.92 37 32.33 36 -2.59
11 1.FC Köln 29.67 30 39.97 43 -2.70
12 FC Augsburg 19.98 20 33.85 37 -3.13
13 1.FC Nuremberg 25.55 21 33.05 32 -3.50
14 Hamburger SV 28.91 27 35.08 37 -3.82
15 Bayer Leverkusen 35.30 32 28.00 29 -4.29
16 Hertha BSC 28.40 25 33.65 37 -6.74
17 SC Freiburg 26.63 27 37.28 47 -9.35
18 VfL Wolfsburg 30.84 27 33.05 42 -12.80
535.75 530 535.75 530 0.00
Goals ø expected: Goals ø scored: ø Deviation 5.99
2.83 2.82 1, 2 and 3 in the identical order as for points. Curious here that Wolfsburg, in 8th (!!!) place in the real table, are in last place here. Well, they have a worse goal difference than Hertha.
Oh yes, Bayern at 4, which proves a bit better that their season can’t be that bad.
The foreign comparison for average goal difference.
(Note: crazy results don’t necessarily translate into a tendency. So a 5:3 or even a 7:0 may provide large deviations here, in terms of goals, but not at all in terms of points, since, for example, the favourite would have won in each case. So there is an alternative method of comparing with other countries: are there the most “surprises” in the Bundesliga in this respect too)?
Rank Country League 1 ø Goal difference Change from previous week Number of games
1 Germany, 2.BL 9.02 0.21 197
2 England 1 6.77 0.00 250
3 Germany, 1.BL 5.99 -0.02 198
4 Spain 1 5.02 0.74 230
5 Italy 1 4.44 0.49 234
6 France 1 3.72 -0.06 236
The same applies here as with the points. If anything was to be noted, it would be this: in Italy and Spain there were a few surprising results, as can be seen from the clearly positive value.
k. The Strength of Play Ranking
Note: Playing strength is measured in goals expected against the average team (which does not exist in practice). There is offensive strength, which is measured in expected goals scored, and defensive strength, which is measured in expected goals conceded. The quotient of these two values is the measure of playing strength. The more expected goals scored, the higher the value; the fewer expected goals conceded, the higher the value.
Team For Against Quotient For/Counter Change in Quotient Shift1 Borussia Dortmund 1.96 0.73 2.69 +0.07 +0
2 FC Bayern Munich 2.02 0.86 2.35 +0.00 +0
3 FC Schalke 04 1.80 1.19 1.51 +0.08 +1
4 Borussia Mönchengladbach 1.55 1.03 1.50 +0.02 -1
5 Bayer Leverkusen 1.60 1.31 1.22 +0.04 +0
6 Werder Bremen 1.62 1.54 1.05 +0.04 +0
7 Hannover 96 1.34 1.30 1.03 +0.04 +0
8 VfB Stuttgart 1.53 1.63 0.94 -0.04 +0
9 FSV Mainz 05 1.39 1.49 0.93 +0.01 +0
10 TSG Hoffenheim 1.20 1.35 0.89 -0.01 +0
11 Hamburger SV 1.27 1.50 0.85 -0.04 +0
12 VfL Wolfsburg 1.30 1.58 0.82 -0.05 +0
13 Hertha BSC 1.22 1.62 0.75 -0.00 +0
14 1.FC Nürnberg 1.07 1.45 0.73 +0.01 +1
15 1.FC Köln 1.31 1.80 0.73 -0.01 -1
16 SC Freiburg 1.18 1.81 0.65 +0.01 +1
17 1.FC Kaiserslautern 0.94 1.44 0.65 -0.00 -1
18 FC Augsburg 0.95 1.60 0.59 -0.02 +0
25.25 25.25
Goals ø expected
2.81 Schalke and Gladbach swapping places again? Well, the gap is very small and was before. A 4:0 compared to a 2:1 tips the scales. Is it realistic? Most certainly, Schalke have caught the eye after recent criticism. Nuremberg overtakes Cologne: although the game seemed very even to an observer (that was the selected live game) and the winning goal seemed rather lucky, both in terms of timing and the share of play at the time, computer logic is nevertheless incorruptible. It was a victory and it was against the immediate neighbouring rival. At the same time, however, one can also accept it as “realistic”.
