People are literally arguing against mathematics in this thread. All things considering, it is very impressive.
Go back to school, guys.
Go back to school, guys.
I meant the away team in the first leg, so I agree with youI'm not sure what this theoretical argument is based on.
You are arguing that the away team has an advantage because they can win with a score draw, but this ignores the obvious home advantage as well as the fact the away team were unable to score a goal against their opponent even when it was them who had home advantage.
These aren't speculative factors, they are actual ones. As you just said, you'd back Liverpool to progress if they were the home team. Home advantage is an extremely big factor in European ties. The whole concept of the away goal rule is to try and account for this.
On average, no.On average, yes. The bigger the gap in quality between the two sides the bigger the effect. (see the slight drift in Barca's odds). With two evenly matched sides, it has NO effect. We have explained it multiple times now.
I have actually been thinking about this a lot today, as there were a couple of things I could not reconcile, despite being comfortable with the fact that a 0-0 in the first leg will on average see the home side in the second leg progress 67% of the time and the away side 33% of the time. The historical data shows that to be true, even when removing seeded ties where the better team players away first from the equation. I think the question is still why though? Does home advantage so comfortably outweigh score draws being a defeat? I'm not sure.Again you are missing the point. The stronger team doesn't play the first leg away more often. In a random draw they play the away leg first 50% of the time. But the stronger team away first produces more 0-0s which is what we are basing our data sample on. It has been shown many times now that are you wrong so I suggest you read the relevant posts again.
Instead of agreeing with me I'd prefer you'd just look at the betting markets, though. Look at the price movements (or lack thereof) after a 0-0 in the first leg. High-liquidity financial markets (particularly in mainstream markets such as the CL) aren't so completely wrong and Siorac from the Internet is right. Just no.
Unless your name is reddevilboy in which case Bet365 will allow a 50k stake and automatically upgrade you to a VIP account.Euro bookies will disregard any big bet as their max stake is 20k (and anyone profitable would be banned anyway)
Strange on so many levelsNot to sure what your 2nd hypothesis is about, isn't that a completely different discussion? whether its better to be drawn home or away first? I don't really see where that would be relevant to this topic.
The 1st hypothesis is the main argument here, it clearly shows that if you take a large sample of 0-0 draws, the stronger team will more often be away from home. it means the already weak as hell sample of 33 ties that had a 0-0 draw in the first leg also has significant bias, and isn't good for proving anything.
I don't think it needs a great deal of explaining, the betting odds pagh showed displays it, but it should be pretty obvious that man city would be more likely to draw away at a schalke than at home.
Very nice. Thanks for taking the time. Who did you consider top teams when looking st the results?I have actually been thinking about this a lot today, as there were a couple of things I could not reconcile, despite being comfortable with the fact that a 0-0 in the first leg will on average see the home side in the second leg progress 67% of the time and the away side 33% of the time. The historical data shows that to be true, even when removing seeded ties where the better team players away first from the equation. I think the question is still why though? Does home advantage so comfortably outweigh score draws being a defeat? I'm not sure.
I think Pagh Wraith could have a point. I think the data could be corrupted in the sense 0-0s happen more frequently in the first leg when the weaker team is at home and the stronger team is away, regardless of whether they were seeded this way. I think that Pagh could also be barking up the wrong tree, so I looked elsewhere at the pattern of home wins, score draws and away wins in football matches in general.
What I've not be able to explain is why does the home team in the second leg progress two-thirds of the time? Do home teams generally win two-thirds of their matches, with score draws and away wins making up the other third? Not really. I've not got CL figures, but in the PL in 17/18 46% matches were home wins, 18% score draws and 28% away wins. That's 46% vs 46%, with scoreless draws being split for the sake of argument. La Liga in 17/18 was 47% home wins, 16% score draws and 30% away wins. That's 47% vs 46%. At random I looked at Serie A in 12/13 where you get 47% home wins, 16% score draws and 28% away wins. That's 47% vs 44%. Clearly home wins vs score draws and away wins are balanced pretty evenly. Why therefore are we seeing the home team in a second leg progress after a 0-0 away at a much higher percentage at 67% or so? The pattern of results in normal football, albeit league matches, does not support this.
I'm wondering if the distribution of match results between top sides, i.e. sides that are more closely matched than those on average in a top European league, which is the Champions League knockout rounds, is quite different. In matches between top sides, in the league, in a cup, in Europe, wherever, actually looks more like 60% home win, 12% score draw, 18% away win, so 60% vs 30%, with the goalless draws split. After all, the number of away wins you would expect to be less when you removes fixtures from a sample, like United and City going away to Cardiff and Huddersfield, but instead only away to Liverpool and Chelsea. Here you are focusing on fixtures where the home advantage is the bigger difference between the two sides than actual footballing ability. On a neutral ground, the sides would be close to 50/50. In a home/away match, that is very different.
