1) The 1st Bundesliga
a. Review of the Matches
Results of the 2nd Matchday
- FC Nuremberg – Hannover 96 1:2 (0:2)
Hamburger SV – Hertha BSC 2:2 (1:1)
TSG Hoffenheim – Borussia Dortmund 1:0 (1:0)
SC Freiburg – FSV Mainz 05 1:2 (0:0)
FC Schalke 04 – 1. FC Cologne 5:1 (1:1)
VfL Wolfsburg – FC Bayern Munich 0:1 (0:0)
Borussia Mönchengladbach – VfB Stuttgart 1:1 (0:0)
- FC Kaiserslautern – FC Augsburg 1:1 (0:1)
Bayer Leverkusen – Werder Bremen 1:0 (0:0)
What falls under this heading should be left to the free associations of the author. Whether it is a single match that is examined more closely, a scene, a referee’s decision, a drama or a spectacle, whether it is more general considerations about football, no corset — neither for oneself nor for the reader — is to be put on here, here is free narration as once Günter Weise accompanied the weekly football week with his “Plauderei” or Karl-Heinz Heimann, who turned the spotlight in the “Kicker” for many years.
Today, in a completely different way than expected, we will first discuss Borussia Dortmund’s result. Well, the reader is sure to have already heard and read everything about it, since everyone talks about it. Citing the tiredness of Mario Götze, who is blamed for his weaker performance, and in general the much too early praise of Dortmund, and also their encounter with the usual Bayern phenomenon: now being the hunted and being the third and fourth “game of the year” for all opponents, in which they mobilise all their forces (and spectators!) to bring them to their knees, and so on and so forth and blah, blah, blah…..
Yes, this blah-blah is what is to be examined here. Alternatively, another basic thesis of the author is to be touched upon. This is as follows: Since Germany always and repeatedly becomes world champion (or at least gets far too far in all major tournaments in relation to their abilities), journalists start looking for justifications for this phenomenon, which is not to be recognised as luck. So they shy away from simply speaking the truth – which, by the way, they wouldn’t hear abroad because of the same timidity that goes like this: “We complain about their luck, and in the next tournament they’ll kick us out too. “; no, rather, abroad one wishes that this uncanny series will come to an end at some point – and to acknowledge this luck and instead goes in search of justifications for the superiority, calls it “the German virtues” and simply says “Germany is a tournament team” and is fine with that. One has an explanation that brings an inevitability to the matter. “We” are world champions because “we” are the best. This view is to be upheld, one has to relate it to that, so to speak. Otherwise, what would it sound like? “We are world champions because we were the luckiest.” So instead of the football world championship, you could also have a world championship of dice. Who would roll the most 6s in 1000 attempts? Well, the winner didn’t get much more than an initially envious but soon pitying smile. “Well, anything goes with luck, you, Gustav Gans.”
Well, as soon as you make friends with this thesis, it is easy to understand that in German football EVERY result is considered to be DESERVED. The aspect of luck and misfortune is simply ignored, which is quite recognised abroad. You don’t want to blame EVERYTHING on luck and bad luck (there), no, no. They just want to be able to distinguish: this victory was lucky, this victory was deserved. What would hurt about that? Above all, it is courageous to simply commit oneself to it. You deserved to win here. There were enough chances, you can’t guarantee that they’ll be used, the opponent took one of the few chances, that’s what happened. One man’s luck, another man’s bad luck.
What would one have to fear from such a presentation in this country? Well, you’d inevitably be a layman, that’s for sure, because you’ve at least overlooked the fact that poor finishing was responsible for it after all, which had already been denounced in other games before, you’ve forgotten that the opponent was “mercilessly effective” and, above all, you’ve forgotten the most important thing: “In football, it’s the goals that count.” Pretty much the platest of wisdoms and explicitly NOT coming from Sepp Herberger, whose insights all sprang from a higher – and still valid today, only almost forgotten – philosophy. “The goals count” is a German argument. Because: if you have played even so weakly, but still reached the next round again (which World Cup made it vividly? 1986?), you end up mocking the opponent, without any empathy: “What good was all your pretty play? We are in the final. It’s the goals that count.”
So what does all this have to do with Borussia Dortmund? Of course, yes, they lost the game. And afterwards, the (mostly self-appointed) experts explain to you that it could have happened this way and only this way. The inevitability is brought into the sequence of events after they have taken place. A great kind of analysis.
Here, alternatively, a completely different one is offered:
A week ago, a preview was offered in this text, which offered estimates of the match outcomes in probabilities. Now, the Dortmund team was given a 53.61% probability of winning – as you can read in the mathematical review of the 2nd match day further down in this text. Incidentally, this assessment was absolutely in line with the market.
Now the following questions arise: 1) Did Dortmund show a performance on the pitch that corresponds to this 53.61%? 2) Since 53.61% roughly corresponds to the probability of heads in a coin toss: could one expect heads EXCLUSIVELY, just because it stood out positively compared to the other two events, 1 and X?
The game itself was not watched live by the author here, so it is difficult to make a real judgement (which, by the way, would also apply to live viewing). What was seen in summaries? Sehad Salihovic converted a direct free kick in the 9th minute. He has done it many times before and standards are becoming more and more important in today’s (low-scoring) era. He has this sensational shooting technique, reminiscent of the almost legendary (at least in Yugoslavia and Italy) Sinisa Mihailovic, who to this day leads the statistics in Serie A in terms of directly converted free kicks.
Let’s be happy that something so beautiful can be seen from time to time, let’s rejoice in the great goal, let’s give thanks for the flashes of inspiration of special artists, let’s enjoy this irresistible shot every time we watch it again. This is what makes football fun, let’s forget for the moment the colour of the jerseys the men down there are wearing. At the moment of impact, don’t we already think about who positioned the wall wrongly and where, or which player turned away, or whether the goalkeeper could not have (very popular here the phrase: “On a good day…) deflected, or even consider whether Dortmund should not have avoided free-kicks in view of Hoffenheim’s weapon in such positions. That was a hammer, it was great, it was in. 1:0 Hoffenheim. Hooray! Long live football! Long live the Bundesliga!
Now, in today’s football, it’s much harder for any team to make up a 0:1, even harder than to take a 1:0 lead. The opponent has the jokers in hand, he can retreat, he can lie in wait for the decisive counterattack. That’s the way football is today, even if, as described below and repeatedly, in Germany there is at least a little more freedom in tactical terms and the team does not switch directly to “result management”. Incidentally, if you look at the betting market, which is always “active” live these days, then in the blink of an eye after such a goal is conceded, the odds, which previously might have been 1.9, are raised to 3.4 for Dortmund’s victory. Dortmund have just lost 25% of their chances of winning, just because of this one impact (which please, please don’t explain with the “inevitability” explained above). If we could now explain to the reporters that we would have to speak of a sensation if Dortmund were to win the game FROM THIS TIME ON, then we would have taken a huge step forward.
By the way, the “kicker” gives Dortmund a 5:4 chance advantage. After all, they were the better team. Whether they actually achieved the 53.61% that was calculated (and confirmed by the betting market, the famous “mass intelligence”) is a question that even the Almighty himself probably cannot answer. Did he, in his omniscience, give them 0% and thus declare all their efforts null and void, superfluous and pointless from the outset? Is everything really in the big book, as people in other, more distant countries think they know?
