Geekzone Rugby (Union) Discussion Thread

Forums › Sports › Geekzone Rugby (Union) Discussion Thread

1 | ... | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | ... | 642

1059 posts

Uber Geek

#1407900 16-Oct-2015 14:16

joker97:
clevedon:
joker97:
They have publicly stated the gamble they took naming the 31, or rather, dropping the 10. I think the gambles (in order of riskiness)
1 leave sopoaga and rely on carter
2 leave dagg and rely on barrett
3 leave piutau and rely on nms
4 leave jane (less injured) and take naholo (more injured)
Don't think there are any gambles on the forwards

There is no way Sopoaga would of been taken in place of Carter, and rightly so.

Apparently not, according to Justin Marshall's chin wag with Grant Fox.

When and where was that written or shown?

networkn

Networkn
32257 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1407901 16-Oct-2015 14:25

clevedon:
joker97:
clevedon:
joker97:
They have publicly stated the gamble they took naming the 31, or rather, dropping the 10. I think the gambles (in order of riskiness)
1 leave sopoaga and rely on carter
2 leave dagg and rely on barrett
3 leave piutau and rely on nms
4 leave jane (less injured) and take naholo (more injured)
Don't think there are any gambles on the forwards

There is no way Sopoaga would of been taken in place of Carter, and rightly so.

Apparently not, according to Justin Marshall's chin wag with Grant Fox.

When and where was that written or shown?

It was a few months ago right after selection. Apparently Carters second game against Australia was the deciding factor.

clevedon

1059 posts

Uber Geek

#1407907 16-Oct-2015 14:36

networkn:
clevedon:
joker97:
clevedon:
joker97:
They have publicly stated the gamble they took naming the 31, or rather, dropping the 10. I think the gambles (in order of riskiness)
1 leave sopoaga and rely on carter
2 leave dagg and rely on barrett
3 leave piutau and rely on nms
4 leave jane (less injured) and take naholo (more injured)
Don't think there are any gambles on the forwards

There is no way Sopoaga would of been taken in place of Carter, and rightly so.

Apparently not, according to Justin Marshall's chin wag with Grant Fox.

When and where was that written or shown?

It was a few months ago right after selection. Apparently Carters second game against Australia was the deciding factor.

I didn't read it anywhere, but if it was said it was likely just to keep Sopoaga "sharp" or "in the frame"

Carter was always going to the RWC as the first choice 10, he is our best.

networkn

Networkn
32257 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1407914 16-Oct-2015 14:59

clevedon:
networkn:
clevedon:
joker97:
clevedon:
joker97:
They have publicly stated the gamble they took naming the 31, or rather, dropping the 10. I think the gambles (in order of riskiness)
1 leave sopoaga and rely on carter
2 leave dagg and rely on barrett
3 leave piutau and rely on nms
4 leave jane (less injured) and take naholo (more injured)
Don't think there are any gambles on the forwards

There is no way Sopoaga would of been taken in place of Carter, and rightly so.

Apparently not, according to Justin Marshall's chin wag with Grant Fox.

When and where was that written or shown?

It was a few months ago right after selection. Apparently Carters second game against Australia was the deciding factor.

I didn't read it anywhere, but if it was said it was likely just to keep Sopoaga "sharp" or "in the frame"

Carter was always going to the RWC as the first choice 10, he is our best.

I read it somewhere, and I agree, there was no way DC wasn't going to the RWC unless he wasn't physically able to go.

networkn

Networkn
32257 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1408056 16-Oct-2015 20:47

Just watched Romania v Italy. Italy was dominant in the first half, but wow what courage by romania to score tries in the second half. Also the best bit of video refereeing I've seen when Ben Skeen spots a ball grounded over the try line, and makes them go back to award it to Romania.

A lot of these teams have shown unbelievable courage in these games. Some of the Tier 1 teams could learn a thing or two.

tdgeek

29671 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1408164 17-Oct-2015 11:06

TAB odds, interesting

ABs 1-16 France 4-75.

networkn

Networkn
32257 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1408166 17-Oct-2015 11:11

tdgeek: TAB odds, interesting

ABs 1-16 France 4-75.

Sorry to be dumb, but what does that mean? Are those dashes supposed to be .'s? AB's are paying $1.16 to win?

To be fair I'd say that is a fair representation if so.

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

tdgeek

29671 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1408167 17-Oct-2015 11:29

networkn:
tdgeek: TAB odds, interesting

ABs 1-16 France 4-75.

Sorry to be dumb, but what does that mean? Are those dashes supposed to be .'s? AB's are paying $1.16 to win?

To be fair I'd say that is a fair representation if so.

Sorry, dots. Its a clear win, France big outsiders, I'd have thought they have a chance, but 1.16 for the AB's means basically no chance.

Hammerer

2476 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1408186 17-Oct-2015 12:16

tdgeek:
Its a clear win, France big outsiders, I'd have thought they have a chance, but 1.16 for the AB's means basically no chance.

The TAB odds are not the odds for each side to win. They are the spread that the TAB uses to encourage betting. This is a combination of the TAB's assessment of the actual odds and their plan to maximise profit (or minimise loss). If they were even bets then they'd be say $1.45 each. So for each $1 I bet I could expect to earn $0.73 on average.

