Friday 6 December 2013

The World Cup Draw Palaver

Providing the BBC aren't lying to me, apparently, the World Cup draw can now cost up to £10 million.  Which might go some way to explaining why these things are so damned expensive.

I understand the purpose of the draw, it's to add a bit of excitement to the proceedings and to make sure Italy fans suffer*.  But at the same time, it does seem like a lot of fuss.

I fence, and the draws for our group stages are done from the rankings.  If there were eight groups, the top ranked fencer attending would go into group 1, the second into group 2 and so on, then the ninth ranked fencer would go into group 8, 10th into group 7 again with the so on, until the 17th ranked fencer goes into group 1, 18th into group to and so on and so on.

Doing this with the October FIFA rankings (here if anyone wants to check my maths) gives the following groups (respecting the max. 2 European teams in a group, max. 1 team from another region.  This was done by skipping teams until they fitted and then putting them in.)

Group AGroup BGroup CGroup DGroup EGroup FGroup GGroup H
SpainGermanyArgentinaColumbiaBelgiumUruguaySwitzerlandNetherlands
Bosnia -HerzegovinaChileGreecePortugalBrazilUSAEnglandItaly
Cote D'IvoireCroatiaRussiaFranceGhanaAlgeriaEcuadorMexico
AustraliaCameroonKoreaIranHondurasJapanCosta RicaNigeria

Okay, I had to swap Cameroon and Australia for it to work, but you've got 8 reasonably solid groups, and even the apparently expected horrible group for Italy.

Even if you change it around so that Brazil are automatically Group A team 1, you instead get:

Group AGroup BGroup CGroup DGroup EGroup FGroup GGroup H
BrazilSpainGermanyArgentinaColumbiaBelgiumUruguaySwitzerland
Bosnia -HerzegovinaGreeceChilePortugalUSAEnglandItalyNetherlands
Cote D'IvoireEcuadorCroatiaRussiaFranceGhanaMexicoCosta Rica
AustraliaCameroonKoreaIranJapanHondurasNigeriaAlgeria

I've had to swap Cameroon and Australia again, but we once again end up with some nice balanced groups, although less balanced IMO than previously, and Italy still end up with a horrible group.

Now I haven't done this just to prove that Italy are cursed, or to show that it doesn't take £10 million to do a draw (really, FIFA, I'm very cheap).  It's more I don't get why they don't do it this way.  Surely it would be easier for the various federations and their fans to know where they're going about 2 weeks earlier, when the qualifiers finish.

I know the FIFA rankings are all kinds of crazy (see also, Italy's ranking dropping because they played a friendly against San Marino or Austria's ranking dropping despite beating the US in a friendly) but they might as well use them throughout and not just for the top teams.

* Austria are out, if Ireland are also out I default to Italy for footballing reasons.

Brazilian Grand Prix

Fastest Friday PracticePriceFastest Saturday PracticePriceFastest QualifyingPrice
Nico Rosberg18/1Vettel1/4Vettel1/4
Amount won/lost on a £1 bet-£1Amount won/lost on a £1 bet£1.25Amount won/lost on a £1 bet£1.25
Amount won/lost on a £10 bet-£10

Amount won/lost on a £10 bet£12.50Amount won/lost on a £10 bet£12.50
Season Total £1 bets£6.24Season Total £1 bets£17.46Season Total £1 bets£15.82
Season Total £10 bets£62.59Season Total £10 bets£174.61Season Total £10 bets£158.29

Friday 22 November 2013

Rugby League 101

This was originally written to introduce some American friends to rugby league, as their rugby league team qualified for the Rugby League World Cup quarter-finals, hence the slightly American slant to this.

As the mighty US Rugby League team has managed to qualify for the quarter-finals of the rugby league world cup, I felt it might be an idea to briefly cover the basics of the game for any new fans watching. The information is taken from here and here.

Somewhat worryingly, both of the rules pages start with the information that you're trying to score more points than the other team, but I'm going to assume that you can guess that.

The very basic rules of the game are that each team is given six chances to score. Each chance ends with a tackle (a tackle is a completed tackle when the referee calls "held"). If, after six tackles, they have not scored, the ball is handed over to the other team who then get the chance to score with their six tackles.

There are 4 ways of scoring:

1 - A Try - A try is worth 4 points. Similar to a touchdown in American football, except you actually have to touch the ball down with control and downward pressure. I've highlighted those last words because if you don't do them, the try will not be given to your team.

2 - A Conversion - A conversion is worth 2 points. They can be scored only after the team has scored a try. The kick is taken from a position perpendicular to the goal line where the try was scored. The ball must pass between the goalposts and over the crossbar. If the team scores a conversion after a try, it is referred to asa converted try.

3 - A Penalty Kick - Also worth 2 points. Often just referred to as a penalty, this is one of the two options a team captain can take when the referee awards his team a penalty. The other option is to get another set of 6 tackles with which to try to score.

4 - A Drop Goal - worth 1 point. This is scored when the ball is kicked between the goalposts and over the cross bar in open play.

A match lasts 80 minutes, split up into 2 halves of 40 minutes. The time is kept by a separate time keeper who sounds a hooter to signal the end of each half. If you're really unlucky and playing at one of the French stadiums, it sounds like an air-raid siren.

Both teams will have 13 players on the pitch at any one time. These will be the team you are cheering for. These will be the opponents. As in ice hockey, there are rolling substitutions with no need for a stoppage in play. There is a limit on the number of these interchanges, with a maximum of 12 per team per game.

When passing the ball, it must go level or backwards. If the ball goes forwards, this is called a forward pass and the referee will award the other team a scrum and give them the ball. The rugby league scrum is formed of 6 players from each team. The scrum half puts the ball into the scrum, and the hooker from his team hooks the ball backwards to gain possession of the ball for his team. 

