Scotland v Israel

[John Lambies Doos]

Probably not relevant, but Israel u21s were leading Germany u21s 1-2 till the 88th minute, lost 3-2.

Probably not relevant,

[emoji106]

[WeAllDreamOfATeamOfAndyRyans]

Don’t get the hype with Fraser up front to be honest, don’t doubt his ability but upfront he looks lost at sea most of the time. Much better as a RW although unfortunately we don’t play a formation with wingers. Decent option off the bench but wouldn’t be starting him in a crucial game like this, especially when he’s barley getting any game time in a poor Newcastle side

[HeartsOfficialMoaner]

Just now, WeAllDreamOfATeamOfAndyRyans said:

Don’t get the hype with Fraser up front to be honest, don’t doubt his ability but upfront he looks lost at sea most of the time. Much better as a RW although unfortunately we don’t play a formation with wingers. Decent option off the bench but wouldn’t be starting him in a crucial game like this, especially when he’s barley getting any game time in a poor Newcastle side

3-4-3 is the way ahead. It's good to watch. Pick 3 strikers from what is available. It's difficult. 

[welshbairn]

1 hour ago, John Lambies Doos said:

 

 

 

 

 

Cmon, lead them in to a false sense of security by letting them go ahead, them pummel them in extra time. No time to come back at us, it's foolproof.

[IrishBhoy]

My Dad is going on Saturday for his first Scotland game at Hampden since the 70s. He was asking me how early he should try and get in to the stadium? I’ve not been to a game at Hampden since the St Mirren Hearts league cup final and have no idea how bad the queues are for a sell out. I did see on Twitter that the last Scotland game had people standing outside after the kick off so I’ve told him to get to the stadium for 4 to avoid that happening to him. 
 

Ive also had to give him a crash course on QR codes I still think he doesn’t believe me that his ticket is on his phone and that he will gain entry using that. He’s adamant he needs to take a physical print out with him so I will do that in work tomorrow just to put his mind at ease. 

Edited October 7, 2021 by IrishBhoy

[craigkillie]

Lol at not picking John McGinn.

[RandomGuy.]

2 hours ago, HeartsOfficialMoaner said:

3-4-3 is the way ahead. It's good to watch. 

Its really not, once its figured out.

Presumably Hearts fans are all giddy about it because you've won a couple of games playing it, but it won't be long until your midfield is getting over run and a massive gap in front of your CBs is getting exploited. Scotland don't have the midfielders to play it.

[Insert Amusing Pseudonym]

1 hour ago, RandomGuy. said:

Its really not, once its figured out.

Presumably Hearts fans are all giddy about it because you've won a couple of games playing it, but it won't be long until your midfield is getting over run and a massive gap in front of your CBs is getting exploited. Scotland don't have the midfielders to play it.

We're not really playing a 343.

I certainly wouldn't for Scotland with the wide players we've got.

[paddymcp]

8 hours ago, monthefife said:

Happy with that as well. But I'd play it safe and stick with O'Donnell at RWB for this one. Think it's too big a risk to field the inexperienced Patterson against a formidable and attacking Israel team. Play Patterson against Faroe Islands though. 

Think a bit of a myth is developing about O’Donnell that because he isn’t an attacking dynamic defender like Patterson that somehow he must be better defensively than him. He isn’t IMO. He is slow, ponderous in possession and a weak link who gets targeted by the opposition in every game. play the better player and athlete in Patterson in both games IMO.

Edited October 8, 2021 by paddymcp

[2426255]

13 hours ago, AJF said:

I had a look at Skybet and they have Scotland as 10/11 favourites to win compared with Israel at 3/1.

Are Skybet somehow "arrogant" to think that on the balance of probabilities it is more likely that Scotland should win? No, they're not arrogant, they are top level bookmakers who extensively research fixtures before setting their prices.

So, why is it arrogance if a Scotland fan holds the exact same opinion that it is more likely we should win?

I'm not a betting expert, but I found this which could help explain why the odds set don't reflect the actual probability of Scotland winning:

Quote

Successful bookmaking is about building margins into odds and balancing the book so no matter who wins the bookie makes a profit. Odds are not just set to reflect the probabilities of an outcome they also reflect the bookmakers own exposure.

The goal of any fixed odds bookie is to ensure that each outcome is backed in the right proportion so that they make a profit whatever the outcome. This means it is often possible to find good value odds if you are betting against the grain.

So if most of the money is being placed on Scotland it would make sense for the bookies to reduce the odds for Scotland and so I'd say in this case the good value odds would be Israel which looks a good bet at 3/1 given our recent results with them, but who's going to bet against Scotland? So it makes sense for the bookies to make the price for Israel to be so attractive at 3/1.

I suppose you already know all that though.

https://www.onlinebetting.org.uk/betting-guides/how-do-bookmakers-set-odds-and-make-money.html

Edited October 8, 2021 by 2426255

[2426255]

This would be interesting to see, never going to happen and probably for good reason - maybe a bit too suspect defensively.

It's just getting to a point where perhaps accommodating Tierney and Robertson isn't so important if it is to the detriment of McTominay, Hendry and Gilmour.

Edited October 8, 2021 by 2426255

[AJF]

2 hours ago, 2426255 said:

I'm not a betting expert, but I found this which could help explain why the odds set don't reflect the actual probability of Scotland winning:

So if most of the money is being placed on Scotland it would make sense for the bookies to reduce the odds for Scotland and so I'd say in this case the good value odds would be Israel which looks a good bet at 3/1 given our recent results with them, but who's going to bet against Scotland? So it makes sense for the bookies to make the price for Israel to be so attractive at 3/1.