The digression can now no longer be stopped, the reader may skip it, quit the friendship, once again just sit there shaking his head and indignant, perhaps smiling, but if so, then mildly and regretfully, but now it happens:
How philosophical it becomes can perhaps be gauged in this way: if the good Lord now, with absolutely honourable intention, really does not want to determine the outcome, in order to give people a chance to prove themselves, in order not to play yo-yo with them, instead granting them these distributions of chances — let’s take computer numbers as an example — and subjecting the outcome to pure coincidences with exactly this distribution of chances, then, yes only then, one could ask him back, with annoying but disarming audacity, exactly these two questions:
1) “Tell me, please, dear God, at what point in time do we have these chances?”, and, if this is not impertinent enough for you, you are welcome to dig up the second question:
2) “Please tell me, dear and esteemed Almighty, you ruler over all creatures, but please think carefully about your answer, because I just have to know: Do we have any effect on our chances if we really try really hard?”
Well, sure, yes very theoretical, but: what answer could you get to 1)? Does it apply at the time of kick-off, but never again afterwards? In any case, it can hardly have applied after the 9th minute, because, if it did, what about before a 1-0 in the 89th, or after a 1-0 in the 89th? Should it only be decided at the final whistle? That wouldn’t work at all, not in football anyway, because with a 0:4 score in the 88th minute, for example, it’s almost mechanically impossible for the trailing team to win.
But question 2) is even more difficult to answer, because: if you had no influence, then it would be tantamount to determining the outcome. “You can do whatever you want, the distribution of chances is what it is.” That would be completely absurd, because it would mean that the teams would not have to compete at all, no one would have to make an effort. Only: what would then determine the outcome? Does God then roll the dice and completely ignore human behaviour until the final whistle?
On the other hand, if one had an influence on the outcome of the game (or would it only be the distribution of chances?) – which has been proven in principle — then the distribution of chances would not be correct, because one can direct it, through one’s own performance, through commitment or cleverness, routine or art of play, carefreeness or ambition, running joy or enthusiasm, elegance or will. Then, one would have to conclude, there would be no probability at all, no fixable probability at any time. Then there would be one truth – the one after the final whistle – and the rest would remain appearances, and everyone is in the habit of deceiving (as a questionable but acknowledged master in spoiling punchlines: TRUTH and APPEARANCE. It only SEEMS TRUE. Come on, now it’s funny!).
The table situation
Sp S U N Pkt T GT Diff
1 FSV Mainz 05 2 2 0 0 6 4 – 1 +3
2 Hannover 96 2 2 0 0 6 4 – 2 +2
3 VfB Stuttgart 2 1 0 4 4 – 1 +3
4 Borussia Mönchengladbach 2 1 0 4 2 – 1 +1
5 VfL Wolfsburg 2 1 0 1 3 3 – 1 +2
6 FC Schalke 04 2 1 0 1 3 5 – 4 +1
7 Borussia Dortmund 2 1 0 1 3 3 – 2 +1
8 Werder Bremen 2 1 0 1 3 2 – 1 +1
9 1.FC Nürnberg 2 1 0 1 3 2 – 2 +0
10 TSG Hoffenheim 2 1 0 1 3 2 – 2 +0
11 FC Bayern Munich 2 1 0 1 3 1 – 1 +0
12 Bayer Leverkusen 2 1 0 1 3 1 – 2 -1
13 FC Augsburg 2 0 2 0 2 3 – 3 +0
14 SC Freiburg 2 0 1 1 3 – 4 -1
15 Hertha BSC 2 0 1 1 2 – 3 -1
16 Hamburger SV 2 0 1 1 3 – 5 -2
17 1.FC Kaiserslautern 2 0 1 1 – 3 -2
18 1.FC Köln 2 0 0 2 0 1 – 8 -7
46 46 0
Total number of games 18
Goals ø 2.56
Yes, contours of a table are already visible. Hannover and Mainz in front, two teams that the computer has helped in its own way. Perhaps enough has been said about Cologne, if one might not mention that in the game declared a results sport (by whom? Was this done in agreement with the fans?) a 5:1 is now certainly not to be discussed, but does so nonetheless. It was 1-0 to Cologne, a few minutes before the half-time break. It was a long way to Schalk’s glory, which was set in motion by a penalty just before the break that was deemed “worthy of discussion” by the media. If one intervenes at this point about the justification of penalties, then this can only be done by measuring with the yardstick of “proportionality”.
Proportionally, this was really not a convincing penalty. This means that there have been much clearer scenes in which no penalty was given.
It has been suggested here often enough that one should calmly apply the rules – and this also in the penalty area – and in the case of handball as well as foul play simply give the free shot from 11 metres that is provided for in the rules. If it were later realised that there were too many goals or that the penalty was not in the correct proportion to the offence, then an alternative punishment for milder offences in the penalty area, which are nevertheless recognised as such, should be formulated as soon as possible – and put into practice.
It is curious, by the way, that in a discussion on Sky about a penalty scene, one of the participants clearly voted for “no penalty” (it was not this scene), but, when asked, immediately affirmed that a comparable offence on the halfway line would without question be considered a foul. After stating and confirming this, he repeated: “Yes, at the halfway line it is a free kick, but here it is not a penalty.”
Now one may only ask from which rule passage he took this? Foul is recognised, but penalty kick may not be awarded because it took place in the penalty area? Exposing, sure, but still thought-provoking. Why do people think like that? You’d have to declare him moronic, but he certainly isn’t. What triggers such thoughts? The fact, long observed and written down, is this: different laws apply in the penalty area….
What, for example, happened in League 2 with the crystal-clear penalty that was denied to Düsseldorf on Monday night? Please, let the referee give all the explanations he could think of (the best: the truth). But please, please don’t say after seeing the pictures: “Oh, I didn’t see that.” He was standing right next to it. He couldn’t have missed that. He wanted to miss that, or, in other words, he believed that he was still sufficiently protected here if he didn’t give a penalty and was therefore not prosecuted further for it.
The Berliner Bild, by the way, wrote the next day about the “penalty scandal”, which is remarkable for a second division match without any Berlin participation. But what is left of the scandal? The man may have a 4 as a mark (ouch!), but he will be back next week for this or that game, no question. Despite the alleged “scandal”, he is guaranteed a lenient sentence of “pardoned”.
Woe betide him if he had given a penalty that wasn’t one!
b. The title question
Explanation: these figures are the result of a computer simulation, which is based on the current playing strengths of the teams given below. The games are simulated individually on the basis of goal expectations (also given in the text below) and the final table is used to determine the winner.
Team Number of German champions in 5000 simulations Championships in percent Fair odds as reciprocal of probabilities
FC Bayern Munich 2069 41.38% 2.42
Borussia Dortmund 1541 30.82% 3.24
Bayer Leverkusen 370 7.40% 13.51
Hannover 96 228 4.56% 21.93
VfL Wolfsburg 184 3.68% 27.17
FSV Mainz 05 149 2.98% 33.56
FC Schalke 04 132 2.64% 37.88
Werder Bremen 108 2.16% 46.30
VfB Stuttgart 67 1.34% 74.63
Borussia Mönchengladbach 57 1.14% 87.72
TSG Hoffenheim 38 0.76% 131.58
Hamburger SV 24 0.48% 208.33
1.FC Nuremberg 15 0.30% 333.33
Hertha BSC 12 0.24% 416.67
SC Freiburg 3 0.06% 1666.67
FC Augsburg 2 0.04% 2500.00
1.FC Kaiserslautern 1 0.02% 5000.00
1.FC Köln 0 0.00% #DIV/0!
