Even then it just doesn't add up. One player alone can't fix a match. A goalkeeper can let in a soft penalty, but even that can't guarantee a result. And they would still have to offer him squillions when the average goalie can make millions a year.
This is a betting site right ? You can bet on number of corners, fouls, red cards, yellow cards, ect. Not just who wins.
A player can help you to get the right number in exhange for a price, it's another form of match fixing but still match fixing.
Say you bet 100k on player X to get a yellow card at match Y, and the player X agrees to get a yellow card in exchange for half of the profits, it's still match fixing.
That's known as spot fixing, which while a form of match fixing it is not what is normally meant by match fixing. Match fixing means fixing the result while spot fixing is what you described.
I wouldn't get too hung up on the terms. The people been caught on camera are the same people openly admitting to things nobody with a brain would ever disclose.
Also, when the NOTW broke the spot fixing scandal, they used the term "Match Fixing" in their videos, when what was being explained was "Spot Fixing".
Labour continues to sprint towards the cliff edge...
Fuck me.
"Corbyn's spokesman told journalists: “He is not concerned about numbers,” adding that rather than seeking controls on immigration, Labour would seek to mitigate its effects on low-paid workers by reintroducing a “migrant impact fund”."
Not concerned about numbers. Half a million migrants a year, three million, eight billion, Labour OFFICIALLY DOESN'T CARE
Suicidal.
Well, the immigrants would always be a big improvement over the white working class.
None of them would be nationalistic, homophobic, misogynistic, transphobic or indeed right wing socially (at all) like the WWC.
Labour continues to sprint towards the cliff edge...
Fuck me.
"Corbyn's spokesman told journalists: “He is not concerned about numbers,” adding that rather than seeking controls on immigration, Labour would seek to mitigate its effects on low-paid workers by reintroducing a “migrant impact fund”."
Not concerned about numbers. Half a million migrants a year, three million, eight billion, Labour OFFICIALLY DOESN'T CARE
Suicidal.
Well, the immigrants would always be a big improvement over the white working class.
None of them would be nationalistic, homophobic, misogynistic, transphobic or indeed right wing socially (at all) like the WWC.
They might need vetting for anti-semitism though, just to be sure.
The same individual, who used to manage a high profile team, had also fixed a game, Mr Pagliara claimed. The manager’s representatives yesterday described the allegations as “completely false”. In several instances, he admitted that he had personally paid the officials “bungs” to secure deals.
Blimey.
Bungs is priced in.
Match fixing takes this to a whole new level.
Mr Pagliara, an unlicensed agent who was banned from football for five years in 2005 for match-fixing.
Match fixing means chokey
It's increadibly easy to fix matches in football.
Just think, all matches are determined with a score of at most half a dozen goals, most times a single goal is enough to win.
The referees have the power to give a goal to a team through a penalty or to aid them as close as possible to the goal posts with a variety of means, of even to cancel a goal from the opposite team and to keep them away from the goal posts.
Then you have the goalkeepers who can be bent to look the other way.
Then you have the other players to play a bad game.
And finally the coatch who can sabotage his own team.
That's why I prefer basketball. In that sport the referee has less power, and since the winning score is so high and with no goalkeeper it's much more difficult to fix a basketball match.
But the EPL is protected by the sheer amount of dosh already available. The average wage of a premiership player is £2.3 MILLION a year
You'd have to find a player who was weirdly, bizarrely desperate for money (despite his income) and willing to risk prison because the rewards were so tempting, and also he'd have to persuade others, probably on both teams. It would cost the fixer tens of millions, all without anyone suspecting.
For what? Nah. Don't believe it.
I'm sure matches are fixed, but not in the EPL since the big money rolled in.
But Allardyce was on £3 MILLION a year. I find it as weird and bizarre as you do, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Just as with City traders - there is a culture of crazy spending. The footballers are notorious for being in debt. Gambling is apparently a big problem among Premier League players.
Think how many big name Hollywood stars have filed for bankruptcy....
An appropiate name for an overpriced space coffin.
Although we can save countless of lives if Musk is the first to try his own spaceship.
Tell that to Elcano or the crew of the Pinta. The world would be so much better if they hadn't embarked.
Life without some risk is no life. We all take calculated (and uncalculated) risks: sometimes these risks are how the world progresses.
Avoiding risks means stagnation; doubly so for a society.
Well the earth was already proven to be round by 1492, and portuguese explorers where already on the high seas with ships that could float and sail the distance (a critical difference with Musk's plans).
Colombus was proposing something that could be done with aleady existing and tested technology, Musk is proposing something that can't be done with existing and tested technology.
Musk is simply trying to sell a Star Treck episode to Wall Street, not to actually make a trip to Mars.
Educated people knew the Earth was round in ancient times.
But sailing West was a huge risk in 1492. And, we owe a lot to people who are willing to blow fortunes and/or risk their lives purely in order to satisfy intellectual curiosity.
Columbus and others thought that they could sail straight over to Asia by sailing west, There was no knowledge of the New World, and Ptolemy (1st cen. AD) underestimated the circumference on his world map.
Yet Eratosthnes had calculated the sircumference well before Ptolemy, within 10-15%.
Labour continues to sprint towards the cliff edge...
Fuck me.
"Corbyn's spokesman told journalists: “He is not concerned about numbers,” adding that rather than seeking controls on immigration, Labour would seek to mitigate its effects on low-paid workers by reintroducing a “migrant impact fund”."
Not concerned about numbers. Half a million migrants a year, three million, eight billion, Labour OFFICIALLY DOESN'T CARE
Suicidal.
Well, the immigrants would always be a big improvement over the white working class.
None of them would be nationalistic, homophobic, misogynistic, transphobic or indeed right wing socially (at all) like the WWC.
They might need vetting for anti-semitism though, just to be sure.
I presume Shami Chakrabarti will be given that job in Jezza government.
Labour continues to sprint towards the cliff edge...
Fuck me.
