I saw a new type of bet recently, Rugby League: “Team to win each half”, where you win if either team wins both halfs. Now not knowing much about rugby other than draws are quite rare, and seeing odds on some games at 2.66. (£3 gets £8 back incl stake) I’ve had a few gos. As draws are so rare, I figured that given the assumption that neither half was a draw the team that won the first half would win the second more often than losing it. Having tracked it for a while, and lost quite a few bets, it seems this is not the case, most of the time the winner of the second half is the loser of the first half. Could someone explain why?
WAG: Partly because you change sides at halftime and there may be an advantage to playing a particular way on the field, e.g, wind direction and visibility due to sun glare.
A guy I worked with was at one time making quite a bit of money on rugby and rugby league games by betting against the leaders if they had a huge lead at halftime. His theory,and his results seemed to back it up, was that the team a mile in front just went through the motions in the second half.
When this q is answered can someone kindly help me find a way to remember the difference between Union and League?
First two replies are both right. In rugby (of either code), wind direction is a bigger factor than most sports because rugby is a game of territory, and you can gain territory with a big forward kick. If the wind is against you, the opposition will not be able to manage such a big kick in return. Although the dark days of “kick tennis” in rugby union are largely behind us at the professional level, it’s still an issue.
There is also the factor that a team ahead by a small margin has less of an incentive to take risks and score points than the trailing team.
No offence, but this just sounds like yet another case of the gambling industry making money by taking advantage of punters’ misconceptions :). The bookie doesn’t have to know any of the above, but he has the stats that show the true odds.
You’ll have to be a bit more specific in what sort of help you need. But if you’re watching a game of 13-a-side, where all the players are roughly the same shape and size, and play tends to be someone running with the ball until they are tackled by 1-4 members of the opposition (they are not allowed to be helped by their own side) whereupon they roll the ball backwards and the process repeats, and after this has happened 5 times in a row someone will kick it downfield - that’s League.
If on the other hand it’s 15-a-side with players of all shapes and sizes, and play tends to involve a player being tackled whereupon his teammates and the opposition all gather round over the ball, in order to compete for who gets to pick it up, then the process repeats indefinitely until a foul is committed or the ball goes out of play - that’s Union.
I guess when I hear about the All Blacks I have no idea if that is Union or League. Is the rugby world cup union or league? Those kind of questions.
What is bigger in England? What is the more popular worldwide?
Rugby with no qualifier pretty much always refers to union. The All Blacks play union, the New Zealand league team are the Kiwis.
While league does have a world cup, and has done so far longer than rugby, it’s nowhere near as big as the rugby world cup. Probably because only 3 teams have any realistic chance of winning the league version.
Thanks. Just watched a great video that showed the main differences. What happens after the tackle being the big difference.
Union looks amazingly like the tackle the jerk game we used to play in grade school (until it was banned after too many injuries!) while League looks like what American Football must have developed from.
I was trying to decide which game appealed more to me.
League and Union diverged in 1895, by which time American football had been played for almost a generation. Simply put League emphasizes the core skills of running, passing, kicking and tackling, with Union putting greater emphasis on set pieces like scrums and lineouts, as well as the post-tackle contest that League doesn’t have at all.
I’d guess that most new comers find League easier to follow, but ultimately it’s really a matter of personal preference. You should certainly watch some Rugby World Cup games, Here’s a schedule of the US Tv coverage.
Union is bigger in England (and worldwide, as has been mentioned). Which is somewhat curious, because one of the key differences (and, indeed, the cause of the split) used to be that League was professional (i.e. the players were paid salaries) and Union was amateur (the players all had other jobs). Amazingly, Union only turned professional in 1995. However, all the top League teams in England are in the North (St Helens, Leeds, Wigan, Warrington, Hull x2, Castleford, Widnes, Wakefield, Bradford, Salford - just off the top of my head). Whereas there are decent Union teams all across the country (Exeter, Bristol, Bath, Gloucester, Leicester, Newcastle, Northampton, Sale, and several from the London area). So Union has a wider following, and much better attendances at internationals.
