FootballNews

The betting line handicap in goals is the same as the ratio of the favourite winning.

So if the fav is 2 to 1 on ($1.50), the line is 12 points.

3 to 1 on (1.33), the handicap is 18 points.

4 to 1 on (1.25), 4 goals.

The maths starts to break down around 7 to 1 on (1.14) as the time factor kicks in, but I think punters can take advantage of this. Eg this week WCE $1.06
(16 to 1 on) theorectically a 96 point advantage yet the handicap line is -48.5 points.

Get on WCE -48.5.

Underground handball.

You get a point for missing the goals

Runners come on to the field of play to deliver messages to the players from the coach.

Sure Beano wrote:The betting line handicap in goals is the same as the ratio of the favourite winning.

So if the fav is 2 to 1 on ($1.50), the line is 12 points.

3 to 1 on (1.33), the handicap is 18 points.

4 to 1 on (1.25), 4 goals.

The maths starts to break down around 7 to 1 on (1.14) as the time factor kicks in, but I think punters can take advantage of this. Eg this week WCE $1.06
(16 to 1 on) theorectically a 96 point advantage yet the handicap line is -48.5 points.

Get on WCE -48.5.

Thanks beano-counter... i still dont get it?

rooboy1986 wrote:

Sure Beano wrote:The betting line handicap in goals is the same as the ratio of the favourite winning.

So if the fav is 2 to 1 on ($1.50), the line is 12 points.

3 to 1 on (1.33), the handicap is 18 points.

4 to 1 on (1.25), 4 goals.

The maths starts to break down around 7 to 1 on (1.14) as the time factor kicks in, but I think punters can take advantage of this. Eg this week WCE $1.06
(16 to 1 on) theorectically a 96 point advantage yet the handicap line is -48.5 points.

Get on WCE -48.5.

Thanks beano-counter... i still dont get it?

I’ve got 3 red marbles and one blue marble and I put them in a bag.

I ask you to select a blue marble.

Your CHANCES are 1 in 4 ie ¼ or 25%

The ODDS are 3 to 1.

Chance is expressed as a fraction, odds are an expression of a ratio, there is a ratio of 3 red marbles to every blue marble.
The chances of picking a red marble are 75% and the odds are 3 to 1 on. When the chance is greater than 50% the odds are odds on.
These days, it has been dumbed down so odds are presented in the dividend format – what the dividend would be for $1.00 invested.
3 to 1 is $4.00, 3 to 1 on is $1.33.

The favourite in a footy match is always odds on, by definition.

It just so happens that there is a relationship between the odds of a footy match and the “line”, which is the handicap set for the bookmaker to entice equal amount of action on the match based on both teams having a 50% chance. In theory this line bet should pay “flip of the coin” dividend of $2.00 but it pays $1.90 so the bookie can make a profit.

The Crows are $1.50 favs for the Showdown, that’s 2 to 1 on so the line should be 2 goals (12 pts),which it is.
Hawthorn are $1.33, 3 to 1 on, to beat Sydney and the line is 19 points, approx 3 goals.

Another one that got me wondering watching the Anzac Day clash - why when a player (after a mark or free kick) is lining up for goal he is allowed an eternity to take the kick, yet after taking a mark in open play after a few seconds the ump starts yelling "play on" even when he doesn't deviate off his mark?

Bomber wrote:Another one that got me wondering watching the Anzac Day clash - why when a player (after a mark or free kick) is lining up for goal he is allowed an eternity to take the kick, yet after taking a mark in open play after a few seconds the ump starts yelling "play on" even when he doesn't deviate off his mark?

Why do they stop play for catching the ball anyway? I believe it is in the name of speeding the game up, because left to its own devices it would be mired down in endless ball toss-ups and 'scrums' that achieve nothing. May also give extra time in forward line to allow the woefully inaccurate so-called professionals a chance at hitting the side of a barn door, but even if they miss, are still awarded points. It could also be to allow umpires to blow their whistle more, so they are firmly entrenched as the most significant spectacle in the game, along with their hi-vis shirts.

This is an apple.



This is an orange.



Do you still feel the need to compare them?

I find that Aussie Rules at the elite level is played exactly the same way as football is at under six level. A huge pack forms and once in a while the ball breaks free of the pack and one or two individuals usually end up doing something spectacular.

Bacon888 wrote:This is an apple.



This is an orange.



Do you still feel the need to compare them?

One tastes like an apple and the other like an orange, but they are both fruits that are grown on trees. Weird really.

