Rugby!

[finbar]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Place your bets!

Lets start the betting on the upcoming NZ v OZ game!

We all have 100 gold to start with, so I am betting 40 gold on a NZ win. For now it might be best if we just bet on a win or a loss as opposed to the more complicated stuff. Once we all get used to betting we can get into odds etc...or we could get into it right away if someone can explain the best way for us to do it...what do you think Finbar? In any case I nominate you for treasurer

The bottom line is that, obviously, there has to be a pool out of which the winners are paid. Which makes the odds system hard - nay, impossible - to pull off with our small group of people. I suspect we're going to have to stick with the very simple system of the winners sharing the losers' stakes. This means we can still use the points spread, because that, effectively, is still just win or lose. It just makes the outcomes a little more tantalising.

Any better ideas?

Anyway - thus far, we have:

Caligastia 100 - 40 = 60
finbar 100 - 20 = 80

So there's 60 gold in the pot up for grabs.

Any more takers? I still think Havak's 6 point margin is fair and reasonable. If you were to take that margin, and you back the Wallabies, they have to win by 6 or more. Back the Wallabies and they win by fewer than 6 (or lose), you blow your money.

You interested in the margin, Caligastia? I'd've thought you'd jump at it. It means the ABs can either win outright or lose by fewer than 6 points.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Caligastia

Besides, hes my wife's favorite player (not for his looks).

Say no more, Caligastia, your need to defend Umaga is well and truly noted. My missus is quite fond of Ben Tune. Yeah, for his looks, I refuse to deny it.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by finbar


The bottom line is that, obviously, there has to be a pool out of which the winners are paid. Which makes the odds system hard - nay, impossible - to pull off with our small group of people. I suspect we're going to have to stick with the very simple system of the winners sharing the losers' stakes. This means we can still use the points spread, because that, effectively, is still just win or lose. It just makes the outcomes a little more tantalising.

Any better ideas?

Nope, sounds good to me.

Anyway - thus far, we have:

Caligastia 100 - 40 = 60
finbar 100 - 20 = 80

So there's 60 gold in the pot up for grabs.

Any more takers? I still think Havak's 6 point margin is fair and reasonable. If you were to take that margin, and you back the Wallabies, they have to win by 6 or more. Back the Wallabies and they win by fewer than 6 (or lose), you blow your money.

You interested in the margin, Caligastia? I'd've thought you'd jump at it. It means the ABs can either win outright or lose by fewer than 6 points.

So we all choose a score and everyone within 6 points of what they chose shares the pot? Im a bit confused...its still too early in the morning for my brain to work..

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by finbar


Say no more, Caligastia, your need to defend Umaga is well and truly noted. My missus is quite fond of Ben Tune. Yeah, for his looks, I refuse to deny it.

Who would you rate as the ugliest current rugby player? I reckon Matt Burke is up there.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Caligastia

So we all choose a score and everyone within 6 points of what they chose shares the pot? Im a bit confused...its still too early in the morning for my brain to work..

No, it's just another means of win/lose betting. Havak has calculated - his methods are detailed back a few pages - that the Wallabies are favourites to win. Whether you agree or not, that's his calculation. In this instance, he's calculated that they're favourite by 6 points.

It's basically a handicapping system. If you back the Wallabies, they have to win by 6 points or more. When you back them, you carry the handicap of them having to win by 6 points or more.

Conversely, if you back the ABs, they have - effectively - a 6 points start. So you have two means of winning - either they win outright, or they lose by 6 points or fewer.

It's a system that was designed to make betting feasible when you have two teams of vastly different quality. The simple win/lose bet doesn't work in that scenario because no one's going to back the team of vastly lesser quality. But if you give the superior team a handicap - say, they have to win by 40 or more points before the bet is collected - then it makes the contest a betting proposition. Because you can also back the inferior team. In this case, you'd be betting that it will finish within 40 points of the superior team.

Make sense now?

Edit. Just let me re-think the statement that you also win the bet if you back the ABs - to lose by 6 points or fewer - and they actually win the match. I'll get back to you.

Re-edit. Yes, I'm right. If you back the ABs to lose by 6 points of fewer, you also win the bet if they actually win the match. Or even draw it!

[finbar]

Originally posted by Caligastia


Who would you rate as the ugliest current rugby player? I reckon Matt Burke is up there.