Bayern quite clearly ahead again. Sure, they scored the winning goal in the last minute (please don’t talk about “forced” or “Bayern-Dusel”; they tried, they succeeded), whereas Dortmund conceded the defeat. Sure, in terms of playing strength the teams have moved in opposite directions, as well as in terms of points yield, in which they are equal again for the time being. Therefore: Advantage Bayern.
Leverkusen remains on 3, even if this victory does not get the rating “finely played out” but rather “quite lucky”, which refers on the one hand to the timing, also shortly before the end, but on the other hand also to the performance shown (and seen by the author): Werder were closer to the opening goal for quite a long time, even when the situations did not come to a conclusion.
Change in chances compared to the previous week due to the results of Matchday 2.
Team Win/loss absolute compared to previous matchday Win/loss percentage
FC Bayern Munich 442 8.84%
FC Schalke 04 88 1.76%
Bayer Leverkusen 69 1.38%
Hannover 96 63 1.26%
TSG Hoffenheim 20 0.40%
FSV Mainz 05 19 0.38%
Hertha BSC 9 0.18%
FC Augsburg 1 0.02%
1.FC Cologne -3 -0.06%
1.FC Nuremberg -4 -0.08%
SC Freiburg -4 -0.08%
1.FC Kaiserslautern -8 -0.16%
Hamburger SV -9 -0.18%
Borussia Mönchengladbach -16 -0.32%
VfB Stuttgart -33 -0.66%
Werder Bremen -47 -0.94%
VfL Wolfsburg -105 -2.10%
Borussia Dortmund -482 -9.64%
As expected, the picture here is clear: almost everything Dortmund loses goes to Bayern. If one should be surprised about the high losses and at the same time profits: Those who have a lot can also lose a lot (incidentally, this also applies to wealth; so: better not to gain at all). Wolfsburg also as clear losers, due to the last-minute goal conceded.
c. The title chances in development
It’s already clearly jagging at the top, which reflects the emotional life of the common fan quite well: Sky-high – saddened to death. Fans of Dortmund and Bayern have been this in turns so far.
d. Comparison of title chances with the betting exchange betfair
Back Lay Probability (Back)
FC Bayern Munich 1.81 1.82 55.25%
Borussia Dortmund 4 4.1 25.00%
Bayer Leverkusen 20 21 5.00%
VfL Wolfsburg 34 38 2.94%
Hannover 96 65 70 1.54%
Werder Bremen 75 100 1.33%
FC Schalke 04 21 26 4.76%
Hamburger SV 130 150 0.77%
VfB Stuttgart 36 40 2.78%
FSV Mainz 05 80 200 1.25%
Borussia Mönchengladbach 70 320 1.43%
TSG Hoffenheim 80 100 1.25%
1.FC Nuremberg 250 350 0.40%
1.FC Cologne 260 500 0.38%
SC Freiburg 1000 1500 0.10%
Hertha BSC 600 1000 0.17%
1.FC Kaiserslautern 500 1000 0.20%
FC Augsburg 400 1000 0.25%
The computer is still not as optimistic about Bayern’s title chances as the market. Is it right? In any case, it recommends – as it did throughout last season – a bet of the type: “Lay” Bayern. In his opinion, you can easily pay the 1.82, given the fair odds of 2.42. Of course, you can also play “Back” Dortmund, for real fans. 4.0 you get, 3.2 is fair, so a solid 20% advantage (purely hypothetical, see the philosophical digression; actually there are no probabilities at all. They only seem deceptive after all….)
The shifts in odds estimates at betfair
The shifts in probabilities
W/ds in % (Back)
FC Bayern Munich 3.70%
Borussia Dortmund -5.77%
Bayer Leverkusen 0.65%
VfL Wolfsburg -1.06%
Hannover 96 0.77%
Werder Bremen -0.67%
FC Schalke 04 2.26%
Hamburger SV -0.23%
VfB Stuttgart 0.78%
FSV Mainz 05 0.63%
Borussia Mönchengladbach 0.10%
TSG Hoffenheim 0.34%
1.FC Nuremberg 0.08%
1.FC Cologne 0.20%
SC Freiburg 0.00%
Hertha BSC -0.16%
1.FC Kaiserslautern -0.04%
FC Augsburg 0.15%
(Again the order according to the original rankings)
Interestingly, the market now also reacts more moderately than the computer. Only 3.7% gain for Bayern, while the computer speaks of 8.84%. One could say that the market has acknowledged the defeat on matchday 1 just as calmly as the victory on matchday 2. See text last week: it is a long season. Of course, this reaction would be justified in both cases so far, at least in comparison with the computer. The latter jumps back and forth frantically, almost like a child: “Oh, Bayern loses, Dortmund wins? Then Dortmund will be champion.” to exclaim after the reverse sequence: “Bayern wins, Dortmund loses? Then Bayern becomes champion after all.” The market says: Rome wasn’t built in a day either, a lot of water will still flow down the Isar (or the Rhine, the Ruhr?), good things take time and strength lies in calm. That’s the way it is.
e. Direct Champions League qualification via 2nd place
Whether this point will be included in the upcoming season is still undecided.
The probability distribution for 2nd place after matchday 2
The changes compared to the previous week:
At least there is the betting offer “placing among the first 3” on the market. It’s possible that they’ll take the trouble to include that here soon.
f. The relegation question
The question of relegation is always an exciting one, no matter how bitter it may be. After all, in my own childhood, in 1968, the year of Hertha’s promotion to the Bundesliga, it was first observed that an exciting relegation battle can not only fill the stadium, but even electrify it, as evidenced on the one hand by the then unprecedented spectator average of over 40,000 per game coupled with the club’s (with one defeat on the 33rd!) assured class preservation.
The distribution of relegation percentages
Note: There would also be a detailed breakdown across the individual places. Here, places 17 and 18 count as fully relegated (i.e. in total as 1, for relegated in each case, otherwise the term is “direct relegation”), and a further third of relegated teams are added through the relegation, whereby the first division team is generally rated as 2/3 to 1/3 favourites over the second division team. This makes the total number of relegated teams equal to 233.33%. In individual cases, of course, it would be different in reality. So if, for example, Frankfurt were to finish 3rd in League 2 and Augsburg 16th in League 1, one could perhaps assume a balanced pairing.
Team Direct relegation (17th or 18th place) Relegation by relegation Total
1 1.FC Cologne 38.10% 4.16% 42.26%
2 FC Augsburg 36.42% 4.34% 40.76%
3 1.FC Kaiserslautern 32.20% 4.08% 36.28%
4 SC Freiburg 27.60% 4.06% 31.66%
5 Hertha BSC 16.32% 3.16% 19.48%
6 1.FC Nuremberg 13.32% 3.11% 16.43%
7 Hamburger SV 8.78% 2.05% 10.83%
8 TSG Hoffenheim 8.24% 1.92% 10.16%
9 Borussia Mönchengladbach 4.96% 1.39% 6.35%
10 VfB Stuttgart 3.58% 1.13% 4.71%
11 Werder Bremen 2.78% 1.01% 3.79%
12 FC Schalke 04 2.54% 0.76% 3.30%
13 FSV Mainz 05 1.82% 0.70% 2.52%
14 Hannover 96 1.62% 0.53% 2.15%
15 VfL Wolfsburg 1.24% 0.53% 1.77%
16 Bayer Leverkusen 0.44% 0.37% 0.81%
17 FC Bayern Munich 0.02% 0.02% 0.04%
18 Borussia Dortmund 0.02% 0.00% 0.02%
200.00% 33.33% 233.33%
Cologne immediately outstripped Hertha. Of course, the computer takes the 1:8 goals into account not only in the tables created later in simulations – where such a “ratio”, as everyone agrees, is almost equivalent to a point less — but also in the playing strength rankings, where every goal is counted up and down. Nevertheless, here is the first small confession: once again, the playing strength ranking has been changed. Hertha has been moved up, and for good reason: the 90 minutes against HSV showed that the team is certainly Bundesliga-capable.
