The event space in practice
In the chapter “How does a quota come into being” I prepared you a little for how the event spaces, which are so wonderful for mathematicians, can look in practice. Here I have now collected a few examples. Perhaps after reading them you can smile with me about the “ideal world of mathematicians”?
- Mike Kitsos
The following little story took place at an advanced hour in a well-known gamblers’ pub: the protagonists suddenly had the idea of making a single game for 1000 DM. But it was supposed to be a fair game. It was a kind of test of courage. Like this: “I don’t think you dare bet 1000 DM at once.” “Of course I dare.” Kindergarten. But it came to pass. Both put 1000 DM on the table, a dice was brought in, a referee, one took the even numbers, the other the odd ones. Now don’t say that wasn’t spectacular. The referee threw, the dice rolled, across the floor, tension, tension, and then: it rolled under the radiator. What now? Does the number on top count? No one could see it, but discussions were about to take place. Luckily there was a referee, replay, Mike won. The smart guy had just taken it!
- Liverpool – Cologne
Here’s another nice example of how heroes are born and stars burn up?! I even had the opportunity to see pictures of this memorable event recently. It was at a time when there were no substitutions. And as a child I had heard the legend that Wolfgang Weber played on at that time with a broken shin. But in the pictures you could see that he was actually only standing and if he was, then he was only limping two steps forward or back. Nevertheless, for me he remains a hero, and the most endearing ones are the tragic ones, aren’t they? So it was in the quarter-final match between 1.FC Köln and Liverpool, European Champion Clubs’ Cup 1964/65. After the first and second legs, the score was still a draw, both games ended 0:0. There was no extra time then. There was a replay. The replay, including the little incident described above, ended 2-2, and after extra time it was still 2-2. However, apart from no substitutions, there was no penalty shoot-out at that time. How was the winner determined? Immediately after the game, a coin was tossed, at the centre circle. The ground was completely ploughed. The referee threw the coin, it actually landed on the edge, stuck like that! But maybe it was tilted? Cologne’s side up? It can’t have been completely vertical. We would have needed Micha now, he would have won with his popular game suggestion “heads or tails, I’ll take the edge”!
But I don’t know of any protests, the throw was repeated – Liverpool won. Fate? Meaningless? Even if so, but at least entertaining? Oh, please.
Incidentally, it was the only time internationally that a coin toss was required. And at least the particular cruelty of this event has led FIFA to introduce a slightly less cruel method of determining the winner.
- Olympiakos – Paris St.Germain
Well, that was another story. European Cup. I had bet on Paris St.Germain to win the game. The score was 0:2 and it was the 90th minute. It was the second leg and Paris were through at that score. So the money was safe. And what happened? Suddenly, spectators stormed the field. The referee, instead of just blowing the whistle, stopped the game! UEFA’s decision was made the very next day: Paris had won 3-0 instead of 2-0. But I hadn’t won the money.
Every operator has its rules. In this case, these rules are quite clear, at least for football matches. If the bet is cancelled, it is neither lost nor won. You get a 1.0 as a substitute odds, so you get your money back. In the case of combined bets, the game would also be correct, but with odds of 1.0. That doesn’t change anything in the multiplication. It’s like a match cancellation.
But it was still cruel. So close to shopping. Sure money.
Where had the mathematicians run off to now? Where the beloved event space where there is only 1-X-2?
Of course, theoretically one could also have been on the right side. But you’ll have to go and buy the book by the Olympiakos fan.
I said “pretty clear” above. There was also a small exception here…
- sawed off floodlight masts
This headline will surely be censored. And I won’t mention the name of the man who had the idea. But in any case, it was a well-known gambler at the time who could also tell a vivid story.
So he had the following suggestion: You bet a game very high. Now, after the bet is placed, there are two possibilities of how the bet will go: The team actually gets on the winning track. Or it doesn’t. In the latter case, his suggestion came into play: “If it’s a draw or they’re behind, they’ll just saw off the floodlight pole.”
One would get one’s money back in case of need. So there would be two possibilities: Win or draw. Those are some nice bets, aren’t they?
Is there really such a thing as secret writing, where what you read deletes itself immediately afterwards? If not, I’m working on a suitable procedure…
Well, as far as I know, the person in question didn’t use this procedure. At least I haven’t heard of any floodlight masts collapsing so far.
But there was indeed a similar story once, but it didn’t attract too much attention in the media here. It was the case that English betting companies had a rule that a score was counted when the game reached the second half. So match abandonments in the first half: same rules as above. Match abandonment in the second half: The score at abandonment is taken into account for the settlement of bets.
