Rugby - The Ball's Out!

[finbar]

Originally posted by Tamerlin
I would say this is the quality (or flaw to others) that hampers me to succeed in the business world.

I'm just glad there's no tax on immodesty, Tamerlin. We'd be bankrupt!

In France we say "une bouteille à moitié pleine ou à moitié vide" (a half-full or half-empty bottle).

I knew wine would have to rear its head somehow.

Speaking of half-full and half-empty, we have a saying related to optimists and pessimists. An optimist sees a glass as half-full, a pessimist sees a glass as half-empty. Is there a French equivalent?

[LDiCesare]

I found Tamerlin's bets and prognosis of the future winner so good that I will place the same bets on England and France (10 gold each). I don't think we should have a margin for these matches.
For Ireland/Australia, well, we can bet but I think a margin in favour of Australia would be needed, whatever problems the Wallabies may have, something like 7 1/2 for instance.

It will be interesting to see Castaignede back as a center, particularly considering he will probably play after Traille, who should give him a few very good balls or openings, unless Gelez kicks them all.

[finbar]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
I found Tamerlin's bets and prognosis of the future winner so good that I will place the same bets on England and France (10 gold each). I don't think we should have a margin for these matches.

Don't forget you need someone to back the other team for there to be any money to win. Otherwise you just get your own money back. It's the margin situation that often attracts people to bet on teams they otherwise wouldn't in a win/lose situation.

Thus far, I think everyone is betting on England. Even Caligastia. Someone would have to bet on the ABs. Even I would bet on England in a straight win/lose bet. I would also bet on France in a straight win/lose bet. Is anyone going to bet on South Africa?

For Ireland/Australia, well, we can bet but I think a margin in favour of Australia would be needed, whatever problems the Wallabies may have, something like 7 1/2 for instance.

I think that's fair.

It will be interesting to see Castaignede back as a center, particularly considering he will probably play after Traille, who should give him a few very good balls or openings, unless Gelez kicks them all.

I'm really looking forward to seeing the French play. I liked them when they were out here and they're going to be a lot stronger this time.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by finbar
He represented Australia at an international 7s tournament. Two years ago, the IRB decreed that representative 7s rugby constituted representing your country at senior level, which disqualified you from representing another country.

Now, they're saying it doesn't necessarily constitute representing your country if (it seems) you wouldn't have played if you'd known it would count against you representing another country.

The IRB certainly needs to be more consistent.

I dont think 7s should enter into the equation though, its a different game.

Originally posted by Havak
That’s a tough break. I’m paying £10 to watch it in a London establishment myself – but that includes reserved table and a bar snack lunch.

I'm hoping the bar here will tape the game and show it later so I can watch it after work.

New York can really suck when it comes to certain things. Here the price of a beer in an irish bar on St Pat's goes up not down.

Originally posted by Havak
You don’t really mean that.

You're right, I don't.

Originally posted by finbar
Thus far, I think everyone is betting on England. Even Caligastia

Nah... if we agree on a 7 1/2 point start for NZ I will definitely put down 20 gold on the All Blacks.

[Havak]

Guys if you look at the history between the teams and the relative world ranking points there is simply no way NZ get the points head start in the spread. England should.

And yes I know it defeats Finbars object of getting someone to bet on the ABs but it's still the logic we used earlier in the summer?

[Havak]

The obvious answer is to set odds rather than use a pot?

So a 'neutral' caller, say Finbar sets the odds - in this case evens for England and 3-1 ON for the ABs for example - and you place your bets on that on a straight win basis?

It's all mythical money so whats the problem switching systems?

I'll be backing England, France and Ireland regardless of betting.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
Guys if you look at the history between the teams and the relative world ranking points there is simply no way NZ get the points head start in the spread. England should.

And yes I know it defeats Finbars object of getting someone to bet on the ABs but it's still the logic we used earlier in the summer?

Talk about a reality check! You've been telling us for months about the strength of the England/Twickers nexus, now it has suddenly vanished.

Our margins have always been calculated on a number of things but the major contributing factors have been recent form, where the game is played and make up of the teams. History and rankings have had little impact on margins because they are what they are - history. The England -v- AB history, in particular, can be discarded because their last match was 3 years ago. And rugby rankings, as has been noted any number of times, are as flawed as Test cricket rankings - for example, if Australia loses the Ashes series to England, South Africa becomes the top-ranked cricket nation yet they were destroyed by Australia within the last 12 months. Statistical rankings of sporting teams should be treated with the contempt they deserve.

But back to the point. England -v- ABs.

1. It's played at Twickers.
2. The England players are mid-season and match-fit. Some of the ABs played in the NPC finals a couple of weeks ago.
3. The AB team for the match is, like it not, a second-string outfit.
4. You've told us how strong the England pack is - the second row, in particular.
5. You've told us you have a world-class 5/8.
6. You've told us Austin Healy earns a place in a world team.
7. Et cetera.

