30 Jan 2006 02:22:31
simon s-b
6N odds

http://www.oddschecker.com/betting/mode/c/card/rugbyunion-sixnations/scard/8642

Grand Slam
No Winner (6/4), France (7/4), England (4/1), Wales (40/1), Scotland
(300/1), Italy (2500/1)

Triple Crown
England (4/6), No Winner (4/1), Ireland (9/1), Wales (10/1), Scotland
(50/1)

Highest Scoring Team
Ireland (1/100), France (4/5), England (2/1)

Top Try Scorer
Cueto M (8/1), Dominici C (8/1), Heymans C (8/1)

Wooden Spoon
Italy (1/2), Scotland (2/1), Wales (12/1)

I see Jonathon Davies only tipping Wales to win 2 - shame on him. Most
pundits are going for a France GS, but the odds are hardly worth a
punt. It'd have to be made into a double with one of the other options.



30 Jan 2006 21:07:35
United Road
Re: 6N odds


"simon s-b" <simon.stovin-bradford@cern.ch > wrote in message
news:1138616550.984125.264360@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.oddschecker.com/betting/mode/c/card/rugbyunion-sixnations/scard/8642
>
> Grand Slam
> No Winner (6/4), France (7/4), England (4/1), Wales (40/1), Scotland
> (300/1), Italy (2500/1)
>
> Triple Crown
> England (4/6), No Winner (4/1), Ireland (9/1), Wales (10/1), Scotland
> (50/1)
>
> Highest Scoring Team
> Ireland (1/100), France (4/5), England (2/1)
>
> Top Try Scorer
> Cueto M (8/1), Dominici C (8/1), Heymans C (8/1)
>
> Wooden Spoon
> Italy (1/2), Scotland (2/1), Wales (12/1)
>
> I see Jonathon Davies only tipping Wales to win 2 - shame on him. Most
> pundits are going for a France GS, but the odds are hardly worth a
> punt. It'd have to be made into a double with one of the other options.
>
Ireland 100/1 "ON" to be highest scoring team?
Find that hard to believe.
I'll have to check that link.

Steve.




30 Jan 2006 02:55:08
Martyn Winters
Re: 6N odds


simon s-b wrote:
> http://www.oddschecker.com/betting/mode/c/card/rugbyunion-sixnations/scard/8642
>
> Grand Slam
> No Winner (6/4), France (7/4), England (4/1), Wales (40/1), Scotland
> (300/1), Italy (2500/1)
>
> Triple Crown
> England (4/6), No Winner (4/1), Ireland (9/1), Wales (10/1), Scotland
> (50/1)
>
> Highest Scoring Team
> Ireland (1/100), France (4/5), England (2/1)
>
> Top Try Scorer
> Cueto M (8/1), Dominici C (8/1), Heymans C (8/1)
>
> Wooden Spoon
> Italy (1/2), Scotland (2/1), Wales (12/1)
>
> I see Jonathon Davies only tipping Wales to win 2 - shame on him. Most
> pundits are going for a France GS, but the odds are hardly worth a
> punt. It'd have to be made into a double with one of the other options.


Oh well, you know what they say... the bookies never get it wrong.
Except last year, that is.



30 Jan 2006 11:14:29
Rob Stradling
Re: 6N odds

Martyn Winters wrote:


> Oh well, you know what they say... the bookies never get it wrong.
> Except last year, that is.
>

Well of course they can't, because by definition, you can't be "wrong"
by giving odds on a one-off event. You can be unwise, but not wrong. If
you give 100-1 against a Wales GS, and they get one, you can say it was
a 100-1 shot that came off. You didn't say it was impossible. That would
be infinity-to-one, and I've never seen a bookie offer that!

How many more people will have a punt on England than Wales? If it's
proportional to population and reliant on patriotism, then there should
be approximately 10-12 times as many. So the bookies are actually saying
"We will pay X *in total* for a GS", while privately estimating the
chances of either side getting one as pretty similar.