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.
2010/2011 season
Country Matches Compensation HF AF Total per match
1st Bundesliga 306 158 60 49 267 0.873
England 380 198 66 46 310 0.816
2nd Bundesliga 306 145 56 41 242 0.791
Italy 380 169 58 48 275 0.724
France 380 175 49 40 264 0.695
Spain 380 146 48 46 240 0.632
Total 2132 991 337 270 1598 0.750
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 match1 1st Bundesliga 9 3 2 0 5 0.556
2 2nd Bundesliga 9 5 2 1 8 0.889
3 France 10 5 1 7 0.700
4 England 0 0 0 0
5 Spain 10 5 2 1 8 0.800
6 Italy 12 2 2 0 4 0.333
Total Balance 50 20 9 3 32 0.640
0.64 Change of tendency per game at the weekend. A slightly below-average figure. In the 1st division it was even more miserable in this respect.
Trend changes in the major leagues in the 2011/2012 season
Country Matches Equalisation Home Leading Goal Away Leading Goal Total per match1 1st Bundesliga 198 102 35 24 161 0.813
2 2nd Bundesliga 197 97 36 24 157 0.797
3 France 236 119 32 31 182 0.771
4 England 250 116 31 42 189 0.756
5 Spain 230 101 43 24 168 0.730
6 Italy 234 91 33 22 146 0.624
Total balance 1345 626 210 167 1003 0.746
The two German leagues hold their own in front. But everything is close together. Only Italy drops off a little.
m. The mathematical review of the results of the 22nd matchday.
Note: here, the deviation of the expected goals with the goals scored is calculated for each match. To determine the total deviation, the values are added up in absolute terms (not visible here, this column). So: if one team deviates positively by 0.35 goals, the other negatively by -0.62, then the absolute total deviation is 0.35 + 0.62 = 0.97 goals. To determine the average deviation, all these values are added up and divided by the number of pairings – usually 9.
Goal expectation
Home Away Total DeviationHoffenheim Mainz 1.40 1.15 2.55 1 1 -0.40 -0.15
Freiburg FC Bayern 0.91 2.22 3.13 0 0.91 -2.22
Hertha Dortmund 0.75 1.98 2.72 0 1 -0.75 -0.98
Kaiserslautern Gladbach 0.75 1.29 2.04 1 2 0.25 0.71
HSV Werder 1.68 1.41 3.08 1 3 -0.68 1.59
Nuremberg FC Cologne 1.61 1.27 2.88 2 1 0.39 -0.27
Leverkusen Augsburg 1.87 0.82 2.69 4 1 2.13 0.18
Schalke 04 Wolfsburg 2.27 0.99 3.26 4 0 1.73 -0.99
Hannover Stuttgart 1.61 1.18 2.79 4 2.39 0.82
12.84 12.31 25.15 17 11 4.16 -1.31
Expected goal total Expected goal average Scored goal average
25.15 2.79 3.11 ø expected goal difference 1.86 ø goal difference 1.95
Once again, the home teams scored too many goals, while the away teams scored too few. Overall, there were also too many (compared to the expectation). If you take a closer look: in Freiburg there should have been many goals (over 3), there were none at all. Kaiserslautern in particular was supposed to be low on goals. There were three goals there, so, in market terms, an “over”.
On the other hand, the high-scoring games in Hamburg and Gelsenkirchen (with more than 3 predicted in each case) were predicted “correctly”. It is important to know that the market is somewhat less sensitive than the computer when it comes to such betting offers. Accordingly, the market also recognises that the games will be higher-scoring, but it does not consider them to be quite as high-scoring as the computer, which means that the bets recommended by the computer are “over”. Conversely, the same applies to the “under” games. If the computer sees (very) few goals, then the computer usually recommends an “under”, although the exact numbers are not given here.
