2012 Summer Olympics Catch All Thread

[JayPrimetown]

As women's soccer kicks off in a couple hours, the games will be officially underway.

A very interesting matchup today as the US opens with France. These two teams know each other well as they played in the last World Cup in the semifinals. US turned it on the second half to win 3-1. France is one of the best in the world and is a contender to medal. With that said, women's soccer has a 12 team tournament and 8 advance to the knockout round. Expect both the US and France to not push for the jugular here... I'd say 1-1 is the most likely result. The under 2.5 at -120 is something I personally will be playing.

Some other matches today include Brazil-Cameroon and GB-New Zealand. These are heavy favorite matchups and the opportunity to fit them into a parlay for less juice would be my recommendation.

Colombia is a team I think can surprise a few people. They finished 4th in the Under 20 World Cup only a few years ago. Most expect them not to make the knockout round, but I think they can. They are strong underdogs to North Korea. Let's see.

[the dude]

I found this document linked by an Olympic article from the Globe and Mail (Canada's national newspaper). It's a model done by an economist at Colorado College to predict total medals and gold medals at the Olympics. It's a pretty interesting read.
http://faculty1.coloradocollege.edu/~djo...se2012.pdf

His predictions are right around the total numbers released, but there are a few predictions he makes that might be worth looking more into.

Gold medals
USA - 38.5
He predicts 34 (under -123)

China - 36.5
He predicts 33 (under +121)

Russia - 25.5
He predicts 25 (under -168)

Germany - 15.5
He predicts 19 (over -106)

The Germany bet on OVER looks like a good bet.

He predicts medals for all countries. I think it's worth a read if you're planning on making gold medal total bets.

[JayPrimetown]

Germany Over does look like a solid bet.

Adding Great Britain (Under 21.5), Spain (Under 4.5), and Netherlands (Under 8.5).

I think GB is being overvalued hosting the games... what additional golds would they win on home soil?

[illadelphia]

(07-25-2012 11:02 AM)JayPrimetown Wrote:  Germany Over does look like a solid bet.

Adding Great Britain (Under 21.5), Spain (Under 4.5), and Netherlands (Under 8.5).

I think GB is being overvalued hosting the games... what additional golds would they win on home soil?

I wondered about the "host country" effect on the medal count. After some quick research, I found 2 credible studies on this - one from Goldman Sachs and the other by a Professor from the University of Wolverhampton that will appear in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.

Goldman
Goldman Sachs used economic modelling to find that GB will finish ahead of Russia in the official Olympic medals table on account of winning 30 gold medals compared to 25 by Russia. Overall, the research predicts Great Britain will win 65 medals.

This would mark an improvement on the 47 medals and fourth place in the medal table at the Beijing Olympics, as well as UK Sport’s 2012 target for Team GB of 48 medals and another fourth place behind the US, China and Russia.

The Goldman report says host nations can typically expect a 54% increase in medals won and adds: “Our forecasts reflect two very clear patterns revealed in our analysis.

“First, countries with superior growth environments and higher incomes are expected to win more medals, and, second, there is also a marked host effect that will likely bump up the number of medals attained by Great Britain."

The forecast is based on how successfully each country has created a “world class environment” for athletes to emerge from, population, past performance, and the location of the Olympics.

The Goldman Sachs Growth Environment Scores are calculated through “important features of the economic, political and institutional environment that affect productivity performance and growth across countries”. For example, there is a high correlation between per capita income levels and the scores awarded to countries.

The medal predictions also recognizes that the link between economic growth and performance can vary between sports. For example, cycling, judo, rowing and swimming are more likely to be impacted to by the economic health of a country.

University of Wolverhampton
In a bid to assess how the medal tally is affected, the authors looked at the performance of 16 countries, before, during, and after hosting the games, and analyzed each host country’s medals haul since 1948.

Every single country increased the number of medals it won while hosting an Olympics compared with the years when it did not host the games, the figures showed.

Averaging out the pattern of wins for all 16 countries showed that the haul was 28 when not hosting the games. This rose to 40 in the run-up to the Olympics, 60 while hosting, and 47 in the aftermath.

Great Britain won 47 medals in Beijing, compared with the 28 it brought back from Sydney in 2000 and the 30 it won in Athens in 2004.

Using a mathematical formula to predict Great Britain’s performance in 2012, the research authors calculate that the haul should be in the region of 63 medals, assuming there are 1000 to win.

China, which won 100 medals in 2008 when it hosted the games, stands to win 78 in 2012, the authors predict.

Home advantage is well known for sports that have a subjective element of judging in them, such as boxing, gymnastics and team games, according to the authors. But this advantage disappears for sports relying on objective judging, such as weightlifting and athletics.

The British government has significantly increased funding for sports since 1997. The total investment up to 2012 amounts to £914 million.

“There can be little doubt that such financial support has been influential in increasing the medals won by Great Britain even before hosting the Olympics,” say the authors. Other countries investing heavily in sports have also done well.

The legacy of hosting the Commonwealth Games in Manchester in 2002 also counted as a “post hosting” benefit, particularly for cycling.

[the dude]

Good stuff there, ill.

"The legacy of hosting the Commonwealth Games in Manchester in 2002 also counted as a “post hosting” benefit, particularly for cycling."
-This might help explain Wiggins' Tour de France win this year - the first for a Brit.

As a Canadian, I saw the "home country advantage" first hand in Vancouver at the winter games. The Canadian government is notorious for its lack of funding toward amateur athletics, but for the Vancouver games, we started the "Own the Podium" program to make sure we didn't have an another embarrassing Olympics on home soil (0 goals in two prior Olympics). It clearly worked as we won a record 14 goal medals.