"Corbyn's spokesman told journalists: “He is not concerned about numbers,” adding that rather than seeking controls on immigration, Labour would seek to mitigate its effects on low-paid workers by reintroducing a “migrant impact fund”."
Not concerned about numbers. Half a million migrants a year, three million, eight billion, Labour OFFICIALLY DOESN'T CARE
Suicidal.
Well, the immigrants would always be a big improvement over the white working class.
None of them would be nationalistic, homophobic, misogynistic, transphobic or indeed right wing socially (at all) like the WWC.
They might need vetting for anti-semitism though, just to be sure.
Just in case they accidentally let in someone who isn't?
It's probably easier to consistently fix matches in basketball. Penalties and disallowed goals are relatively rare and scrutinised closely. Over multiple matches it'd become rather glaring.
In basketball it's much easier to call fouls on a team tighter, give them more free throws or get an important player in foul trouble. It's much easier to affect the score in a consistent and subtle manner.
Like spot fixing in cricket, you can make it really subtle. Just adjusting / affecting the rate of scoring by slowing down play.
The world top basketball better worked out that a number of refs were bent in the NBA several years ago, because his high sophisticated models would not line up with the real world events. Only when he did incredibly detailed analysis thinking he had a flaw in his model did he realised what was going on, and this is despite watching every game by eye he hadn't seen anything dodgy.
Correct, although that's difficult to square with Speedy's claim that "In that sport the referee has less power, and since the winning score is so high and with no goalkeeper it's much more difficult to fix a basketball match."
Never mind.
Speedy is quite simply wrong on this. It happened, its fact, one ref went to jail and those in the know are certain it was much wider spread.
Haralabos Voulgaris has made a career for the past 10+ years as the world top basketball bettor, it is known his analytics / game modelling is superior to even that used by the teams and he has been interviewed about his on several occasions, explaining how and why it works.
Speedy is I think right.
I suggest that you read "The Numbers Game" by Anderson and Sally, pages 51 to 57.
To summarise, numerous studies have shown that football is the least predictable of the team sports, the contrast being drawn with basketball. "Football is just a dicier proposition. Bookmakers clearly think football is more susceptible to chance regardless of how lopsided the contest appears to be, and these businessmen know their market."
So given the fact that outcomes in football are much more random, and also determined by very small margins, it follows I think that the opportunities for corrupt refereeing to influence those outcomes is all the greater.
I suggest that you read "The Numbers Game" by Anderson and Sally, pages 51 to 57.
To summarise, numerous studies have shown that football is the least predictable of the team sports, the contrast being drawn with basketball. "Football is just a dicier proposition. Bookmakers clearly think football is more susceptible to chance regardless of how lopsided the contest appears to be, and these businessmen know their market."
So given the fact that outcomes in football are much more random, and also determined by very small margins, it follows I think that the opportunities for corrupt refereeing to influence those outcomes is all the greater.
That isn't quite the same point. He said it is difficult to fix / influence matches in NBA, it just isn't true. It has happened and it was trivial how it was done, but took somebody with an incredibly complex model to realise it was going on.
Given that book is from 2013 they should have known about NBA fixing scandal and just how simple it was.
I won't disagree though that given football is often decided by just one goal, the ref can have a massive affect, but then should also be easier to spot, unless it isn't on tv.
But then we aren't comparing apples with apples. NBA happened right in front of millions watching and all those "expert" analysts.
A bit of a disagreement, then, between Corbyn and Rachel Reeves...
between Corbyn and Rachel Reeves, Chuka Umunna, Emma Reynolds....
All from the opposite wing of the party, suggesting that they are coordinating their opposition to his stance on open borders to make this a clear dividing line. As well they should.
Trump gains net 2% from the Debate in Gravis flash poll, even though Clinton "won" the debate 48% to 44%.
"Two percent of voters, previously undecided, switched to Trump after the debate. No undecideds went to Clinton. One percent switched from Trump to Clinton, and one percent switched from Clinton to Trump."
Trump gains net 2% from the Debate in Gravis flash poll, even though Clinton "won" the debate 48% to 44%.
"Two percent of voters, previously undecided, switched to Trump after the debate. No undecideds went to Clinton. One percent switched from Trump to Clinton, and one percent switched from Clinton to Trump."
On Allardyce, it's reported that he's left with a seven figure pay off. Presumably cheaper or at least less embarrassing than contesting a claim of unfair dismissal at a tribunal.
Regarding match fixing in football, I've seen comments here suggesting that it can't happen due to the dollops of cash sloshing around the game. But how much of that goes to the referees?
On Allardyce, it's reported that he's left with a seven figure pay off. Presumably cheaper or at least less embarrassing than contesting a claim of unfair dismissal at a tribunal.
Regarding match fixing in football, I've seen comments here suggesting that it can't happen due to the dollops of cash sloshing around the game. But how much of that goes to the referees?
EPL they earn about £100k a year. But below EPL, its peanuts.
Trump gains net 2% from the Debate in Gravis flash poll, even though Clinton "won" the debate 48% to 44%.
"Two percent of voters, previously undecided, switched to Trump after the debate. No undecideds went to Clinton. One percent switched from Trump to Clinton, and one percent switched from Clinton to Trump."
Trump gains net 2% from the Debate in Gravis flash poll, even though Clinton "won" the debate 48% to 44%.
"Two percent of voters, previously undecided, switched to Trump after the debate. No undecideds went to Clinton. One percent switched from Trump to Clinton, and one percent switched from Clinton to Trump."
Trump gains net 2% from the Debate in Gravis flash poll, even though Clinton "won" the debate 48% to 44%.
"Two percent of voters, previously undecided, switched to Trump after the debate. No undecideds went to Clinton. One percent switched from Trump to Clinton, and one percent switched from Clinton to Trump."
Trump gains net 2% from the Debate in Gravis flash poll, even though Clinton "won" the debate 48% to 44%.
"Two percent of voters, previously undecided, switched to Trump after the debate. No undecideds went to Clinton. One percent switched from Trump to Clinton, and one percent switched from Clinton to Trump."