30 Jan 2006 03:31:03
Martyn Winters
Re: 6N odds


Rob Stradling wrote:
> Martyn Winters wrote:
>
>
> > Oh well, you know what they say... the bookies never get it wrong.
> > Except last year, that is.
> >
>
> Well of course they can't, because by definition, you can't be "wrong"
> by giving odds on a one-off event. You can be unwise, but not wrong. If
> you give 100-1 against a Wales GS, and they get one, you can say it was
> a 100-1 shot that came off. You didn't say it was impossible. That would
> be infinity-to-one, and I've never seen a bookie offer that!
>
> How many more people will have a punt on England than Wales? If it's
> proportional to population and reliant on patriotism, then there should
> be approximately 10-12 times as many. So the bookies are actually saying
> "We will pay =A3X *in total* for a GS", while privately estimating the
> chances of either side getting one as pretty similar.

Not being a gambling man I'm entirely grateful for the explanation of
the mechanics. In idiomatic terms, they can, however, "get it wrong",
in the same way that Andy Robinson can get his team selection wrong.



30 Jan 2006 03:32:49
Rookie
Re: 6N odds


Rob Stradling wrote:
> Martyn Winters wrote:
>
>
> > Oh well, you know what they say... the bookies never get it wrong.
> > Except last year, that is.
> >
>
> Well of course they can't, because by definition, you can't be "wrong"
> by giving odds on a one-off event. You can be unwise, but not wrong. If
> you give 100-1 against a Wales GS, and they get one, you can say it was
> a 100-1 shot that came off. You didn't say it was impossible. That would
> be infinity-to-one, and I've never seen a bookie offer that!
>
> How many more people will have a punt on England than Wales? If it's
> proportional to population and reliant on patriotism, then there should
> be approximately 10-12 times as many. So the bookies are actually saying
> "We will pay =A3X *in total* for a GS", while privately estimating the
> chances of either side getting one as pretty similar.

Meaning that a Welsh supporter simultaneously gets bragging rights for
winning last years championship, can claim underdog status for this
year and get decent odds on his own team. Whereas an Englishman finds
that despite their woeful performance last year, a number of injuries,
ongoing club-country feuds leading to the top players being unavailable
for training/knackered, his team are being billed as 2nd favourites and
Grand Slam contenders on the back of a couple of half-decent
performances in November. And as always, the only decent odds are on
hedging against England winning which is at best a bittersweet
experience (did pay for a lot of sorrow-drowning last year though).
Sigh.



30 Jan 2006 03:37:56
Martyn Winters
Re: 6N odds


Rookie wrote:
> Rob Stradling wrote:
> > Martyn Winters wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Oh well, you know what they say... the bookies never get it wrong.
> > > Except last year, that is.
> > >
> >
> > Well of course they can't, because by definition, you can't be "wrong"
> > by giving odds on a one-off event. You can be unwise, but not wrong. If
> > you give 100-1 against a Wales GS, and they get one, you can say it was
> > a 100-1 shot that came off. You didn't say it was impossible. That would
> > be infinity-to-one, and I've never seen a bookie offer that!
> >
> > How many more people will have a punt on England than Wales? If it's
> > proportional to population and reliant on patriotism, then there should
> > be approximately 10-12 times as many. So the bookies are actually saying
> > "We will pay =A3X *in total* for a GS", while privately estimating the
> > chances of either side getting one as pretty similar.
>
> Meaning that a Welsh supporter simultaneously gets bragging rights for
> winning last years championship, can claim underdog status for this
> year and get decent odds on his own team. Whereas an Englishman finds
> that despite their woeful performance last year, a number of injuries,
> ongoing club-country feuds leading to the top players being unavailable
> for training/knackered, his team are being billed as 2nd favourites and
> Grand Slam contenders on the back of a couple of half-decent
> performances in November. And as always, the only decent odds are on
> hedging against England winning which is at best a bittersweet
> experience (did pay for a lot of sorrow-drowning last year though).
> Sigh.

