The Run Home

[Adam The God 30,225]

I agree that the Cats looked slow, but I still expect them to take it up to Collingwood.

Their game earlier in the year saw Geelong at least 2 or 3 players down and Collingwood managed a 22 point win, but still conceded 103 points. 

I expect this game to be a harder slog for both sides and lower scoring than that affair.

The fact Geelong need to win it to not only keep their season alive, but present the illusion that they can defend their title, will make them very tough to beat.

Brisbane and Melbourne have shown teams how to beat Collingwood. Do the Pies have a plan B?

Edited August 8, 2023 by A F

[Bring-Back-Powell 14,817]

I don't think you can be definitive either way in regards to Collingwood or Geelong winning. 

Looks to be a 50/50 on paper.

Collingwood losing opens up some further possibilities on how high we can finish.

[Roost it far 8,261]

41 minutes ago, binman said:

Agree.

I will not be surprised if the pies to give the cats a touch up. 

The cats looked slow and old against Port, who just had a nightmare in terms of their outs.

If the cats were the real deal thiis season they would have hammered port at home, even with their two big our in Hawkins and blicavs.

That said, even if they do win well, it will surely be yet another physical, tough game for the pies.

The cats will use the same tactics of ageing teams accross every suburban comp - play to hurt the young bucks with plenty of sharp elbows and extra mayo on their hits and tackles.

There's no tommorow for the cats - it's basically an elimination final.

And then the pies have to front up Fridsy week against a desperate and hard at it Lions outfit.

And not at their comfort zone ground where they can use their leg speed and ability to spread (not to mention the benefit of 80k screaming fans), but at the smaller docklands.

All on the back of the back of three uber draining games against Port, blues and cats. And without daicos and murphy.

Big test for a team that many  annoited as the best team in the AFL by some margin. 

And we can sit back and watch it all

[binman 42,907]

38 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

reckon the mfc are gunning for top spot, @binman?

I don't think so, no. I think the pies will finish top. 

Second will so just fine. Top spot is fugazi

[binman 42,907]

33 minutes ago, A F said:

Brisbane and Melbourne have shown teams how to beat Collingwood. Do the Pies have a plan B?

True.

And the hawks too.

But it’s one thing knowing how ti beat them, another thing being able to implement the plan to do so.

The blocking of the corridor and covering outlet handballs and kicks requires elite fitness and enough players who can spread hard an defensively gut run

And i don't think the Cats do.

That said, I'm assuming the pies will have way more run and nor be evidently fatigued as they looked against the hawks.

If they don't, then I'd almost say the cats are favourites to win.

[Adam The God 30,225]

44 minutes ago, binman said:

True.

And the hawks too.

But it’s one thing knowing how ti beat them, another thing being able to implement the plan to do so.

The blocking of the corridor and covering outlet handballs and kicks requires elite fitness and enough players who can spread hard an defensively gut run

And i don't think the Cats do.

That said, I'm assuming the pies will have way more run and nor be evidently fatigued as they looked against the hawks.

If they don't, then I'd almost say the cats are favourites to win.

The other obvious factor, which we won't know about until after this game, is how does Collingwood's ball movement look from back to front without Daicos collecting 30 touches? Who's their kicker?  If their ball movement relies so much on these deep lying movements to cut a higher press apart, I wonder if Geelong can afford to hold their press higher up the field and seeing if Collingwood can get through them.

Geelong play a lot of counter attack footy as well, because when Dangerfield isn't winning clearances, they essentially have to slingshot and give up centre clearances to counter attack.

I think it's a fascinating match up, because without Daicos, Collingwood may have to play a less aggressive game from the back if they don't have that kicker. This will impact on their ability to move the ball, and I wonder if this simply goes too much against McRae's offensive ethos. Therefore, they might even go more aggressive with their kicking, but hold a more conservative shape at the back.

If I didn't have a two year old, this is a neutral game I'd love to attend, because it won't be the same watching the structures on TV.

[rpfc 28,390]

Geelong can definitely beat the Pies, Lions too.

BUT can we please just continue to call the Pies the Future Premiers of 2023? 