Trump gains net 2% from the Debate in Gravis flash poll, even though Clinton "won" the debate 48% to 44%.
"Two percent of voters, previously undecided, switched to Trump after the debate. No undecideds went to Clinton. One percent switched from Trump to Clinton, and one percent switched from Clinton to Trump."
Correct, although that's difficult to square with Speedy's claim that "In that sport the referee has less power, and since the winning score is so high and with no goalkeeper it's much more difficult to fix a basketball match."
Never mind.
Speedy is quite simply wrong on this. It happened, its fact, one ref went to jail and those in the know are certain it was much wider spread.
Haralabos Voulgaris has made a career for the past 10+ years as the world top basketball bettor, it is known his analytics / game modelling is superior to even that used by the teams and he has been interviewed about his on several occasions, explaining how and why it works.
Speedy is I think right.
I suggest that you read "The Numbers Game" by Anderson and Sally, pages 51 to 57.
To summarise, numerous studies have shown that football is the least predictable of the team sports, the contrast being drawn with basketball. "Football is just a dicier proposition. Bookmakers clearly think football is more susceptible to chance regardless of how lopsided the contest appears to be, and these businessmen know their market."
So given the fact that outcomes in football are much more random, and also determined by very small margins, it follows I think that the opportunities for corrupt refereeing to influence those outcomes is all the greater.
Susceptible to chance is bad for fixing games, since you are trying to determine the outcome. Likewise all the influences the ref has tend to be large ones, send a player off, penalty, disallowed goal etc, so them happening at all is scrutinised and happening repeatedly is put under a microscope.
Basketball being more predictable and with many more small ref influences (that are harder to scrutinise) is much better I'd say. Not to mention the betting format with point shaving being easier to do subtly (with several famous examples).
(On a side note, Haralabob is a great twitter follow and interesting guy, whether his modelling is superior to what the teams' have internally is harder to say given how secretive they are about it).
Correct, although that's difficult to square with Speedy's claim that "In that sport the referee has less power, and since the winning score is so high and with no goalkeeper it's much more difficult to fix a basketball match."
Never mind.
Speedy is quite simply wrong on this. It happened, its fact, one ref went to jail and those in the know are certain it was much wider spread.
Haralabos Voulgaris has made a career for the past 10+ years as the world top basketball bettor, it is known his analytics / game modelling is superior to even that used by the teams and he has been interviewed about his on several occasions, explaining how and why it works.
Speedy is I think right.
I suggest that you read "The Numbers Game" by Anderson and Sally, pages 51 to 57.
To summarise, numerous studies have shown that football is the least predictable of the team sports, the contrast being drawn with basketball. "Football is just a dicier proposition. Bookmakers clearly think football is more susceptible to chance regardless of how lopsided the contest appears to be, and these businessmen know their market."
So given the fact that outcomes in football are much more random, and also determined by very small margins, it follows I think that the opportunities for corrupt refereeing to influence those outcomes is all the greater.
Susceptible to chance is bad for fixing games, since you are trying to determine the outcome. Likewise all the influences the ref has tend to be large ones, send a player off, penalty, disallowed goal etc, so them happening at all is scrutinised and happening repeatedly is put under a microscope.
Basketball being more predictable and with many more small ref influences (that are harder to scrutinise) is much better I'd say. Not to mention the betting format with point shaving being easier to do subtly (with several famous examples).
(On a side note, Haralabob is a great twitter follow and interesting guy, whether his modelling is superior to what the teams' have internally is harder to say given how secretive they are about it).
Well Haralabob went to work for an NBA team for a while and said they were years behind what was standard among professional bettors (and among the betting community he is thought of as having been ahead of the curve for years).
He is also very critical of many coaches tactics saying that basically what they are doing isn't backed up by proper analysis.
From what I understand, he was willing to take a massive pay cut to work for an NBA as an analyst and they didn't take to his "whacky" ideas.
An appropiate name for an overpriced space coffin.
Although we can save countless of lives if Musk is the first to try his own spaceship.
Tell that to Elcano or the crew of the Pinta. The world would be so much better if they hadn't embarked.
Life without some risk is no life. We all take calculated (and uncalculated) risks: sometimes these risks are how the world progresses.
Avoiding risks means stagnation; doubly so for a society.
Well the earth was already proven to be round by 1492, and portuguese explorers where already on the high seas with ships that could float and sail the distance (a critical difference with Musk's plans).
Colombus was proposing something that could be done with aleady existing and tested technology, Musk is proposing something that can't be done with existing and tested technology.
Musk is simply trying to sell a Star Treck episode to Wall Street, not to actually make a trip to Mars.
Educated people knew the Earth was round in ancient times.
But sailing West was a huge risk in 1492. And, we owe a lot to people who are willing to blow fortunes and/or risk their lives purely in order to satisfy intellectual curiosity.
Columbus and others thought that they could sail straight over to Asia by sailing west, There was no knowledge of the New World, and Ptolemy (1st cen. AD) underestimated the circumference on his world map.
Yet Eratosthnes had calculated the sircumference well before Ptolemy, within 10-15%.
Eratosthenes mentioned twice in this thread ( by you and me )! The old boy is having a better day than Big Sam.
The space ship is actually named "Heart of Gold", by the way. 42 engines... The name is a tribute to Douglas Adams....
42 engines ? Musk's Star Treck fantasy is based on a rocket with 42 engines ?
That's a method that has already been tested and proved to be a dangerous failure, the Soviet N1 rocket.
There is no way a rocket with that many engines won't explode, simply because if one engine fails ka-boom, the Saturn V had only 5 engines for that reason.
Trump gains net 2% from the Debate in Gravis flash poll, even though Clinton "won" the debate 48% to 44%.
"Two percent of voters, previously undecided, switched to Trump after the debate. No undecideds went to Clinton. One percent switched from Trump to Clinton, and one percent switched from Clinton to Trump."
Trump gains net 2% from the Debate in Gravis flash poll, even though Clinton "won" the debate 48% to 44%.