Scrums are also awarded for knock-ons. A knock-on is when the ball is dropped forwards by a player and hits the ground or another player.

Don't worry if you're not sure whether that's happened, because the referees wear microphones and have a set of hand-signals that they use to indicate what is going on.  This has been handily summarised 




 photo rugbyleaguerefhandsignals_zpsdd7881a8.jpg

The offside rule does nothing but cause everyone headaches but basically, the defending team have to be 10 meters away from the attacking team when they play the ball after the tackle, and the person on the attacking team receiving the ball from the play the ball must be directly behind their team-mate.

Obstruction is when one of the attacking team runs across the line of a defender trying to tackle their team-mate.

Tackles are not allowed to be above shoulder height. Above that is a high tackle

For something like that or other foul play that is deserving of more than a penalty to the opposition, a referee can give one of 3 punishments:

1 - A yellow card - the offender has to spend 10 minutes in the sin bin. Their team has to play the 10 minutes with 12 players.

2 - A red card - the offender is sent off and cannot play for the rest of the match. Their team has to play the rest of the match with 12 players.

3 - The player is put on report - while better for the team in the short run, the player gets to stay on the pitch and carry on playing, it means the disciplinary panel will look at the offence and decide what punishment is appropriate. This can be anything from nothing to a 4 match ban.

I think that covers the important things.

For your interest and delectation may I also recommend this article which explains why everyone that loves an underdog will be rooting for the US.

Thursday 21 November 2013

US Grand Prix

Fastest Friday PracticePriceFastest Saturday PracticePriceFastest QualifyingPrice
Alonso22/1Vettel1/4Vettel1/4
Amount won/lost on a £1 bet-£1Amount won/lost on a £1 bet£1.25Amount won/lost on a £1 bet£1.25
Amount won/lost on a £10 bet-£10

Amount won/lost on a £10 bet£12.50Amount won/lost on a £10 bet£12.50
Season Total £1 bets£6.24Season Total £1 bets£17.46Season Total £1 bets£15.82
Season Total £10 bets£62.59Season Total £10 bets£174.61Season Total £10 bets£158.29

Friday 8 November 2013

Abu Dhabi Grand Prix

Fastest Friday PracticePriceFastest Saturday PracticePriceFastest QualifyingPrice
Vettel4/11Vettel8/13Webber5/2
Amount won/lost on a £1 bet£1.36Amount won/lost on a £1 bet£1.62Amount won/lost on a £1 bet-£1
Amount won/lost on a £10 bet£13.63

Amount won/lost on a £10 bet£16.15Amount won/lost on a £10 bet-£10
Season Total £1 bets£7.24Season Total £1 bets£16.21Season Total £1 bets£14.57
Season Total £10 bets£72.59Season Total £10 bets£162.11Season Total £10 bets£145.79

Sunday 13 October 2013

Korean and Japanese Grand Prix

Sorry I didn't do my usual betting thing for the Korean Grand Prix or the Japanese Grand Prix.  I was busy fencing for the weekend of the Korean Grand Prix and I spent yesterday at the Nottingham Beer Festival (http://www.beerfestival.nottinghamcamra.org/).  Lots of delicious beer, but I've really got to recommend Flipside Brewery's Russian Rouble.  It's rich and delicious.

Monday 30 September 2013

Boxing (Or I Understand The Hype Principle But Why This Version?)

I don't think I've ever hidden that I am not a fan of David Haye.  And it's mostly his trash-talking that I don't like.  I hear and understand the counter-argument, that he does most of it in order to whip up interest for his fights, in what is a somewhat moribund heavyweight division that no-one cares about (although, I swear that if the Klitschkos where American, the US boxing press would be all over them), but I just find it odd that he chooses to play the role of the fighter the audience want to see knocked out when he's the (much) smaller man in his heavyweight fights.

Like Haye vs Valuev, Haye was 6 ft 3, weighed in at 15 st 8 lbs (190.5 cm and 98.9 kg) while Valuev was 7 ft 2 and 22 st 8lbs (218.4 cm and 143.3 kg)*, and against Wladimir Klitschko, Haye came in at 6 ft 3 and 15 st 3 lbs (190.5 cm and 96 kg) versus Klitschko's 6 ft 6 and 17 st 5 lb (198 cm and 110 kg)**.  You could have sold the heck out of those as tiny British David versus hulking Soviet*** Goliaths.

Against Tyson Fury (height 6 ft 9, weight at last fight 18 st 2 lb / 216 cm, 115.2 kg), Haye would be giving up ~ 6 inches in height, about 2 stone in weight and 7 inches in reach.  And it's not like Fury is Prince Charming****, so again why it Haye playing the antagonist?

Haye is not Money Mayweather.  The reason that Mayweather has to be the bad guy is because he is that much better than everyone else in the division.  Mayweather being the bad guy gives people a reason to watch his next match, because while, logically, we know that the next schmuck stands the same tiny chance of victory as the last schmuck, maybe, just maybe this will be the guy that shuts Mayweather up.  That's how Mayweather makes his money.

Haye isn't the best guy in the division, he isn't unstoppable, so I don't see why he's going down that route, unless it's that he's incapable of being polite for 10 minutes in front of camera.

All that being said, if Haye can get to the end of the twelfth, I suspect he'll win the fight just because he is a better boxer, technically, than Fury.

source
** source
*** yes, I know.
**** Fury does have the advantage of occasionally being on free tv being the lovely, supportive older cousin to Hughie Fury.

Friday 27 September 2013

Singapore Grand Prix

As I described in this post, I was going to put imaginary money on the fastest drivers after the Friday free practises, Saturday practise and qualifying to see which betting strategy would gain me the most money over the season.

