The Van Berlo injury is good news if anyone still cares about winning in the SANFL - it makes the Ravens significantly weaker as now their best midfielder is replaced by someone not up to SANFL standard for the whole season (probably).
Another example that the competition is now a shambles.

Hughes "rested" from the Strikers next match!
Proof Chuck and co read what you guys write on here (but ignore my posts)

If nothing else, it makes us feel better for a few seconds after giving our opinions.

This decision is yet another example (that was so obvious during the reserves debate) of the arrogance and narrow-mindedness of the Crows and the SANFL Commission who must really believe that football in SA = the Crows and are unable to see things from the perspective of anyone else.

Rivalries in sport should be built from respect on the field, not from childish games (which is what this really is) which are just designed to antagonise the opponent.

But before Port supporters get on their high horse, the catalyst for this is still the dirty games Port played in 1990 which Whicker and co have never forgiven them for, and hence the petty games just keep continuing. The real loser in it all is football in SA as both sides rarely act in what is the true best interests of SA football.

I'll go in both.

I think this discussion can be summarised as follows:

Those people in Adelaide who viewed the Crows as a South Australian state team (in 1991) would have followed the Crows over any previous allegiance to a VFL club. If these people moved to Geelong they would probably still follow the Crows as they would still identify themselves as South Australian and be loyal to their "team for all South Australians".

Those people in Adelaide who viewed the Crows as just another AFL franchise who happened to be based in Adelaide probably stayed loyal to their VFL teams.

Love how people can simultaneously argue that the comp is a farce both because the reserves sides are too bad AND too good.


It is actually quite logical and one of the main points I kept arguing last year. The farce comes from the VARIANCE in performances from the AFL reserves teams. There will almost certainly be weeks when they lose by 20 goals and weeks when they will win by 20 goals, all hugely dependent on
- their injury lists
- their desire to play to win (which will depend on what suits their AFL masters from week to week)
- the rules/concessions that the SANFL gives each AFL club

It truly does reduce the competition to a farce - it is hard to get excited by wins, or despondent by losses against the AFL Reserves sides when the whole structure of these clubs is completely different and any close games are just a fluke by the clubs having the "right" balance of injuries and top up players on that day.

Love how people can simultaneously argue that the comp is a farce both because the reserves sides are too bad AND too good.


It is actually quite logical and one of the main points I kept arguing last year. The farce comes from the VARIANCE in performances from the AFL reserves teams. There will almost certainly be weeks when they lose by 20 goals and weeks when they will win by 20 goals, all hugely dependent on
- their injury lists
- their desire to play to win (which will depend on what suits their AFL masters from week to week)


Sorry but why is this any difference to any other club? If AFL Port have a 15 man injury list this year then the Magpies will probably get very well beaten. But, if the Magpies in any of the past 20 years had a 15 man injury list, then they would have been very well beaten as well. Any team that will be forced to put half their reserves team into the league side due to injury is going to cop probably big losses.
.
I'm very surprised you don't understand this as you seem to be a logical poster :)

For every player in Port's AFL team that gets injured/suspended/retires etc., the best Port Magpies player is replaced in the Magpies team by someone who was deemed not up to SANFL League standard the previous week. So not only is it your own SANFL League team's injuries that affect you, it is another team where you lose your best (and next best etc.) player for every injury they suffer. If you look at SANFL Reserves you see a similar effect where teams' fortunes often fluctuate greatly over a season due to League injuries, and it is much more than a doubling effect due to the "lose your best player for every AFL injury" situation.

I know I repeated myself a bit there but I am surprised that there are still regular posters on here who don't understand this after it has been mentioned many times previously in all the debate last year.

Well a bye doesn't affect the average crowd, but point taken about the weather.

If you have North having the bye in round 1 it will affect the average compared to them having a home game round 1 which will guarentee 3k plus crowd

Also we have already had west v south, west v eagles which are traditionally low attending crowds

not sure i follow. He is comparing the average crowd from this year with last year. There are no byes this year so that doesnt come into play. And saying that there are some low drawing games played already, and the average still being high, supports rucci's argument not yours

It is ridiculous to compare the average crowd from the entire 2013 season with this years which is just a small sample from 2 rounds.
- crowds are on average much higher in the first few rounds of every season (for the obvious reasons of weather, optimism that the start of each season brings etc etc)
- the novelty factor of the AFL reserves teams (which surely everyone agrees will wear off quite a lot)
- the obvious biases from having played two rounds only - some teams are luckier/unluckier crowd wise with who they have played so far, one off events such as the early Centrals-Norwood start, etc...