Cuckoo. Sounds like the first excuse of spring to me. ;-)



30 Jan 2006 11:44:35
Sean Byrne
Re: 6N odds

Rookie wrote:
> Rob Stradling wrote:
>
>>Martyn Winters wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Oh well, you know what they say... the bookies never get it wrong.
>>>Except last year, that is.
>>>
>>
>>Well of course they can't, because by definition, you can't be "wrong"
>>by giving odds on a one-off event. You can be unwise, but not wrong. If
>>you give 100-1 against a Wales GS, and they get one, you can say it was
>>a 100-1 shot that came off. You didn't say it was impossible. That would
>>be infinity-to-one, and I've never seen a bookie offer that!
>>
>>How many more people will have a punt on England than Wales? If it's
>>proportional to population and reliant on patriotism, then there should
>>be approximately 10-12 times as many. So the bookies are actually saying
>>"We will pay X *in total* for a GS", while privately estimating the
>>chances of either side getting one as pretty similar.
>
>
> Meaning that a Welsh supporter simultaneously gets bragging rights for
> winning last years championship, can claim underdog status for this
> year and get decent odds on his own team. Whereas an Englishman finds
> that despite their woeful performance last year, a number of injuries,
> ongoing club-country feuds leading to the top players being unavailable
> for training/knackered, his team are being billed as 2nd favourites and
> Grand Slam contenders on the back of a couple of half-decent
> performances in November. And as always, the only decent odds are on
> hedging against England winning which is at best a bittersweet
> experience (did pay for a lot of sorrow-drowning last year though).
> Sigh.

You don't think England are second favourites?

Later,
Sean


30 Jan 2006 04:45:33
Rookie
Re: 6N odds


Sean Byrne wrote:
> Rookie wrote:
> > Rob Stradling wrote:
> >
> >>Martyn Winters wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Oh well, you know what they say... the bookies never get it wrong.
> >>>Except last year, that is.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Well of course they can't, because by definition, you can't be "wrong"
> >>by giving odds on a one-off event. You can be unwise, but not wrong. If
> >>you give 100-1 against a Wales GS, and they get one, you can say it was
> >>a 100-1 shot that came off. You didn't say it was impossible. That would
> >>be infinity-to-one, and I've never seen a bookie offer that!
> >>
> >>How many more people will have a punt on England than Wales? If it's
> >>proportional to population and reliant on patriotism, then there should
> >>be approximately 10-12 times as many. So the bookies are actually saying
> >>"We will pay =A3X *in total* for a GS", while privately estimating the
> >>chances of either side getting one as pretty similar.
> >
> >
> > Meaning that a Welsh supporter simultaneously gets bragging rights for
> > winning last years championship, can claim underdog status for this
> > year and get decent odds on his own team. Whereas an Englishman finds
> > that despite their woeful performance last year, a number of injuries,
> > ongoing club-country feuds leading to the top players being unavailable
> > for training/knackered, his team are being billed as 2nd favourites and
> > Grand Slam contenders on the back of a couple of half-decent
> > performances in November. And as always, the only decent odds are on
> > hedging against England winning which is at best a bittersweet
> > experience (did pay for a lot of sorrow-drowning last year though).
> > Sigh.
>
> You don't think England are second favourites?
>
> Later,
> Sean

Maybe, but nowhere near as strongly as the odds suggest. If you want
to be bullish, they look great up front, Hodgson's found his feet,
they've got a solid defence, some great wingers, and all they need to
do is find a centre pairing that can get the ball out to those wingers
with a bit of space and the Grand Slam's there for the taking.

On the realistic side what's different from last year? Mostly the same
personnel, last year they also clocked one decent win (SA) and one
narrow loss (Aus) in the autumn internationals. In the 6N they
dominated possession and territory, had one of the tightest defences
and had a top class back 3, but they lost 3 games. The only real
difference is that they're perceived to have turned the corner and
regained that mental toughness. I hope they have. But all it takes is
for Hodgson to get the kicking jitters again (maybe on an icy day in
Murrayfield?) or get injured (don't forget that pre-2003 he was more
fragile than Wilkinson) and it could all go pear-shaped. The biggest
thing in their favour is having Wales and Ireland at home to be honest.