Fastest Friday PracticePriceFastest Saturday PracticePriceFastest QualifyingPrice
Vettel4/11Vettel4/11Vettel4/11
Amount won/lost on a £1 bet£1.36Amount won/lost on a £1 bet£1.36Amount won/lost on a £1 bet£1.36
Amount won/lost on a £10 bet£13.63

Amount won/lost on a £10 bet£13.63Amount won/lost on a £10 bet£13.63
Season Total £1 bets£5.88Season Total £1 bets£14.59Season Total £1 bets£15.57
Season Total £10 bets£58.96Season Total £10 bets£145.96Season Total £10 bets£155.79

Thursday 12 September 2013

More Complaining About Rush

I've just seen the second trailer.

I am now torn even more because, seriously, they couldn’t find a British actor for James Hunt? I mean, I love you Chris Hemsworth and I admire your attempt at James Hunt, but it really doesn’t work.

They do at least seem to be giving Niki a fair shake, he’s just a bit harder to get across to begin with. This month’s Lufthansa in-flight magazine has an interview with him and he is still very much himself. A sort of mixture of “does not suffer fools gladly” and “my way or the highway” mixed with an acceptance of his (many) faults and the fact that he can be out-stubborned (mostly by his wife).

I hope the film gets across his sense of humour, which is particularly dry. (This is the guy who makes jokes about his own fiery near death experience) And he enjoys mocking everything.

Brühl does his best, but the voice isn't right, and never will be right (like by about half a pint of gravel and about an octave) and ... I still don't see why they're making this film. The dude that made the Senna documentary, if he chose to make a documentary about this, that's something I'd choose to watch.

Monday 9 September 2013

Italian Grand Prix


I have to admit that Monza holds a special place in my heart, because I am a Ferrari fan.  I am also a Gerhard Berger fan so I would like to thank whoever in the Monza camera crew keeps showing me glimpses of him.

The betting figures will be a little off because I was coming back from France on Friday and was only able to catch the odds after qualifying.

As I described in this post, I was going to put imaginary money on the fastest drivers after the Friday free practises, Saturday practise and qualifying to see which betting strategy would gain me the most money over the season.

Fastest Friday PracticePriceFastest Saturday PracticePriceFastest QualifyingPrice
Vettel8/15Vettel8/15Vettel8/15
Amount won/lost on a £1 bet£1.53Amount won/lost on a £1 bet£1.53Amount won/lost on a £1 bet£1.53
Amount won/lost on a £10 bet£15.33

Amount won/lost on a £10 bet£15.33Amount won/lost on a £10 bet£15.33
Season Total £1 bets£4.52Season Total £1 bets£13.23Season Total £1 bets£14.21
Season Total £10 bets£45.33Season Total £10 bets£132.33Season Total £10 bets£142.16

Sunday 8 September 2013

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, the 2011 film version

For @Tiberius_Jolly.

Huge spoilers throughout

The short, twitter-version of the review went - TinkerTailorSoldierSpy - Oldman exceptional, everything else (with a couple of honourable exceptions) a bit meh.

And I still stick by that.  Gary Oldman is exceptional in this, really, I mean, even by his high standards.  Especially the scene where he's reliving his interrogation of Karla is the dictionary definition of OMGoshWow!
and I would have been cool with him getting the Oscar.

The honourable exceptions previously mentioned are


- Tom Hardy's Ricky Tarr who is made a lot more likeable than in the book but the man works it well, I just wanted to give him a hug.
- Mark Strong's Jim Prideaux, who they didn't mess up, saints be praised. The bit at the Christmas party before the end ... it made me make that internal 'gah!' noise which is always a good thing, I am caught up in the narrative.
- The Christmas party itself, which is every bit as ghastly as the novel (in passing) mentions. Smiley when he finds out about the affair, and Prideaux and Haydon and, I'm sorry but I got the intended giggle out of the British Secret Service singing along [with the glorious exception of Toby Esterhase] the Soviet anthem (as did the woman behind me, the rest of the cinema I was in, not so much).

The major problem is that, because it only runs to 2 hours 7 minutes, they've had to squash things and bend things, which is not going to work when your original book is 440-ish pages. But for some unknown reason, it's the female characters who have been hit hardest by these changes.  (And yes, I know it was a female script-writer that did the adaptation)

Ann, for instance, who the film reduces to a voiceless, faceless, nymphomaniacal cypher, is a vibrant, forceful, intriguing, admittedly nymphomaniacal, enigma in the book. You can see why George fell for her, and that's all missing in the film. And it's quite disturbing, the lengths that the film goes to to keep her faceless and voiceless.

Then there's Connie, who is not just another researcher, she's head of Research section, thank you very much, and the person who fires her and tells her to go out into the real world is not Alleline, but another female character, the dreaded Dolphin (who is never seen in the book, but is a constant presence).

Connie's replacement as head of Research is another woman, Molly Purcell, who is one of the grown ups in the scene where Guillam gets interogated.

Then there's Sal in Archives, who is a jolly hockeysticks judoka and who Peter asks 'what are you doing this weekend' not vice versa.

On the Russian side, Irina is also a Moscow-trained hood, and is the one who says 'it takes one to know one' (or that kind of thing), and is a more qualified textiles trader than her old man.

I mean, there were some points where the film gets mega props, you know, actually engaging Russian speakers to play Russian speaking characters. I can't comment on the quality of the Russian or the Hungarian but I have hopes.

I assume they switched to Budapest because the bit of Prague they want looks totally different now. That was one of the fun bits of reading the book after visiting Prague, being able to map the locations almost exactly.

I am also amused that despite this being a big film, they still don't have the money to do Tarr and Irina's bit in Hong Kong where it actually is. I accept Istanbul as a substitute.