There's no way in the world England could have a points start. Unless, of course, England are a pretty ordinary team.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
The obvious answer is to set odds rather than use a pot?

I wouldn't worry about Havak's concerns about a margin for England. He's just getting very, very cold feet.

I went through the various betting options when we first set up the betting system. The bottom line is that a pot is needed no matter which system you use. The pot is the win pool.

The problem with odds betting is that the odds become a multiplier - stake x odds = how much you win. You need a bigger pot than we could ever manage in order to make odds betting viable. An upset result could break the bank - there wouldn't be the funds in the pot to pay the winners. Take the Wallabies -v- Italy match. What odds Italy? What if we made them, say, 2/1 and someone invested 100 Civ Gold on them? And they won? And there's only 150 Civ Gold in the pot?

That's the problem with odds betting. The margin system is much more practical for us. OTOH, we don't need to employ it for every match. In fact, we should probably restrict it to matches where there is an outright favourite - Wallabies -v- Italy, for example - so it becomes an incentive to back the outsider and thus create a win pool.

Thus I'm quite happy to go with straight win/lose betting on the weekend's matches. The only problem - I reiterate - is that we will need people to bet on all teams for there to be a win pool.

I'll be backing England, France and Ireland regardless of betting.

I thought you switched back to the ABs.

[finbar]

Stupid double post! Stupid server telling me to try again!

[finbar]

Stupid triple post! Stupid server telling me to try yet again!

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by finbar
I'm just glad there's no tax on immodesty, Tamerlin. We'd be bankrupt!

The other taxes are enough for me.

I knew wine would have to rear its head somehow.

You are wrong, a bottle of wine is never full or empty a long time enough for this saying to be applied to wine, a bottle of wine is being emptied or changed.

Speaking of half-full and half-empty, we have a saying related to optimists and pessimists. An optimist sees a glass as half-full, a pessimist sees a glass as half-empty. Is there a French equivalent?

This is not really a saying but it sometimes surfaces in a conversation when someone talks about a half-empty or half-full bottle. Of course, it largely depends on the number of bottles fully emptied before.

We are not always drinking wine in France, we also drink beers.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by finbar
Statistical rankings of sporting teams should be treated with the contempt they deserve.

Unless they put your team on top of course...

1. It's played at Twickers.
2. The England players are mid-season and match-fit. Some of the ABs played in the NPC finals a couple of weeks ago.
3. The AB team for the match is, like it not, a second-string outfit.
4. You've told us how strong the England pack is - the second row, in particular.
5. You've told us you have a world-class 5/8.
6. You've told us Austin Healy earns a place in a world team.
7. Et cetera.

8. Its the All Blacks! AAAARRGGH!


We probably could still do odds betting because we are not playing with real money, so whenever we need more we just say "Let there be money" - and there is money.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Caligastia


Unless they put your team on top of course...

We probably could still do odds betting because we are not playing with real money, so whenever we need more we just say "Let there be money" - and there is money.

On holidays from Enron, huh?

[finbar]

Originally posted by Tamerlin
You are wrong, a bottle of wine is never full or empty a long time enough for this saying to be applied to wine, a bottle of wine is being emptied or changed.

Okay. Let me substitute absinthe for wine.

*Tamerlin checks the level of his bottle of absinthe*

We are not always drinking wine in France, we also drink beers.

Good to hear!

[Havak]

Nope, no cold feet. Nor is it related in any way to my total belief that we are a better side than any of the tri-nations visitors. I still think we are the best side that will be playing anywhere in the UK before the end of the year 2002. Only a heavy defeat in one game would shake me on that – a narrow win for one of the SH lot would simply be the fortunes of war – even the best of teams can be beaten after all.

Where on earth did you get the idea the England/HQ nexus had faded in my mind? I hope and trust we send all three of you ‘aristocrats’ of the game packing with your tales between your legs.

My concern is solely that, despite your assertions, you have set aside the sensible way margins have been set thus far simply because England are involved One might even suggest it is a prime case of the SH changing the laws as they go along.

Check the stats – no way at all is this a straight win situation. England warrant a substantial start. You can’t ignore history at the drop of a hat.

the major contributing factors have been recent form, where the game is played and make up of the teams

Nonsense – retroactive history even. My spreads for example were all factored on a ten match history weighted by world rankings.

There's no way in the world England could have a points start. Unless, of course, England are a pretty ordinary team.

Again this is rather ridiculous – you are as guilty of spinning things to suit your point as you could ever accuse me of being. England are a world class team – arguable whether they are THE world class team as it is – none of it means I’ll accept that as an excuse to cast aside common sense in the spreads.

Could it be that the ‘mighty’ All Blacks can’t overcome any kind of spread start? I remind you NZ strength in depth is closer to the English model than the Australian one – a third string NZ side is still a good team. Whether they are good enough…

Looks like I’ll have to save my betting for the games where sensible margins are being employed. Go IRELAND!!! :LOL: