Were They Really Upsets?

[trick9]

Ok, 1st sentence you say it's not about them, then right after you say it's about them.

It's about the elite teams in general. Duh.

 

[Mestaruus]

It wasn't a surprise to me that Finland beat Canada. I knew that anything could happen in that game but I didn't feel like Canada was the favorite because they had lost to Finland 10 days before 5-2 and they also lost against Russia. I managed to predict Russia's win over Canada.

I had Finland as the gold favorite over anyone even before the Canada practice game but things changed during the tournament because Finland couldn't beat a top-country after the Canada practice match win and same can be said of Canada, although they beat the very tough Swiss 3-2. So I had Finland and Canada as #4 and #5 ranked team's before their QF meeting.

Switzerland beating Sweden of course was a surprise. I thought Sweden would win after a tight game, because SUI had put up a fight with pretty much everyone before that match, but I did not expect a full out dominance by Switzerland EVER. The fashion how Switzerland beat Sweden was a huge surprise to me, more than the result itself. Finland got to work their asses off and get rid of those scoring problems if they want to beat the Swiss.

 

[Mestaruus]

I'm hoping the Swiss have now moved on to Sweden as their upset and leave Canada alone now. LOL!

I'm afraid they've become Finland's cryptonite as they eliminated Finland who looked amazing in the senior's WHC last spring. If I can recall Finland won all games and many of those wins were very convincing and then, boom Switzerland, bye bye. After that the Swiss of course went to beat Canada in the semis.

So I am really afraid what the Swiss are going to do to Finland in the semifinal of this WJC. This might be even a bigger hurdle for Finland than the final would be as in the final Finland would get to be the underdog. Finland doesn't often handle these favorite positions that well.

 

[Mestaruus]

what rose coloured glasses? I'm not looking through the lens of just this tournament. Im looking at the IIHF as a whole. rose coloured glasses is picking one tournament and judging the whole tier list.

You say "looking IIHF as a whole", so does this mean we look at U18 results as well? Finland is stronger in U18 than in U20 in general and keep in mind that Finland has two U20 golds since 2014, so it's a lot to be said that they are even stronger in U18. Current U18 champs, 3 times in the final back to back years I believe.

I don't see Canada succeeding the way Finland and USA are doing year after year in U18 tournaments. Does this mean that Canada isn't a power team in U18?

 

[Urbanskog]

So yes, "balance" was imprecise. They want to capitalize on the bias of the crowd. People generally tend to over rate the favorite, and bias towards their own team, so in this case Vegas was going to give odds that overrated Canada significantly. So the balancing they are doing isn't to put equal numbers of bettors on each side but to maximize the number of bettors on the wrong side of the actual odds.

No. The odds suggest that Canada would (by average) win three of four match-ups between these two teams if all factors were the exact same. I don't see why do you find that disagreeable but I'm advising you to start betting if you are so overly confident that the odds are so drastically miscalculated although the probability calculating is an industry by itself.

 

[blindpass]

No. The odds suggest that Canada would (by average) win three of four match-ups between these two teams if all factors were the exact same. I don't see why do you find that disagreeable but I'm advising you to start betting if you are so overly confident that the odds are so drastically miscalculated although the probability calculating is an industry by itself.

I'm not close to that confident, though in this case I'd have happily taken Finland with the odds you quoted.

Seems that it must be one or the other, that they are balancing bets and profiting on what they skim out, or they are gambling themselves giving odds that don't reflect their true belief (but that disfavor the majority position). Either way the numbers given are biased.

Maybe I should start gambling...

 

[Scouter]

It's about the elite teams in general. Duh.

Yeah, but Finland are not elite.

 

[trick9]

Yeah, but Finland are not elite.

I guess you are new to hockey but they do have 2 of the last 5 golds at this stage. At U18 stage last season which was mainly the same teams as these here, they won gold, and they also have 2 of the last 3 golds at that level. Their current talent pool is elite which they've showed already year ago, and have shown for years at these tournaments.

 

[member 297479]

I guess you are new to hockey but they do have 2 of the last 5 golds at this stage. At U18 stage last season which was mainly the same teams as these here, they won gold, and they also have 2 of the last 3 golds at that level. Their current talent pool is elite which they've showed already year ago, and have shown for years at these tournaments.

I agree, but I suspect many people haven’t realized this fairly recent change in the talent pool, and thus consider these finnish junior teams inferior. I don’t believe many canadians are concerned with finnish prospects, as in many names aren’t well known although they are highly regarded prospects. Maybe this explains why some see Finland’s win over Canada as an upset, although the relative gap of these teams is much lower than before, IMO.

 

[Scouter]

I guess you are new to hockey but they do have 2 of the last 5 golds at this stage. At U18 stage last season which was mainly the same teams as these here, they won gold, and they also have 2 of the last 3 golds at that level. Their current talent pool is elite which they've showed already year ago, and have shown for years at these tournaments.