Apparently the reason that everything in London looks so grotty is that it's based on the directors reminisces from when he visited in the 70s. I am somewhat ambivalent about some of the changes, I don't like what they've done to the Islay Hotel or Lacon's Berkshire Camelot. They've somehow managed to make Sarratt/The Nursery and the whole of the Circus look even smaller and meaner than it is in the book, which I quite like, while the inside of Control's flat makes me violently homesick.

As I said previously, the changes in plot/character/stuff have been forced on them due to running time. Some of the choices made are thoroughly reasonable like moving Prideaux's adventures to the start because otherwise the beginning really is just a lot of men talking, smerging Jerry Westerby with Sam Collins, even though the character is definitely Sam Collins, not putting in Max.

Not showing Karla's interogation by Smiley was genius, and I loved the use of 'Oh Mr. Wu' to throw suspicion on Bland.

Some of them I'm neutral about like it being Control going to Lacon saying 'mole!' rather than Smiley.

Some of them I just don't get, rather than disliking, such as changing the timeline of Rikki's misadventures in Hong Kong Istanbul so that it occurs before Prideaux's trip to Prague Budapest. I have to admit it confused me and I shall ask the person who'd never read / seen it how he felt about it.

Then there's the changes I understand why but dislike:

Okay, so in the book, it's not obvious who the mole is, but there is really only one person it could be, and I think the film tried to make it less obvious, which I understand. So they gave Alleline Haydon's job of speaking to the Americans, and they gave Bland Haydon's womanising (all though, in Bill Haydon's defence, he doesn't pester women into it, they throw themselves at him) and they just up Toby's sinister central Europeaness (although in a major backfire, I do feel quite sorry for him at various points). Unfortunately, that leaves Haydon somewhat underwritten so you don't get the same feeling of upset and loss when the mole turns out to be SHINY WONDERFUL BILL HAYDON.

Because Gary Oldman isn't old the way Alec Guiness was old (not an age thing, an aspect thing) it meant that everyone else was made so much younger. Not a problem with Tarr, and I don't mind Control being the one to recruit Toby and Bland. The one it presents a problem with is Peter Guillam who looks like a young, up-coming buck who is barely old enough to wash behind his ears. The film just gives you all his bad qualities, his temper, his rush to judgement without thinking, but they don't give you that he's someone who has successfully run agents in North Africa, that he's not a bad boss and that he's actually a damned good agent. The book is him growing up and learning that all your heroes (he is specifically mentioned as having modelled himself on Haydon) all have feet of clay. Not that Benedict Cumberbatch doesn't do his best with aforementioned underwriten role. As does Colin Firth.

Much though I loved Polyakov's "I don't know why you're worried, you'll get a medal and a flat in Moscow, I'm the one that's going to be sent to Siberia", I really don't like how they did the reveal because they have no ratcheting tension, not the way they should be. It falls flat.

And let's not talk about how Prideaux gets to within far too close for that rifle distance of a government building buzzing with secret agents in broad daylight and shoots prisoner number one without anyone noticing.

But yes, it's well made, and it's not bad, but it's not good either.

Friday 30 August 2013

Belgian Grand Prix


As I described in this post, I was going to put imaginary money on the fastest drivers after the Friday free practises, Saturday practise and qualifying to see which betting strategy would gain me the most money over the season.

Fastest Friday PracticePriceFastest Saturday PracticePriceFastest QualifyingPrice
Vettel13/8Vettel7/4Hamilton9/4
Amount won/lost on a £1 bet£1.63Amount won/lost on a £1 bet£1.75Amount won/lost on a £1 bet-£1
Amount won/lost on a £10 bet£16.25

Amount won/lost on a £10 bet£17.50Amount won/lost on a £10 bet-£10
Season Total £1 bets£2.99Season Total £1 bets£11.70Season Total £1 bets£12.68
Season Total £10 bets£30Season Total £10 bets£117Season Total £10 bets£126.83

Thursday 1 August 2013

Why I Am Dubious About Rush

First of all, I'd like to make a brief conflict of interest statement.  Until I was 5, I was brought up in Vienna so I come pre-programmed to like Niki Lauda.  My grandmother was very clear on that matter.  Mr. Lauda isn't my most favourite ever, that would be Gerhard Berger, but I am very fond of him.  Also, Lauda Air remain one of the few airlines to ever run a direct flight to Vienna from Manchester and served the best in-flight meal I ever had.

In short, I <3 Niki Lauda

So, many years ago, I start to hear rumours that a Hollywood director is thinking of making an F1 film.  And I'm not sure why they'd bother because we get really cool footage nowadays so there's not much they can add in technical terms, and I didn't think any given scriptwriter could come up with the same kind of emotional pull we get from real life.

Even when I heard Ron Howard was the director in question, I didn't really change my mind.  Ron Howard is a safe pair of hands and makes films that are lovely to look at but why bother?

The feeling of "why?" is increased when I find out that this film is going to be able the Hunt - Lauda rivalry.  There's already been several books and documentaries on the topic.  While James Hunt is sadly no longer with us, one of the participants is still around and still willing to talk about it.  What exactly is a fictionalised version of events going to add to what we already have?

I admit that part of my doubts are because it will be a Hollywood film where there is an Anglophone vs a German speaker and we all know how that usually goes down in Hollywood.  Add to that the nature of their personalities and you get a situation where, even if they paint in shades of grey, one guy is going to get the darker shades of grey and it's going to be the one I like.

I like Chris Hemsworth, don't get me wrong, but Daniel Brühl is not my idea of Niki Lauda.  And that's before we get started on, what, you couldn't find an Austrian actor for the role?  (Yes, I know Hemsworth isn't British either, but there are things I am more forgiving of.  Please see the conflict of interest statement.)

So yes, I have doubts about this film.