Hertha’s first match against Nuremberg was a home game and was really very bad. The 60,000 spectators may almost have been a burden. As further justification for the so poor assessment of Hertha compared to the market, already in advance: in the Bild column taken over from Max Merkel, ex-Herthanian Mario Basler, of all people, put Hertha right at the bottom in the preliminary analysis of the teams. Analogous to the prophet who is worthless in his own country, the author followed this judgement – and is ashamed at the same time.
The change in chances from the 1st to the 2nd matchday with regard to relegation
Team Change in chances
1 1.FC Cologne -13.56%
2 SC Freiburg -7.41
3 1.FC Nuremberg -4.41%
4 1.FC Kaiserslautern -2.92%
5 Hamburger SV -1.95%
6 FC Augsburg -1.80%
7 Werder Bremen -1.22%
8 Borussia Mönchengladbach -0.27%
9 VfB Stuttgart -0.23%
10 VfL Wolfsburg -0.11%
11 Borussia Dortmund -0.01%
12 FC Bayern Munich 0.01%
13 Hannover 96 0.58%
14 Bayer Leverkusen 0.67%
15 FSV Mainz 05 1.00%
16 TSG Hoffenheim 5.55%
17 FC Schalke 04 5.62%
18 Hertha BSC 20.45%
Cologne’s loss is largely logical. The “Kicker”, for example, already refers to Cologne as a “system crash”. But see above, what if Schalke had not been awarded the penalty?
Hertha’s gain in terms of avoiding relegation is due on the one hand to a good result, but to a much greater extent to manual intervention.
The other shifts are usually quickly apparent. Freiburg and Nürnberg with home defeats, such cost the most, as you can see.
g. The relegation question in development
Not a particularly vivid picture yet. Let’s see how it develops. Last season was the phenomenon of Borussia Mönchengladbach, who for a while were threateningly close to the 100% line, but never came close decisively (to their and their fans’ delight), only to leave it completely at the end via the relegation and arrive on the 0 line. As you can see: they are still in it!
h. The points expectations and the deviations
Explanation: for each game the computer has calculated the chances for 1, X and 2. On the basis of these, a point expectation is mathematically calculated for each team per game according to the formula probability of winning * 3 points + probability of drawing * 1 point. The deviations given below compare the points actually achieved with those expected by the computer.
In total, the deviation does not have to be 0 for all teams, as the number of expected draws does not have to be congruent with those that have occurred (nor can it even be), but an imbalance is forced by the three-point rule. Too many points scored means that there were too few draws.
Team Name Points scored Deviation Deviation absolute
1 FSV Mainz 05 2.75 6 3.25 3.25
2 Hannover 96 3.17 6 2.83 2.83
3 Borussia Mönchengladbach 1.90 4 2.10 2.10
4 VfB Stuttgart 2.74 4 1.26 1.26
5 TSG Hoffenheim 1.87 3 1.13 1.13
6 VfL Wolfsburg 2.62 3 0.38 0.38
7 1.FC Nürnberg 2.66 3 0.34 0.34
8 Werder Bremen 2.81 3 0.19 0.19
9 FC Schalke 04 3.12 3 -0.12 0.12
10 Bayer Leverkusen 3.23 3 -0.23 0.23
11 FC Augsburg 2.50 2 -0.50 0.50
12 Borussia Dortmund 4.00 3 -1.00 1.00
13 FC Bayern Munich 4.12 3 -1.12 1.12
14 Hertha BSC 2.32 1 -1.32 1.32
15 Hamburger SV 2.55 1 -1.55 1.55
16 1.FC Kaiserslautern 2.60 1 -1.60 1.60
17 SC Freiburg 2.62 1 -1.62 1.62
18 1.FC Köln 2.18 0 -2.18 2.18
ø Deviation 1.26
Mainz overachieved the most. Sure, the maximum yield and probably in total the slightly heavier opposition. Cologne also right at the bottom here. The rest still not overly revealing.
The foreign comparison for the average point deviation.
Note: the theory is that the German Bundesliga is the most exciting among Europe’s top leagues. This finding is rather intuitively derived, but so far “accepted” both in this country and abroad. Of course, the higher goal average is an indication of this, as well as the(perceived) lower predictability when it comes to the title, relegation, but also other issues. Balance is a criterion and possibly the main reason for this.
The measure used here for the deviation in average points expectation provides measurable information about this, but it was probably a “problem” specific to the 2010/2011 inaugural season (the fan thanked) that the Bundesliga produced a particularly large number of surprises. This was reflected in the figures. Now the phenomenon can be observed further. Is the Bundesliga also exciting in this respect? More exciting than elsewhere?
Liga 1 ø Deviation Change from previous week
Germany, 1st BL 1.26 -0.04
France 1.84 —
England 0.722 —
Germany, 2.BL 2.45 —
There is still little of interest to be seen here. England has only completed Matchday 1 and although Arsenal and Chelsea failed to win, there were fairly “normal” results, as you can see from the average deviation. In France, on the other hand – like Germany 1 after matchday 2 – there were more surprises than in Germany (yes, Lyon lost at home).
The 2nd division has already completed 4 matchdays, so the value is not really comparable.
i. Goal expectations and their deviations
Explanation: Almost the same applies to goals as to points. The expected goals scored and the expected goals conceded are compared with reality. Too few goals scored count negatively just as too many goals conceded count negatively, the reverse counts positively in each case. Here, the sum of the deviations must be 0, because all expected and not scored goals were not conceded somewhere. However, the goal average may show a deviation.
Team Name Goal expectation Goals scored Goals conceded expected Goals conceded Total deviation
1 VfB Stuttgart 2.99 4 3.05 1 3.05
2 FSV Mainz 05 2.75 4 2.75 1 3.00
3 Borussia Mönchengladbach 2.66 2 4.55 1 2.89
4 VfL Wolfsburg 2.68 3 2.87 1 2.19
5 Hannover 96 3.07 4 2.45 2 1.37
6 TSG Hoffenheim 2.07 2 3.38 2 1.31
7 Werder Bremen 3.13 2 3.10 1 0.97
8 FC Schalke 04 2.99 5 2.47 4 0.47
9 FC Augsburg 2.15 3 2.47 3 0.32
10 1.FC Nürnberg 2.58 2 2.70 2 0.12
11 Hertha BSC 2.41 2 3.08 3 -0.33
12 Borussia Dortmund 3.51 3 1.70 2 -0.81
13 SC Freiburg 2.36 3 2.50 4 -0.86
14 Hamburger SV 2.57 3 2.91 5 -1.66
15 1.FC Kaiserslautern 2.59 1 2.88 3 -1.70
16 Bayer Leverkusen 3.37 1 2.65 2 -1.73
17 FC Bayern München 4.59 1 2.12 1 -2.47
18 1.FC Köln 2.31 1 3.17 8 -6.14
50.80 46 50.80 46 0.00
Goals ø expected: Goals ø scored: ø Deviation 1.74 2.82 2.56
Stuttgart hoisted themselves to 1, past Gladbach, thanks to the equaliser scored there shortly after Gladbach took the lead (3 minutes 11 seconds, as it was called). Mainz, despite their flawless haul, in between. Well, like Stuttgart 4:1 goals, but they probably had the slightly easier opponents compared to Stuttgart.
