Rage Online

Well, I suppose this shows why bookies drive smarter cars than us. Ten to one was decent odds given the average goals per game this season for the two sides was 3.3. Credit to Oddschecker for the odds.

Boogie -£15
ACol -£15
Radly -£15
Tom -£15
Geoff +£45
The Bookmaker +£15


Over to Geoff.

(c) £5
(f) £10

TB: 56

A betting boot: you have £15, you must stake it all. Bet in units of £5 (you can make a single bet of £15; one bet one of £10 and one of £5; or three bets of £5). Whomever ends up with most in their wallet wins. The bets and odds: (a) Oxford win: 2 to 1 (b) Matt Taylor scores first (in the match): 7...

1. One
2. One
3. One
4. Yes
5. No
6. Yes
7. No

TB: 5,678

1 Yes
2 No
3 No
4 No
5 Yes

TB 7,890

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. No
5. No

TB 3,838

Geoff, you won. Geoff ... Geoff ... are you listening? GEOFF!! Your boot ...

27 mins

In Geoff's absence, boot for tonight: single question

Time of first goal (no repeats)

If equidistant, prediction of earlier score wins. If no goals (and nobody states "no goals") the latest prediction wins.

1. N
2. N(J)
3. N
4. N
5. Y

TB 666

Long and Rodriguez will start

21,900

Geoff is spot on ...

Seems like possession and goals are negatively correlated?

27 mins

53%

In huge haste, just one question: When will the first goal in the match be scored. No repeats, if equidistant predicition of earlier time wins. If zero (and no-one states "no goals") we move onto the tie-breaker: Oxford possession % (no repeats, nearest wins, if equidistant, lower % wins).

OK, show your workings becomes germane here: OOUOUU gives Tom 2, Geoff 3, Radley and AColi 4 ... Now Radley needs to justify his 36.78% ... which is very precise but not what I estimated. For me it's a binomial expansion so N! / (r! (N-r)!) . p^r . (1-p)^(N-r) with N = 6, r = 3 and p = (1-p) = 0.5 a...