Hungarian Grand Prix


As I described in this post, I was going to put imaginary money on the fastest drivers after the Friday free practises, Saturday practise and qualifying to see which betting strategy would gain me the most money over the season.

Fastest Friday PracticePriceFastest Saturday PracticePriceFastest QualifyingPrice
Vettel1/1Grosjean11/2Hamilton10/1
Amount won/lost on a £1 bet-£1Amount won/lost on a £1 bet-£1Amount won/lost on a £1 bet£11
Amount won/lost on a £10 bet-£10

Amount won/lost on a £10 bet-£10Amount won/lost on a £10 bet£110
Season Total £1 bets£1.37Season Total £1 bets£9.95Season Total £1 bets£13.68
Season Total £10 bets£13.75Season Total £10 bets£99.50Season Total £10 bets£136.83

Tuesday 23 July 2013

The German Grand Prix


As I described in this post, I was going to put imaginary money on the fastest drivers after the Friday free practises, Saturday practise and qualifying to see which betting strategy would gain me the most money over the season.  Sorry for not doing this for the British Grand Prix but I was a bit busy in Stratford watching As You Like It  (http://www.rsc.org.uk/whats-on/as-you-like-it/) which I heartily, thoroughly and utterly recommend.

Fastest Friday PracticePriceFastest Saturday PracticePriceFastest QualifyingPrice
Vettel11/8Vettel6/5Hamilton9/4
Amount won/lost on a £1 bet£2.37Amount won/lost on a £1 bet£2.2Amount won/lost on a £1 bet-£1
Amount won/lost on a £10 bet£23.75Amount won/lost on a £10 bet£22Amount won/lost on a £10 bet-£10
Season Total £1 bets£2.37Season Total £1 bets£10.95Season Total £1 bets£2.68
Season Total £10 bets£23.75Season Total £10 bets£109.50Season Total £10 bets£26.83

Friday 28 June 2013

Canadian Grand Prix

As I described in this post, I was going to put imaginary money on the fastest drivers after the Friday free practises, Saturday practise and qualifying to see which betting strategy would gain me the most money over the season.

Fastest Friday PracticePriceFastest Saturday PracticePriceFastest QualifyingPrice
Alonso9/4Webber14/1Vettel5/6
Amount won/lost on a £1 bet-£1Amount won/lost on a £1 bet-£1Amount won/lost on a £1 bet£1.83
Amount won/lost on a £10 bet-£10Amount won/lost on a £10 bet-£10Amount won/lost on a £10 bet£18.33
Season Total £1 bets0Season Total £1 bets£8.75Season Total £1 bets£3.68
Season Total £10 bets0Season Total £10 bets£87.50Season Total £10 bets£36.83

Monday 27 May 2013

Monaco Grand Prix


After a break for fencing, which will be accounted for when I work this up at the end of the season, I'm back.

As I described in this post, I was going to put imaginary money on the fastest drivers after the Friday free practises, Saturday practise and qualifying to see which betting strategy would gain me the most money over the season.

Fastest Friday PracticePriceFastest Saturday Practice*PriceFastest QualifyingPrice
Rosberg4/1Rosberg3/1Rosberg11/10
Amount won/lost on a £1 bet£5Amount won/lost on a £1 bet£4Amount won/lost on a £1 bet£2.10
Amount won/lost on a £10 bet£50Amount won/lost on a £10 bet£40Amount won/lost on a £10 bet£21
Season Total £1 bets£1Season Total £1 bets£9.75Season Total £1 bets£1.85
Season Total £10 bets£10Season Total £10 bets£97.50Season Total £10 bets£18.50


Friday 24 May 2013

Saw Star Trek: Into Darkness (Huge Spoilers Throughout)

Or however it's supposed to be punctuated.  (I don't care that it's unpunctuated officially.  They are wrong.)

Like friend L warned me I would have, I had issues with it.  My issues had issues with it.  It's not actually a good Star Trek movie.  And unfortunately, I'm enough of a Trek fan that I can't look past that to enjoy what my non-Trek friends said was an okay film.

I think in technical terms, my traditional lens flare and cutting issues with JJ Abrams's directing notwithstanding, it's okay.

In artistic terms though, it's all over the place.

I think, above and beyond the Khan problem (discussed below), the major, non-morality based issue (see a different later section) with the film was that it didn't seem to know what it wanted to be.  It was constantly teetering between action-comedy and action-drama and ended up with this really messy dramedy effect.  Dramedy is one of those things that has to be excellent to work at all, otherwise you end up with a really messy soup of thing.  ST: ID was a messy soup.

The other problem is that Wrath of Khan is iconic, and while I am all for iconoclasm, I like it to be intelligent.  And this wasn't.  This was the shitty dubstep remix of Wrath of Khan*.

If you've seen Wrath of Khan, you can guess what bits they're going to include.  And no, giving the bits to different characters is not changing them.  You give no new import, you do not play with them.  You just have them plain with a different voice.  Also, given the stick that Shatner gets for his acting, when William "I am ACT .... ing" Shatner is able to deliver more of an emotional wallop, your script and your set up has issues.  But then again, he was working with better background conditions.  We cared about him and Spock, because we'd known Kirk and Spock for 25 years by that point.  And they loved each other.  The film kept telling not showing that nu-Kirk and nu-Spock loved each other, and I'm sorry, it just wasn't obvious by their actions so the telling didn't work.  From their actions, it's quite clear that McCoy loves Kirk, Uhura loves Spock, and that Chekov adores his Keptin - but the Kirk <3s Spock and Spock <3s Kirk thing not so much.

The same applies for Khan vs Kirk.  We knew Khan.  We knew the wife that died.  We were attached to his character whether we liked or feared him.  We do not know this evil Brit**.  I think Cumberbundle does a fine job, but that's not the point.