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
Hoffenheim Mainz 42.23% 27.05% 30.72% 34.59%
Freiburg FC Bayern 14.13% 19.05% 66.82% 50.27%
Hertha Dortmund 13.12% 20.67% 66.22% 49.84%
Kaiserslautern Gladbach 21.42% 29.32% 49.25% 37.45%
HSV Werder 43.70% 24.21% 32.09% 35.26%
Nuremberg FC Cologne 44.97% 25.04% 29.99% 35.49%
Leverkusen Augsburg 62.10% 22.17% 15.73% 45.96%
Schalke 04 Wolfsburg 66.08% 18.89% 15.03% 49.50%
Hanover Stuttgart 47.02% 25.19% 27.79% 36.18%
3.55 2.12 3.34 3.75
average expected fixing: 41.61%Always as a reminder, the expected values from the previous week’s text. What has reality brought now?
The determination arrived Pairing 1 X 2 Tendency
Hoffenheim Mainz 42.23% 27.05% 30.72% 0 27.05%
Freiburg FC Bayern 14.13% 19.05% 66.82% 0 19.05%
Hertha Dortmund 13.12% 20.67% 66.22% 2 66.22%
Kaiserslautern Gladbach 21.42% 29.32% 49.25% 2 49.25%
HSV Werder 43.70% 24.21% 32.09% 2 32.09%
Nuremberg FC Cologne 44.97% 25.04% 29.99% 1 44.97%
Leverkusen Augsburg 62.10% 22.17% 15.73% 1 62.10%
Schalke 04 Wolfsburg 66.08% 18.89% 15.03% 1 66.08%
Hanover Stuttgart 47.02% 25.19% 27.79% 1 47.02%
4 2 3 4.14
average determination received: 45.98%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.
Despite the Bayern draw, which was almost considered a sensation, a clear favourite. What is the reason for this? Well, quite obviously, with Dortmund, Gladbach, Nuremberg, Leverkusen, Schalke and Hannover, a number of other favourites won. Only Werder and the Hoffenheim draw were outsider chances. In that respect, it ended 6:3 for the favourites.
The only thing to think about now would be this: does it perhaps really get a bit easier to predict anything in the 2nd half of the season? Is there generally a slightly higher tilt in favour of the favourites, so that you can go a bit higher with their assessments? Even if this could go there emotionally: the overall numbers are still far from raising any concern.
o. Overall 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 Heimvortarrived 198 90 54 333 225 1.194
expected 198 91.3 45.49 61.2 317.3 243.5 1.132
abs Deviation 0 -1.30 8.51 -7.20 15.70 -18.50 0.06
rel. Deviation 0 -1.44% 15.76% -13.33% 4.71% -8.22% 5.19%
Determination expected Determination received
40.47% 40.52%
ø Goal deviation ø Goal deviation expected
1.85 1.87 You can see it exactly in this statistic: the determination arrived is currently above the expectation, but a) this is only minimal and b) it is only due to the results of the 22nd matchday. How it looks after the 23rd? We’ll see next week…
p. Review of the betting recommendations
More explosive, however, is always this question: which bets should/must have occurred according to the computer? Where would he have messed with the betting market? And: if he messes with it, with the great mass intelligence, does he have good reasons for doing so? Could one possibly win, can one even prove long-term advantages? Up to now, such “dry swim” exercises have been made for oneself, if at all. Now, at least, it is documented.
Pairing 1 X 2
Hoffenheim Mainz 2.20 3.45 3.65
Freiburg FC Bayern 11.00 5.60 1.35
Hertha Dortmund 8.00 4.30 1.53
Kaiserslautern Gladbach 3.40 3.45 2.36
HSV Werder 2.16 3.65 3.55
Nuremberg FC Cologne 1.85 3.60 4.90
Leverkusen Augsburg 1.55 4.40 7.40
Schalke 04 Wolfsburg 1.70 4.00 5.70
Hannover Stuttgart 2.58 3.40 3.05
Goals scored 2.85
Goals scored 4
Money score 2.19
The overall result is satisfactory, no question.
The bet on Mainz has to be considered good, of course, since the game ended 1-1 (so the underdog was closer, if you will), and also according to the match report (no live pictures seen), it was probably ok.