My hypothesis would therefore be that sides progress 66% of the time at home in the second leg after a 0-0 draw away in the first leg, because European two-legged matches tend to feature much more closely matched sides, than you average league match where sides are more disperse in ability, and where the pattern of home wins vs score draws and away wins is quite different
Regardless, this doesn't change the fact that if Team A vs Team B finishes 0-0 in the first leg, you should take Team B to go through when they play at home in the second leg every time, if all things are otherwise equal and you do not know anything more specific.
This is indeed what I am saying. And there is no doubt about it. The Liverpool v Bayern tie is the best example.That might be what YOU are arguing but definitely not what Pagh is. He says that 0-0 does not alter the chances in evenly matched ties and that the evidence proves it. Read back his posts.
Not completely bonkers. On the second leg, the first leg home team (FLHT) only have to play to a scoring draw to advance without PK's. The first leg away team (FLAT) has to win at home to advance without PK's. To offset that, the FLAT has home-crowd advantage on the second leg. All else being equal, FLHT has two ways to advance, while FLAT has only one. But...Well, the "impossible to say" argument is respectable, I think. That has some merit.
Saying the first leg's home team is better off after a 0-0 is completely bonkers though.
That isn't how Pinnacle do it though, they use their sharp players to adjust their lines. I think you could make a strong case that their method is optimum, if you could be arsed like.Correct they copy Pinnacle and Betfair Exchange.
Models update with new information causing prices to move, then whoever is sticking out will shift their odds, then whoever is now sticking out will shift their odds etc.
If we see an unusually large bet come in on something all we do is check the market and see if we're in line, we don't adjust unless theres something wrong with the odds.
I already told you this is my job so I'm not sure why you're so insistent on telling me I don't know how it works.
None of this post makes any sense. If I understand you correctly, you think that Liverpool are the better side and were the favourites before kickoff. The betting markets disagree. The first leg was priced as an evenly matched affair for a long time (meaning the home team is around 2.20 to win) with a very late drift in Liverpool's odds. They closed at 2.33 which means Bayern were rated as the slightly better team at kick-off. If this is true, then 0-0 is a slightly better result for Liverpool which could explain the slight shortening of Liverpool's odds to progress. This is so marginal though and within the margin of error that it barely matters. For the purpose of this thread these are two equal teams and the first leg result did not alter their chances of advancing to the next round. If we look at the second leg, we see that Bayern are 2.10 (implied chance of ~47.5%) to win (so again they are rated the better side by a fraction). And if we add up all the different scorelines that see them progress (~47.5% wins + a little more than half of the 0-0 results) we arrive at the same 50% we had before the ball was kicked. I don't know how many extra-times and penalties are won by the home side, but even if it were 100% that number would only rise to ~54%. The first leg result had NO effect on the teams' chances. If you go through historical odds and results of other evenly matched ties that were goalless after the first leg you will find the exact same thing. I'm repeating myself here but the bookies are not wrong. There is a direct 1:1 correlation between closing odds in high-liquidity markets and actual results.I can't believe you're seriously using the betting odds from one game to back up your argument?
Liverpool were the CL finalists last season, have lost just one game in the league so far and played Bayern without, arguably, their most important player this season. Of course the bookies (and pundits) will fancy their chances of beating a Bayern team that's fallen below their usual standards.
None of that has any bearing on whether or not the result favours the home team in the second leg.
We do need a lot more examples though. There are other factors effecting the odds in a one off match.This is indeed what I am saying. And there is no doubt about it. The Liverpool v Bayern tie is the best example.
Your argument started off as the seeding contaminated the sample.This is getting super tiresome and I'm done for now here. I'll check back tomorrow to see if there's any progress been made in this thread.
Correct, there are other factors in play and new information that wasn't present in the initial pricing, such as each team having a relative home/away strength, and the very fact the betting markets have SEEN both teams play each other once and one team might have performed better than expected, also the suspension for Kimmich would cause a relative drift for Bayern compared to what they would be with him.We do need a lot more examples though. There are other factors effecting the odds in a one off match.
We both thought the initial data discrepancy (the very fact the odds are 50/50 is enough to be sceptical about data that finds the chances being 67/33) could be attributed to the seeded draw in the last 16. When it became clear that this didn't really impact the data he came up with the idea that 0-0 draws are just generally more likely to occur with the favourite playing away from home.Your argument started off as the seeding contaminated the sample.