30 Jan 2006 05:07:26
simon s-b
Re: 6N odds


Rookie wrote:
> Sean Byrne wrote:
> > Rookie wrote:
> > > Rob Stradling wrote:
> > >
> > >>Martyn Winters wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>Oh well, you know what they say... the bookies never get it wrong.
> > >>>Except last year, that is.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>Well of course they can't, because by definition, you can't be "wrong"
> > >>by giving odds on a one-off event. You can be unwise, but not wrong. =
If
> > >>you give 100-1 against a Wales GS, and they get one, you can say it w=
as
> > >>a 100-1 shot that came off. You didn't say it was impossible. That wo=
uld
> > >>be infinity-to-one, and I've never seen a bookie offer that!
> > >>
> > >>How many more people will have a punt on England than Wales? If it's
> > >>proportional to population and reliant on patriotism, then there shou=
ld
> > >>be approximately 10-12 times as many. So the bookies are actually say=
ing
> > >>"We will pay =A3X *in total* for a GS", while privately estimating the
> > >>chances of either side getting one as pretty similar.
> > >
> > >
> > > Meaning that a Welsh supporter simultaneously gets bragging rights for
> > > winning last years championship, can claim underdog status for this
> > > year and get decent odds on his own team. Whereas an Englishman finds
> > > that despite their woeful performance last year, a number of injuries,
> > > ongoing club-country feuds leading to the top players being unavailab=
le
> > > for training/knackered, his team are being billed as 2nd favourites a=
nd
> > > Grand Slam contenders on the back of a couple of half-decent
> > > performances in November. And as always, the only decent odds are on
> > > hedging against England winning which is at best a bittersweet
> > > experience (did pay for a lot of sorrow-drowning last year though).
> > > Sigh.
> >
> > You don't think England are second favourites?
> >
> > Later,
> > Sean
>
> Maybe, but nowhere near as strongly as the odds suggest. If you want
> to be bullish, they look great up front, Hodgson's found his feet,
> they've got a solid defence, some great wingers, and all they need to
> do is find a centre pairing that can get the ball out to those wingers
> with a bit of space and the Grand Slam's there for the taking.
>
> On the realistic side what's different from last year? Mostly the same
> personnel, last year they also clocked one decent win (SA) and one
> narrow loss (Aus) in the autumn internationals. In the 6N they
> dominated possession and territory, had one of the tightest defences
> and had a top class back 3, but they lost 3 games. The only real
> difference is that they're perceived to have turned the corner and
> regained that mental toughness. I hope they have. But all it takes is
> for Hodgson to get the kicking jitters again (maybe on an icy day in
> Murrayfield?) or get injured (don't forget that pre-2003 he was more
> fragile than Wilkinson) and it could all go pear-shaped. The biggest
> thing in their favour is having Wales and Ireland at home to be honest.

Personally I'd swap Wales and Ireland at Home for France at home - then
they'd be worth a bet.



30 Jan 2006 13:09:12
didgerman
Re: 6N odds

Martyn Winters wrote:
> simon s-b wrote:
>> http://www.oddschecker.com/betting/mode/c/card/rugbyunion-sixnations/scard/8642
>>
>> Grand Slam
>> No Winner (6/4), France (7/4), England (4/1), Wales (40/1), Scotland
>> (300/1), Italy (2500/1)
>>
>> Triple Crown
>> England (4/6), No Winner (4/1), Ireland (9/1), Wales (10/1), Scotland
>> (50/1)
>>
>> Highest Scoring Team
>> Ireland (1/100), France (4/5), England (2/1)
>>
>> Top Try Scorer
>> Cueto M (8/1), Dominici C (8/1), Heymans C (8/1)
>>
>> Wooden Spoon
>> Italy (1/2), Scotland (2/1), Wales (12/1)
>>
>> I see Jonathon Davies only tipping Wales to win 2 - shame on him. Most
>> pundits are going for a France GS, but the odds are hardly worth a
>> punt. It'd have to be made into a double with one of the other options.
>
>
> Oh well, you know what they say... the bookies never get it wrong.
> Except last year, that is.
>

Muhahaha, and boy did they pay for that one.
I put a whole on Wales......