Like the EURO championship earlier this summer, I stayed away from a lot of games featuring the hosts (Poland and Ukraine) because it's hard to quantify how much emotional factors like playing in front of your home fans plays into it. I'd have to lean OVER, though, based on what those studies showed posted above by illadelphia.

[JayPrimetown]

In recent times, non established countries have hosted large scale competitions such as the World Cup and the Olympics. Countries that put full efforts towards those competitions. Britain is not one of those cases... furthermore the Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and England dynamic is not what I would describe as ideal.

Furthermore, the melting pot like demographic of London further downplays the homefield advantage.

[ChiefZilla]

(07-25-2012 12:00 PM)JayPrimetown Wrote:  In recent times, non established countries have hosted large scale competitions such as the World Cup and the Olympics. Countries that put full efforts towards those competitions. Britain is not one of those cases... furthermore the Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and England dynamic is not what I would describe as ideal.

Furthermore, the melting pot like demographic of London further downplays the homefield advantage.

But do you think it downplays it in the sports that are judged? Where the judges might be swayed toward the home country? That's what the second article mentioned.

[JayPrimetown]

(07-25-2012 02:07 PM)ChiefZilla Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 12:00 PM)JayPrimetown Wrote:  In recent times, non established countries have hosted large scale competitions such as the World Cup and the Olympics. Countries that put full efforts towards those competitions. Britain is not one of those cases... furthermore the Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and England dynamic is not what I would describe as ideal.

Furthermore, the melting pot like demographic of London further downplays the homefield advantage.

But do you think it downplays it in the sports that are judged? Where the judges might be swayed toward the home country? That's what the second article mentioned.

Right... but what sports are the Brits good at / could contend for a medal?

China may have done as well as they did because much of their preferred sports (gymnastics, diving) are heavily judge influenced sports. Not sure that's the same for the Brits.

[ChiefZilla]

Yeah I really don't know. Do they have any fringe contenders in those sports who could be boosted up from bronze to gold? Probably not, but I'm too lazy to look it up. Bottom line is it's happened for all 16 countries since 1948, though, so their medal count will almost undoubtedly go up.

[illadelphia]

(07-25-2012 02:09 PM)JayPrimetown Wrote:  Right... but what sports are the Brits good at / could contend for a medal?

Cycling is predicted to be Britain's most successful sport, with six to 10 medals expected from a star-studded squad that includes Chris Hoy and Mark Cavendish. Swimming, athletics and rowing — three more heavily funded sports — are expected to produce at least five medals each.

Britain isn't expected to medal in seven sports — basketball, handball, synchronized swimming, table tennis, volleyball, water polo, weightlifting and wrestling.

[JayPrimetown]

Britain, IIRC, doesn't have much in gymnastics either.

Cycling, swimming, athletics, and rowing are all time based sports where judging is minimal.

[ChiefZilla]

(07-25-2012 02:23 PM)illadelphia Wrote:  Cycling is predicted to be Britain's most successful sport, with six to 10 medals expected from a star-studded squad that includes Chris Hoy and Mark Cavendish. Swimming, athletics and rowing — three more heavily funded sports — are expected to produce at least five medals each.

Britain isn't expected to medal in seven sports — basketball, handball, synchronized swimming, table tennis, volleyball, water polo, weightlifting and wrestling.

Speaking of "catch all," have you guys found a good site to research a lot of these events?

[illadelphia]

(07-25-2012 02:47 PM)ChiefZilla Wrote:  Speaking of "catch all," have you guys found a good site to research a lot of these events?

Not one page specifically. I tend to use keyword searches and see what I can stumble across.

[RickRude]

(07-25-2012 11:02 AM)JayPrimetown Wrote:  Germany Over does look like a solid bet.

Adding Great Britain (Under 21.5), Spain (Under 4.5), and Netherlands (Under 8.5).

I think GB is being overvalued hosting the games... what additional golds would they win on home soil?

I love the Spain under bet. With the games in London and GB's cycling team possibly being the best in the world right now that should keep Spain off the gold medal stand. Spain won two of their 5 gold medals at the last olympics in cycling. Combined with Nadal withdrawing (another 2008 gold medalist) Spain would need a major surprise gold medalist to get to 5. If they get a surprise AND if they win the Soccer gold it could come down to the gold medal basketball game on the final day, but that is a longshot IMO.

[victortrash]

I've already got my money waiting on Chinese women's ping pong and Chinese women's diving. Just antsy to see what kind of price I'm going to see on it.

[ChiefZilla]

Are US books going to offer sports that rely on judges? That seems to be what's missing right now.

[the dude]

Good point, Chief.

Pinnacle has odds for sports that rely on judges like diving, synchronized swimming and boxing. But, the limits are really low - only max bets of $200-$300. Most of the limits for pinnacle are around the $200-$500 for Olympics events, except Basketball ($5000) and Volleyball ($2000).

It would be interesting to hear what a bookmaker thinks of Olympic betting. There's really nothing else like it.

[the dude]

Nice job illadelphia bringing up the "home soil" advantage.

The Brits, like noted above in that Wolverhampton article, have owned cycling. After a slow start, GB have gone over 21.5 like you predicted.

[illadelphia]

(08-08-2012 08:47 AM)the dude Wrote:  Nice job illadelphia bringing up the "home soil" advantage.

The Brits, like noted above in that Wolverhampton article, have owned cycling. After a slow start, GB have gone over 21.5 like you predicted.

Always nice to find relevant info, apply it and nail the outcome

[SkyBlues42]

Watching the speed walking competition right now (not sure why) and the announcer says "If you're looking for body fat, you've come to the wrong event." Do people actually watch the Olympics in hopes of seeing a bunch of body fat?