"Two percent of voters, previously undecided, switched to Trump after the debate. No undecideds went to Clinton. One percent switched from Trump to Clinton, and one percent switched from Clinton to Trump."
An appropiate name for an overpriced space coffin.
Although we can save countless of lives if Musk is the first to try his own spaceship.
Tell that to Elcano or the crew of the Pinta. The world would be so much better if they hadn't embarked.
Life without some risk is no life. We all take calculated (and uncalculated) risks: sometimes these risks are how the world progresses.
Avoiding risks means stagnation; doubly so for a society.
Well the earth was already proven to be round by 1492, and portuguese explorers where already on the high seas with ships that could float and sail the distance (a critical difference with Musk's plans).
Colombus was proposing something that could be done with aleady existing and tested technology, Musk is proposing something that can't be done with existing and tested technology.
Musk is simply trying to sell a Star Treck episode to Wall Street, not to actually make a trip to Mars.
Educated people knew the Earth was round in ancient times.
But sailing West was a huge risk in 1492. And, we owe a lot to people who are willing to blow fortunes and/or risk their lives purely in order to satisfy intellectual curiosity.
Columbus and others thought that they could sail straight over to Asia by sailing west, There was no knowledge of the New World, and Ptolemy (1st cen. AD) underestimated the circumference on his world map.
Yet Eratosthnes had calculated the sircumference well before Ptolemy, within 10-15%.
Eratosthenes mentioned twice in this thread ( by you and me )! The old boy is having a better day than Big Sam.
The space ship is actually named "Heart of Gold", by the way. 42 engines... The name is a tribute to Douglas Adams....
Excellent! Obviously I already knew his drone ships were named 'Just Read the Instructions' and 'Of Course I Still Love You' in tribute to Iain Banks' Culture ships. What a hero!
Well Haralabob went to work for an NBA team for a while and said they were years behind what was standard among professional bettors. He is also very critical of many coaches tactics saying that basically what they are doing isn't backed up by proper analysis.
Really? I don't remember that?
Unless it was very recently then I'd say it's hard to overstate how much the league has come on in recent years, notably with the sportsvu cameras (and the other sports-science stuff) but also stats generally.
As for coaches, I suspect for many of them it'll be a generational thing.
Well Haralabob went to work for an NBA team for a while and said they were years behind what was standard among professional bettors. He is also very critical of many coaches tactics saying that basically what they are doing isn't backed up by proper analysis.
Really? I don't remember that?
Unless it was very recently then I'd say it's hard to overstate how much the league has come on in recent years, notably with the sportsvu cameras (and the other sports-science stuff) but also stats generally.
As for coaches, I suspect for many of them it'll be a generational thing.
Yes it was recent. I want to say 3 year ago.
Edit:- Time flies it was 5 years ago. He worked for them for 6 months and was very critical of how far behind they were. Perhaps they are now much better now.
Trump gains net 2% from the Debate in Gravis flash poll, even though Clinton "won" the debate 48% to 44%.
"Two percent of voters, previously undecided, switched to Trump after the debate. No undecideds went to Clinton. One percent switched from Trump to Clinton, and one percent switched from Clinton to Trump."
Trump gains net 2% from the Debate in Gravis flash poll, even though Clinton "won" the debate 48% to 44%.
"Two percent of voters, previously undecided, switched to Trump after the debate. No undecideds went to Clinton. One percent switched from Trump to Clinton, and one percent switched from Clinton to Trump."
An appropiate name for an overpriced space coffin.
Although we can save countless of lives if Musk is the first to try his own spaceship.
Tell that to Elcano or the crew of the Pinta. The world would be so much better if they hadn't embarked.
Life without some risk is no life. We all take calculated (and uncalculated) risks: sometimes these risks are how the world progresses.
Avoiding risks means stagnation; doubly so for a society.
Well the earth was already proven to be round by 1492, and portuguese explorers where already on the high seas with ships that could float and sail the distance (a critical difference with Musk's plans).
Colombus was proposing something that could be done with aleady existing and tested technology, Musk is proposing something that can't be done with existing and tested technology.
Musk is simply trying to sell a Star Treck episode to Wall Street, not to actually make a trip to Mars.
Educated people knew the Earth was round in ancient times.
But sailing West was a huge risk in 1492. And, we owe a lot to people who are willing to blow fortunes and/or risk their lives purely in order to satisfy intellectual curiosity.
Columbus and others thought that they could sail straight over to Asia by sailing west, There was no knowledge of the New World, and Ptolemy (1st cen. AD) underestimated the circumference on his world map.
Yet Eratosthnes had calculated the sircumference well before Ptolemy, within 10-15%.
Eratosthenes mentioned twice in this thread ( by you and me )! The old boy is having a better day than Big Sam.
The space ship is actually named "Heart of Gold", by the way. 42 engines... The name is a tribute to Douglas Adams....
42 engines ? Musk's Star Treck fantasy is based on a rocket with 42 engines ?
That's a method that has already been tested and proved to be a dangerous failure, the Soviet N1 rocket.
There is no way a rocket with that many engines won't explode, simply because if one engine fails ka-boom, the Saturn V had only 5 engines for that reason.
Let's hope he manages to develop the Infinite Improbability drive soon!
Well Haralabob went to work for an NBA team for a while and said they were years behind what was standard among professional bettors. He is also very critical of many coaches tactics saying that basically what they are doing isn't backed up by proper analysis.
Really? I don't remember that?
Unless it was very recently then I'd say it's hard to overstate how much the league has come on in recent years, notably with the sportsvu cameras (and the other sports-science stuff) but also stats generally.
As for coaches, I suspect for many of them it'll be a generational thing.
Yes it was recent. I want to say 3 year ago.
Hmm, even that was pre-sportsvu I think. He may be right, certainly for some teams. I was in particular thinking of an article I read about the spurs where they were adjusting their players' minutes during a game based on their internal data from fitness tests etc.
If you go ultra-futurology there's people suggesting in-game coaching will be surpassed by modelling due to the number of variables with just humans just overseeing it.