One you peel with your hands and the other you don't.
Not a lot gets past Reg Deadman

Reg Deadman wrote:One you peel with your hands and the other you don't.
Not a lot gets past Reg Deadman

What part of your body do you use to peel the other one?

zackadacka wrote:

Bomber wrote:Another one that got me wondering watching the Anzac Day clash - why when a player (after a mark or free kick) is lining up for goal he is allowed an eternity to take the kick, yet after taking a mark in open play after a few seconds the ump starts yelling "play on" even when he doesn't deviate off his mark?

Why do they stop play for catching the ball anyway? I believe it is in the name of speeding the game up, because left to its own devices it would be mired down in endless ball toss-ups and 'scrums' that achieve nothing. May also give extra time in forward line to allow the woefully inaccurate so-called professionals a chance at hitting the side of a barn door, but even if they miss, are still awarded points. It could also be to allow umpires to blow their whistle more, so they are firmly entrenched as the most significant spectacle in the game, along with their hi-vis shirts.

I always laugh at the people of the world football community who have a dig at AFL players missing set shots. How does a professional player like Lionel Messi miss a crucial penalty in a Champions League semi-final?

LFTWNG11 wrote:

zackadacka wrote:

Bomber wrote:Another one that got me wondering watching the Anzac Day clash - why when a player (after a mark or free kick) is lining up for goal he is allowed an eternity to take the kick, yet after taking a mark in open play after a few seconds the ump starts yelling "play on" even when he doesn't deviate off his mark?

Why do they stop play for catching the ball anyway? I believe it is in the name of speeding the game up, because left to its own devices it would be mired down in endless ball toss-ups and 'scrums' that achieve nothing. May also give extra time in forward line to allow the woefully inaccurate so-called professionals a chance at hitting the side of a barn door, but even if they miss, are still awarded points. It could also be to allow umpires to blow their whistle more, so they are firmly entrenched as the most significant spectacle in the game, along with
their hi-vis shirts.

I always laugh at the people of the world football community who have a dig at AFL players missing set shots. How does a professional player like Lionel Messi miss a crucial penalty in a Champions League semi-final?

I must have missed the part where Messi got any points for missing. Penalty conversion rate > set shot conversion rate

zackadacka wrote:I must have missed the part where Messi got any points for missing. Penalty conversion rate > set shot conversion rate

You must also have missed the part where the afl bloke has a goalkeeper trying to stop him as well.

You must also have missed the part where the afl bloke is shooting into the largest goal of any sport.

God is an Englishman wrote:

zackadacka wrote:I must have missed the part where Messi got any points for missing. Penalty conversion rate > set shot conversion rate

You must also have missed the part where the afl bloke has a goalkeeper trying to stop him as well.

You must also have missed the part where the afl bloke is shooting into the largest goal of any sport.

Point 1, surely the football player/Messi as opposed to afl bloke?

Otherwise, spot on!

Bomber wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

zackadacka wrote:I must have missed the part where Messi got any points for missing. Penalty conversion rate > set shot conversion rate

You must also have missed the part where the afl bloke has a goalkeeper trying to stop him as well.

You must also have missed the part where the afl bloke is shooting into the largest goal of any sport.

Point 1, surely the football player/Messi as opposed to afl bloke?

Otherwise, spot on!

I meant it as in the afl bloke doesn't have a goalkeeper so it's not the same at all. I must have missed the part where afl has a goalkeeper making it the same as taking it a penalty in football.

Watching an U16 game at Prospect Oval yesterday - 5 umpires and 2 goal umpires for a junior game

Stitch This wrote:Watching an U16 game at Prospect Oval yesterday - 5 umpires and 2 goal umpires for a junior game

That is ridiculous

zackadacka wrote: That is ridiculous

I agree. I have got better things to do than watch Aussie rules.

Frogot about my post in here...

zackadacka wrote:I must have missed the part where Messi got any points for missing. Penalty conversion rate > set shot conversion rate

Set shots are harder than penalties. The best player in the world even misses penalties... mistakes happen in all professional sports.

God is an Englishman wrote:You must also have missed the part where the afl bloke has a goalkeeper trying to stop him as well.

You must also have missed the part where the afl bloke is shooting into the largest goal of any sport.

When having a set shot, there is a man on the "mark" trying to smother your kick. Nice try though.

Pretty sure the goals are a similiar size to Thugby and Gaelic Football, so nice try once again.

Although I don't have a retort for getting a point for missing the goals

LFTWNG11 wrote:Frogot about my post in here...

zackadacka wrote:I must have missed the part where Messi got any points for missing. Penalty conversion rate > set shot conversion rate

Set shots are harder than penalties. The best player in the world even misses penalties... mistakes happen in all professional sports.