They should rock up to all games expecting to win and they should play accordingly…

[binman 42,907]

On 8/3/2023 at 10:18 AM, binman said:

Objective update on the probability of us winning our last four games 

Prior to the Crows game, based on the bookies odds for that game and the Tigers game and my estimate of the likely odds in the remaining games (because the bookies only field markets for the next two upcoming games), the odds of us winning our remaining 6 home and away games was a tick over:

• 9-1.

After the Crows win, using the same formula, those odds dropped to:

• 5-1.

We have four games to go. The bookies have us at 1.10 to beat the Roos, 1.60 to beat the blues (which by the by i had estimated the price would be 1.70 in my calculations for the odds above) and i'm estimating our price for the Hawks game will 1.40 and the Swans game 1.70.

So 1.10 x 1.60 x 1.40 x 1.70 = 4.188.

That translates, after our win over the tiges, the odd of us winning out final four games as aprox:

• 3-1.

I said prior to the Crows and  Tigers games i thought we would go unbeaten for the remainder of the season. And, unsurprisingly i still think we will.

There's actually no market for the bet (ie dees to win its last four games), but if there was i wouldn't take 3-1. Why? Because I think 3-1 is pretty close to the true odds of us winning our final four games and therefore there is no value. 

3-1 seems pretty short. But what's important to remember is that at those odds the probability of us winning our final four games is 25%.  So 75% chance of not winning our final four games.  

Objective update on the probability of us winning our last three games 

We have three games to go.

The bookies have us at:

• 1.72 to beat the blues
• (by the by, prior to our crows win i estimated the price would be 1.70, so pretty close to spot on. What's interesting about the 1.72 price is prior to the last round the bookies had us at 1.60 to win. Why the drift? Punters might have assessed Petty out as a big factor. I don't, or at least not a determinative factor, and as noted in another post i think the price should be 1.65 for this match)
• 1.21 to beat the Hawks (my estimate last week was 1.40, which i still think is about right, so 1.21 is well unders. Even if we win this week, i very much doubt we will start 1.21)
• And I'm estimating our price for the Swans game will be 1.70 (which is probably a touch generous. 1.60 is probably more realistic. if we win our next two it may even be as short as 1.50)

So 1.72 x 1.21 x 1.70 = 3.53

That translates, after our win over the roos, to the implied probability of us winning our final three games as aprox:

• 28.6%

If we win this week, the implied probability of us wining our our final two games (and therefore our final 8 games) will be aprox:

•  50%  (ie 2.00 or even money in the old)

 

Edited August 9, 2023 by binman

[D4Life 2,469]

11 minutes ago, binman said:

Objective update on the probability of us winning our last three games 

We have three games to go.

The bookies have us at:

• 1.72 to beat the blues
• (by the by, prior to our crows win i estimated the price would be 1.70, so pretty close to spot on. What's interesting about the 1.72 price is prior to the last round the bookies had us at 1.60 to win. Why the drift? Punters might have assessed Petty out as a big factor. I don't, or at least not a determinative factor, and as noted in another post i think the price should be 1.65 for this match)
• 1.21 to beat the Hawks (my estimate last week was 1.40, which i still think is about right, so 1.21 is well unders. Even if we win this week, i very much doubt we will start 1.21)
• And I'm estimating our price for the Swans game will be 1.70 (which is probably a touch generous. 1.60 is probably more realistic. if we win our next two it may even be as short as 1.50)

So 1.72 x 1.21 x 1.70 = 3.53

That translates, after our win over the roos, to the implied probability of us winning our final three games as aprox:

• 28.6%

If we win this week, the implied probability of us wining our our final two games (and therefore our final 8 games) will be aprox:

•  50%  (ie 2.00 or even money in the old)

 

Who pays you for all of this analysis?

[binman 42,907]

5 minutes ago, D4Life said:

Who pays you for all of this analysis?

Self employed.

[Demon17 5,188]

1 hour ago, binman said:

Objective update on the probability of us winning our last three games 

We have three games to go.