Then it changed the fact that stronger teams are more likely to get 0-0 away.
If that wasn't the case then nobody understood that and you failed to correct them when they didn't.
Both valid arguments, don't get me wrong, but the confusion in this thread is at least partly to do with you and your inability to articulate yourself well, and not just, as you're implying here, that we're all a bit thick.
Yeah true, sports trading is a bit of a joke in the west these days, it's all completely automated to just follow pinnacle who do all the actual work.That isn't how Pinnacle do it though, they use their sharp players to adjust their lines. I think you could make a strong case that their method is optimum, if you could be arsed like.
IF we agree home advantage has declined gradually since 1965, that 45% chance probably increases a touch, if the approximated figure is in the 47-48% chance area, given error bounds, variance etc (defining teams of equal strength is the big error bound), is this really enough to say statistical significance that the real figure differs from 50/50?GUYS.
There's an actual study done on this by the "European Journal of Operational Research" that included ALL European ties since 1965 (when the away goal rule was introduced.) It details different likelihoods based on the quality of teams in question. For example, it is subclassified into "Teams of equal strength" and "Weak home team & Strong away team". For teams of approximately equal strength, the likelihood of the home team that attained the 0-0 draw in the first leg (in this case, Liverpool) progressing is approximately 45%.
So basically Bayern have a very small advantage if you think Bayern and Liverpool are of equal strength.
Fantastic post. Maybe the home advantage in European matches is a little bigger than in domestic leagues simply due to less familiarity with the environment for the away team?I have actually been thinking about this a lot today, as there were a couple of things I could not reconcile, despite being comfortable with the fact that a 0-0 in the first leg will on average see the home side in the second leg progress 67% of the time and the away side 33% of the time. The historical data shows that to be true, even when removing seeded ties where the better team players away first from the equation. I think the question is still why though? Does home advantage so comfortably outweigh score draws being a defeat? I'm not sure.
I think Pagh Wraith could have a point. I think the data could be corrupted in the sense 0-0s happen more frequently in the first leg when the weaker team is at home and the stronger team is away, regardless of whether they were seeded this way. I think that Pagh could also be barking up the wrong tree, so I looked elsewhere at the pattern of home wins, score draws and away wins in football matches in general.
What I've not be able to explain is why does the home team in the second leg progress two-thirds of the time? Do home teams generally win two-thirds of their matches, with score draws and away wins making up the other third? Not really. I've not got CL figures, but in the PL in 17/18 46% matches were home wins, 18% score draws and 28% away wins. That's 46% vs 46%, with scoreless draws being split for the sake of argument. La Liga in 17/18 was 47% home wins, 16% score draws and 30% away wins. That's 47% vs 46%. At random I looked at Serie A in 12/13 where you get 47% home wins, 16% score draws and 28% away wins. That's 47% vs 44%. Clearly home wins vs score draws and away wins are balanced pretty evenly. Why therefore are we seeing the home team in a second leg progress after a 0-0 away at a much higher percentage at 67% or so? The pattern of results in normal football, albeit league matches, does not support this.
I'm wondering if the distribution of match results between top sides, i.e. sides that are more closely matched than those on average in a top European league, which is the Champions League knockout rounds, is quite different. In matches between top sides, in the league, in a cup, in Europe, wherever, actually looks more like 60% home win, 12% score draw, 18% away win, so 60% vs 30%, with the goalless draws split. After all, the number of away wins you would expect to be less when you removes fixtures from a sample, like United and City going away to Cardiff and Huddersfield, but instead only away to Liverpool and Chelsea. Here you are focusing on fixtures where the home advantage is the bigger difference between the two sides than actual footballing ability. On a neutral ground, the sides would be close to 50/50. In a home/away match, that is very different.
My hypothesis would therefore be that sides progress 66% of the time at home in the second leg after a 0-0 draw away in the first leg, because European two-legged matches tend to feature much more closely matched sides, than you average league match where sides are more disperse in ability, and where the pattern of home wins vs score draws and away wins is quite different
Regardless, this doesn't change the fact that if Team A vs Team B finishes 0-0 in the first leg, you should take Team B to go through when they play at home in the second leg every time, if all things are otherwise equal and you do not know anything more specific.
Just be clear, I’ve not looked at the distribution of home wins, score draws and away wins between top teams. I was just guessing what it may look like. It would be labourious to do it manually, as I don’t have a data set for it. I can’t even find data for matches in the CL aggregated like that, only for domestic leagues.Very nice. Thanks for taking the time. Who did you consider top teams when looking st the results?