God is an Englishman wrote:You must also have missed the part where the afl bloke has a goalkeeper trying to stop him as well.

You must also have missed the part where the afl bloke is shooting into the largest goal of any sport.

When having a set shot, there is a man on the "mark" trying to smother your kick. Nice try though.

Pretty sure the goals are a similiar size to Thugby and Gaelic Football, so nice try once again.

Although I don't have a retort for getting a point for missing the goals

a guy on the mark is not comparable to a goalkeeper 12 yards away.

The goals are infinitely bigger in afl than the other sports, if you don't realise that then what's the point continuing this conversation.

LFTWNG11 wrote:Frogot about my post in here...

zackadacka wrote:I must have missed the part where Messi got any points for missing. Penalty conversion rate > set shot conversion rate

Set shots are harder than penalties. The best player in the world even misses penalties... mistakes happen in all professional sports.

Difficult to compare a penalty or even a direct free kick to the AFL set shot, as the difficulty of the set shot is somewhere in between them, as is the conversion rate. Messi's central task however, is not just to score with a dead ball from 12 yards, in contrast to most full forwards, who have two jobs, catch and kick goals. Given they should be much more proficient at it than they are, as they have all week to work on two things (could be slightly more than that, but thats all I can comprehend from the game), it's not just a mistake issue, I believe it is a lack of ability, but we may disagree on that.

God is an Englishman wrote:
a guy on the mark is not comparable to a goalkeeper 12 yards away.

The goals are infinitely bigger in afl than the other sports, if you don't realise that then what's the point continuing this conversation.

Infinitely bigger?

AFL Goals are 6.4m wide with no height restriction. Rugby goals are 5.6m with no height restrictions. I suggest you re-read what infintely actaully means.

If it is all such a mystery to you, then you're more than welcome to jog on.

zackadacka wrote: Difficult to compare a penalty or even a direct free kick to the AFL set shot, as the difficulty of the set shot is somewhere in between them, as is the conversion rate. Messi's central task however, is not just to score with a dead ball from 12 yards, in contrast to most full forwards, who have two jobs, catch and kick goals. Given they should be much more proficient at it than they are, as they have all week to work on two things (could be slightly more than that, but thats all I can comprehend from the game), it's not just a mistake issue, I believe it is a lack of ability, but we may disagree on that.

Full Forwards just mark and kick goals? You obviously don't watch much football... they tackle, spoil, assist etc etc just like any other player on the ground these days.

The man on the mark is ususally only 5m away when they take the set-shot... it is the man on the mark's job to distract/smother the kick. I agree that improvement in goal kicking in the AFL has been almost non-exsistent, but the game is so much more demanding in so many facets, you can hardly call them unskilled/unprofessional.

LFTWNG11 wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:
a guy on the mark is not comparable to a goalkeeper 12 yards away.

The goals are infinitely bigger in afl than the other sports, if you don't realise that then what's the point continuing this conversation.

Infinitely bigger?

AFL Goals are 6.4m wide with no height restriction. Rugby goals are 5.6m with no height restrictions. I suggest you re-read what infintely actaully means.

If it is all such a mystery to you, then you're more than welcome to jog on.

The prime method of scoring points in rugby is to score a try. The "goal area" of this is dependant on the pitch size but on average would be 500m(squared), compared to the AFL goal of INIFINITY!!

If you just want to talk about the "goal" then rugby union has a cross bar 3m off the ground, you cannot score from a kick below this point. So already we have over 19m(squared) (compared to an afl goal) that you cannot score in compared to the INFINITY of an AFL goal.

No sport has a larger goal than AFL, it's pretty hard to beat infinity. FACT!!

In the ba', the Doonies have to get the ball to the water at the pier. That's a pretty big fuckin goal.

Blueblood wrote:In the ba', the Doonies have to get the ball to the water at the pier. That's a pretty big drinking shiraz goal.

you could (if you so desired) put a square metrage on the size of the goal though, you can't with an afl goal.

Therefore, the AFL goal is bigger.

Infinity is stretching it a bit. Be realistic with the maximum height a ball could be kicked and your argument may still hold some weight. Even at a 50m height limit, the goal is still bigger than any I can think of, (without any silly suggestions like the ba'!) Include the term "scoring area" and there is no contest!

Blueblood wrote:Infinity is stretching it a bit. Be realistic with the maximum height a ball could be kicked and your argument may still hold some weight. Even at a 50m height limit, the goal is still bigger than any I can think of, (without any silly suggestions like the ba'!) Include the term "scoring area" and there is no contest!

Where do you draw the line though? 50m, what about 50m1cm?

mathematically the answer is infinity, even though common sense tells you it's not.