For those of you who've read part one of my guide on betting on football I'm going to use an example of a forthcoming J League match to do a further deep dive into the data available prior to kick off to try determine whether the prices quoted are accurate and see if in this instance there's an inconsistency that could be capatalised upon. At the time of writing the home win is priced at 3.40, draw at 3.10 and away win at 2.25. So just at a glance we can see if you were to bet £1 either on the home or away win as a single, the difference in value is £1.15 so Machida are clearly favourites for the win with the bookmakers at least. The question is, does the data support such a large gap?
Let's take a closer look.
Gamba Osaka
They go into the fixture with the second best home record in the league based on points won.
They have the best defensive record at home of any club having conceded just 7 in 9 games.
Their record in those 9 games is 7 wins, 1 draw and 1 solitary loss.
They're clearly a good prospect to back when playing at home. However all the bookmakers make them rank outsiders to win.
Machida Zelvia
They have the best away record based on points won
They've conceded just 6 times in 10 games which is joint with Avispa who've also conceded 6 but have played a game less.
Their overall record is played 10, won 7, drawn 2 and they've lost just the once.
So the best home defensive record will face the best away defensive record. Doesn't scream goals o’ clock to me and either side potentially could secure a narrow win, or they could cancel each other out for the draw? I'm not seeing anything yet that justifies the price difference.
So let's go deeper again and see if we can find an answer.
Head 2 Head record
The two sides have only ever played each other twice. The first game came back in 2012 in a cup competition. Gamba won 3-2 but given the 12 year gap we'll disclude that result. However they have played the reverse fixture in the campaign which finished 1-1 so we know even without home advantage Gamba can take a point against the same opposition. So we're no closer to finding an answer again.
Recent form
Gamba in the last five games which were made up of league and cup have won 4 and drawn 1. The draw came last round against Kashima Antlers who are level on points with Gamba in the table and second overall.
Machida by comparison have drawn 4 and won just once in league and cup. So firstly the 4 draws are a potential marker and they're not on form by the pure metric of wins and losses even if you discount they may have played a different level of opposition. That being said one of those draws for Machida was in the cup which ended up going to penalties. Firstly they lost. Secondly they lost to Tsukba University. I'm assuming that is an actual university team. Gamba drew with the side second in the J League in the same period. So I'm still perplexed as to why the price gap.
League position
Machida start the game top of the table, Gamba 3rd, a mere two points behind and as mentioned above are level on points with second. Depending on what Kashima do, Gamba know 3 points could see them top by the end of the day.
Team news
Maybe unsurprisingly when I looked Friday any team news on this game didn't exist in English at least. So I looked at known injuries and suspensions to see if there was anything obvious. There were no new injury concerns for Gamba. Left winger Sang-ho Na has been out for 3 weeks as had centre forward Duke but looking at the data for both players neither seems a critical element of the sides current success. They've no players suspended. Machida’s injury roster was all long term but even if they did have any new injuries or suspensions (which they don't either) it's Gamba with players missing that could potentially account for the gulf in prices to win.
XG
Machida are outperforming their seasons XG scoring 31 compared to the metric of 27.8
Gamba are underperforming in theirs scoring 21 against an XG of 22.5
OK so maybe a reason for some sort of price difference but generally a basic home advantage gives an allowance of 0.4 of a goal to the home side.
More importantly whilst there was no XG for the two Cup games Machida played, where there was data from the J League and their XG Vs Vissel was 0.20 in a 0-0 draw. 0.2 again in another 0-0 against Avispa and finally 1.5 in a 3-1 win against a struggling Yokohama. Given the two Cup games were 1-1 where it went to penalties against a University side as previously mentioned and 2-2 against Cerezo had we all the data for all five games you'd be able to confirm the higher XG rate across the season has taken a battering in recent weeks. So if you use XG combined with recent form you wouldn't suggest that even if they were favourites they're not favourites with the large gap the price suggests.
Top scorers
Both sides top scorers have 7 a piece, most assists - also 5 assists a piece just to throw that in as I try to turn every stone over looking for illusive answer.
Draw No bet
Gamba are 5/4 and Machida 4/7 so again there's that huge gap.
Double Chance
Gamba 1X 8/13
Machida 2X 3/10
Gamba or Machida 4/11
Maybe it's just Bet365 pricing the game wrong? So I check Sky, Ladbrokes, Paddy Power, William Hill and Betway. Nope whilst the starting prices are marginally different the overall margin between the sides is the same. Pinnacle and Unibet - still the same.
So why the difference in starting prices when the data suggests that Gamba and Machida should start around roughly the same price? The only thing really going in their favour is they've scored 10 more goals than Gamba which as mentioned has equated to an overall improvement in points of - oh yes just two. Machida it should also be pointed out were promoted last season and are coached by someone who has not only no top flight experience but has spent his career in college football. If their bubble is bursting it would appear that now is about that time.
So I don't have an answer. Maybe there's no liquidity in the market and someone has backed Machida heavily pushing the price down and with Bet365 being one of the biggest operators they've moved their line accordingly and every other operator has followed suit behind.
Only the result will tell if they're right but in midweek of the ten games played based on the result they made favourites for a single only 3 finished as winners.
They say to bet on football you need to price a game of football. Well I'm trying to learn. As I learn more you'll learn more but for now the only evidence will be what happens on the pitch when the game kicks off in just under ten hours time.
They also say the best bets are where you find value and you think the bookmakers have priced the game wrong. Machida may well win. But all things considered above they could just as easily draw or lose. It could be 1-0, 0-0, 1-1 or 0-1. It could also be a wide variety of other scores but that would depend on the two best defences in the league suddenly both having off days at the same time. If Gamba are down to ten men after five minutes then I'd smell a rat.
So where would you put your money on a single? Home win or draw against the market taking into account everything written above or do you assume the bookmakers know something we don't?
So what happened?
Gamba took the lead in the 9th minute. I joked about a sending off in the first five minutes but they did actually go down to ten men after 33 minutes so unless Machida suffered the same fate they'd have an hour of more to play with one man less. Machida equalised just before half time scoring in the 2nd minute of additional time and it appears after that Gamba were facing an uphill battle. Had they gone in at half time 1-0 up still with eleven men then they remain a good bet for a home win or a draw. In the end they capitulated to lose 3-1. Despite the scoreline I still don't accept the odds were right in this example. Gamba lead after just 9 minutes. They had the best home record based on goals conceded.
All being said though football betting as with the game being played itself is going to be about opinions. Sometimes those opinions will be financially costly. Hopefully when they are, they're not proven to be too costly.
No comments:
Post a Comment