The best of all bets was clearly on Freiburg. If you want to hit 11.0 realistically, then the chance was optimal in this game. It felt like Freiburg was even a bit closer throughout. The number of goal actions and goal finishes were in their favour. That Bayern, when Freiburg had not managed to take the lead, would come up at some point was foreseeable and hardly avoidable. This happened in earnest only from the 70th minute onwards (even if the entire 2nd half could be considered roughly even, i.e. with chances on both sides, in contrast to the 1st, as there was almost a one-way street towards the Bayern goal). It was only sensational that at the moment when one had to be seriously worried about Freiburg, because one even had to fear weakening forces, they held out against it and spent the last 5 minutes almost continuously in the Bayern half. So they still got one of the very good scoring opportunities (at least one) in that phase of the game. So: here again one has to regret a little NOT to have taken this gigantic number of units.
The bet on Gladbach was undoubtedly justifiable and also good. Even if Lautern still developed a dangerous initiative after the connecting goal (as we learned in the summary).
The bet on Werder was of course just as justifiable, which almost never seems doubtful when a bet is won. Won is won. For the sake of objectivity, it should nevertheless be mentioned that one occasionally has these doubts with wins on smaller odds (and has also expressed them here from time to time; the most recent example: the bet on Wolfsburg against Freiburg). With higher odds, these doubts usually disappear, because you already take into account that you need a bit of luck to win at higher odds. In other words: even if HSV had been superior, the better team (because this was also “calculated” by the computer), the doubts would be brushed aside because the odds were good. The higher the odds, the fewer the doubts, provided one wins a bet. The logic is reversed, of course, in the case of missed opportunities, where intuitively the feeling of “bad luck” always creeps up on you quickly, which of course is just as unobjective as the facts of simply ignoring the “analysis” in the case of winning bets.
Recommended bets Statistics of the individual match days
Matchday No. Number of bets Number of hits Expected hit 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
21 8 2 3.02 -1.02 -3.73
22 8 4 2.85 +1.15 +2.19
Provided the numbers are black, the particularly good comment ideas are omitted here.
Total statistics
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
132 46 +15.32 11.61% 48.80 -2.80
140 50 +17.51 12.51% 51.65 -1.65
The same applies here. It’s 12.5%, which is more than good. The underachieving hit expectation continues to teach you that you hit too many high odds.
q. The preview of the 23rd 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 TotalGladbach HSV 1.87 0.85 2.72
Mainz Kaiserslautern 1.56 0.93 2.49
FC Cologne Leverkusen 1.28 1.72 3.00
Augsburg Hertha 1.27 1.22 2.49
Wolfsburg Hoffenheim 1.49 1.09 2.58
Stuttgart Freiburg 2.30 1.28 3.58
Werder Nuremberg 1.91 0.94 2.86
FC Bayern Schalke 04 2.01 0.86 2.87
Dortmund Hannover 1.96 0.62 2.58
15.65 9.52 25.16
Expected goal total Expected goal average
25.16 2.80 A lot of goals are expected in Stuttgart. Hmm. After all, it’s the Baden-Württemberg duel, furthermore Freiburg played 0:0 last time, which speaks for a stabilised defence. So. not quite a pure recommendation to bet on the “over”. From the market odds, it will certainly be clearly indicated.
If another over, it will be Cologne. Well, the carnival is over, plus it’s a derby. Cologne are desperate to get a result, so no clear vote pro over here either.
All other games are more or less normal, even when matched against the market (presumably).
Note: The determination is calculated as the sum of the squares of the individual probabilities. This measures how much one can commit to a favourite in a certain pairing. The higher a favourite position, the higher the sum of the squares, but also the more “certain” the occurrence of the event. The mathematical question in itself is even more how far one can commit, since one cannot really determine this value. Events are predicted whose probabilities are unknown. Nevertheless, the quality can be checked in the long term by comparing expected/occurred events.