When Inception came out and I made a post about why some people didn't like it.  My friend T made a very insightful comment about it being because of absent or misplaced catharsis.  I felt that way about this.  I don't know if it's because I needed the scene where Khan is put on trial or because I wanted the debate about whether someone can be obliged to give up bits of their body for donation or because I wanted the scene where Khan barters his blood for Kirk's life and asks to be frozen in exchange.  Basically, I wanted all the Trek-y scenes Abrams didn't want to include.

The Khan Problem

I'm a Cumberbundle fan.  Of a pre-Sherlock vintage.  I think he does a good job in this.  But there's something fucked about Hollyweird casting a white guy to play an Indian uber-mensch.

And if evil has to be British-accented, it's not like there aren't any Anglo-Indian actors.  Hell, JJ, you worked with Naveen Andrews.

The other problem, nowhere near as serious as the above, is there is no reason for this to be Khan at all.  There is nothing about the story that shouts "yes, Khan must be our villain".  Abrams could have avoided that whole problem by running an Earth based version of this TNG episode - http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/The_Hunted_(episode).  It's not like he's averse to re-using things (to paraphrase Patton - "JJ, you bastard, I've seen the same films as you.").  You get an evil Section 31.  You get a reason for Harrison to be rogue.  You get an excuse for super-soldiery nonsense.  It means you don't end up whitewashing an Indian character who has previously been played by a Latino actor.  It's better all-round.

The moral problem.  Or what the hell have you done to my Starfleet and my Captain.

I get the joke that in Trek, if an Admiral turns up, expect him (or her) to have gone rogue and be plotting to turn Starfleet into a para-military organisation.  It suggests mostly that Admirals need to be better observed.

And while I dislike Section 31 as an idea (sorry, I'm an idealist, Starfleet is supposed to be a paragon with the occasional rogue), it's done well in DS9.  Because it's DS9, and there is time to explore exactly what having that kind of subdivision means for Starfleet.  ST: ID does not have the time.

So I will put up with this.

And I was thrilled by Pike's first scene because someone (anyone) calling nu-Kirk out on his bullshit will always gain my approval.  But, of course, he immediately goes back on that but at least someone tried and I do think that Pike's plan is a good one (also, my own, absolutely against canon head-canon is that Pike was on-board the Kelvin and Kirk sr saved his life and so he can't help it).

Of course then stuff gets blown to hell, and Kirk decides to go on a rampage.  Which I object to for the following reason:

"Also, no, Reboot Kirk, Starfleet should not be about vengeance. See "Day of the Dove", see "Let This Be Your Last Battlefield", see most of Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country, see, oddly enough, chunks of Wrath of Khan. To paraphrase buff mousey-brown haired ubermensch number 2 (sorry, I'm sure the character has a real name but) Kahn and his men could have taken the Reliant anywhere and lived long lives on a planet less terrible than Ceti Alpha V. But Kahn was too blinded by vengeance to see that so they all died horribly."

which is how I felt about it when I saw that scene in the trailer.  It gets no better in the film.  And I find myself hating Admiral Marcus possibly before the film wants me to.  Or possibly the film wants me to be suspicious of him and just to forgive Kirk for being vengeful because his mentor just died.  Which I could live with, if he doesn't go ahead anyway over the protests of his three next highest ranking crewmen (his second in command, his head of medicine and his head of engineering).

Especially when one of the three who is making a moral argument, re: trials important, Starfleet rules important etc, has known Pike for longer and was literally with him as he died.

I acknowledge that Kirk eventually agrees with Spock, but, you know what, he's a ship's captain, he shouldn't still be needing moral learning moments.  Especially when, in the same scene near enough, his teenage prodigy engineer/helmsman, who is 20 at the most, shows a greater understanding of what responsibility is than he does.  I'm wondering if they were aiming for some sort of captain learns from crew learns from captain, all grow together thing.

And I totally get that Kirk is willing to sacrifice himself for the safety of everyone else.  Except he got them into that position.  And everyone else on that ship is willing to make the same sacrifice.  Hell, everyone else we've seen in Starfleet is willing to make the same sacrifice (Captains Robau, Kirk the first, Pike for example.)  Even bigger hell, I'm sure this Khan would do that for his crew, judging from what we see.

To counteract that, Kirk:

Breaks the Prime Directive.  Twice.
Lies in an official report. (edit to add.  I don't blame him for breaking the Prime Directive for the general good.  In fact I applaud it.  It's the lying I object to.)
Shouts at his First Officer for not lying in his report.
Disregards the advice of his Chief Engineer on a matter vital to the well-being of the ship
Disregards the advice of his Chief Medical Officer and his Second In Command on matters vital to the well-being of the Federation
Allows himself to be distracted by a domestic matter during a mission in enemy territory.  (For crying out loud, it's an uncloaked Warbird.  They're not quiet, small or subtle.)
Beats a suspect in custody

I'm not saying Kirk ain't brave.  I'm saying he's not captaincy material.

Other characters are infected by this as well, Spock and Uhura behave in a manner unbecoming officers on an away mission and Bones breaks the Hippocratic Oath (given he didn't know how to safely get the popsicle humans out of their cans and at no point do we see him learn, and suddenly it's all remove a popsicle and replace with Kirk).

And we're just supposed to gloss over all of that.

Scotty, Sulu, Chekov and the unnamed bridge crew seem to be the only functional Starfleet personnel.  Possibly that's because the writers only gave them a minimum of attention.

It also raises a problem.  When nu-Scotty, a man who prefers starships to people, is the moral centre of your movie, you've got issues.

Other stuff I didn't like

Insert obligatory lens flare comment here.  The thing that really got me is that there didn't seem to be much at the start and then the end is lens flare central.  It's like he's doing this to me deliberately.

Killing off Pike.  Because I like him.  I think he's a good restraining influence on Kirk.

