- Status
Nonsense. The Czechs had a better team than Canada in Nagano 98.
They have done nothing ever since? I think they have won few World titles ever since; they tied Canada at the 2002 Games; took Canada to overtime in World Cup 04. They finished above Canada in Torino 06. And even in Sochi they can be dangerous on big ice.
Good point. I would not be surprised if team Canada struggles to crack top 4 this year.
Obviously, you didn't specify what the odds on Canada should be, so you can evade my argument easily by now saying that the odds should be somewhere around 3.00, instead of what they're now.
But judging from what you said earlier ("Canada are the clear favorites"), the return on investment and +EV should be substantial, looking from your perspective.
If you think that Team Canada are most likely going to win in Sochi (even just a 50.1% probability), the ROI on a bet on Canada is 25% minimum, which is much higher than the annual ROI on any type of higher education.
Although, if you're saving up for a college degree, chances are it wouldn't be legal for you to bet on Canada in the first place. Too bad.
It doesn't look like you know what you're talking about.
The global betting market is dictated by the same basic principle that applies to the free market in the real world. If the odds aren't right, the pressure of the market will make them right. The liquidity in ice hockey markets is obviously low, but the point still stands - if the odds would be wrong, it would be rational on my part and on your part to bet on an outcome X. As more people bet on the outcome X, the odds become shorter and the outrights for all the other teams change accordingly.
Every random bet made by some die hard fan creates incentive for other people to bet on the opposite outcome and the odds will get balanced all the time until they've reached equilibrium.
The odds I posted here reflect the probability of each team winning in Sochi. They're not perfect, there's a pretty big margin of error, etc., but it's the best thing we have at this point and time.
When has any best-on-best tourney been dominated? Canada, and all the others teams, will not dominate because any one of 6 or 7 teams can win the tourney.
Maybe the OP didn't intend to have this come across as arrogant but it's not surprising to see the usual pointless banter.
Maybe the OP didn't intend to have this come across as arrogant but it's not surprising to see the usual pointless banter.
What's your point? They can only win if the tourney is played in a certain continent or time zone or latitude?
The numbers are created to, as you said, equalize betting on both sides of the ledger. They have nothing to do with a true representation of the strength of each hockey team. The people who put them together know 10 times more about statistics, demographics and a population's size/odds of betting on an event, than they do about hockey.
While I agree, they are the best we have, to use them to prove or disprove a belief/theory is wrong.
hitmen19
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2013
- 823
- 1
so does that mean Russia can't win because they have never won a best on best since 81 and have never won a Olympic gold? so I guess there out of the running also
Does that mean that the Czech can only win in ASIA, they have no track record of winning in Europe either
I guess Finland is out also, they have never won an Olympic gold anywhere.
So I guess that only leaves Sweden that can win, but they have never won above the latitude of 43 degrees, and needed to throw a game to get a favourable match up to win one, after they got smoked 5-0 and 3-0.
See if you want to make excuses why somebody can't win, so can everyone else. The point is Canada has won more on international ice including junior golds, wc golds, and the summit series 3/4
FourRings
Registered User
A good solid Trap/Defensive Schema is capable of shutting down any team.
It doesn't even the odds.. but it gives you odds.
There's a chance those odds will catch up with Canada as Teams focus a lot more when they play Canada.
It doesn't even the odds.. but it gives you odds.
There's a chance those odds will catch up with Canada as Teams focus a lot more when they play Canada.
Zine
Registered User
- Feb 28, 2002
- 12,548
- 2,820
I think he meant size of ice more so than geography.
Both Canada and USA have yet to even win a medal on international sized ice.
I thought the ice was international size in 2002, but I my memory may be wrong there?
1Gold Standard
Registered User
- Jun 13, 2012
- 7,986
- 317
it was. 200x94 NHL ice 200x85. Olympic ice 200x100. 2002 was more like a Finnish hybrid version. Not Olympic dimensions, but bigger than NHL ice.
I know the other poster was probably responding to a boasting Canadian poster but it is rather a silly point to make that Canada can only win on smaller ice. I don't see where Sweden and the Czech's gold medals are tarnished for being won on "big" ice. If you think about it, a smaller ice size than IIHF size is more fair as the majority of the players from the Big 7 have experience on smaller ice.
I'd like to see the hybrid ice size used (like in 2002) by the IIFH and the NHL.
toewsintangibles
Leadership analyst
- Dec 23, 2012
- 1,541
- 123
Team Canada doesn't play any system, they just rely on their star players. This works less well in big ice and it might lead to trouble..
hitmen19
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2013
- 823
- 1
obviousally you don't know your history, as salt lake was international ice, as defined by the iifh.
So I guess Russia hasn't won a gold on international ice either or a best on best on any ice.
I also wonder how spain ever won the world cup in soccer because they had never won a tournament anywhere before that also
Zine
Registered User
- Feb 28, 2002
- 12,548
- 2,820
I don't think anybody is saying that a country's medals are 'tarnished' because of size of rink.
Can Canada win on big ice?....certainly. However, per the topic of the thread, the size of ice is likely a huge reason Canada and/or USA may not win.
Zine
Registered User
- Feb 28, 2002
- 12,548
- 2,820
No, it was NOT standard Olympic sized ice. Canada and USA have yet to even medal on the size of rink to be used in Sochi. Placements - 4th, 6th, 7th and 8th.
Plante
Devils Advocate
Why do you hate Canada so much? You seem so opposed, you must have a good story.
hitmen19
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2013
- 823
- 1
So are you framing this only for the Olympics or for every tournament. Because if its every tournament, then Canada has won majority of its juniors golds, mens wc golds, summit series on big ice, even more so then they have on nhl ice.
if you just want to use it for the two Olympics that were held on 200 by 100, then you should also include Russia and finland into that excuse category, they haven't won on the big ice either, or on any ice for that matter. Make sure when you say why they will or will not win, you bring up the same reasoning.
Zine
Registered User
- Feb 28, 2002
- 12,548
- 2,820
Per NHL Olympics (topic of thread), Russia and Finland both have bronze and silvers on 200x100 ice. Czechs and Swedes have won Gold. Canada has marvelous 4th and 7th place finishes.
If you can't see why Canada is could very well finish behind the Euro teams (or why RUS and FIN chances for gold are higher), sorry, I can't play connect the dots for you.
Not saying Canada can't win, but that's what this thread is about. I'm sorry if it's too much for you to handle.
Why use the word dominate? I don't think any nation will dominate and Canada is no exception; other nations know how to play hockey too.
As for the big ice argument, winning is not about being superior by a wide margin, you only have to be a tad better in important situations.
It's not a stretch to think that nations which use the big ice in their domestic leagues and have players who grew up and developed on the bigger ice will have a small advantage against nations like Canada. I wouldn't be surprised if there are players on team Canada that have never played a game on international sized ice. Crosby?
Then again, after a few games it probably won't be a factor anymore.
As for the big ice argument, winning is not about being superior by a wide margin, you only have to be a tad better in important situations.
It's not a stretch to think that nations which use the big ice in their domestic leagues and have players who grew up and developed on the bigger ice will have a small advantage against nations like Canada. I wouldn't be surprised if there are players on team Canada that have never played a game on international sized ice. Crosby?
Then again, after a few games it probably won't be a factor anymore.
- Status