Each of the "traditional" clubs plays the same number of home games (10) this year as before so once the season is over we can get a good answer to this question. Anyone who is making strong conclusions from 2 rounds only is deluded.

C&CCA looking at becoming a 1 day comp..

Thoughts?

If it means saving the comp well then yeah I guess it has to but I'm all for 2 day cricket.
This seems to be the feeling of quite a few people, which means the exec needs to provide us with strong evidence that a one-day comp is what is needed to save the association.

If it can, then sure, we will support it. If not, then it seems to be a real pity if we have to play a less preferred format for no real benefit.

also if you really want to nerd out

ever wondered how much of your sports betting bankroll you should bet in any one go to minimise your risk of going broke in the long run?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion


Perhaps Eckystein is the poster to give an opinion on Kelly of 56

The Kelly criterion doesn't minimise your risk of going broke, to minimise this risk you should never bet!
What it does do though is maximise your profits in the long run assuming you have a good estimate of what the true odds are.

But most casual punters aren't able to accurately estimate what the true odds are. eg You might believe that Essendon +27.5 vs Port is a good bet but you have no clear idea what the true line should be.

So unless you do your own 100% markets and have strong confidence in these, or you are using some system that gives you estimated true odds for each event, the Kelly criterion isn't any use to you. It also uses the obvious criteria of only placing bets when the odds are in your favour - if you don't have the skill to identify when the odds are in your favour you obviously can't win either!

This bloke has applied the Kelly Criterion on Nate Silver's World Cup predictions and has turned a fictitious $100K into over $500K http://www.statsbomb.com/2014/07/a-villainous-ref-emerges-nate-silver-day-21/ (he updates it each day)
But you don't need to use Kelly to make money from Nate's predictions, anyone betting any amount on them would be well in front.

I really think that a basic introduction to gambling including concepts like
- how to calculate the percentage in a market
- the fundamental laws of probability
- how to convert between probabilities and odds
- how to work out the probability you will win in the long term betting on markets with certain percentages etc.

should be a compulsory part of the high school maths curriculum. There are so many people out there who are happy to take terrible odds on things without having the skills to work out how much they are being ripped off. Same goes for people who bet on pokies and lotteries etc without having any real concept of how heavily the odds are stacked against them.

But then again, if it wasn't for these people keeping the bookies in business, the rest of us wouldn't be able to make our profits!

You can't win in the long run on games where no skill is involved like pokies, lotteries, most casino games etc.
You can win in the long run on sports and horse punting:

- if your skill is superior to the bookmakers by a big enough margin to overcome the percentages they offer
- by arbing
- by taking advantage of bookmaker promotions that effectively give less than 100% markets

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:So what rules should be implemented with staking?

there are so many different staking options to choose from?

Identifying overs in the first place is much more important than staking.
If you consistently bet on overs you will win in the long term no matter how much you stake.

The problem, in my opinion, with any sort of system, is that it assumes you, and everybody else can consistently beat the bookies using it. If that was true every bookie would be broke. Bookies also have dozens of people whose sole job is to set odds, and if they wanted to they could also utilise these sorts of systems too or at least develop counter strategies to them

That's not how bookmaking works in Australia though. The basic business model they all follow is

1. Suck people in with free bets etc
2. Ban and restrict those who win
3. Keep giving lollies to the losers so they come back for more and get hooked

Setting competitive markets is a secondary consideration - there is little incentive for them to do much more than have people monitoring Betfair and the other bookies and just copying off the consensus odds like sheep.
They find that their money is much better spent on advertising and promotions than to invest in developing more accurate odds. The game is much easier if you are playing against idiots than if you are playing against people who know what they are doing!

Hence it isn't that hard to win in the short term, but it is hard to win in the long term as profitable accounts are usually restricted or banned - that's the easy way out for them.

A basic key to winning at gambling is to identify the markets where you have a particular skill or knowledge that is greater than whoever you are competing against, and the advantage you have needs to be significant enough to overcome and commissions or percentage added to the markets.