Carol Marcus randomly in her underwear.  Because it can't have been because the mission had to be done pronto otherwise she would have got her other team-mate at the same time.  And it can't have been because we have to see underwear because otherwise we would have seen half naked men too.  Then again, this is a film that wants nudity but doesn't want to get the raised rating.  See also caitians who sleep in their bras.

The lack of blood and gore and general unpleasant biological things.  Wrath of Khan, which is also a 12, has blood.  People do not die easy.  There is screaming and fire and Ensign Preston's death remains ookily horrible even all these years later.  Where is that in this film?

The film doesn't seem to want to admit that Khan won.  He got his crew back without losses.  Okay, so they're back to being frozen popsicles but they're not in any danger of being killed any time soon.  Compare this to Starfleet and Earth-Gov who have two major cities carrying a lot of damage, lots of dead admirals, and yet more dead Starfleet officers.  Oh and war with the Klingons brewing if they ever find out about parts of this.

The Things I Liked

The film where Scotty (and Keenser), Sulu, Chekov and unnamed bridge crew are awesome with assists from Uhura, Bones and Carol Marcus.  I liked that film a lot.  Shame it was so short.

Scotty in general.  This is a man who has already been exiled to space Siberia, and he'd still rather resign than risk his ship.

Chekov.  Never have I been so worried about a character through out a film.  It was a combination of the bad luck colour and proximity to the evil bad radiation of death.

Wrath of Uhura > wrath of 20 Klingons.  You know, I think he's right.

The fight scenes.  Seriously, the fight choreographer and his stunt crew deserve many props.  As does whoever was stunting for Cumberbundle.  Kicks of Gods I tell you.

The music.  The music was good.

~~~~

I feel I am being mean.  Because it wasn't terrible in filmic terms, just in Trek terms.  And it wasn't the fault of the actors, who did their best.  But there's a limit to what acting can make up for.

~~~~

* My friend the dubstep fan who liked the film has no issue with this description.

** if nothing else, Hollywood will keep British actors afloat because apparently evil sounds British.

Thursday 25 April 2013

Bahrain Grand Prix


As I described in this post, I was going to put imaginary money on the fastest drivers after the Friday free practises, Saturday practise and qualifying to see which betting strategy would gain me the most money over the season.

Fastest Friday PracticePriceFastest Saturday Practice*PriceFastest QualifyingPrice
Raikkonen3/1

Rosberg7/1
Amount won/lost on a £1 bet-£1

Amount won/lost on a £1 bet-£1
Amount won/lost on a £10 bet-£10

Amount won/lost on a £10 bet-£10
Season Total £1 bets-£4Season Total £1 bets£5.75Season Total £1 bets-£0.25
Season Total £10 bets-£40Season Total £10 bets£57.50Season Total £10 bets-£2.50


* Due to fencing, I was unable to check this price.  If it had not been for my beautiful assistant @Tiberius_Jolly, I wouldn't have been able to check the qualifying prices either.

Sunday 14 April 2013

Chinese Grand Prix


As I described in this post, I was going to put imaginary money on the fastest drivers after the Friday free practises, Saturday practise and qualifying to see which betting strategy would gain me the most money over the season.

Fastest Friday PracticePriceFastest Saturday PracticePriceFastest QualifyingPrice
Massa13/2Alonso3/1*Hamilton2/1
Amount won/lost on a £1 bet-£1Amount won/lost on a £1 bet£4Amount won/lost on a £1 bet-£1
Amount won/lost on a £10 bet-£10Amount won/lost on a £10 bet£40Amount won/lost on a £10 bet-£10
Season Total £1 bets-£3Season Total £1 bets£5.75Season Total £1 bets£0.75
Season Total £10 bets-£30Season Total £10 bets£57.50Season Total £10 bets£7.50


* Due to the time difference and being at fencing, I was unable to check this price before qualifying.

Monday 25 March 2013

Malaysian Grand Prix

As I described in this post, I was going to put imaginary money on the fastest drivers after the Friday free practises, Saturday practise and qualifying to see which betting strategy would gain me the most money over the season.

Fastest Friday Practice Price Fastest Saturday Practice Price Fastest Qualifying Price
Raikkonen 9/4Vettel 7/4* Vettel 7/4
Amount won/lost on a £1 bet -£1 Amount won/lost on a £1 bet £2.75 Amount won/lost on a £1 bet £2.75
Amount won/lost on a £10 bet -£10 Amount won/lost on a £10 bet £27.50 Amount won/lost on a £10 bet £27.50
Season Total £1 bets -£2 Season Total £1 bets £1.75 Season Total £1 bets £1.75
Season Total £10 bets -£20 Season Total £10 bets £17.50 Season Total £10 bets £17.50


* Due to the time difference, I was unable to check this price before qualifying.

Tuesday 19 March 2013

Australian Grand Prix

There is html coding in this post so if anything looks off please tell me and I'll try to fix it.  The accent is sadly on the try.

As I described in this post, I was going to put imaginary money on the fastest drivers after the Friday free practises, Saturday practise and qualifying to see which betting strategy would gain me the most money over the season.

Fastest Friday Practice Price Fastest Saturday Practice Price Fastest Qualifying Price
Vettel 5/4 Grosjean 33/1 Vettel 4/7
Amount won/lost on a £1 bet -£1 Amount won/lost on a £1 bet -£1 Amount won/lost on a £1 bet -£1
Amount won/lost on a £10 bet -£10 Amount won/lost on a £10 bet -£10 Amount won/lost on a £10 bet -£10


I think I mentioned that betting was a mug's game, didn't I.