Most people would bet on NZ to win so the TAB reduces the odds so the TAB doesn't lose too much on the vast majority of bets. If every body bet on the All Blacks then the TAB loses 16c for every dollar bet. To balance that they make the French odds more attractive. Not many people would bet on France to win unless the odds were very attractive hence the $4.75 encourages speculative bets. If they can get more people to bet on France then that helps balance the loss from the ABs winning.

I think that France are more likely to win this game than the TAB odds suggest, which is probably what the TAB wants me to think. I think the French have about one chance in ten of winning whereas the TAB odds for me, neglecting draws, are positioned at one chance in 23.4 (=$3.75/$0.16) which means France only has to win once in 23.4 games for me to break even from betting on them. In the long term, I could make money by betting on France and that is probably supported by TAB historical results. The problem with betting on France is that this week I am very likely to lose my stake so I would only back France if I could afford to lose many times before France wins another game against NZ.

And then there are drawn results.

networkn

Networkn
32257 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1408188 17-Oct-2015 12:20

If it's a draw NZ wins right? We are the higher ranked team, we scored better in the pool matches etc?

Tasman lost to Auckland last night, I didn't see that coming. I couldn't believe how limp Tasman were for 55 minutes, it was horrible, though Auckland were massively physical so they deserved it.

I have Canterbury to win tonight (duh).

networkn

Networkn
32257 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1408190 17-Oct-2015 12:23

Folau and Pocock out against Scotland. I suspect partly rested, as I don't think Australia have any concerns about beating a fairly fortunate to even be there Scottish side.

Watched Japan/USA last night, it's a travesty that Japan gets 3 wins and didn't make it to QF's though hard to see them going past there.

I am reasonably encouraged by next years SR inclusion of Japan with Argentina. I think Argentina are on the up. I'd like to see a few more European AB's Tours.

Hammerer

2476 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1408194 17-Oct-2015 12:29

networkn:

Watched Japan/USA last night, it's a travesty that Japan gets 3 wins and didn't make it to QF's though hard to see them going past there.

Japan were very fortunate to get one of those wins but they were clearly not good enough to get the bonus points they needed. Even without bonus points, Japan did not have a good enough points differential to make the quarters.

P.S. That is no "travesty"

networkn

Networkn
32257 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1408198 17-Oct-2015 12:37

Hammerer:
networkn:

Watched Japan/USA last night, it's a travesty that Japan gets 3 wins and didn't make it to QF's though hard to see them going past there.

Japan were very fortunate to get one of those wins but they were clearly not good enough to get the bonus points they needed. Even without bonus points, Japan did not have a good enough points differential to make the quarters.

P.S. That is no "travesty"

Disagree. When you take down a top tier team and get 2 other wins, you should be in the quarters. They are the first team in history to not do so.

throbb

675 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1408202 17-Oct-2015 12:57

networkn:
Hammerer:
networkn:

Watched Japan/USA last night, it's a travesty that Japan gets 3 wins and didn't make it to QF's though hard to see them going past there.

Japan were very fortunate to get one of those wins but they were clearly not good enough to get the bonus points they needed. Even without bonus points, Japan did not have a good enough points differential to make the quarters.

P.S. That is no "travesty"

Disagree. When you take down a top tier team and get 2 other wins, you should be in the quarters. They are the first team in history to not do so.

They finished 3rd in the pool, the top 2 go through. Not really a travesty.

tdgeek

29671 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1408211 17-Oct-2015 13:18

Hammerer:
tdgeek:
Its a clear win, France big outsiders, I'd have thought they have a chance, but 1.16 for the AB's means basically no chance.

The TAB odds are not the odds for each side to win. They are the spread that the TAB uses to encourage betting. This is a combination of the TAB's assessment of the actual odds and their plan to maximise profit (or minimise loss). If they were even bets then they'd be say $1.45 each. So for each $1 I bet I could expect to earn $0.73 on average.

Most people would bet on NZ to win so the TAB reduces the odds so the TAB doesn't lose too much on the vast majority of bets. If every body bet on the All Blacks then the TAB loses 16c for every dollar bet. To balance that they make the French odds more attractive. Not many people would bet on France to win unless the odds were very attractive hence the $4.75 encourages speculative bets. If they can get more people to bet on France then that helps balance the loss from the ABs winning.

I think that France are more likely to win this game than the TAB odds suggest, which is probably what the TAB wants me to think. I think the French have about one chance in ten of winning whereas the TAB odds for me, neglecting draws, are positioned at one chance in 23.4 (=$3.75/$0.16) which means France only has to win once in 23.4 games for me to break even from betting on them. In the long term, I could make money by betting on France and that is probably supported by TAB historical results. The problem with betting on France is that this week I am very likely to lose my stake so I would only back France if I could afford to lose many times before France wins another game against NZ.

And then there are drawn results.

Aren't the odds 4.75 to 1? Bet 1 get 4.75 back. If you bet on them 23 times thats costs 23 and you get 4.75 back if they won once.

1 | ... | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | ... | 642