This shows the difference between Union and League simply https://video.xx.fbcdn.net/hvideo-xpt1/v/t42.1790-2/11879543_1015087345188800_1889733411_n.mp4?efg=eyJybHIiOjQ1OSwicmxhIjoxNDM1LCJ2ZW5jb2RlX3RhZyI6InJlc180MjZfY3JmXzIzX21haW5fMy4wX3NkIn0%3D&rl=459&vabr=255&oh=46b4c6ca97abecd2636a9132d2e77511&oe=55D37E05
The All Blacks (or “New Zealand national rugby union team”) are union, yet league is more popular in Australia (Australian rules football is more popular than both though). Union is most popular worldwide.
I don’t know which one you watched, but I like Ninh Ly’s videos on Youtube. He covers lots of sports.
Differences.
League.
Union.
I don’t know if it was “developed from,” but the transition from league to American football or vice versa is often considered easier than union due to similarities. Canadian football is of course very similar to American football, although I think it wouldn’t be fair to say that either is a “copy.”
I think there is a strong case for betting on either team to win both halves where the odds exceed, say, $2.50.
This is mathematically justified- I won’t go through the proof here. But basically I came to the conclusion that odds of $2.50+ are always profitable. This conclusion, however, rests on one crucial assumption: That the first half result is independent of the second half result.
(NB: I took draws in either half into consideration)
I think this is a safe assumption because:
For any number of reasons you can find against this theory (such as wind direction, sun glare, the leading team playing passively etc), you can find as many reasons against these counter-arguments. E.g. 1. the leading team are flowing (connecting) better and this is likely to continue into the second half 2. the trailing team are not flowing well and this is likely to continue into the second half 3. The trailing team are forced to make sub-optimal decisions in the second half like attempting the 7 point gamble when taking the safe 3 points yields a better expected point return 4. A red card or injury to a key player in one of the teams has some explanatory power over the first half result and will also have explanatory power over the second half result (e.g. Halfpenny gets injured early in the first half).
My point is that both arguments roughly offset, leaving a situation where the second half result is roughly independent of the first half result.
I don’t usually discuss betting theory with anyone let alone in a forum, but i welcome discussion for or against my statement that: Betting on either team to win both halves where the odds are $2.50+ is always profitable.
I was lured into posting here because this is such an interesting topic and because i wanted to address the thread starter (Mr Shine) personally- “Over how many samples did you assess this betting option?” Because I suspect anything below 200 is insufficient.
I don’t know (or care to know) enough about the subject to refute any of your specific points, and what you say makes sense, but I don’t believe this statement can be true for the simple reason that if it were, everyone would be doing it (and then the bookmaker loses money, and the odds change accordingly). Or to put it another way, the odds will only be over 2.5 when the actual desired outcome is very unlikely (e.g. New Zealand vs Japan), so it is not possible to make a profitable bet.
I’m sure there are situations where bookmakers (occasionally) misjudge the initial odds, but you can only take advantage of that if you (think you) know more than the bookmaker. I don’t think you can ‘invest’ blindly in such a strategy purely based on mathematics.
As a naive bettor, I too thought about this too. And indeed, every time I tried a probability v odds equation, the head-above-water odds would only be offered when it wasn’t going to happen.
What exactly do you mean by this? Do you mean that, every time the odds appeared attractive, the bet tended to be unsuccessful?
How many samples did you look at? This is key.
The reason is simple, when you are ahead by a large margin you go into defensive mode and given a converted try is 8 points it can turn around pretty quickly.
Union is a joy to watch but you must watch it as it is technical, league is fun to watch as it is very simple. But having said that I pretty much only watch Aussie Rules.
Nitpick - a converted try in union is worth 7 points (though still counted as 2 “scores” - you will often here commentators talk about a team needing “3 scores” to overtake the winning team, if they are (say) 12 points behind). Sometimes the defending team is able to force the attacking team to score in the corner (if at all), which makes the conversion much less likely (though these days it seems the top kickers are probably over 50% successful even from the touchline).
I believe a converted try in league is 6 points - 4 for the try, 2 for the conversion.