Now, one should be careful with unproven accusations. But nevertheless it happened a few times that in English matches the floodlights suddenly went out in the second half. There was a noticeable accumulation of these cases And there were also plenty of suspicions. There was talk of the “Malaysian betting mafia”. Of course, I didn’t say that.
The rules were changed. Probably also the monitoring of the floodlights….
- Leeds – Stuttgart
Who doesn’t remember? The famous change mistake and the end of Christoph Daum as Stuttgart coach? Did you just sign up? Doesn’t help you. I’ll tell you anyway.
The fact was that Stuttgart had become champions in 1992 under curious circumstances (Frankfurt didn’t get a penalty in Rostock and Buchwald headed the winning goal in the 86th in Leverkusen). And there was still a Champions League qualifying round at the time. Stuttgart had to play Leeds, the English champions. A very difficult draw. But Stuttgart sensationally won the first leg at home 3:0.
The second leg seemed to be a formality. But it was close. Stuttgart scored the away goal, but Leeds didn’t let up. They even managed to score 4:1, but that would not have been enough to advance. There is the away goals rule (to this day), which in the case of a tie, decides in favour of the team that has scored more away goals. But Daum made another substitution, probably to gain time. And he substituted a fourth foreigner!
The whistle was blown at 4:1. But the English noticed the mistake and immediately lodged a protest.
But now it’s getting really exciting, in two respects: I personally had taken a bet, even before the first leg, on Stuttgart advancing. What is to be done with this bet now? Have you just thought about it yourself? Well, I do now. I don’t have an answer, quite honestly I don’t. And what’s even more curious is that I actually don’t even remember how I decided at the time. There was no set of rules or anything anyway. You had to agree. And we did agree. But how, I don’t remember and I can’t deduce it.
So now I have to take up the work again and (pretend to) think. The score will, of course, count for all bets. After all, the game was not abandoned but ended “regularly”. Well, whoever had Leeds win, got the money paid out. Whoever had a draw or Stuttgart had lost. But who had progressed? Yes, with the score Stuttgart, that’s true. But the result didn’t count, at least not for getting on.
Before I speculate further on how Salomon would have decided, I’ll first tell you how a modern Salomon decides. And that is UEFA. The decision, however, was in my opinion almost as bad as splitting a baby (stop it now, nobody does that): UEFA invoked a clause that is written in some rules and was also used earlier in the example: They rated the match 3:0 for Leeds!
Sure, this solution is universal and perfect, applicable to everything. After the decision had been made, the officials looked at the first leg result with an open mind. And what did they find? Well, lo and behold, the first leg had also ended 3-0! What a coincidence. What’s the matter now? Oh, we have a tie. What do you do if the score is tied? They couldn’t find the paragraph (extra time, coin toss, penalty shoot-out?). So a deciding match was called on neutral ground, in Barcelona. Leeds won the game 2-1, Stuttgart were out.
But how do you like the UEFA decision? What if Stuttgart had won the first leg 4-0? Impudent, such questions?
Well, I certainly didn’t pay out the bet. But whether I paid back the money or kept it, I can no longer determine. But knowing me, I simply paid it back. Weighted with odds of 1.0. Would that also correspond to your understanding of justice?
6 Bayern Munich – Nuremberg
This game is legendary only in that I still wonder what Bayern were thinking when they scored the goal? I already understand the term “factual decision”. But in this case there was a fact and a decision. The fact was that the ball was not in. The decision was this: Goal.
Thomas Helmer also slapped his hands over his face at the first moment because of the size of the missed chance. Everyone in the stadium and everyone on the screen knew, even without being able to judge whether the ball had crossed the line in full (in this case it was neither full nor half nor any other circumference: the ball went next to the goal), that the ball could not possibly have been in. You can feel that in the reaction of the players.
One could also ask a number of other people involved, such as the referees and the assistants, or at least puzzle over their feelings during and after the decision. Or think about decision-making in Germany in general. Or who came up with the idea that the referee must decide and then stick to the decision under all circumstances. But all such considerations don’t really belong here.
I just wonder how the betting offices reacted. I don’t know anything about that. Certainly, the bets on Bayern winning were paid out. Because Bayern “won” 2-1 with the help of this goal. But it is curious in any case. Because there was a very special exception here: the game was replayed. And after Bayern won the replay 5:0, at least the standings and other teams were not influenced or affected. Maybe otherwise the whole season would have had to be replayed?