Many examples:

1) Bennymacca and Nate Silver won at poker because they understand the game significantly better than the average player they play against
2) Trader won on Betfair because he knew how to exploit anomalies in the markets
3) David Walsh's syndicate won millions on horse racing because they developed incredibly sophisticated models well before any bookmakers or other punters even considered doing this
4) I know people who consistently win at harness racing because they study the form much more closely than any bookmaker does, and use sophisticated methods to set their own markets.
5) The Sportspunter AFL models consistently win because the guy behind them has been constantly developing them for over 10 years and has a strong mathematical background
6) I know people who are consistent winners on local events like the SANFL and state elections because these are niche markets that the bookies don't put much effort into, so if you have a good understanding of these, it isn't hard to find a lot of value.
7) Mal wins because he knows every losing gambler in Adelaide, so he has learnt exactly what NOT to do!

But the most important skill that all consistent winners have in common is a strong mathematical background. If you don't have a good understanding of the probabilities involved in whatever game you are playing, you will never be able to fully exploit whatever advantage in knowledge you have over your competitors.

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:

Booney wrote:A draw.

Did you play the draw this weekend?

I certainly didn't

where are all the anti-draw sceptics now?

I'm sure we all thought of Booney as soon as it happened.

Rik E Boy wrote:Team Rankings Round 15

15 Ecky's Fevolas 31077

My ranking is higher here than it is in the Hogg Premier League (bottom)!

serious question - do you guys feel like your opinions were ignored? Or that they were heard but dismissed?
At the Glenelg "members information night" Chiggy's line was very much that I have made MY decision. We made it very clear to him what we felt in the meeting and also at the bar after the meeting but it was obvious that there was nothing we could have said that would have changed his mind.

PS I know this is a sample size of 1, but I went to 95% of Glenelg games between 2000 and 2013, and I have been to zero since then. It's got to a point where I don't always even know on a Saturday night if Glenelg has played yet or not that weekend, I've just lost all interest.

Thanks Dutchy, the money has come through.

The other two sides who could threaten are Eckys Fevolas and Squeakeroos DTC . Squeaky showed last year that they are the genuine article and they have been getting better and better. Last year Ecky was very slow out of the blocks and left his run too late. If his goal is league success in the Premier League you can expect a more consistent output from the Fevs in the early rounds.

Goal is always the overall prize, but that always changes by about quarter time of the first game of the season!

Don't worry everyone, I assume this means the AFL teams will be gone in a couple years given Olsen's unique definition of "not negotiable"! :lol:

“That is not negotiable - we have deal with the AFL clubs and they will be there for the next 10 years,” Olsen said. “The SANFL competition is better with them in - that is my strong view.”

Compare the similarities to

"Reserves teams in the SANFL for the two AFL clubs is not negotiable .
We will not compromise the SANFL competition (with AFL reserves teams)."

What should have happened a few years ago now was all the Adelaide hard wicket comps merged into a single comp administratively (single set of rules etc.) but split into north and south sections with their own division structure, possibly also including ATCA.

With SACA funding an administrative position, particularly as one of the carrots they were dangling to get members to vote YES to the Adelaide Oval upgrade was substantial extra funding at grass roots level which never eventuated.
Current structure has too much duplication and reliance on volunteers to be sustainable long term.

SACA has currently engaged SMS Strategies to provide expert consultancy services in strategic planning and facilties development, and are engaging with representatives/stakeholders in all sectors of the cricket community in relation to identifying current challenges and opportunities, and facilitate collaborative planning for the continued health/growth of cricket in the state.

I know I'm out of the loop now, but that just sounds like corporate bulls..t speak to me :lol:

Hogg Premier League
Does Ecky have a trade up his sleeve because he will need one to win this grand final.

Didn't actually make a difference in the end - traded in Barrass but he scored only 39 but luckily for me that was still enough.

Thanks to everyone, especially REB, for keeping the competition going in this very different kind of season, see you in 2021.

Came 3rd overall this round, missed the weekly prize by 6 points.

Brought in Whitfield with my last trade, was also considering Daniel, if I had gone that way would have won my first weekly prize since 2002.
Won an Afl dreamteam round back then.