Right at the back, how could it be otherwise, FC Köln. The gap was already gigantic and worthy of the kicker’s title “analysis”. Good news are bad news.
Also for this statistic the foreign comparison:
Place Country League 1 ø Goal difference Change from previous week
1 Germany, 1.BL 1.74 0.12
2 Italy 1
3 Spain 1
4 England 1 1.17 —
5 France 1 1.788 —
6 Germany, 2.BL 3.51 —
No clear picture yet, we’ll have to wait and see. The 2nd league is not comparable here either, due to the significantly higher number of completed match days.
j. The playing strength ranking
Note: The playing strength is measured in goals expected against the average team (which does not exist in practice). There is the offensive strength, which is measured in expected goals scored, and the defensive strength, which is measured in expected goals conceded. The quotient of these two values is the measure of playing strength. The more expected goals scored, the higher the value; the fewer expected goals conceded, the higher the value.
Team For Against Quotient For/Counter Shift
1 Borussia Dortmund 1.70 0.87 1.95 +0
2 FC Bayern Munich 1.97 1.01 1.95 +0
3 Bayer Leverkusen 1.64 1.24 1.32 +0
4 VfL Wolfsburg 1.45 1.21 1.20 +0
5 FC Schalke 04 1.38 1.21 1.14 +4
6 Hannover 96 1.49 1.35 1.10 -1
7 Werder Bremen 1.51 1.42 1.06 -1
8 FSV Mainz 05 1.42 1.35 1.05 -1
9 VfB Stuttgart 1.59 1.61 0.99 -1
10 Borussia Mönchengladbach 1.36 1.45 0.94 +1
11 Hamburger SV 1.38 1.49 0.93 -1
12 TSG Hoffenheim 1.33 1.50 0.89 +0
13 Hertha BSC 1.30 1.55 0.84 +4
14 1.FC Nürnberg 1.20 1.47 0.82 -1
15 SC Freiburg 1.18 1.60 0.74 -1
16 1.FC Kaiserslautern 1.16 1.65 0.70 +0
17 1.FC Köln 1.28 1.84 0.70 -2
18 FC Augsburg 0.98 1.50 0.65 +0
25.31805 25.32 +0
Goals ø expected 2.813
As you can see, Hertha moved up 4 places due to the intervention (and the good result). Still, they probably (and hopefully) didn’t overdo it. They are still below average, still a candidate for the lower places, but still in the middle of a group of comparable teams. Hoffenheim, according to the impression, could also rank a little higher. After the performances so far, actually ahead of HSV. On the other hand, there are no really good reasons to lower another of the teams ranked above them. Why? Each has both ability and results. Wolfsburg’s rating at 4 is not seriously shaken by a last-minute goal conceded against Bayern. They were pretty good after all!!!
Bayern and Dortmund almost equal, but the quotient is below 2 in each case.
In case the phenomenon of “if Dortmund is the better team, why is Bayern the title favourite” should burn, here is the absurd explanation, which nevertheless is not devoid of (computer) logic – and may gradually occur to you, even though it contradicts a classic rule:
Since Dortmund scores fewer goals (and also concedes fewer) it nevertheless becomes harder (from the computer’s point of view) for them to win a game. It is expected to end 0:0 or 1:1 more often. This increase in the number of expected draws (which are unfairly rewarded with only one point compared to the three points that come with a win; further proof of the nonsense of the three-point rule) has an almost fatal effect: they are constantly missing points. They would also reduce the number of defeats compared to Bayern, but the three-point rule would more than compensate for this in the Bayern perspective.
Now why is this explanation absurd, which coaching wisdom does this thesis contradict? Clearly: “The attack wins games, the defence wins championships. So, Bayern and all offensive thinkers, all long-dusted 4 – 3 – 3 coaches, come back, stay as you are, the offensive is worth it! The storm wins hearts – and championships at the same time!
k. The frequency of tendency changes
Note: a “tendency change” is considered to be a goal that evens out a lead or scores a lead. The 1:0 is not counted, because without this goal it would not even begin to have anything to do with tension in the goal sequence. Every now and then, a statistical comparison is made here with other countries. This shows that there are more changes of tendency in Germany than elsewhere, which on the one hand points to perceived tension in the Bundesliga – which is possibly envied abroad – and on the other hand points to possible tactical deficiencies, which, following an old tradition, make one advise to urgently go for a second goal after a 1:0 – and not to dull and insipidly, as is usual abroad, rock this goal over time. International comparisons provide more information about the effectiveness or weakness of German behaviour.
Of course, it is and remains desirable that “something happens”, that games ripple back and forth, that teams that take an early lead still lose later on, that dramatic comebacks from two or three goals down come back, equalise or even win. The claim here: it actually happens too rarely in football. It would be desirable to allow more goals so that more drama can be added to this point as well. More goals guarantee more changes of tendency, but it is possible that there is an upper limit. So: in ice hockey there are more goals and thus more changes of tendency, no question. But are there more in handball, for example, than in ice hockey? Probably not. Because: with a lot of goals, one team can be in the lead by five, six, seven without ever thinking of a comeback by the losing team.
At the weekend there were the following changes of tendency: HSV – Hertha had three, twice Hertha equalised after being behind, of the HSV leads only the 2:1 is counted (see explanation). Naturally, therefore, an exciting game. Schalke came back from 0:1 down and still won clearly, but the 1:1 came just before the break, so that the outcome remained uncertain long enough (so it was also exciting, despite the clear final result), which makes two changes of tendency: equaliser and lead. Gladbach and Kaiserslautern had one change of tendency, which is inevitable in a draw (especially a 1-1 draw). Exciting? Yes, certainly, in a way. Nevertheless, 1:1 games are among the most tired, not only in terms of the result. That makes 3 + 2 + 1 = 7.
Two games ended 1-2, but both without a change of tendency. Moreover, Freiburg scored in the last minute (or even in injury time), so that there was no more suspense. Nuremberg also scored the 1:2, but did not equalise.
This is mentioned here because in principle you can measure the entertainment value of every goal. The 5:1 for Schalke, for example, no longer had any influence on the suspense value. The winner had already been decided. Whereas, for example, a 1:2 is theoretically a “more exciting” goal, as it brings the result closer to a change of tendency (reporter’s slogan: “…puts the game back in focus”).
Thus, theoretically, one could examine all goals even more in terms of their suspense content for the viewers’ perception with a fine method that will surely be devised soon. Imagine a game that ends 3:4 after a 0:4 score: with the method used here, not a single change in tendency would be measurable. It is possible, however, that the spectators would later speak of one of the most dramatic games ever experienced, especially if there was enough time left after the 3:4 (and the scoring chances were there).
As an author, I was once at every cup final in the capital and experienced the final there (1988?), in which Bremen came back from 0:3 against Kaiserslautern to 2:3 and Manni Burgsmüller had the giant to equalise. Why can it be told? Of course: it was memorable because of the drama, without any change of tendency. One somehow regrets to this day that it didn’t happen.