- Robbie Fowler and Leicester City
In contrast to the example above, I’ve pulled out two others. And please don’t say it’s coincidence or premeditation on my part that they are both examples from England. There is still such a thing as fair play, and it is guaranteed not to be a coincidence that it is an English word.
Robbie Fowler, or rather his team, Liverpool FC, was once awarded a penalty. The game was far from decided. Robbie Fowler was of the opinion that the penalty was not justified. He even tried to convince the referee to reverse his opinion. The referee did as he was told, following FIFA’s instruction: never reverse a decision even if you know full well that it was wrong.
Robbie Fowler then expressed his understanding of fair play in such a way: he shot the penalty so weakly that the goalkeeper had no trouble parrying it. Small problem with his form of “vigilante justice”: his teammate Jason McAteer knew nothing about it and brought the rebound over the line. Well… As an Englishman, I would now have said, “No harm done.”
When Leicester City played Nottingham Forest in the League Cup in 2008, this is what happened: The game went into half-time at 1-0 to Nottingham Forest. There, Leicester City player Clive Clark collapsed with a heart attack. He was immediately given medical attention and taken to hospital. The Leicester City players were in shock. They felt unable to continue playing. The managers of the two clubs agreed to abandon the game and jointly told the crowd so, fifteen minutes after the normal end of the half-time interval.
The Football Association had no other passage in its rules than that abandoned matches would be rescheduled. So it happened the following Tuesday. Clive Clark, meanwhile, was also feeling better, he was out of the woods and from quotes it was clear that he was extremely grateful. One here: “…it goes without saying, that a day wont pass, that I cherish every moment in my life.” …it goes without saying, that a day will not pass, that I cherish every moment in my life”.
Tuesday came. Little Pauli, Olle Icke, in complete ignorance of what was happening, placed a bet on the game, blindly trusting the recommendations of his computer, on Leicester City. The game started. I could only follow it via the internet results page. After one minute, it was 1-0 to Nottingham Forest. I found out a little later what had happened: from the kick-off, the Nottingham Forest goalkeeper, Paul Smith, made an unimpeded dribble towards the Leicester City goal and was able to put the ball in just as unimpeded.
A great gesture of fair play. Totally appropriate to the occasion and the circumstances of the match being abandoned. The only thing is: neither I nor obviously the greater part of the betting public (I’m starting to joke again: I meant world) had known anything about it beforehand. If the planning of the action had been known, it would certainly have been seen in the price developments before the game.
The game then continued as normal. And Leicester City did indeed win 2-1. The winner was: football, as everyone agreed afterwards; and a little ignoramus….
Would this section perhaps have found a better place in the chapter “Philosophy of Happiness”?
- HSV – Nuremberg
Now this is really a very old but equally curious example of the early days of exits that were not foreseen in the event space.
If you leaf through the annals of German football today, paying particular attention to the German champions, you may notice (or already have) that there is no German football champion in 1922.
The reason for this is this: The rules were still somewhat different in those years than they are today. You simply have to have certain experiences. You cannot foresee all possible “outcomes”.
The rules: No substitutions were allowed. In case of a draw, there was extra time. This extra time was played until a decisive goal was scored, and the whole thing was played without a time limit. So the so-called “golden goal” already existed in almost ancient times. But the Anglicisms were probably not as sparkling.
In this final, the score was 2:2 after 90 minutes. Extra time. Neither team wanted to score a goal. The time of the game was advancing. But so did the time of day. And although it is the longest day on 22 June in our latitudes, it also comes to an end at some point. As a rule, the end of the day becomes noticeable with a reduction in natural light. Floodlights in 1922? Not a thought. The referee made the only decision possible under the circumstances: abandonment of the game, after 3 hours 9 minutes, because of darkness!
Well, there was still the possibility of replaying such a game. After all, at that time that still meant quite a considerable effort. The players were certainly not yet professionals and had jobs elsewhere. A journey by train and all the other things that go with it. But the final is the final. It has to be repeated.
New date: 9 August. To be on the safe side, an earlier kick-off time was chosen. This time 4 p.m. Surely that’s not…
But this game also ended 1-1. Extra time began. No goal for either team. But Nuremberg players got injured. One after the other had to leave the pitch. When there were only 7 players left and the game was still 1-1, the referee saw sense: He blew the whistle.
There is simply no German champion in 1922. Is that sooooo bad?
- tennis, match abandonment, Peter Wette at Schwechat on diPasquale
The topic of tennis betting is really a tiresome one, as I’m sure every bookmaker and betting provider can confirm. I almost have the impression that tennis is destroying itself through betting.