Trump gains net 2% from the Debate in Gravis flash poll, even though Clinton "won" the debate 48% to 44%.
"Two percent of voters, previously undecided, switched to Trump after the debate. No undecideds went to Clinton. One percent switched from Trump to Clinton, and one percent switched from Clinton to Trump."
But caution, both Gravis and GCS polled only those why said they watched it, not a sample of all voters.
What I read from them is that Hillary overperforms with who won, which means that the voters in the middle are siding with Hillary, so one would expect Hillary to go up in the polls of the next few days.
If that doesn't happen well that means the voters have written off the debate as a wash (it was the worst debate in history in my opinion anyway) instead of the candidates.
Trump gains net 2% from the Debate in Gravis flash poll, even though Clinton "won" the debate 48% to 44%.
"Two percent of voters, previously undecided, switched to Trump after the debate. No undecideds went to Clinton. One percent switched from Trump to Clinton, and one percent switched from Clinton to Trump."
But caution, both Gravis and GCS polled only those why said they watched it, not a sample of all voters.
What I read from them is that Hillary overperforms with who won, which means that the voters in the middle are siding with Hillary, so one would expect Hillary to go up in the polls of the next few days.
If that doesn't happen well that means the voters have written off the debate as a wash (it was the worst debate in history in my opinion anyway) instead of the candidates.
538 made a good point that the instant polls we saw do have a skew to democratic voters (I think the poll sample was D+15, about 10 points too many). Not that it would overturn Clinton's huge win, but does moderate it slightly!
Well Haralabob went to work for an NBA team for a while and said they were years behind what was standard among professional bettors. He is also very critical of many coaches tactics saying that basically what they are doing isn't backed up by proper analysis.
Really? I don't remember that?
Unless it was very recently then I'd say it's hard to overstate how much the league has come on in recent years, notably with the sportsvu cameras (and the other sports-science stuff) but also stats generally.
As for coaches, I suspect for many of them it'll be a generational thing.
Yes it was recent. I want to say 3 year ago.
Hmm, even that was pre-sportsvu I think. He may be right, certainly for some teams. I was in particular thinking of an article I read about the spurs where they were adjusting their players' minutes during a game based on their internal data from fitness tests etc.
If you go ultra-futurology there's people suggesting in-game coaching will be surpassed by modelling due to the number of variables with just humans just overseeing it.
Its certainly a fascinating topic. Some MLB teams are now doing live markerless kinematic analysis of pitchers in game. We saw how Team GB had gained in the Olympics, and they continue to push forward the sports science .
Trump gains net 2% from the Debate in Gravis flash poll, even though Clinton "won" the debate 48% to 44%.
"Two percent of voters, previously undecided, switched to Trump after the debate. No undecideds went to Clinton. One percent switched from Trump to Clinton, and one percent switched from Clinton to Trump."
But caution, both Gravis and GCS polled only those why said they watched it, not a sample of all voters.
What I read from them is that Hillary overperforms with who won, which means that the voters in the middle are siding with Hillary, so one would expect Hillary to go up in the polls of the next few days.
If that doesn't happen well that means the voters have written off the debate as a wash (it was the worst debate in history in my opinion anyway) instead of the candidates.
Maybe, I would expect that undecideds right now are disproportionately republican and while Clinton was better the fact that Trump managed to go a full debate without saying anything too Trump-ishly horrific may give them more comfort in coming home.
Likewise I'd guess Libertarian respondents are also more republican and as 3rd party support sloughs off with the debates focusing things more heavily on the big 2 they may also swing Trump-wards.
So Clinton may have won the debate but Trump do better in the polls.
My instinct is that Clinton will hold her level, Trump will climb towards her but not past. They'll be an almighty panic going on, Clinton will out-perform her numbers and win comfortably and everyone will play down how worried they were.
Trump gains net 2% from the Debate in Gravis flash poll, even though Clinton "won" the debate 48% to 44%.
"Two percent of voters, previously undecided, switched to Trump after the debate. No undecideds went to Clinton. One percent switched from Trump to Clinton, and one percent switched from Clinton to Trump."
Trump gains net 2% from the Debate in Gravis flash poll, even though Clinton "won" the debate 48% to 44%.
"Two percent of voters, previously undecided, switched to Trump after the debate. No undecideds went to Clinton. One percent switched from Trump to Clinton, and one percent switched from Clinton to Trump."
Today's movement in the LA Times tracking poll will be interesting & the first sign of how other polls could move as a result of the debates.
If the Gravis poll results are also reflected in other polls, then the Liberal media is going to have a total meltdown.
oh breitbart. thats reliable!
itll be 3/4 days before any poll changes registee.
I guess we'll start seeing proper polls tomorrow - I agree, the instant polls are junk.
As far as I can tell the market expectation is a rough ~2% advantage to Clinton. Greater than that, her odds will shorten further.
I give it till Friday.
I hope that my average tracking poll will work, just to be sure because UPI/CVOTER is really unreliable in it's release times I added and conformed an 8th tracking poll to replace it just in case they forget to publish.
For comparison reasons, my 2012 average tracking poll went from a 3.5% Obama lead to a tie within 5 days of the 1st Debate, a position which didn't budge until Hurricane Sandy.
Well Haralabob went to work for an NBA team for a while and said they were years behind what was standard among professional bettors. He is also very critical of many coaches tactics saying that basically what they are doing isn't backed up by proper analysis.
Really? I don't remember that?
Unless it was very recently then I'd say it's hard to overstate how much the league has come on in recent years, notably with the sportsvu cameras (and the other sports-science stuff) but also stats generally.
As for coaches, I suspect for many of them it'll be a generational thing.
Yes it was recent. I want to say 3 year ago.
Hmm, even that was pre-sportsvu I think. He may be right, certainly for some teams. I was in particular thinking of an article I read about the spurs where they were adjusting their players' minutes during a game based on their internal data from fitness tests etc.
If you go ultra-futurology there's people suggesting in-game coaching will be surpassed by modelling due to the number of variables with just humans just overseeing it.