There was also a cup match between Wolfsburg and Werder (them again, yes) in which Wolfsburg (then still in the third division) came back from 1:4 down to tie the game 4:4 in the last 10 minutes (the reader is welcome to put the author’s memory to the test; letters showing evidence of progressive forgetfulness will be gladly accepted). The camera had caught – presumably almost by chance, as it was also looking for interesting moments – on which one sees disillusioned Wolfsburg fans leaving the stadium, but who, after noticing the stadium almost collapsing behind them due to the remaining but still raging masses, took their own legs under the arms of their idols and hurried back to their seats — only to have to witness the end in extra time with a 4:5 for Bremen. Yes, there are stories…
But the monotonous, not very sensitive silicon giant would only have measured the 4:4 as a change of tendency. Unfair, as one surely feels, not appropriate to the drama…
Incidentally, it is still critically noted here that in American sport it is a matter of course to include the feelings of the spectators – that is, those of excitement, enthusiasm, sympathy, passion. Sport – and, of course, the rules – are geared to what the spectators want to see, to how well they are entertained. In football – which, regrettably, is mainly run by Europeans on the FIFA side – this requirement seems to be omitted.
As a cause, the author can only state – after careful, gladly discussed, if not arguable consideration — a conjecture formulated in this way:
Officials are absolutely certain of the supremacy of football. Traditions like “it’s always been that way” count for far more than spectator interests.
The spectator already knows, knows his role, has become accustomed to and resigned himself to the fact that he “has nothing to say”. Therefore – according to a thesis that is often put forward here – they vent their displeasure (for example about perceived injustices) in a completely different way, one that is then pointed at first by the same dusty figures with their indignant and at the same time raised fingers.
The injustices, as has been pointed out more often in this space and gladly proven by conspicuous situations, are not those that disadvantage individual teams — as those affected in each case then always declare themselves to be critically, but at the moment, since involved, subjectively excoriated, recurring, but interchangeable, outraged. They have the club glasses on and nothing to say, they say then.
The fans who “go to the barricades” – and occasionally in the true sense of the word – also have no voice and are also considered “biased, if not simply “aggressive”, not to be taken seriously.
Although the (especially in view of the exaggerated number of German triumphs on the international stage) in itself ridiculous thesis of “everything evens out in the end” is by no means to be supported here, the opposite is not to be asserted, that there are systematic disadvantages of individuals, be they teams.
No, the injustice being denounced lies in the game itself. The thesis is: Sometimes the game is played for the defenders, sometimes against the attackers. A strange form of “equalising”. Always against the goal action. And no one seems to notice. A defender falling in a duel while defending is always rewarded with a free kick, a striker falling in the same way in the opponent’s penalty area in an identical situation would be faced with only one alternative: does he get a yellow in addition or does he just not get a penalty?
Also for the tendency changes every week the foreign comparison:
Country Matches Compensation HF AF Total per match
1st Bundesliga 306 158 60 49 267 0.873
England 380 198 66 46 310 0.816
2nd Bundesliga 306 145 56 41 242 0.791
Italy 380 169 58 48 275 0.724
France 380 175 49 40 264 0.695
Spain 380 146 48 46 240 0.632
A review of the last season should once again be included to remind us of the “averages”. League 1 was far ahead, but the English Premier League had still slipped in between League 1 and League 2.
Country Matches Equalisation HF AF Total per match
Germany 1 18 8 3 1 12 0.667
England 9 4 0 2 6 0.667
Germany 2 36 15 5 4 24 0.667
France 20 10 1 2 13 0.65
All four leagues hand in hand. The English Premier League also started with 6 changes of tendency in 9 games. France doesn’t stand out one way or the other. We shall see…
l. The mathematical review of the matchday 1 results
Goal expectation Home Away Total Deviation
Nürnberg Hannover 1.33 1.32 2.65 1 2 -0.33 0.68
HSV Hertha 1.83 1.04 2.86 2 2 0.17 0.96
Hoffenheim Dortmund 0.95 1.63 2.59 1 0 0.05 -1.63
Freiburg Mainz 1.32 1.33 2.66 1 2 -0.32 0.67
Schalke 04 FC Cologne 1.71 0.98 2.70 5 1 3.29 0.02
Wolfsburg FC Bayern 1.22 1.54 2.76 0 1 -1.22 -0.54
Gladbach Stuttgart 1.76 1.51 3.27 1 1 -0.76 -0.51
Kaiserslautern Augsburg 1.43 0.98 2.42 1 1 -0.43 0.02
Leverkusen Bremen 1.95 1.23 3.18 1 0 -0.95 -1.23
13.51 11.58 25.09 13 10 -0.51 -1.58
Expected Goal Total Expected Goal Average Scored Goal Average 25.09 2.79 2.56
ø expected goal difference 1.86 ø goal difference 1.53
Once again there were too few goals compared to the expected ones (of course at the same time compared to the general average of the league). Whether this can already be attributed to the increasing uptightness of the referees – if in doubt, blow the whistle, if in doubt offside, if in doubt no penalty – would, however, be a little over-interpretative.
m. The Determination
Note: The fixing is calculated for each game as the sum of the squares of the individual probabilities. This measures how much one can commit to a favourite in a certain pairing. The higher the favourite position, the higher the sum of the squares, but also the more “certain” the occurrence of the (favourite) event. The mathematical question in itself is even more how far one can commit, since one cannot really determine this value. Events are predicted whose probabilities are unknown. Nevertheless, one can check the quality of the estimates made here in the long term by comparing expected/occurred. This is done week by week, but of course also overall.
The determination expected
Pairing 1 X 2
Nuremberg Hanover 37.49% 25.37% 37.14% 34.29%
HSV Hertha 56.22% 22.45% 21.33% 41.19%
Hoffenheim Dortmund 22.11% 24.28% 53.61% 39.52%
Freiburg Mainz 37.09% 25.34% 37.58% 34.29%
Schalke 04 FC Cologne 54.69% 23.52% 21.79% 40.19%
Wolfsburg FC Bayern 30.43% 24.53% 45.04% 35.56%
Gladbach Stuttgart 44.08% 22.49% 33.43% 35.66%
Kaiserslautern Augsburg 47.70% 26.22% 26.08% 36.43%
Leverkusen Bremen 54.19% 21.66% 24.15% 39.89%
3.84 2.16 3.00 3.37
Average expected fixing: 37.45
To reiterate, just above the expected figures given in last week’s text. A player with below average favourites or, to put it another way, with fairly even games. What did the practice bring?
The determination arrived
Pairing 1 X 2
Nürnberg Hannover 37.49% 25.37% 37.14% 37.14%
HSV Hertha 56.22% 22.45% 21.33% 22.45%
Hoffenheim Dortmund 22.11% 24.28% 53.61% 22.11%
Freiburg Mainz 37.09% 25.34% 37.58% 37.58%
Schalke 04 FC Cologne 54.69% 23.52% 21.79% 54.69%
Wolfsburg FC Bayern 30.43% 24.53% 45.04% 45.04%
Gladbach Stuttgart 44.08% 22.49% 33.43% 22.49%
Kaiserslautern Augsburg 47.70% 26.22% 26.08% 26.22%
Leverkusen Bremen 54.19% 21.66% 24.15% 54.19%
3.84 2.16 3.00 3.22
average determination received: 35.77%
Further note: No comparable model has yet been discovered in mathematics. Not even by a mathematician who had set himself the task of proving to the author that there was guaranteed to be nothing new.
The expected determination was undercut by the results. This means that there were too many surprises, too many outsider outcomes, with a draw almost always (in Germany 1, there are other examples) being an outsider outcome.