30 Jan 2006 05:49:51
Martyn Winters
Re: 6N odds


didgerman wrote:
> Martyn Winters wrote:
> > simon s-b wrote:
> >> http://www.oddschecker.com/betting/mode/c/card/rugbyunion-sixnations/s=
card/8642
> >>
> >> Grand Slam
> >> No Winner (6/4), France (7/4), England (4/1), Wales (40/1), Scotland
> >> (300/1), Italy (2500/1)
> >>
> >> Triple Crown
> >> England (4/6), No Winner (4/1), Ireland (9/1), Wales (10/1), Scotland
> >> (50/1)
> >>
> >> Highest Scoring Team
> >> Ireland (1/100), France (4/5), England (2/1)
> >>
> >> Top Try Scorer
> >> Cueto M (8/1), Dominici C (8/1), Heymans C (8/1)
> >>
> >> Wooden Spoon
> >> Italy (1/2), Scotland (2/1), Wales (12/1)
> >>
> >> I see Jonathon Davies only tipping Wales to win 2 - shame on him. Most
> >> pundits are going for a France GS, but the odds are hardly worth a
> >> punt. It'd have to be made into a double with one of the other options.
> >
> >
> > Oh well, you know what they say... the bookies never get it wrong.
> > Except last year, that is.
> >
>
> Muhahaha, and boy did they pay for that one.
> I put a whole =A3 on Wales......

Having just seen your 27, 10/1 for the Triple looks like it could be
worth a tenner.



31 Jan 2006 07:53:41
Uncle Bully
Re: 6N odds


"Martyn Winters" <ukhamlet@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1138620663.398540.179380@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Rob Stradling wrote:
> Martyn Winters wrote:
>
>
> > Oh well, you know what they say... the bookies never get it wrong.
> > Except last year, that is.
> >
>
> Well of course they can't, because by definition, you can't be "wrong"
> by giving odds on a one-off event. You can be unwise, but not wrong. If
> you give 100-1 against a Wales GS, and they get one, you can say it was
> a 100-1 shot that came off. You didn't say it was impossible. That would
> be infinity-to-one, and I've never seen a bookie offer that!
>
> How many more people will have a punt on England than Wales? If it's
> proportional to population and reliant on patriotism, then there should
> be approximately 10-12 times as many. So the bookies are actually saying
> "We will pay X *in total* for a GS", while privately estimating the
> chances of either side getting one as pretty similar.

Not being a gambling man I'm entirely grateful for the explanation of
the mechanics. In idiomatic terms, they can, however, "get it wrong",
in the same way that Andy Robinson can get his team selection wrong.


It's not getting it 'wrong' as such because bookies are offering odds to
ensure they come out ahead financially, not to try and guess who wins for
bragging rights.







31 Jan 2006 08:02:24
Uncle Bully
Re: 6N odds


> On the realistic side what's different from last year? Mostly the same
> personnel, last year they also clocked one decent win (SA) and one
> narrow loss (Aus) in the autumn internationals. In the 6N they
> dominated possession and territory, had one of the tightest defences
> and had a top class back 3, but they lost 3 games. The only real
> difference is that they're perceived to have turned the corner and
> regained that mental toughness. I hope they have. But all it takes is
> for Hodgson to get the kicking jitters again (maybe on an icy day in
> Murrayfield?) or get injured (don't forget that pre-2003 he was more
> fragile than Wilkinson) and it could all go pear-shaped. The biggest
> thing in their favour is having Wales and Ireland at home to be honest.

Personally I'd swap Wales and Ireland at Home for France at home - then
they'd be worth a bet.