Its certainly a fascinating topic. Some MLB teams are now doing live markerless kinematic analysis of pitchers in game. We saw how Team GB had gained in the Olympics, and they continue to push forward the sports science (I have been shown some new stuff in development, but I would have to shoot you if I told you).
Would it be somewhere vital or do I get to pick the place to get shot?
I'm more familiar with rugby where teams are almost having to skip a step as it were. Because the traditional stats were less obviously applicable (and much harder to collect) than in American Football etc they weren't respected as such. Whereas the jump to detailed video-tracking and logging things that way.
Really trying to go from crawling to jogging (Although still well behind football and the American sports, not least due to so much less money around.)
Well Haralabob went to work for an NBA team for a while and said they were years behind what was standard among professional bettors. He is also very critical of many coaches tactics saying that basically what they are doing isn't backed up by proper analysis.
Really? I don't remember that?
Unless it was very recently then I'd say it's hard to overstate how much the league has come on in recent years, notably with the sportsvu cameras (and the other sports-science stuff) but also stats generally.
As for coaches, I suspect for many of them it'll be a generational thing.
Yes it was recent. I want to say 3 year ago.
Hmm, even that was pre-sportsvu I think. He may be right, certainly for some teams. I was in particular thinking of an article I read about the spurs where they were adjusting their players' minutes during a game based on their internal data from fitness tests etc.
If you go ultra-futurology there's people suggesting in-game coaching will be surpassed by modelling due to the number of variables with just humans just overseeing it.
Its certainly a fascinating topic. Some MLB teams are now doing live markerless kinematic analysis of pitchers in game. We saw how Team GB had gained in the Olympics, and they continue to push forward the sports science (I have been shown some new stuff in development, but I would have to shoot you if I told you).
Would it be somewhere vital or do I get to pick the place to get shot?
I'm more familiar with rugby where teams are almost having to skip a step as it were. Because the traditional stats were less obviously applicable (and much harder to collect) than in American Football etc they weren't respected as such. Whereas the jump to detailed video-tracking and logging things that way.
Really trying to go from crawling to jogging (Although still well behind football and the American sports, not least due to so much less money around.)
Its another area where the Geeks are taking over and winning....not on the field, but assisting the teams. The idea that just because you played the game 20 years ago you can "see" everything vs the guy with the Machine Learning expertise.
Trump gains net 2% from the Debate in Gravis flash poll, even though Clinton "won" the debate 48% to 44%.
"Two percent of voters, previously undecided, switched to Trump after the debate. No undecideds went to Clinton. One percent switched from Trump to Clinton, and one percent switched from Clinton to Trump."
Today's movement in the LA Times tracking poll will be interesting & the first sign of how other polls could move as a result of the debates.
If the Gravis poll results are also reflected in other polls, then the Liberal media is going to have a total meltdown.
Having thought about this a little, I think how the debates should be judged needs to be very sophisticated:
1. judging on policy content (that is, that there was content, not that you agreed with it) Hillary won hands down 2. judging on coherence with which policy content was presented, Hillary won hands down 3. judging on likeability, Hillary and Trump both confirmed they are unlikable, for very different reasons 4. judging against expectations of performance, Hillary did as expected, Trump may have marginally outperformed expectations - he did not maintain focus and concentration until the end, getting decidedly ragged in his ramblings, but he did not blow up completely 5. judging by emotional appeal to the electorate ... we'll find out in a few days by the direction of polls.
Personally, I place very little faith in the betting markets for predicting this election. They are made up of players such as us on PB - policy wonks and political geeks. We, collectively, are remarkably bad at assessing how those who vote mainly with their emotional brains rather than a rational assessment of the policies and presentation.
Trump gains net 2% from the Debate in Gravis flash poll, even though Clinton "won" the debate 48% to 44%.
"Two percent of voters, previously undecided, switched to Trump after the debate. No undecideds went to Clinton. One percent switched from Trump to Clinton, and one percent switched from Clinton to Trump."
Today's movement in the LA Times tracking poll will be interesting & the first sign of how other polls could move as a result of the debates.
If the Gravis poll results are also reflected in other polls, then the Liberal media is going to have a total meltdown.
Having thought about this a little, I think how the debates should be judged needs to be very sophisticated:
1. judging on policy content (that is, that there was content, not that you agreed with it) Hillary won hands down 2. judging on coherence with which policy content was presented, Hillary won hands down 3. judging on likeability, Hillary and Trump both confirmed they are unlikable, for very different reasons 4. judging against expectations of performance, Hillary did as expected, Trump may have marginally outperformed expectations - he did not maintain focus and concentration until the end, getting decidedly ragged in his ramblings, but he did not blow up completely 5. judging by emotional appeal to the electorate ... we'll find out in a few days by the direction of polls.
Personally, I place very little faith in the betting markets for predicting this election. They are made up of players such as us on PB - policy wonks and political geeks. We, collectively, are remarkably bad at assessing how those who vote mainly with their emotional brains rather than a rational assessment of the policies and presentation.
Personally, I place very little faith in the betting markets for predicting this election. They are made up of players such as us on PB - policy wonks and political geeks. We, collectively, are remarkably bad at assessing how those who vote mainly with their emotional brains rather than a rational assessment of the policies and presentation.
For me the most striking thing was how different my perception was between watching the whole thing live and watching the soundbites in news reports afterwards. Watching it live I generally thought Trump blew it apart from a few strong moments and Hillary was boringly on point but when you see the highlights in isolation Trump came across much better.
It's also worth remembering just how random some voters' opinions can be.
Unless it was very recently then I'd say it's hard to overstate how much the league has come on in recent years, notably with the sportsvu cameras (and the other sports-science stuff) but also stats generally.
As for coaches, I suspect for many of them it'll be a generational thing.
Yes it was recent. I want to say 3 year ago.
Hmm, even that was pre-sportsvu I think. He may be right, certainly for some teams. I was in particular thinking of an article I read about the spurs where they were adjusting their players' minutes during a game based on their internal data from fitness tests etc.