I knew the data was wrong based on logic and math. So the influence of seeded teams was the obvious explanation. And it does have an influence just not to the extent I expected. So then I looked for another aspect that explains the discrepancy and found it. It is a complex issue and I've been trying to articulate myself well. It's just super frustrating to argue with people who are not as educated about a particular subject (and there is nothing wrong with that!) as yourself when you know you're right. We have argued with numbers and hard facts in between noise of "yeah but if the home team couldn't score against you on their home turf they are obviously weaker so 0-0 is good for the away team" (paraphrasing here) which is just random words really and doesn't advance the conversation at all. Then you get people trying to explain how bookmakers work (or that these markets don't mean anything) to others who actually work in the betting industry. I think I know a bit about betting markets and I wouldn't dare that.Your argument started off as the seeding contaminated the sample.
Then it changed the fact that stronger teams are more likely to get 0-0 away.
If that wasn't the case then nobody understood that and you failed to correct them when they didn't.
Both valid arguments, don't get me wrong, but the confusion in this thread is at least partly to do with you and your inability to articulate yourself well, and not just, as you're implying here, that we're all a bit thick.
Pretty much this. Home advantage is much lower these days than it was in the 70s and 80s (see here: http://old.clubelo.com/Articles/Themysteriousdeclineofhomeadvantage.html). I used 0.35 goals for my calculations which is a good average in modern-day football and got a chance of progressing of 51% for the home side from the first leg. If I change the home advantage to 0.5 goals that number declines to 48%, if I use 0.7 goals, it goes down to 44%! Also I (conservatively) assumed that the home side wins about 55% of extra times and penalty shootouts. The number could be higher in reality moving the chances of both sides to ~52/48%.IF we agree home advantage has declined gradually since 1965, that 45% chance probably increases a touch, if the approximated figure is in the 47-48% chance area, given error bounds, variance etc (defining teams of equal strength is the big error bound), is this really enough to say statistical significance that the real figure differs from 50/50?
We've been through this in the CL thread. It's not against mathematics. Statistics are a different animal. People are confusing statistics of actual outcomes with being favored by the possible results.People are literally arguing against mathematics in this thread. All things considering, it is very impressive.
Go back to school, guys.
Does anyone have a link to the paper?GUYS.
There's an actual study done on this by the "European Journal of Operational Research" that included ALL European ties since 1965 (when the away goal rule was introduced.) It details different likelihoods based on the quality of teams in question. For example, it is subclassified into "Teams of equal strength" and "Weak home team & Strong away team". For teams of approximately equal strength, the likelihood of the home team that attained the 0-0 draw in the first leg (in this case, Liverpool) progressing is approximately 45%.
So basically Bayern have a very small advantage if you think Bayern and Liverpool are of equal strength.
Fixed@Pagh Wraith the link is broken
Depends on how you define significant.Is the away goals system actually that massively significant?
cheers!Fixed
Hm?People are literally arguing against mathematics in this thread. All things considering, it is very impressive.
Go back to school, guys.
How many of those draws are goalless?Liverpool record 17/18 season:
Home: 19 matches, 12 wins, 7 draws, 0 losses
Away: 19 Matches, 9 Wins, 5 draws, 5 losses
/thread can be closed
I don't rate home advantage as some do. Ultimately it comes down to the strength of both teams, but the disadvantage of having to win the game unlike the other team more than balances out home advantage imo.Hm?
You folks are valuing being at home too much.
Get a early goal against and you lose unless you score two. If they could hold you to 0-0 then the probably they can keep you from scoring 2.
Yeah. That is my view as well.I don't rate home advantage as some do. Ultimately it comes down to the strength of both teams, but the disadvantage of having to win the game unlike the other team more than balances out home advantage imo.
Pretty much.I don't rate home advantage as some do. Ultimately it comes down to the strength of both teams, but the disadvantage of having to win the game unlike the other team more than balances out home advantage imo.
No, he never proved anything, just kept saying he did. And keeps using the betting odds for Bayern v Liverpool as proof for some inexplicable reason. He even used it now when someone asked how significant the away goal system generally is. It's a bit bizarre.@Pagh Wraith the link is broken
I've seen you say it's proven beyond any doubt a few times and I'm inclined to believe you, but the thread is a mess and it's hard to discern when or where that happened, to be honest. ( I'm not asking you to go over it again, just saying I can see why people are confused )
That's an odd argument. Surely you can then say that if a team couldn't score at home, surely the home team in the second leg can keep them from scoring away.Hm?
You folks are valuing being at home too much.
Get a early goal against and you lose unless you score two. If they could hold you to 0-0 then the probably they can keep you from scoring 2.