Which pretty much sums up the 6N. How often is the 6N won by a team that has
won the big games away?
Just a suggestion, but would the comp be better split into two divisions?
Say England, Ireland, France, Wales in Div 1 playing both home and away,
then Scotland and Italy can join Romainia and Spain (or someother teams?) in
a second division.
Does the 6N really benefit from having perrenial wooden spooners Italy and
Scotland in the mix?








30 Jan 2006 14:35:22
Martyn Winters
Re: 6N odds


Uncle Bully wrote:
> > On the realistic side what's different from last year? Mostly the same
> > personnel, last year they also clocked one decent win (SA) and one
> > narrow loss (Aus) in the autumn internationals. In the 6N they
> > dominated possession and territory, had one of the tightest defences
> > and had a top class back 3, but they lost 3 games. The only real
> > difference is that they're perceived to have turned the corner and
> > regained that mental toughness. I hope they have. But all it takes is
> > for Hodgson to get the kicking jitters again (maybe on an icy day in
> > Murrayfield?) or get injured (don't forget that pre-2003 he was more
> > fragile than Wilkinson) and it could all go pear-shaped. The biggest
> > thing in their favour is having Wales and Ireland at home to be honest.
>
> Personally I'd swap Wales and Ireland at Home for France at home - then
> they'd be worth a bet.
>
> Which pretty much sums up the 6N. How often is the 6N won by a team that has
> won the big games away?
> Just a suggestion, but would the comp be better split into two divisions?
> Say England, Ireland, France, Wales in Div 1 playing both home and away,
> then Scotland and Italy can join Romainia and Spain (or someother teams?) in
> a second division.
> Does the 6N really benefit from having perrenial wooden spooners Italy and
> Scotland in the mix?

What a load of patronising tosh. No, make that bollocks.



30 Jan 2006 15:20:36
Rookie
Re: 6N odds


Martyn Winters wrote:
> Uncle Bully wrote:
> > > On the realistic side what's different from last year? Mostly the same
> > > personnel, last year they also clocked one decent win (SA) and one
> > > narrow loss (Aus) in the autumn internationals. In the 6N they
> > > dominated possession and territory, had one of the tightest defences
> > > and had a top class back 3, but they lost 3 games. The only real
> > > difference is that they're perceived to have turned the corner and
> > > regained that mental toughness. I hope they have. But all it takes is
> > > for Hodgson to get the kicking jitters again (maybe on an icy day in
> > > Murrayfield?) or get injured (don't forget that pre-2003 he was more
> > > fragile than Wilkinson) and it could all go pear-shaped. The biggest
> > > thing in their favour is having Wales and Ireland at home to be honest.
> >
> > Personally I'd swap Wales and Ireland at Home for France at home - then
> > they'd be worth a bet.
> >
> > Which pretty much sums up the 6N. How often is the 6N won by a team that has
> > won the big games away?
> > Just a suggestion, but would the comp be better split into two divisions?
> > Say England, Ireland, France, Wales in Div 1 playing both home and away,
> > then Scotland and Italy can join Romainia and Spain (or someother teams?) in
> > a second division.
> > Does the 6N really benefit from having perrenial wooden spooners Italy and
> > Scotland in the mix?
>
> What a load of patronising tosh. No, make that bollocks.

Bit harsh! Will never happen because of the history of the Triple
Crown/5N/6N but if you were structuring a European international
competition from scratch there could be worse ideas. Italy don't seem
to be benefiting much from being in the 6N and the other European rugby
nations would certainly benefit from participating in a higher profile
competition.