Look at their roster, it's at best on par with the Czech's. Canada, Russia, the US and Sweden still and probably always will have elite rosters for this, Finland may have done well, but their rosters still don't stack up to the big 4, this years Finnish team was supposed to be weaker than last years, this was not an elite team going in.

 

[trick9]

Look at their roster, it's at best on par with the Czech's. Canada, Russia, the US and Sweden still and probably always will have elite rosters for this, Finland may have done well, but their rosters still don't stack up to the big 4, this years Finnish team was supposed to be weaker than last years, this was not an elite team going in.

Well, anyone can watch the games how they like and evaluate the players all they want, but this is still the same core of players that won the U18 competition in 2016 and 2018 and lost in the Final to USA in 2017. They beat the ''elite teams'' you mentioned multiple times in those tournaments which consisted mostly on the players who played now for them.

 

[93LEAFS]

Any of the consistant top 5 nations (aka teams that win it such as Canada, Russia, Finland, Sweden or USA), losing to Switzerland (generally regarded as in a tier behind the Czech's with Slovakia, but better than the 2 bottom teams that tend to rotate), is always an upset. Canada losing to any of the other 4 nations I mentioned in a single elimination tournament isn't an upset (or at least a significant one). As anyone who has watched the first two days of March Madness can attest to, anything can happen in single elimination.

 

[Stoat]

No. The odds suggest that Canada would (by average) win three of four match-ups between these two teams if all factors were the exact same. I don't see why do you find that disagreeable but I'm advising you to start betting if you are so overly confident that the odds are so drastically miscalculated although the probability calculating is an industry by itself.

Actually you are wrong. The odds tell that on average people bet 75% of the money for Canada. This way bookers win wether Finland or Canada wins the match.

So basically odds are peoples general opinion.

And yes, I do make money on betting sports.

 

[blindpass]

Actually you are wrong. The odds tell that on average people bet 75% of the money for Canada. This way bookers win wether Finland or Canada wins the match.

So basically odds are peoples general opinion.

And yes, I do make money on betting sports.

I can't recall anyone ever saying they lose money doing it.

 

[Oak]

Both wins were a surprise for me but I dont follow anything about Swiss hockey and didnt watch earier games so I wasnt expecting much from them.

After watching how bad Finland looked against USA never would I have nexpected them to beat Canada.

 

[93LEAFS]

Actually you are wrong. The odds tell that on average people bet 75% of the money for Canada. This way bookers win wether Finland or Canada wins the match.

So basically odds are peoples general opinion.

And yes, I do make money on betting sports.

Generally, odds can get self-corrected in heavily bet sports such as NFL or NBA games, because the analytics guys will hammer it back even if there is a loved national team playing. I doubt the WJC sees this type of action. Yes, the analytics and sharks are part of the betting public, but way more analytical and neutral than crowd favorites. I have no idea what level of betting the WJC gets from this crowd, but I doubt its heavy, as it would be a nightmare to even attempt to properly handicap the game compared to other simpler bets you could profit on.

 

[Urbanskog]

Actually you are wrong. The odds tell that on average people bet 75% of the money for Canada. This way bookers win wether Finland or Canada wins the match.

So basically odds are peoples general opinion.

And yes, I do make money on betting sports.

That is simply poor logic. By that very logic odds of 1.01 would indicate that 99% of the money is on that side.

 

[IceHockeyDude]

Canada losing after 59 minutes of play was definitely an upset. Canada losing after the preliminary round was an upset. Canada losing before the tournament started would not have been an upset.

 

[hockey20000]

FinIand was my pick to win goId befoe the tournament.. I Iove Canada but the way tsn was pIaying up finIand beating us as a major upset was annoying … finIand over the past few years have proved there on parr with Canada/us/Russia/Sweden.. its time tsn starts respecting them.

 

[Stoat]

That is simply poor logic. By that very logic odds of 1.01 would indicate that 99% of the money is on that side.

No it wouldn't. It means that when less than 99% of money is bet on that, the booker wins.

I see that you have no knowledge of statistics and odds, so this discussion is useless.

Edit. Changed term people to money.

 

[Urbanskog]

No it wouldn't. It means that when less than 99% of people bet on that the booker wins.

I see that you have no knowledge of statistics and odds, so this discussion is useless.

I misread what you wrote. I am confident that I possess far more knowledge in the topic than you though.

 

[Stoat]

I misread what you wrote. I am confident that I possess far more knowledge in the topic than you though.

So, this means you agree with my original post?

You definitely can have more knowledge on the topic, but your post before really didn't seem like that.

 

[Urbanskog]

So, this means you agree with my original post?

You definitely can have more knowledge on the topic, but your post before really didn't seem like that.

For the most part. You stated that the odds are "peoples general opinion" which is not necessarily true as volumes of individual players vary.

 

[TimeZone]

I was 50/50 between Canada and Finland. Canada played like dirt all tournament long.

The Swiss game was definitely a shocker to me.

 

[Stoat]

For the most part. You stated that the odds are "peoples general opinion" which is not necessarily true as volumes of individual players vary.

Oh. That is true. *Buries hatchet*