Put Mattie beside any front rower in the universe and he'd look like Brad Pitt. Then again, I suppose it's unfair to include front rowers in the contest. It's part of their job description to be as ugly as sin. On that basis, I'll have to think about it ...

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by finbar


No, it's just another means of win/lose betting. Havak has calculated - his methods are detailed back a few pages - that the Wallabies are favourites to win. Whether you agree or not, that's his calculation. In this instance, he's calculated that they're favourite by 6 points.

It's basically a handicapping system. If you back the Wallabies, they have to win by 6 points or more. When you back them, you carry the handicap of them having to win by 6 points or more.

Conversely, if you back the ABs, they have - effectively - a 6 points start. So you have two means of winning - either they win outright, or they lose by 6 points or fewer.

It's a system that was designed to make betting feasible when you have two teams of vastly different quality. The simple win/lose bet doesn't work in that scenario because no one's going to back the team of vastly lesser quality. But if you give the superior team a handicap - say, they have to win by 40 or more points before the bet is collected - then it makes the contest a betting proposition. Because you can also back the inferior team. In this case, you'd be betting that it will finish within 40 points of the superior team.

Make sense now?

Yes, but how do we share the winnings?

[finbar]

Originally posted by Caligastia


Yes, but how do we share the winnings?

I just inserted an edit at the end of the post explaining the system. But that doesn't affect this answer. You share the winnings in exactly the same way you do with a normal bet. With the points system, someone still has to win and someone still has to lose. If I back the Wallabies to win by more than 6 and you back the ABs to lose by fewer than 6 - and the Wallabies win by, say, 7 - I win and you lose. If the Wallabies win by, say, 5 - I lose and you win.

Obviously, if the Wallabies win by exactly 6, then - in betting terms - it's all square. Money refunded.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by finbar


I just inserted an edit at the end of the post explaining the system. But that doesn't affect this answer. You share the winnings in exactly the same way you do with a normal bet. With the points system, someone still has to win and someone still has to lose. If I back the Wallabies to win by more than 6 and you back the ABs to lose by fewer than 6 - and the Wallabies win by, say, 7 - I win and you lose. If the Wallabies win by, say, 5 - I lose and you win.

Obviously, if the Wallabies win by exactly 6, then - in betting terms - it's all square. Money refunded.

Ok, but if you bet on the wallabies, and Andydog and I bet different amounts on the ABs and the ABs win, how do we share the winnings?

[finbar]

You would win a sum based on the amount you bet. If you and Andydog bet the same amount, you would split the pool. If one bets more than the other, the pool would be divided accordingly. We would end up with fractional amounts, but that's okay, because it's fantasy money anyway

For example, I bet 20 gold and lose. Caligastia bets 40, Andydog bets 40 = share the pool = C and A receive 10 gold each.

I bet 20 gold and lose. Caligastia bets 40, Andydog bets 20 = C receives 13.25 gold, A receives 6.75.

That's based on just my losing bet. If others were to bet and lose, the pool would, obviously, increase.

Basically, you bet more to win more, as is the case with all betting. The difference with our system - different to totalizator betting - is that you don't win a multiple of your stake because we're not using odds. We can't do that because we don't have enough bettors to create a pool large enough to pay multiples of our bets. For example, if you placed 40 gold on the ABs at, say, 6/4 (or 1 1/2 to 1), you would get back 60 gold. The pool mightn't have the funds to pay you. It certainly wouldn't have the funds to pay more than one winning bet at those odds.

[Andydog]

What's happened with this inquiry? We keep hearing reports that it's finished but unreleased.

Once again rumours fly about. Some say that Sir Tom hasn't finished the report because the Aussies haven't been forthcoming with information. Some say that Sir Tom has finished it, but has been told to tone it down because it was overly critical of the NZRFU. The latest is it will be released early next month.

Look, to be quite honest, it's ridiculous that the WRC isn't a joint effort. Politics are really getting in the way in SH rugby.

I couldn't agree more. Part of me hopes the NZRFU gets a big shake up. I hear it's full of old fashioned fuddy duddies - perhaps new blood will help unite the three rugby hierarchies.

Havak raised the S14 point the other day. I don't know where the extra team - beyond the extra Oz team - would come from.