If you go ultra-futurology there's people suggesting in-game coaching will be surpassed by modelling due to the number of variables with just humans just overseeing it.
Its certainly a fascinating topic. Some MLB teams are now doing live markerless kinematic analysis of pitchers in game. We saw how Team GB had gained in the Olympics, and they continue to push forward the sports science (I have been shown some new stuff in development, but I would have to shoot you if I told you).
Would it be somewhere vital or do I get to pick the place to get shot?
I'm more familiar with rugby where teams are almost having to skip a step as it were. Because the traditional stats were less obviously applicable (and much harder to collect) than in American Football etc they weren't respected as such. Whereas the jump to detailed video-tracking and logging things that way.
Really trying to go from crawling to jogging (Although still well behind football and the American sports, not least due to so much less money around.)
Its another area where the Geeks are taking over and winning....not on the field, but assisting the teams. The idea that just because you played the game 20 years ago you can "see" everything vs the guy with the Machine Learning expertise.
I agree to a point, I do like to push a bit back against the geekolution where there's a tendency to dismiss things that are hard to measure as unimportant.
Intangibles get dismissed but they impact a lot of things that are clearly important (co-ordinated defence, unselfish offence, simple effort etc). Likewise with coaches, we see so little of what they do in terms of coaching players, developing them, team culture etc.
(I say this as someone who's been blown out of the poll coverage water by the true geeks).
The black man whose killing by a police officer sparked race riots in Charlotte had owned a gun, court records show, contradicting claims by his family that first prompted the unrest.
Authorities said Keith Scott was carrying a loaded weapon when he was fatally shot by a police officer last week, but Mr Scott's relatives countered that he had been carrying a book.
But in October last year, Rakeyia Scott, the victim's wife, filed a domestic violence protective order in which she said her husband carried a 9mm hand gun and that he didn't own a permit for the weapon.
Mr Scott had beat her and her eight year old child and had threatened to "kill us last night with his gun,"
42 engines ? Musk's Star Treck fantasy is based on a rocket with 42 engines ?
That's a method that has already been tested and proved to be a dangerous failure, the Soviet N1 rocket.
There is no way a rocket with that many engines won't explode, simply because if one engine fails ka-boom, the Saturn V had only 5 engines for that reason.
The N1 had four test-flights, and they all failed. But you're being a little disingenuous. Firstly, the N1 had terrible flight control systems - the first three flights used analogue computers IIRC. Secondly, they could not test-fire engines or stages - the first time they were fired was on the launch pad. They were basically doing their testing with real launches.
If I remember correctly, only the first and second launches were directly due to engine failure. For the third and fourth, it was control problems (roll and pogoing).
"There is no way a rocket with that many engines won't explode"
Wrong. As an example, SpaceX's current Falcon 9 has nine engines, has flown many times, and never failed due to an engine failure. It is not, in itself, a reason to expect failure.
As an aside, one thing that absolutely amazes me is that NASA recorded video from *inside* the fuel tanks during flight to study the way the fuel sloshed about - which they believed could be a major cause of incident.
Just reading all this football stuff, easy to see why Sam went - the FA investigations department is about to get very busy indeed, and it wouldn't have done too well to have a bad smell hanging over their most high profile employee. As others have suggested, people are likely to end up in prison here.
Comments
Also, when the NOTW broke the spot fixing scandal, they used the term "Match Fixing" in their videos, when what was being explained was "Spot Fixing".
Yes he can...
Oh hang on that's the other one.
None of them would be nationalistic, homophobic, misogynistic, transphobic or indeed right wing socially (at all) like the WWC.
Think how many big name Hollywood stars have filed for bankruptcy....
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/780809474290360325
I suggest that you read "The Numbers Game" by Anderson and Sally, pages 51 to 57.
To summarise, numerous studies have shown that football is the least predictable of the team sports, the contrast being drawn with basketball. "Football is just a dicier proposition. Bookmakers clearly think football is more susceptible to chance regardless of how lopsided the contest appears to be, and these businessmen know their market."
So given the fact that outcomes in football are much more random, and also determined by very small margins, it follows I think that the opportunities for corrupt refereeing to influence those outcomes is all the greater.
Are you an Ostrich?
Given that book is from 2013 they should have known about NBA fixing scandal and just how simple it was.
I won't disagree though that given football is often decided by just one goal, the ref can have a massive affect, but then should also be easier to spot, unless it isn't on tv.
But then we aren't comparing apples with apples. NBA happened right in front of millions watching and all those "expert" analysts.
All from the opposite wing of the party, suggesting that they are coordinating their opposition to his stance on open borders to make this a clear dividing line. As well they should.
"Two percent of voters, previously undecided, switched to Trump after the debate. No undecideds went to Clinton. One percent switched from Trump to Clinton, and one percent switched from Clinton to Trump."
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/09/26/debate-flash-poll/
Today's movement in the LA Times tracking poll will be interesting & the first sign of how other polls could move as a result of the debates.
If the Gravis poll results are also reflected in other polls, then the Liberal media is going to have a total meltdown.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/27/exclusive-eight-premier-league-managers-took-transfer-bungs-clai/
Regarding match fixing in football, I've seen comments here suggesting that it can't happen due to the dollops of cash sloshing around the game. But how much of that goes to the referees?
itll be 3/4 days before any poll changes registee.
Basketball being more predictable and with many more small ref influences (that are harder to scrutinise) is much better I'd say. Not to mention the betting format with point shaving being easier to do subtly (with several famous examples).
(On a side note, Haralabob is a great twitter follow and interesting guy, whether his modelling is superior to what the teams' have internally is harder to say given how secretive they are about it).
He is also very critical of many coaches tactics saying that basically what they are doing isn't backed up by proper analysis.
From what I understand, he was willing to take a massive pay cut to work for an NBA as an analyst and they didn't take to his "whacky" ideas.
Musk's Star Treck fantasy is based on a rocket with 42 engines ?
That's a method that has already been tested and proved to be a dangerous failure, the Soviet N1 rocket.
