I didn't beat elliot up Rog unlike you. I know the death of the Dear Leader has probably upset you but why take it out on poor Elliott?
On 20/12/2011, at 10:35 PM, "Rog & Reet" <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes they do pay out more than one place if you have an each way bet. > > Means in essence you have to place 80 bets. > > They wouldn’t have given you 19-1 for Chelsea to finish top. > > They wouldn’t have given you 19-1 for Everton to finish 8th. > > They certainly wouldn’t have given you 4.75-1 for Burnley finishing in the > bottom 3 even if they’d have smoked all the hash in Afghanistan. > > > > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Jeremy Tonks > Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 10:27 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages > > > > What are you smoking Rog? > > They do give out prizes for being only one place out though don’t they? > > > > You’d have only done your money in 22 out of 40 (but you can get a pay out > for missing by two in an each way bet… in which case you’d have won 27 out of > 40) > > > > I reckon that’s about as good as a super punter like yourself ever does…? > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Rog & Reet > Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 10:22 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages > > > > If only bookies gave out prizes for getting 35 out of 40 wrong. > > I’d be a millionaire, hang on, no I’d be a billionaire. > > > > > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Steven Millward > Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:57 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages > > > > Thanks for these Paul. It's interesting that the correlation is even > stronger the year before. > > When you combine both seasons, the chance of data falling into line like that > by chance is about one in 59,000,000,000 (59 billion). > > > On 20 December 2011 16:14, Paul Crowe <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Steve, > > > > I found these figures on the web from Deloitte’s annual football report for > season 2009 to 2010, the season before your figures. Results as follows: > > > > Team..........League Rank...Wage Rank...Difference > Burnley......... .18..............19................1 > Fulham................12...............11.......... ......-1 > Stoke................11...............14.......... ......3 > Spurs..................5................7......... .......2 > Man Utd..............2................3............... ..1 > Wolves..............18...............15........... .....3 > Blackpool...........19...............20........... .....1 > Arsenal...............3.................5......... .......2 > Everton..............8.................8.......... ......0 > Wigan...............16...............15........... .....-1 > Hull City..........19...............16............ ....-3 > Bolton...............13...............14.......... ......1 > Chelsea..............1.................1.......... .....0 > Birmingham.........17...............9............ ..8 > Man City.............5.................2.............. .-3 > Liverpool.............6.................4......... ......-2 > Sunderland.........10................8............ ....-2 > Aston villa...........9.................6...............-3 > Blackburn...........15...............12........... ....-3 > West Ham..........17................10...............-7 > > Compared to your results for last season 2010 to 2011: > > > > Team..........League Rank...Wage Rank...Difference > West Brom..........11..............19................8 > Fulham................8...............11.......... ......3 > Stoke................13...............15.......... ......2 > Spurs..................5................7......... .......2 > Man Utd..............1................3............... ..2 > Wolves..............17...............18........... .....1 > Blackpool...........19...............20........... .....1 > Arsenal...............4.................5......... .......1 > Everton..............7.................8.......... ......1 > Wigan...............16...............16........... .....0 > Newcastle..........12...............12............ ....0 > Bolton...............14...............14.......... ......0 > Chelsea..............2.................1.......... .....-1 > Birmingham.........18...............17............ ..-1 > Man City.............3.................2.............. .-1 > Liverpool.............6.................4......... ......-2 > Sunderland.........10................8............ ....-2 > Aston villa...........9.................6...............-3 > Blackburn...........15...............12........... ....-3 > West Ham..........20................8...............-12 > > > > Ok, pretty similar results. The 2 x anomaly’s for 2009 to 2010 being > Birmingham and West Ham. Interesting that West Ham went up 2 x places in > terms of the wage table for last season compared to the previous year but > ended up finishing bottom and were relegated. > > Pity Deloitte do not publish their reports. Anybody have the figures for the > season 2008 to 2009? > > Still not convinced Manager’s have no effect whatsoever and that 90% of team > performance is directly attributed to wage bill spend. > > Regards > > Paul. > > > > > > Paul Crowe > > Sales Manager - Asia Pacific > > > > ConTech (Sydney Office) > > > > PO Box 3517 > > Rhodes Waterside > > Rhodes NSW 2138 > > Tel: 02 97396636 Fax: 02 97396542 > > Mob: 0406009562 > > Email: [email protected] > > Website: www.contechengineering.com > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Steven Millward > Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 2:36 PM > To: nswolves > Subject: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages > > > > Here's the wages data that Paul Crowe asked for, It's more or less the same > as the data I have already shared. > > > > West Ham is an outlier and linear regression is not robust so you get a > stronger r-squared when you take it out. God knows what happened to them > last season > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out. > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out. > > > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out. > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out. > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out. > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out. -- Boo! Thick Mick Out.