South Africa. Which is why they are supportive of Australia. This is another argument against the S14 - South African teams have generally been weaker, so why introduce another team that is uncompetitive? It would be a shame to turn the competition into something like the NH 6 Nations - only a few key games count, the rest are formalities. * Andydog casts off in the direction of Havak *

Everyone is asking "Is this the end of Lomu?". Personally I dont give a toss if it is. He was great in RWC95, but since then has only had the occasional good game IMO. There are plenty of other wingers who are more than able to fill his shoes.

Couldn't agree more. He is THE most overrated player in rugby. He should be kept on the bench until the second half of the second half - bring him on then to run at and batter a tired opposition. Lord knows he can't tackle to save himself.

Lets start the betting on the upcoming NZ v OZ game!

I'll stick with my 20 gold on Wallaby stew. Not long till the game now chaps! I can feel the excitement creeping on already!

I see that Ben Tune has been selected over Wendell Sailor. Finbar your wife will be pleased Play it right mate and it should be fairly easy for you to get a bit of that poonani at half time!

[finbar]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Andydog

The rumour here is that the report is pretty ugly in terms of the NZRFU. But then, would that surprise you?

South Africa. Which is why they are supportive of Australia. This is another argument against the S14 - South African teams have generally been weaker, so why introduce another team that is uncompetitive? It would be a shame to turn the competition into something like the NH 6 Nations - only a few key games count, the rest are formalities.

I haven't actually heard any real push for a S14. I haven't heard anything beyond the extra Oz team. Leaving me wondering about the numbers - with 13, there will be byes all over the place, I'd've thought. But you're right - the last thing anyone needs is another bloody Bok whipping boy. With great respect to our friends across the Indian Ocean, of course.

* Andydog casts off in the direction of Havak *

I'm sure Havak will take your point - and, what's more, on the basis of the incontravertible evidence, completely and utterly agree with you that - come England's crunch game, against whomever, it's a formality that England will choke.

- Couldn't agree more. He is THE most overrated player in rugby. He should be kept on the bench until the second half of the second half - bring him on then to run at and batter a tired opposition. Lord knows he can't tackle to save himself.

When he was at his peak, he was worth the risk with his dodgy tackling. Hello Wendell Sailor? And I mean that in a caring and sharing way, Wendell. Not that you're in Jonah's league. When he was at his top. The problem now is that Jonah's not the force he was. He's lumbering rather than flying.

I'll stick with my 20 gold on Wallaby stew. Not long till the game now chaps! I can feel the excitement creeping on already!

I can't wait! So are you opting for Havak's 6 points start? Meaning the ABs can also lose by fewer than 6 points and you still win your money? I'll post separately with an update on the betting pool.

I see that Ben Tune has been selected over Wendell Sailor. Finbar your wife will be pleased

Wendell was only ever warming the wing for Ben Tune. If NSW's Scott Staniforth hadn't been injured - while Tune was out - he would've been in front of Wendell, too.

Play it right mate and it should be fairly easy for you to get a bit of that poonani at half time!

I assume "poonani" is Kiwi for, um, crumpet?

[finbar]

BETTING POOL UPDATE

Caligastia 100 - 40 = 60
finbar 100 - 20 = 80
Andydog 100 - 20 = 80

The pool currently stands at 80 gold.

And, currently, I'm the only one backing the Wallabies. I could be a very rich little Civver!

Oh, I'm a very good shouter at the bar. I don't even mind if you sit in my chair while I'm up buying the next round. Unlike one of our NH chums. Who isn't French.

[LDiCesare]

NH 6 Nations - only a few key games count, the rest are formalities. * Andydog casts off in the direction of Havak

Reply from the other side of the Channel.
Agreed, Italy is pretty useless in terms of suspense. It probably helps them get a better team, so long-term, it may be a good thing. Plus going to Rome is probably much more rewarding than going to Cardiff.
As for the other nations, although the victory is quite often a single match decision, the most important is currently to achieve a grand slam, and that is never easy. The English didn't get one for years because they always managed to lose to some supposedly weaker team once. And of course, watching the single match where England loses is usually very rewarding for just about all the other nations supporters. England may still win the tournament, but the others will be happy enough they have been beaten once.

[finbar]

Originally posted by LDiCesare

Plus going to Rome is probably much more rewarding than going to Cardiff.

And of course, watching the single match where England loses is usually very rewarding for just about all the other nations supporters.

It won't do anything for Havak's martyr complex, though.

LDiCesare - are you going to have a bet with us on the Wallabies -v- All Blacks match on Saturday night?