There is no way a rocket with that many engines won't explode, simply because if one engine fails ka-boom, the Saturn V had only 5 engines for that reason.
As far as I can tell the market expectation is a rough ~2% advantage to Clinton. Greater than that, her odds will shorten further.
Unless it was very recently then I'd say it's hard to overstate how much the league has come on in recent years, notably with the sportsvu cameras (and the other sports-science stuff) but also stats generally.
As for coaches, I suspect for many of them it'll be a generational thing.
Edit:- Time flies it was 5 years ago. He worked for them for 6 months and was very critical of how far behind they were. Perhaps they are now much better now.
If you go ultra-futurology there's people suggesting in-game coaching will be surpassed by modelling due to the number of variables with just humans just overseeing it.
http://ijr.com/2016/09/702044-exclusive-ijr-google-poll-shows-the-victory-in-last-nights-presidential-debate-goes-to-hillary-clinton
Who won the debate ?
Hillary 52
Trump 48
Who would you vote for ?
Trump 46
Hillary 44
Johnson 4
Stein 1
But caution, both Gravis and GCS polled only those why said they watched it, not a sample of all voters.
What I read from them is that Hillary overperforms with who won, which means that the voters in the middle are siding with Hillary, so one would expect Hillary to go up in the polls of the next few days.
If that doesn't happen well that means the voters have written off the debate as a wash (it was the worst debate in history in my opinion anyway) instead of the candidates.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-won-the-debate-which-means-shes-likely-to-gain-in-the-polls/
Likewise I'd guess Libertarian respondents are also more republican and as 3rd party support sloughs off with the debates focusing things more heavily on the big 2 they may also swing Trump-wards.
So Clinton may have won the debate but Trump do better in the polls.
My instinct is that Clinton will hold her level, Trump will climb towards her but not past. They'll be an almighty panic going on, Clinton will out-perform her numbers and win comfortably and everyone will play down how worried they were.
I hope that my average tracking poll will work, just to be sure because UPI/CVOTER is really unreliable in it's release times I added and conformed an 8th tracking poll to replace it just in case they forget to publish.
For comparison reasons, my 2012 average tracking poll went from a 3.5% Obama lead to a tie within 5 days of the 1st Debate, a position which didn't budge until Hurricane Sandy.
I'm more familiar with rugby where teams are almost having to skip a step as it were. Because the traditional stats were less obviously applicable (and much harder to collect) than in American Football etc they weren't respected as such. Whereas the jump to detailed video-tracking and logging things that way.
Really trying to go from crawling to jogging (Although still well behind football and the American sports, not least due to so much less money around.)
1. judging on policy content (that is, that there was content, not that you agreed with it) Hillary won hands down
2. judging on coherence with which policy content was presented, Hillary won hands down
3. judging on likeability, Hillary and Trump both confirmed they are unlikable, for very different reasons
4. judging against expectations of performance, Hillary did as expected, Trump may have marginally outperformed expectations - he did not maintain focus and concentration until the end, getting decidedly ragged in his ramblings, but he did not blow up completely
5. judging by emotional appeal to the electorate ... we'll find out in a few days by the direction of polls.
Personally, I place very little faith in the betting markets for predicting this election. They are made up of players such as us on PB - policy wonks and political geeks. We, collectively, are remarkably bad at assessing how those who vote mainly with their emotional brains rather than a rational assessment of the policies and presentation.
Miss Universe 'fat-shamed' by Donald Trump was accused of threatening to kill a judge and being an accomplice to a MURDER bid in her native Venezuela
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3810484/Miss-Universe-fat-shamed-Donald-Trump-accused-threatening-kill-judge-accomplice-MURDER-native-Venezuela.html
It's also worth remembering just how random some voters' opinions can be.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk4UDSlxENw
http://www.90min.com/posts/205421-the-top-10-players-with-the-worst-gambling-addictions-in-english-football-history
Intangibles get dismissed but they impact a lot of things that are clearly important (co-ordinated defence, unselfish offence, simple effort etc). Likewise with coaches, we see so little of what they do in terms of coaching players, developing them, team culture etc.
(I say this as someone who's been blown out of the poll coverage water by the true geeks).
Authorities said Keith Scott was carrying a loaded weapon when he was fatally shot by a police officer last week, but Mr Scott's relatives countered that he had been carrying a book.
But in October last year, Rakeyia Scott, the victim's wife, filed a domestic violence protective order in which she said her husband carried a 9mm hand gun and that he didn't own a permit for the weapon.
Mr Scott had beat her and her eight year old child and had threatened to "kill us last night with his gun,"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/27/keith-scott-owned-a-gun-court-documents-show-contradicting-claim/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/28/israels-former-president-shimon-peres-dies-after-suffering-strok/
If I remember correctly, only the first and second launches were directly due to engine failure. For the third and fourth, it was control problems (roll and pogoing).
NASA could test entire stages:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YTaG91KD5s
"There is no way a rocket with that many engines won't explode"
Wrong. As an example, SpaceX's current Falcon 9 has nine engines, has flown many times, and never failed due to an engine failure. It is not, in itself, a reason to expect failure.
As an aside, one thing that absolutely amazes me is that NASA recorded video from *inside* the fuel tanks during flight to study the way the fuel sloshed about - which they believed could be a major cause of incident.
"MARTIN SAMUEL: A pitiful, pathetic figure undone by greed... delusional Allardyce wanted to be like Fergie or Robbie Williams"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3810115/He-far-putz-Jewish-grandparents-slam-lying-tyrant-Trump-hilarious-video-rant-threaten-haunt-grandkids-Tinder-dare-vote-him.html
The Dems do seem to be using humour more.....
I don't usually look at 4chan, but this made me laugh. The Anti Defamation League has said Pepe the Frog is now a hate meme.
So 4chan are going to use Mickey Mouse instead just to annoy Disney
http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/90682597/pepe-is-the-new-hate-bullshit-bla-bla
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k85mRPqvMbE
Iceland Foods
If anyone knows Sam Allardyce, please tell him to get in touch. We could always use more store managers and yes, we can pay in pies.