31 Jan 2006 08:44:00
Walter Mitty
Re: 6N odds

"Rob" risked the wrath of Usenet weenies mastering
mommies computer when he ventured forth on 2006-01-30, commmitted
his life to the whims of Google, and spluttered:

> Martyn Winters wrote:
>
>
>> Oh well, you know what they say... the bookies never get it wrong.
>> Except last year, that is.
>>
>
> Well of course they can't, because by definition, you can't be "wrong"
> by giving odds on a one-off event. You can be unwise, but not wrong. If
> you give 100-1 against a Wales GS, and they get one, you can say it was
> a 100-1 shot that came off. You didn't say it was impossible. That would
> be infinity-to-one, and I've never seen a bookie offer that!
>

Of course they can be wrong. If they give the wrong odds then they
have made a mistake. Making a mistake is being wrong. The fact that
they offer alternative odds to balance the books doesnt make them any
the less wrong in this non binary world we live in


31 Jan 2006 00:54:21
Rookie
Re: 6N odds


Walter Mitty wrote:
> "Rob" risked the wrath of Usenet weenies mastering
> mommies computer when he ventured forth on 2006-01-30, commmitted
> his life to the whims of Google, and spluttered:
>
> > Martyn Winters wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Oh well, you know what they say... the bookies never get it wrong.
> >> Except last year, that is.
> >>
> >
> > Well of course they can't, because by definition, you can't be "wrong"
> > by giving odds on a one-off event. You can be unwise, but not wrong. If
> > you give 100-1 against a Wales GS, and they get one, you can say it was
> > a 100-1 shot that came off. You didn't say it was impossible. That would
> > be infinity-to-one, and I've never seen a bookie offer that!
> >
>
> Of course they can be wrong. If they give the wrong odds then they
> have made a mistake. Making a mistake is being wrong. The fact that
> they offer alternative odds to balance the books doesnt make them any
> the less wrong in this non binary world we live in

Define 'wrong odds'.



31 Jan 2006 01:14:27
simon s-b
Re: 6N odds


Uncle Bully wrote:
> > On the realistic side what's different from last year? Mostly the same
> > personnel, last year they also clocked one decent win (SA) and one
> > narrow loss (Aus) in the autumn internationals. In the 6N they
> > dominated possession and territory, had one of the tightest defences
> > and had a top class back 3, but they lost 3 games. The only real
> > difference is that they're perceived to have turned the corner and
> > regained that mental toughness. I hope they have. But all it takes is
> > for Hodgson to get the kicking jitters again (maybe on an icy day in
> > Murrayfield?) or get injured (don't forget that pre-2003 he was more
> > fragile than Wilkinson) and it could all go pear-shaped. The biggest
> > thing in their favour is having Wales and Ireland at home to be honest.
>
> Personally I'd swap Wales and Ireland at Home for France at home - then
> they'd be worth a bet.
>
> Which pretty much sums up the 6N. How often is the 6N won by a team that has
> won the big games away?
> Just a suggestion, but would the comp be better split into two divisions?
> Say England, Ireland, France, Wales in Div 1 playing both home and away,
> then Scotland and Italy can join Romainia and Spain (or someother teams?) in
> a second division.
> Does the 6N really benefit from having perrenial wooden spooners Italy and
> Scotland in the mix?

That's the thing though. It wasn't long ago that Scotland were a real
force, and Wales were the perennial wooden spooners. I admit it would
take a hell of a lot of changes to the game in Scotland to bring them
back (and some would probably soon say the same for Ireland), but two
tier will never happen.



31 Jan 2006 01:33:10
Rookie
Re: 6N odds


simon s-b wrote:
> Uncle Bully wrote:
> > > On the realistic side what's different from last year? Mostly the same
> > > personnel, last year they also clocked one decent win (SA) and one
> > > narrow loss (Aus) in the autumn internationals. In the 6N they
> > > dominated possession and territory, had one of the tightest defences
> > > and had a top class back 3, but they lost 3 games. The only real
> > > difference is that they're perceived to have turned the corner and
> > > regained that mental toughness. I hope they have. But all it takes is
> > > for Hodgson to get the kicking jitters again (maybe on an icy day in
> > > Murrayfield?) or get injured (don't forget that pre-2003 he was more
> > > fragile than Wilkinson) and it could all go pear-shaped. The biggest
> > > thing in their favour is having Wales and Ireland at home to be honest.
> >
> > Personally I'd swap Wales and Ireland at Home for France at home - then
> > they'd be worth a bet.
> >
> > Which pretty much sums up the 6N. How often is the 6N won by a team that has
> > won the big games away?
> > Just a suggestion, but would the comp be better split into two divisions?
> > Say England, Ireland, France, Wales in Div 1 playing both home and away,
> > then Scotland and Italy can join Romainia and Spain (or someother teams?) in
> > a second division.
> > Does the 6N really benefit from having perrenial wooden spooners Italy and
> > Scotland in the mix?
>
> That's the thing though. It wasn't long ago that Scotland were a real
> force, and Wales were the perennial wooden spooners. I admit it would
> take a hell of a lot of changes to the game in Scotland to bring them
> back (and some would probably soon say the same for Ireland), but two
> tier will never happen.