The bookies have us at:

• 1.72 to beat the blues
• (by the by, prior to our crows win i estimated the price would be 1.70, so pretty close to spot on. What's interesting about the 1.72 price is prior to the last round the bookies had us at 1.60 to win. Why the drift? Punters might have assessed Petty out as a big factor. I don't, or at least not a determinative factor, and as noted in another post i think the price should be 1.65 for this match)
• 1.21 to beat the Hawks (my estimate last week was 1.40, which i still think is about right, so 1.21 is well unders. Even if we win this week, i very much doubt we will start 1.21)
• And I'm estimating our price for the Swans game will be 1.70 (which is probably a touch generous. 1.60 is probably more realistic. if we win our next two it may even be as short as 1.50)

So 1.72 x 1.21 x 1.70 = 3.53

That translates, after our win over the roos, to the implied probability of us winning our final three games as aprox:

• 28.6%

If we win this week, the implied probability of us wining our our final two games (and therefore our final 8 games) will be aprox:

•  50%  (ie 2.00 or even money in the old)

 

Many thanks, your post has improved my confidence , but I never understand betting odds.  I understand statistics and probability. 

So where does the 28.6% come from? That sounds less than ideal?

 

[binman 42,907]

18 minutes ago, Demon17 said:

Many thanks, your post has improved my confidence , but I never understand betting odds.  I understand statistics and probability. 

So where does the 28.6% come from? That sounds less than ideal?

 

Converting the decimal odds to implied probability.

For example, an even money bet is expressed as 2.00 in decimal format (which is what is used in Oz accross by all bookies now. Before we moved to using decimal odds, even money was expressed as 1/1 ie bet one dollar, win and win one dollar. Double your money).

An even money bet is 50 50. So 50% probability.

Not sure about not ideal, but 28.8% probability of winning our final 3 games indicates will be no easy fea.

Expressed another way, we have 72.2% probability of losing one of our last three games.

Which is why anyone predicting we will lose one of last 3 games is more likely to be proven correct.

We will win our last 3 games, in my opinion.

But by the very same logic, the bookies have us at 3.75 to win the flag. I think we should be 3.50 (the pies current odds). And will be if we beat the blues (if we beat the blues, the dees bandwagon - empty 2 weeks ago - will be at capacity).

So, aprox the exact same probability of us winning our final 3 games.

So we have nearly a 30% chance of winning the flag!

We'll all take that every day of the week!

[Bring-Back-Powell 14,817]

BBP's doomsday (but not unrealistic) scenario based on a loss to Sydney in round 24:

PORT - beat all of GWS (h), Freo (a), Richmond (h)

MELBOURNE - beat Carlton, thrash Hawthorn, lose to Sydney

BRISBANE - beat Adelaide, lose to Collingwood, beat St Kilda.

Finish 3rd and play interstate against Port (2nd) instead of finishing 4th and playing Collingwood at the G because our percentage bested Brisbane's.

 

 

Edited August 9, 2023 by Bring-Back-Powell

[old55 23,558]

17 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

BBP's doomsday (but not unrealistic) scenario based on a loss to Sydney in round 24:

PORT - beat all of GWS (h), Freo (a), Richmond (h)

MELBOURNE - beat Carlton, thrash Hawthorn, lose to Sydney

BRISBANE - beat Adelaide, lose to Collingwood, beat St Kilda.

Finish 3rd and play interstate against Port (2nd) instead of finishing 4th and playing Collingwood at the G because our percentage bested Brisbane's.

 

 

FIFY

[D4Life 2,469]

3 hours ago, binman said:

Self employed.

Well thanks for all the effort you put in, adds to my enjoyment first and understanding second of how the Demons play!

 

[Dr. Gonzo 24,209]

On 8/8/2023 at 10:34 AM, Binmans PA said:

His lack of ground pressure and follow up work would be the query though. Could get shown up majorly at the other end of the ground.

That's a fair enough query but at least he would stop kicking around corners 🤣

[Dr. Gonzo 24,209]

On 8/8/2023 at 12:33 PM, binman said:

I don't think so, no. I think the pies will finish top. 

Second will so just fine. Top spot is fugazi

It would be sweet to knock them off the perch though (on the way to a flag).

[Adam The God 30,225]

4 hours ago, binman said:

Self employed.

You couldn't do it without me, Binners. 

[old55 23,558]

2 hours ago, Binmans PA said:

You couldn't do it without me, Binners. 

Has he had you loading pre-finals by recording those excessively long posts into the dictaphone?