The providers often have different and constantly changing rules. I would like to explain why this is so with a few examples: What do you do when a player retires? Now obviously there are several perspectives on this. You can be on the right side or on the wrong side. That applies to both the provider and the player, bettor. Either you have the player who has given up or you have the winner. Of course, both sides would now prefer to “profit”. The one side that lost would prefer not to pay out or to have the money back. The side that won would like to keep the money or have it paid out.
Now, there is usually a reason for a forfeit. So it may be that the player went into the game already injured or suffered an injury during the game. Furthermore, and unfortunately this is a very important reason, you cannot check the severity of an injury. So a player can give up arbitrarily. No one could prove to him that he could still have continued playing. The consequence of this is obviously that it is hardly easier to gain an advantage as a participant, as a tennis player and a bettor at the same time.
So how do providers react to something like this? Let us consider the cases that can occur: A provider has accepted high bets on a player who is playing against a player who is slightly injured. The provider, however, knew nothing about this. The two players play the match absolutely honestly. The supplier follows the match. He sees that “his man” has no chance because of the injury. He loses the first set 2:6. The second set begins. His man immediately gives up the first service game, obviously the hitting arm is injured. At 2:6, 0:2, he gives up. No chance paired with pain.
The provider does not want to pay the bet. He had no chance, loses essentially because of the injury. From that day on, he writes in his rules: “In case of surrender, the following applies to all sides: The odds are 1.0. The money is paid back. No one wins, no one loses.”
In the next tournament, he again accepts large sums on a player. He watches the match live. His man is on the winning track from the first rally. His opponent has no chance. At 6:3, 5:1, suddenly – what now? – the loser starts limping. He takes an injury break. The physio arrives and starts the treatment. After 5 minutes, the shocking news: he can’t play any more, he has to give up.
Now you have to pay back all the money you thought was safe. How would one feel now? Sure: This is theft!
As I said, such a scenario, in this or that form, can be experienced by anyone who takes part in the game of “tennis betting”. And who had a hand in it, and in what way, can be worked out either way. The only fact is: there was a big scandal in tennis. There were several big newspaper and television reports. And tennis has suffered enormously. Because practically every match you have to think: Is it being played honestly? Who has what intention?
But let’s stay on the subject for a moment: I had also included tennis in my programme, so I had developed a special tennis programme. I had also frequently played on bets for other people, with other bookmakers. But I had said in principle that I would always give 1.0 if a match ended in abandonment or abandonment. Then one evening I got a call. Arnaud DiPasquale had a match that night. I didn’t know the man yet. So I told the caller I could just play it on for him at Schwechat, an Austrian provider. The odds were 1.60. He agreed. I played DM 8,000 on DiPasquale for him at Schwechat.
The next morning I looked at the results: DiPasquale had given up! During our next conversation, my acquaintance said: “You said that you always gave back the money if you gave up. So he wanted his stake back. A quick call to Schwechat revealed, of course, that the rules at Schwechat were different. My DM 8,000 was lost.
The discussions in that case were that my caller did not agree. It did not concern him where I would play my bets for him. I would have told him my rules and he would get the money back. After all, after a while he was willing to pay DM 2000 of the damage.
What is actually the event space? One wins and one loses, yes?
- the long Lutz with Trabzonspor after the match
Not only did the long Lutz damage me so badly one time during my absolutely ridiculous and unsuccessful attempt to take bets myself to earn money, when he guessed all the Bundesliga games correctly on a Saturday and made about DM 9000 out of DM 120 (which I therefore had to finance), he also never bet again later. Not that I was particularly keen on that. But one could also theoristically assume that at some point “my time” would come and I would at least recapture parts. Lutz, however, always saved that as flax. Besides, he must have felt how lucky he was and thought it pointless to try to provoke it again.
Nevertheless, one day I got a call from him. It was about 3 pm. Lutz had received a betting slip from me. It was European Cup day. The first game that was to be kicked off according to my betting offer was a home game of Trabzonspor. 3pm kick-off. Lutz, who for weeks had not placed a single bet but instead always had only scorn and derision for me, and who could also boast to others about his sensational goal as an absolute football expert, wanted to place a bet on Trabzonspor. Well, I might otherwise have been a little sceptical about his choice of Trabzonspor, when Bayern Munich and Borussia Dortmund, Real Madrid or Manchester United were playing that evening, but I didn’t have to ask him or have him explain: I had just put on the video test myself and it showed that Trabzonspor had won the match 1:0. The kick-off was at 1 pm. What would have happened to the event room if I had accepted the bet?
- backgammon rules