Play-off between Div 1 wooden spooners and Div 2 champions?



31 Jan 2006 09:50:59
Bully
Re: 6N odds

Walter Mitty wrote:
> "Rob" risked the wrath of Usenet weenies mastering
> mommies computer when he ventured forth on 2006-01-30, commmitted
> his life to the whims of Google, and spluttered:
>
>> Martyn Winters wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Oh well, you know what they say... the bookies never get it wrong.
>>> Except last year, that is.
>>>
>>
>> Well of course they can't, because by definition, you can't be
>> "wrong" by giving odds on a one-off event. You can be unwise, but
>> not wrong. If you give 100-1 against a Wales GS, and they get one,
>> you can say it was a 100-1 shot that came off. You didn't say it was
>> impossible. That would be infinity-to-one, and I've never seen a
>> bookie offer that!
>>
>
> Of course they can be wrong. If they give the wrong odds then they
> have made a mistake. Making a mistake is being wrong. The fact that
> they offer alternative odds to balance the books doesnt make them any
> the less wrong in this non binary world we live in

There are 10 types of people; those who understand binary and those who
don't :) !

--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk
Supps: http://www.myprotein.co.uk- 5% off with my discount code MP4858

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss




31 Jan 2006 11:01:46
Walter Mitty
Re: 6N odds

"Rookie" risked the wrath of Usenet weenies mastering
mommies computer when he ventured forth on 2006-01-31, commmitted
his life to the whims of Google, and spluttered:

>
> Walter Mitty wrote:
>> "Rob" risked the wrath of Usenet weenies mastering
>> mommies computer when he ventured forth on 2006-01-30, commmitted
>> his life to the whims of Google, and spluttered:
>>
>> > Martyn Winters wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> Oh well, you know what they say... the bookies never get it wrong.
>> >> Except last year, that is.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Well of course they can't, because by definition, you can't be "wrong"
>> > by giving odds on a one-off event. You can be unwise, but not wrong. If
>> > you give 100-1 against a Wales GS, and they get one, you can say it was
>> > a 100-1 shot that came off. You didn't say it was impossible. That would
>> > be infinity-to-one, and I've never seen a bookie offer that!
>> >
>>
>> Of course they can be wrong. If they give the wrong odds then they
>> have made a mistake. Making a mistake is being wrong. The fact that
>> they offer alternative odds to balance the books doesnt make them any
>> the less wrong in this non binary world we live in
>
> Define 'wrong odds'.
>

The fact that you're anal enough to ask me to do this suggests I'm no
a no-win path here.

Work it out for yourself taking into account that big money put on
"long shots" can really hurt a bookie that hasnt palmed it off to
balance the books.


--
Snow White's dwarfs become gnomes
-- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/4349726.stm
The world has gone mad.


31 Jan 2006 03:58:02
Hognoxious
Re: 6N odds

"Uncle Bully" <wakeupcall@optushome.com.au.Remove > wrote in message
news:43de7ee1$0$10626$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

> Just a suggestion, but would the comp be better split into two divisions?
> Say England, Ireland, France, Wales in Div 1 playing both home and away,
> then Scotland and Italy can join Romainia and Spain (or someother teams?)
> in a second division.

There already is (or used to be) a second division, and a third. Think
they're called something like European plate & sheild, or something. If
there's a fourth that's the teacup.