You know "that's where they expect it least"

Edited August 9, 2023 by old55

[layzie 33,796]

On 8/8/2023 at 2:06 PM, rpfc said:

Geelong can definitely beat the Pies, Lions too.

BUT can we please just continue to call the Pies the Future Premiers of 2023? 

They should rock up to all games expecting to win and they should play accordingly…

Yes.

I like the idea of building them up to the level of immortality only to see it come crushing down. 

[rpfc 28,390]

1 minute ago, layzie said:

Yes.

I like the idea of building them up to the level of immortality only to see it come crushing down. 

But they are already immortal revolutionaries of the game. 

Sincere gods among men.

Redwoods amongst mere sprouts.

[layzie 33,796]

1 minute ago, rpfc said:

But they are already immortal revolutionaries of the game. 

Sincere gods among men.

Redwoods amongst mere sprouts.

Yes, yes, keep it coming!

One hand on the cup, theirs to lose, sitting pretty etc. 

[Demon17 5,188]

21 hours ago, binman said:

Converting the decimal odds to implied probability.

For example, an even money bet is expressed as 2.00 in decimal format (which is what is used in Oz accross by all bookies now. Before we moved to using decimal odds, even money was expressed as 1/1 ie bet one dollar, win and win one dollar. Double your money).

An even money bet is 50 50. So 50% probability.

Not sure about not ideal, but 28.8% probability of winning our final 3 games indicates will be no easy fea.

Expressed another way, we have 72.2% probability of losing one of our last three games.

Which is why anyone predicting we will lose one of last 3 games is more likely to be proven correct.

We will win our last 3 games, in my opinion.

But by the very same logic, the bookies have us at 3.75 to win the flag. I think we should be 3.50 (the pies current odds). And will be if we beat the blues (if we beat the blues, the dees bandwagon - empty 2 weeks ago - will be at capacity).

So, aprox the exact same probability of us winning our final 3 games.

So we have nearly a 30% chance of winning the flag!

We'll all take that every day of the week!

Sure will and thanks

[Jaded No More 68,909]

6 hours ago, layzie said:

Yes, yes, keep it coming!

One hand on the cup, theirs to lose, sitting pretty etc. 

What are you talking about? They already won the flag.

We are living in a simulation. 

[speed demon 804]

On 8/9/2023 at 7:18 AM, binman said:

Objective update on the probability of us winning our last three games 

We have three games to go.

The bookies have us at:

• 1.72 to beat the blues
• (by the by, prior to our crows win i estimated the price would be 1.70, so pretty close to spot on. What's interesting about the 1.72 price is prior to the last round the bookies had us at 1.60 to win. Why the drift? Punters might have assessed Petty out as a big factor. I don't, or at least not a determinative factor, and as noted in another post i think the price should be 1.65 for this match)
• 1.21 to beat the Hawks (my estimate last week was 1.40, which i still think is about right, so 1.21 is well unders. Even if we win this week, i very much doubt we will start 1.21)
• And I'm estimating our price for the Swans game will be 1.70 (which is probably a touch generous. 1.60 is probably more realistic. if we win our next two it may even be as short as 1.50)

So 1.72 x 1.21 x 1.70 = 3.53

That translates, after our win over the roos, to the implied probability of us winning our final three games as aprox:

• 28.6%

If we win this week, the implied probability of us wining our our final two games (and therefore our final 8 games) will be aprox:

•  50%  (ie 2.00 or even money in the old)

 

Thinking probabilistically is so useful for prediction but does not come naturally. It’s a skill that needs to be learnt and practised. Critically, we need to become aware of our cognitive biases that lead to poor intuitive assessments of probability. Daniel Kahneman’s “Thinking: Fast and Slow” is a superb book on this topic. 

@binman’s post is a really good example of how intuitively most people would over estimate the probability of a likely event (eg stronger team beats weaker team) occurring multiple times. Of course it’s easy to understand when we do the calculation but the point is we tend not to do this and take a mental short cut leading to an overestimation.
 

It’s one reason betting agencies push multis as punters think the odds are more attractive than they are (which helps conceal the compounding effect of the betting agency’s take on the difference between the agency’s odds and the “true” odds).