The determination expected Pairing 1 X 2
Gladbach HSV 61.18% 22.32% 16.50% 45.13%
Mainz Kaiserslautern 51.73% 25.84% 22.43% 38.47%
FC Cologne Leverkusen 28.32% 24.09% 47.59% 36.47%
Augsburg Hertha 37.33% 27.72% 34.96% 33.83%
Wolfsburg Hoffenheim 46.10% 26.36% 27.54% 35.78%
Stuttgart Freiburg 60.08% 19.63% 20.29% 44.06%
Werder Nuremberg 59.83% 22.16% 18.01% 43.95%
FC Bayern Schalke 04 64.12% 20.82% 15.05% 47.72%
Dortmund Hanover 69.06% 20.16% 10.78% 52.92%
4.78 2.09 2.13 3.78
Average expected commitment: 42.04After all, the expected determination is already above the average value for the season, so that the above-mentioned theoire (second half of the season – easier occurrence of favourite events) can already be taken into account by the computer (based on the previous results, not by programmed consideration of the possible effect).
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
Gladbach HSV 1.63 4.48 6.06
Mainz Kaiserslautern 1.93 3.87 4.46
FC Cologne Leverkusen 3.53 4.15 2.10
Augsburg Hertha 2.68 3.61 2.86
Wolfsburg Hoffenheim 2.17 3.79 3.63
Stuttgart Freiburg 1.66 5.09 4.93
Werder Nuremberg 1.67 4.51 5.55
FC Bayern Schalke 04 1.56 4.80 6.64
Dortmund Hannover 1.45 4.96 9.28
Comparison with the betting exchange betfair
(The betting recommendations)
Betfair numbers Pairing 1 X 2 % Average
Gladbach HSV 1.80 3.85 5.00 101.53%
Mainz Kaiserslautern 1.79 3.65 5.20 102.49%
FC Cologne Leverkusen 3.90 3.50 2.10 101.83%
Augsburg Hertha 2.68 3.35 2.86 102.13%
Wolfsburg Hoffenheim 2.25 3.55 3.45 101.60%
Stuttgart Freiburg 1.76 3.90 4.90 102.87%
Werder Nuremberg 1.83 3.80 4.80 101.79%
FC Bayern Schalke 04 1.45 5.00 8.50 100.73%
Dortmund Hannover 1.33 5.20 9.40 105.06%
Goal expectation 2.19
A brief comment on the betting recommendations:
Not a particularly sparkling matchday in terms of betting recommendations. Gladbach, yes, of course, always Gladbach. HSV lost last time and Gladbach constantly play their level (the newly acquired one, but corresponding to the position in the table). So: 1.80 is too much, maybe the best bet, therefore 7/10.
Mainz against Kaiserslautern is, after all, a derby of sorts. Accordingly, one can very well guess Lautern. Although Mainz really impressed. So: 2/10.
Stuttgart against Freiburg is not really worth recommending. But it’s fair to say that Stuttgart are also under pressure and that their 2:4 in Hannover wasn’t such a bad game. They created chances again and again. Hannover were extremely strong and dangerous on standards and when you hear coach Slomka’s words after the game, you are inclined to believe that it was anything but a coincidence. Nevertheless, goals from standards are of course not purely played out and you can work on eliminating these small, exposed deficits as a cashier. So the bet is ok, but only with 3/10, because Freiburg simply pleased you too much for that.
The bet on Werder can of course be recommended. However, both Nuremberg is perhaps a bit stronger than the computer sees (especially if shooting star Esswein plays!), and Werder doesn’t seem stable at all. Accordingly, a 5/10.
The bet on Schalke in Munich is another pure must-win bet. It is quite clear that Bayern is now doing everything it can (remember the appeals!) to turn the tide. A win would be important anyway for the minimum goal of 3rd place (because of the chance of the Champions League). On the other hand, they are playing there on Wednesday, in the Champions League, the result is still pending, but the loss of strength is certain. Schalke, on the other hand, always look like they can do something going forward, with some exceptional players, not least goal-getter Klaas-Jan “The Hunter” Huntelaar. So: for an 8.5, you quietly guess 2/10. These odds are exaggeratedly high.
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