I suppose you already know all that though.

https://www.onlinebetting.org.uk/betting-guides/how-do-bookmakers-set-odds-and-make-money.html

Your quote literally says that odds set also take into account the probabilities of an outcome… of course odds fluctuate depending on betting patterns, but they also reflect who is more likely to win, in the bookies opinion.

The point I’m making is that it is not at all arrogance if a Scotland fan believes we should be beating Israel tomorrow while also appreciating that it won’t be an easy task.

[RandomGuy.]

7 hours ago, Insert Amusing Pseudonym said:

We're not really playing a 343.

I certainly wouldn't for Scotland with the wide players we've got.

You're playing the exact same shape we did/do.

2 CMs, a central striker, then 2 "attacking midfielders"/"wingers" supporting him/defending wide.

St Mirren have tried it this season and already moved away from it, as you end up with an open midfield and an isolated striker once opponents understand where the spaces are and you've to drop deeper and narrower to prevent it.

[2426255]

11 minutes ago, AJF said:

Your quote literally says that odds set also take into account the probabilities of an outcome… of course odds fluctuate depending on betting patterns, but they also reflect who is more likely to win, in the bookies opinion.

The point I’m making is that it is not at all arrogance if a Scotland fan believes we should be beating Israel tomorrow while also appreciating that it won’t be an easy task.

The bottom line is that the bookies odds are designed to make the bookies money - nothing else. If odds that don't reflect the probability of an outcome are required to make them money or cover them then that's what they'll offer. Those odds tell me they're trying to entice people to bet on Israel just like when a shop has a half price sale.

It's a pretty damn good price on Israel, If I was a betting man I wouldn't be putting my money on Scotland - It wouldn't be worth it.

Edited October 8, 2021 by 2426255

[AJF]

8 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

The bottom line is that the bookies odds are designed to make the bookies money - nothing else. If odds that don't reflect the probability of an outcome are required to make them money or cover them then that's what they'll offer. Those odds tell me they're trying to entice people to bet on Israel just like when a shop has a half price sale.

It's a pretty damn good price on Israel, If I was a betting man I wouldn't be putting my money on Scotland - It wouldn't be worth it.

Aye, they’re trying to entice folk to bet on Israel because they think Scotland are more likely to win

The more people that bet on Scotland the more money they think they will lose, hence the good price for Israel. The price of 3/1 for Israel is to entice folk to bet on them with the bookies expecting it’ll be a losing bet and therefore giving them more money.

Edited October 8, 2021 by AJF

[2426255]

7 minutes ago, AJF said:

Aye, they’re trying to entice folk to bet on Israel because they think Scotland are more likely to win the more people that bet on Scotland the more money they think they will lose, hence the good price for Israel. The price of 3/1 for Israel is to entice folk to bet on them with the bookies expecting it’ll be a losing bet and therefore giving them more money.

Or alternatively they have already taken lots of money on a Scotland win and want to hedge their bets by taking money on Israel.  I think the example quoted on that website was Leicester at 5000-1 to win the premier league which meant that they felt Leicester could win the Premier League once every 5000 years which doesn't really reflect reality.

Quote

This happened when Leicester City won the English Premier League in 2016. The industry gave odds of 5000/1 at the start of the season, effectively saying that Leicester (or a similar team) wouldn't win the league in 5000 years, from today that would be before the pyramids were built.

so shut up mate lol

Edited October 8, 2021 by 2426255

[AJF]

2 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

Or alternatively they have already taken lots of money on a Scotland win and want to hedge their bets by taking money on Israel. 

Aye, sure. I used this analogy in the hope that you’d realise people believing Scotland should win tomorrow (while also appreciating it won’t be easy) is not arrogance, but it seems as though it is futile continuing the debate as you refuse to accept another viewpoint.

There has certainly been no arrogance that I can see from anyone. Nobody has dismissed Israel’s chances of winning the match. It’s just that some believe Scotland should be winning and have given multiple reasons for it.

[The Algebraist]

7 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

Or alternatively they have already taken lots of money on a Scotland win and want to hedge their bets by taking money on Israel.  I think the example quoted on that website was Leicester at 5000-1 to win the premier league which meant that they felt Leicester could win the Premier League once every 5000 years which doesn't really reflect reality.

It's more that if they played exactly that Premier League season 5000 times Liecester would be expected to win it once. It was mad long imo.

Edited October 8, 2021 by The Algebraist

[2426255]

1 minute ago, AJF said:

Aye, sure. I used this analogy in the hope that you’d realise people believing Scotland should win tomorrow (while also appreciating it won’t be easy) is not arrogance, but it seems as though it is futile continuing the debate as you refuse to accept another viewpoint.

There has certainly been no arrogance that I can see from anyone. Nobody has dismissed Israel’s chances of winning the match. It’s just that some believe Scotland should be winning and have given multiple reasons for it.

It was a shite analogy so that's why I didn't agree with it. I'm not unreasonable, it's just when talk shite I'll call you on it. 

[AJF]

4 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

It was a shite analogy so that's why I didn't agree with it. I'm not unreasonable, it's just when talk shite I'll call you on it. 

So you disagree that the bookies believe Scotland are more likely to win?

I'd be willing to bet they had Scotland as favourites before they took a single bet on the match.

Edited October 8, 2021 by AJF