As you can see, the away wins of Hannover and Mainz were quasi indifferent (since equally likely with the home win), but still already above the average arrived at, simply because they did not end in a draw. Further, the three draws were quite clear underdog events, the Hoffenheim win anyway, leaving only three favourite wins that actually happened: Schalke win, Bayern win and Leverkusen win. If you now consider that both Bayern and Leverkusen scored their winning goals shortly before the end, you can see that there could have been many more surprises. Of course, this does not mean that the computer exaggerates with its assessment. For that, one has to observe much longer-term value developments. It just means that almost every match in the Bundesliga is a close-run affair, which makes it exciting.
On the other hand, one should always bear in mind that the complete blurring of differences – i.e. the statement that anyone can beat anyone gains in validity – would in turn rob tension. If all pairings were totally equal, if there were no favourites at all, then it would gradually become a pure game of dice, a pure game of chance, and this, it is claimed, would not be able to lure fans behind the stove. What were they to witness of the World Cup of Luck? No, that was no fun.
So: there have to be differences, preferably ones that can still be recognised visually. This team plays well, this one less well, this one too weak for the 1st division. That’s why Bayern Munich has been the most respected team for over 40 years. Whether loved, despised or hated, envied or booed in the league and furtively cheered on on the European stage, everything rubs Bayern up the wrong way. The reason: they are somehow better than the others. Are they really?
n. Overall league statistics
Note: Statistics of this kind are regularly compiled by computer. It is generally used for quality control of the individual figures. Each figure has its meaning and is explained in more detail. The goal average is not repeated here. The home advantage is calculated by dividing the goals scored by the home team by half of the total goals. In this way, you can see how many more goals the home teams score than they would score without home advantage. 1,116 is 11.6% more for the home team, 11.6% less for the away team.
Statistics of the actual results
Matches Home wins Draws Away wins Goals conceded Home advantage
18 8 4 6 27 19 1.174
Statistics of expected results
Matches Home wins Draws Away wins Goals Conceded Home advantage
18 8.28 4.23 5.47 28.8 21.94 1.136
Statistics of absolute deviations
Matches Home wins Draws Away wins Goals Conceded Home advantage
0 -0.28 -0.23 0.53 -1.84 -2.94 0.03803
Statistics of the percentage deviations
Matches Home wins Draws Away wins Goals Conceded Home advantage
0 -3.50% -5.75% 8.83% -6.81% -15.47% 3.24%
Determination expected Determination arrived 39.02% 38.01% ø Goal difference ø Goal difference expected 1.72 1.87
Note: For arithmetic foxes, here is a brief explanation of the calculation method for the expected goal deviation: The computer gives each result from 0:0 to 20:20 a probability (it is actually sufficient up to 10:10, as the rest no longer has any significant probability). There would be a goal deviation for each result. So if you multiply the probability of, for example, a 3:4 by the deviation that would then occur (in the case of the match Mainz – Gladbach, below, with goal expectations of 1.77:1.25, this would be 3 – 1.77 = 1.23 for Mainz plus 4 – 1.25 = 2.75 for Gladbach, i.e. a total deviation of 3.98 goals) and carry out this procedure for each match result, you get the expected average goal deviation.
The deviations are very moderate right at the beginning. Everything fits quite well, except perhaps the goal average. Let’s wait and see whether it climbs back up into familiar regions. The fear: if it is already short of goals at the beginning, it will stay that way. These are often observed, perpetuating effects. The spectators are in a summery, conciliatory mood and don’t immediately blow whistles at individual, unsuccessful actions, which would actually speak in favour of a few more goals. But what if this effect fails to materialise? Well, it’s only two matchdays and we’re still waiting for summer.
o. Review of the betting recommendations
Pairing 1 X 2
Kaiserslautern Augsburg 1.94 3.65 4.60
Nürnberg Hannover 2.48 3.45 3.25
HSV Hertha 2.00 3.80 4.10
Hoffenheim Dortmund 5.20 4.00 1.76
Freiburg Mainz 2.40 3.25 3.55
Schalke 04 FC Cologne 1.66 4.00 6.40
Wolfsburg FC Bayern 4.40 4.00 1.88
Gladbach Stuttgart 2.82 3.65 2.68
Leverkusen Bremen 1.95 3.70 4.40
First of all, here is last week’s graph as a reminder.
Augsburg came close to winning, with the lead for a very long period in the game. As much as one likes to concede here that the Lauter equaliser was deserved overall due to chances, shares of the game and performance shown, and in a certain sense therefore “fair”, it still remains a good bet that one (theoretically) had on Augsburg. This has nothing to do with the lead achieved (which of course does not necessarily fall) nor with the deservedness or undeservedness of the equaliser, it has everything to do with the fact that the odds of victory for Augsburg – and here the necessary judgement – were overall in a favourable ratio to the probability of occurrence due to the performance shown.
How is one supposed to judge something like that? One cannot conclusively, that is out of the question. Only empirical values from numerous observed games are required here. The reader is welcome to call this a “whitewashing” of a loss. In the end, it is always what comes out at the end that counts…
The result of this game was minus one unit, i.e. -1. However, those who chose the “Lay Kaiserslautern” – the author does not exclude himself here — had sunshine.
Hannover really won the game. The profit is 3.25 (the odds) -1 (the stake), i.e. +2.25 units. One certainly feels the win was deserved as a profiteer. In contrast to the win the previous week against Hoffenheim, however, it was, as is cheekily claimed here.
HSV against Hertha was the really bad bet. The Kicker also shows Hertha with a clear plus of chances, but the optical impression was even more overwhelming. Almost only Hertha played, HSV took the lead twice out of nothing. -1 unit on it.
The Mainz victory was comparable to the Hannover one, even if the 1:0 came much later. There is no need for justification anyway, so +3.55 – 1 = +2.55 units.
The Cologne victory did not occur. As argued above: what if the penalty is not awarded shortly before the break? The -1 units nevertheless remain in the balance.
Gladbach really scored the opening goal, but it lasted only 3:11 minutes. Sure it was a very even game, but that doesn’t mean it was a bad bet. It was absolutely ok, as the live pictures could confirm. Including the lead, the result is… -1 unit.
Leverkusen – Bremen, tip 1, was really not a good bet. Leverkusen weren’t even the better team, only when Werder really couldn’t use the better chances until then, shortly before the end they built up the pressure expected from the beginning (to justify a good bet) and created a few chances (of course also some before, only Werder had a bit more and better ones, as one felt – the kicker doesn’t share this opinion). The reward for the balance is 1.95 – 1 = +0.95 units.
Total: -1 + 2.25 -1 +2.55 -1 +0.95 = +1.75 units.
Sure, it was profit (a theoretical one, because who bet exactly at those odds, who ever?). But one should already be aware that a) 2 match days don’t mean much and b) that it was definitely luck so far.
Betting recommendation Statistics of the individual match days
Matchday No. Number of bets Number of hits expected hit deviation win/loss
1 7 5 2.84 +2.16 +7.96
2 7 3 2.77 +0.23 +1.75
Total number of bets Total balance G/V in% Total expected hits Total hit deviation
7 +7.96 113.71% 2.84 +2.16
14 +9.71 69.36% 5.61 +2.39
This luck can best be measured by looking at these two statistics. You can see that the computer expected 5.61 (2.84 + 2.77) hits so far, but that 8 hits have already come. The 69.36% gain certainly looks very nice. But the 8 – 5.61 = 2.39 too many hits are mainly responsible for this. Nevertheless, with the bets displayed so far, a balance of 5.61 hits would have been enough to already be in the plus in terms of units.