One interesting thing to me was that, after qualifying, the bookies (or at least William Hill) thought that Vettel was unbeatable to point that he was odds on to win.  This would have meant that if Vettel had won, I would have received £5.71 + my stake on a £10 bet (or 57 p on a £1 bet), which, even given his pedigree and the car's pedigree is a pretty major statement for the first Grand Prix of the season.  One that turned out to be wrong.  It'll be interesting to see if the following Grand Prix are as difficult to predict.

Wednesday 27 February 2013

Beating The Bookies At Formula 1 Betting

Being a jockey is the only thing any member of my family has ever been too tall for.  So, while my great-grandfather never got to be jockey*, I was brought up watching horse racing.  So I know sports betting is a mug's game, because the bookies have an in-built advantage because they get to set the odds and aren't ever going to set them in the punter's favour.

So I don't bet, except for the Grand National, which is enough of a lottery to make a mockery of the odds.

When @psychmedia showed that grid position was strongly positively correlated  with final race position (http://blog.ouseful.info/2013/01/30/f1stats-visually-comparing-qualifying-and-grid-positions-with-race-classification/ and following posts) my interested was piqued.  I have to admit my interests were more ... acquisitive than purely scientific.  When I've asked previously to suggest who to bet on to win a race, I've always said "back whoever qualifies on pole**".  The problem, in terms of betting, is that, while you risk less, you also get less of a reward because whoever gets pole position has their odds slashed.

So, I was thinking about how to improve the rewards without risking too much more.

There are some obvious points during a race weekend when you can place a bet based on what has gone before:

1) After Friday practise.  The obvious problem here is that a lot of teams use Friday practise for long runs, to give their reserve driver some track time, and to test new parts.  Who goes fast on Friday might not tell us anything about who goes fast on Sunday.  The obvious plus is that there should be better odds on offer.

2) After Saturday practise.  The cars are more likely to be in race-ish trim and it's not likely that the reserve drivers will be in any of the cars.  The odds are probably going to be shorter at this point.


3) After qualifying.  The cars will definitely be in race trim because of parc fermé rules, and despite possible fuel and tyre issues, the cars are at a point where position is positively correlated with final performance.  Of course, because of this, the odds will be at their shortest here.

At what point can a conscientious, risk-averse punter best place their money?

That's something that's testable.

If I put some hypothetical*** money on the fastest driver at each of these points, by the end of the year (or 20 replicates), I should be able to see if there's any difference.

Now to some more practical details:

I will be using the William Hill website values to give me the odds I would get.  William Hill were chosen because they're also where I put my National bet on.  I will only use simple bets i.e. x to win at a/b with no additional frills****.

I will put the same amount of "money" on for each bet.  I'm trying to decide whether to put on £1 or £10 because with £1 the result will be clearer but with £10 the differences should be more obvious at the end of the season.

Now to list the foreseeable difficulties:

a) Short time windows for putting the bets on, particularly for putting money on at point 2.  I am one of those people who still doesn't have a smart phone so if I am away from a computer (which will happen because of fencing), I might not be able to put on a bet for that time point.  I might require help from friends.

b) The odds are not calculated from 0 each time.  The bookies aren't stupid*****, they will take into account previous form.  So for instance, even if this season had entirely new regulations, Vettel would be at a shorter price going into the Australian GP than his team-mate.  Form through the season is also going to be weighted so if Racer X wins the first 10 grand prix, his odds are going to get shorter so I will win less money betting on him.  You also have local weighting - William Hill is a British bookies so is more likely to have fans that put money on Hamilton to win because he's the local lad.  As bookies don't want to lose money on popular bets, this is likely to cause them to reduce his odds as well.  This may mean the values I get at the end of the season don't actually reflect the money I could have won if I was betting at a bookies based on Mars.

Comments, suggestions, things I've overlooked?

~~~~

*don't worry, he managed to find a different job with horses.

** except Mark Webber who appears to be cursed.

*** hypothetical because I am not made of money.

**** remind me to write something about how a lot of the additional frills are actually bad for the punter's chance of winning.

***** if anyone ever comes to you with a betting scheme that involves the bookies being stupid, it is a bad plan and will not work.  Run for your life.

Friday 22 February 2013

Apparently my hypothesis was wrong

The hypothesis I was talking about in the last post was that the reason the 2012 Formula 1 season's racing was closer was due to the lack of blown diffusers, more particularly, I thought that this was because the diffusers and the way they worked (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_1_2011#Rule_changes) aided smoother drivers, or hindered the less smooth.

Now I admit this was mostly based on a gut feeling that Mark Webber was a much better driver than his 2011 results showed, and that, with the removal of the blown diffusers, his results would be closer to Sebastian Vettel's.

Unfortunately, I can't actually prove my hunch with numbers, because, Webber's average placing in 2012 in races where both drivers finished, was actually slightly lower than his position the year before, in comparison to Vettel (on average he was 1.9 places behind Vettel rather than 1.8 places). I blame being Grosjean'd a few times. However, at the same time, he's finished ahead of Vettel more times this season (five times as opposed to twice). I therefore decided that I needed more evidence to back up my theory. Or, you know, prove it at all. I needed another team where one driver is general regarded as smoother than the other and the drivers haven't change between 2011 and 2012.

Bring on the McLarens.

Thankfully, the McLarens actually do bear out my theory, even with Hamilton's various misfortunes.  There's a swing from Hamilton being -0.71 of a position behind in 2011 to being 3.3 of a position ahead in 2012.  The other thing screaming at me is that really, McLaren's reliability issues have really hurt them.  Both Red Bulls finished 16 times, both McLarens finished 10 times.

Unfortunately, I'd planned to use the difference between the Ferraris as a baseline but it turns out that Massa is less capable of coping with a terrible car than Alonso is.

There would be spreadsheets to back this up, but, unfortunately, I've not been able to figure out how to post them into Blogger.  Any help is gratefully received.