Sorry, never got around to joining that one, I'm in now.

A few comments about my performance this year

1) I have been very lucky so far with injuries - never had Dangerfield, Martin, Neale, Rowell, Ridley. Only premiums/sub-premiums who I've had that got injured were Dunkley (who more than did his job) and Duggan.

2) I've been much more aggressive in trading this year, aiming to upgrade to a complete team as early as possible. Thought this was the best chance to win something even if my team is stuffed by the end of the year. So still a chance for the rest of you to win the Hogg Premier!

3) Not everything has gone right for me - I traded Daniher to Mitchell on a week that Daniher outscored Mitchell by 50 points and I've missed out on a heap of cash Daniher has made since then. I also started with a few duds like Dow and Tyson and missed the Taylor Walker train.

This week the plan for now is to upgrade Powell to Josh Kelly which means I'm sort of 3 premos away from a complete team (depending on how you classify a few players like Cripps :evil: )

Had another good ( but not great) week so now up to 288th overall! The Powell to Kelly trade looks good so far, along with my other recent upgrades of Zorko and TMcdonald (but not Whitfield).

This week planning to turn Bergman and Scott into Dusty unless injuries I don't know about yet get in the way.

That leaves just 2 more upgrades to go which might be doable before byes.

Feeling confident I might finish top 100 as I guess most other teams aren't this complete yet

89th for the round and up to 50th overall, 200 pts closer to the lead. And that was with Grundy captain! I continue to get lucky with my traded in players, Heeney this week.

I have a higher team value than every team above me, so am a realistic chance to win with the right moves and luck.

This week look like I'll finally cash in Flynn and then upgrade Impey to a top midfielder. Then maybe a Grundy trade if necessary.

I should be able to get to 18 in R14 without using all 8 trades

Plan at the moment (which will change 20 more times :lol: ) is

R13:
Jordon-Touk Miller (best premo with R12 bye)
Zorko-one of the many subpremos around 420K (Powell Pepper or Wingard maybe)
Highmore-Bianco

Gives me 17 premo plus best of about 4 rookie scores, no problems this round.

R14:
Heeney-Dangerfield (if he is back, otherwise Hall maybe)
Poulter-some playing rookie
RCD-subpremo fwd around $380K

Gives 14 premo plus probably enough playing rookies to make at least 18. If not enough use 4th trade.

R15 worst midfielder-Zorko
dump a maxed out rookie if need more cash for this

Gives me 3 trades left with 7 premo in fwd line so benchloop the worst two each week.

At this stage that seems to be the best balance between maximising bye round scores and trying to have the best possible team in the longer run.

I'm tipping that Ecky's ranking has now gone to shit which is a shame as we were all enjoying the show but the SC gods are too cruel to allow one of our own get so close to ultimate glory.
Ranking dropped from 43 to 68 so still some sort of chance, I just now have to prioritise more unique players and hope that a few of the common players I don't have get injured or lose form. The one thing I seemed to get right was trading out Impey before his bye - almost everyone else in the top 100 still has him and I think there's a fair chance he'll only average 70 now for the rest of the season. If I can get someone who averages 100 instead there's 300 points and half way to catching the leaders.

I've moved up from 45th to 12th overall

Interesting that you can be so high when my team is still a long way from optimal (no Ziebell or Stewart for example), the difference from being ranked 12th or 1200th may just be a couple lucky decisions

Up to 6th overall now

Back up to 15th (from 18th) this week and caught up a little to the top team but I feel like I'm just hanging in there - basically all the other top teams have better teams than me on paper and I'm just one poor week from having my chances ended.

Felt like I needed to try something a bit unique so traded in Brad Crouch last week which worked so far but am basically relying on players like him and Redman (my most uniques) to average 20pts or so higher than the more fancied players I don't have like Laird from now on - and the chances of that are quite low!

Also interesting that the top 3 teams and 4 of the top 6 don't have English! They are relying on Briggs for now (another I missed which stuffed up my rookie cash generation) but may trade him for English soon if they have enough trades left.

Laird out keeps my small chances for the 50k alive for another week, currently 11th with no trades left but probably the most unique team of the top 20 and 23 sort-of premiums to play with this week so I'll have fun with up to 4 loops to do some sneaky tricks and hopefully one will pay off.