It may be possible to develop this understanding further later in the season. But that is the crucial basis for a business based on betting: you only have to get as much as you expect and you would have already made a profit. You don’t have to rely on luck (the definition here being to get more hits than would be expected).
There is another variable that controls the gains/losses. This can possibly be included in future texts (and statistics). This is: the average odds. Of course, you are much less likely to hit high odds, but once they come, they will put a lot of units into your hopefully not empty coffers. You must only miss a small quota comparatively rarely for it to remain profitable. For example, if you play 1.50 more often, you have to hit it at least two out of three times to avoid going into the red. On the other hand, with odds of 10.0, one hit in 10 attempts is enough to remain at par.
As always, if this statistic is included, there is also an expected hit average and a hit average. These values would continue to provide information on whether one is in the green zone. It would be conceivable that one achieves one’s hit yield – and patiently plays with one unit per bet, even if only in spirit – and still lies in the loss zone. A possible, no, probable reason? You hit the small odds, miss the big ones. This would be an unfavourable distribution, which could either be blamed on bad luck, or indicate possible misjudgements, which could then be uncovered in further but different analyses.
Yes, it is a well-known phenomenon, perhaps even a task, reminiscent of the comedian Alf Poyer: how can one cause maximum confusion with as few words as possible?
p. The preview of the 3rd matchday
Note: The computer calculates the goal expectations (and the individually maintained home advantage not shown here) to these goal expectations according to a specially developed – naturally explainable and highly logical – algorithm. These in turn are offset against the probabilities of occurrence, in the past by simulation, today long since by a function derived from the simulation results). These goal expectancy values have also long since proved to be competitive in goal number betting on the betting market.
Goal expectation Home Away Total
Gladbach Wolfsburg 1.32 1.33 2.65
FC Bayern HSV 2.35 0.86 3.22
Dortmund Nuremberg 2.02 0.65 2.67
Augsburg Hoffenheim 1.20 1.24 2.45
Stuttgart Leverkusen 1.62 1.60 3.23
Bremen Freiburg 1.96 1.04 3.00
FC Cologne Kaiserslautern 1.61 1.34 2.95
Mainz Schalke 04 1.41 1.09 2.50
Hannover Hertha 1.86 1.11 2.97
15.36 10.27 25.63
Expected goal total Expected goal average 25.63 2.85
Expected goal average higher than last time. Meaning? The heavyweights play at home and when there is a big difference in playing strength coupled with home advantage, the goal scintt goes up. You can see that Bayern is expected to score 3.22 goals (even less than Stuttgart). Dortmund, on the other hand, is a little more moderate. Nuremberg does not allow as many goals (which they would of course have to prove on the pitch, where, as we know, the truth lies).
Note: The determination is calculated as the sum of the squares of the individual probabilities. This measures how much one can commit to a favourite in a certain pairing. The higher a favourite position is, the higher the sum of the squares, but also the more “certain” the occurrence of the event. The mathematical question in itself is even more how far one can commit, since one cannot really determine this value. Events are predicted whose probabilities are unknown. Nevertheless, one can check the quality in the long term by comparing expected/occurred events.
The determination expected
Pairing 1 X 2
Gladbach Wolfsburg 36.93% 25.52% 37.55% 34.25%
FC Bayern HSV 70.67% 17.24% 12.09% 54.37%
Dortmund Nuremberg 69.64% 19.38% 10.97% 53.46%
Augsburg Hoffenheim 35.60% 26.80% 37.60% 33.99%
Stuttgart Leverkusen 39.04% 22.89% 38.07% 34.98%
Bremen Freiburg 59.07% 21.36% 19.56% 43.29%
FC Cologne Kaiserslautern 44.05% 23.83% 32.12% 35.40%
Mainz Schalke 04 44.35% 26.17% 29.48% 35.21%
Hanover Hertha 55.21% 22.29% 22.51% 40.51%
4.55 2.05 2.40 3.65
Average expected commitment: 40.61%
The average expected commitment correspondingly higher again than last time. The same reasoning as above. Bayern with only slightly higher percentages than Dortmund.
The fair odds
Note: the fair odds are only the reciprocals of the probabilities. However, this is how the games are offered on the betting market or traded on the betting exchanges (“betfair”). You can gladly compare what the computer guesses. The deviations will not be enormous, but theoretically every bet is a good bet (from the computer’s point of view) if the odds paid on the market are above the fair odds. “Good” is the bet insofar as it promises long-term profit. If you consistently make bets in this way, you should make a profit in the long run. Of course, there are no guarantees for this either.
Pairing 1 X 2
Gladbach Wolfsburg 2.71 3.92 2.66
FC Bayern HSV 1.42 5.80 8.27
Dortmund Nuremberg 1.44 5.16 9.11
Augsburg Hoffenheim 2.81 3.73 2.66
Stuttgart Leverkusen 2.56 4.37 2.63
Bremen Freiburg 1.69 4.68 5.11
FC Cologne Kaiserslautern 2.27 4.20 3.11
Mainz Schalke 04 2.26 3.82 3.39
Hannover Hertha 1.81 4.49 4.44
Comparison with the betting exchange betfair
(The betting recommendations)
Pairing 1 X 2
Gladbach Wolfsburg 2.74 3.60 2.74
FC Bayern HSV 1.37 5.3 10.5
Dortmund Nuremberg 1.34 5.4 12.00
Augsburg Hoffenheim 2.82 3.45 2.62
Stuttgart Leverkusen 2.44 3.60 3.07
Bremen Freiburg 1.64 4.30 5.90
FC Cologne Kaiserslautern 2.38 3.50 3.35
Mainz Schalke 04 2.66 3.40 2.82
Hannover Hertha 2.22 3.50 3.50
Well, this week looks quite modest when you look at the odds shown. Certainly Nuremberg is “recommended”, so to speak. There is only one reason for not marking it here: the “Lay” page is much more suitable. And there should not be a separate statistic about this. Playing for high odds is subject to much more fluctuation. You can hit two in quick succession (and write a “very good” on your self-issued report card), or you miss for months without it having any particular significance. (Almost the same applies to HSV in Munich).
But here is another remark on the subject: of course, even with the computer in league, one is not obliged for a long time to actually place a bet that is displayed. One has more or less confidence in the values, plus a history, and, readily admitted, now and then sympathies or antipathies. In this case, it is as follows: HSV has been so weak that one simply has no confidence in the team. They first have to prove their potential. So: no bet, one pass.
In the case of Nuremberg, it looks like you were against them in the first two matches, so to speak (regardless of the recommendations here, but Hannover was also a settled bet here). Why should one now “change sides” and trust them? The other deviations are too small to make them seem worthwhile, Only Leverkusen at Stuttgart could still be included. Se have their win and they have the potential: that could fit and work out.
2) The 2nd Bundesliga
a. The table situation
Please still be patient. In the first few weeks, the workload was significantly higher as far as these texts are concerned. The 2nd league will be included soon, without adding a “promised”.
b. The chances of promotion
Note: the simulation of League 2 runs exactly like that of League 1. 5000 runs were also made. Third place logically gives a 1/3 chance of promotion, although it should still depend on the pairing. Since the top favourites are ahead here, it could well be 50% that the second division third place team has against the first division third last.
c. Point expectations and discrepancies
d. Evaluation of the 4th second division matchday
average determination arrived at:
e. Preview of the 5th second league matchday
Maybe starting next week!