New Manager

[Gone For A Walk]

Reading Phil Buckingham's article in The Athletic the other day, it sounds like the back 3 vs back 4 was at least part of the disagreement. Shota suddenly went to a back four at Swansea and brought in the previously untrusted Vale. We were ****e and according to Buckingham, Shota then spent the international break preparing the team to play a back 3 again against Luton, with Docherty included in the midfield, but of course on the day of the game he was sacked and we ended up discarding that plan and playing 4-2-3-1 again.

Sounds to me like Shota wanted to be pragmatic to get us out of this rut and Acun wanted him to go balls to the wall instead.

I heard he was sacked the night before.

Sounds to me more like Acun thought of sacking him straight after Swansea, but 'slept on it' so to speak, but then over those intervening days heard & saw little to convince him that he'd do anything to turn things around - meaning not so much to do with these thinly veiled accusations of Acun dictating / meddling in team affairs, just nothing coming from Shota to give him sufficient confidence of a turn around.

 

[tigerrev]

.Bookies very seldom get these things wrong.

Don't they? I thought odds were shortened if people lumped on - and obviously there's been a lot of backing for Carvalhal. As I said somewhere else, Bruce was 20/1 when he came in

 

[The B&S Fanclub]

Forest have bought really badly. That team looks woeful.

They're already worrying about not bettering Derby's record. That spells the end of Cooperman. One Spanish waiter hovering. According to the gossip rags.
I'd have him at City. Btw that's Cooper.

 

[tigerrev]

I wonder if someone else has grown their hat into the ring….

Wilder? Maybe we've changed our minds now he's available?

 

[Ric Glasgow]

Don't they? I thought odds were shortened if people lumped on - and obviously there's been a lot of backing for Carvalhal. As I said somewhere else, Bruce was 20/1 when he came in

It's very seldom weight of money,quite frequently it's the probability of it actually happening(ie:-They know more than us and have ears in many corners).The bookies will have a relatively small book running on 'Hull City's next manager',it's hardly of national interest but they'll tighten the odds nevertheless so as not to lose money.They've obviously heard strong rumour and they're not going to give us 10/1 on something they see as a near certainty to happen.

Bookies set the odds,we the punter(and I've been one for 47 years) have very little influence on how they form a book.

 

[The B&S Fanclub]

...... running on 'Hull City's next manager',it's hardly of national interest....
.

I always think that betting on 'next manager' is a bit like using a pin to predict the winner of the national.

 

[Top_Tiger]

Dunno what happened to Wilder at Boro, but I’d have him.

 

[Cityzen]

Well Baz must know something that the bookies don't?He's now 1/5 favourite with sky bet(basically un-backable)...Bookies very seldom get these things wrong.

Low odds because that is where the money has been put on.

 

[bradymk2]

Paul jewell
Where's that come from?

 

[Cityzen]

Paul jewell
Where's that come from?

Ingesting “certain substances”?

 

[Ric Glasgow]

Low odds because that is where the money has been put on.

There may well be money on him,maybe someone has put a sizeable wedge on him,that of course would tighten his odds,that's a given but it's not necessarily what bookmaking is all about.

I used to know a stable lad who worked for a well known,high profile trainer in Newmarket.He'd sometimes give me a nudge in the right direction about an unraced 2 year old or whatever that was 'catching pigeons' in morning gallops on Newmarket Heath.The bookies would open up the book on a Friday night and before a penny landed in their satchel on a Saturday morning it would be chalked up as 4/5 favourite in an 18 runner maiden? Why was that if not a penny had been laid? You and I both know the answer,the bookies know about 'talking horses' or good things and actually have gallops watchers or inside info...It's no different with next manager books,of course it doesn't always materialise and things can happen last minute but they take no chances,they protect their own interests as any business should.

 

[HFFP]

This is very left field and to be honest i've never heard of him but newspape Ojogo his reporting he's a possibility. It seems he worked as an assistent at Forest.

"
Bruno Baltazar está a ser apontado ao Hull City, da segunda divisão inglesa.

De acordo com o Daily Mail, Bruno Baltazar é hipótese para treinar o Hull City, do segundo escalão inglês. O técnico português, de 45 anos, trabalha atualmente nos Estados Unidos, orientando o Rochester, da MLS Next Pro League.

A confirmar-se, será a segunda passagem por Inglaterra, onde trabalhou como adjunto de Lamouchi, no Nottingham Forest."

 

[tigermaul]

This is very left field and to be honest i've never heard of him but newspape Ojogo his reporting he's a possibility. It seems he worked as an assistent at Forest.

"
Bruno Baltazar está a ser apontado ao Hull City, da segunda divisão inglesa.

De acordo com o Daily Mail, Bruno Baltazar é hipótese para treinar o Hull City, do segundo escalão inglês. O técnico português, de 45 anos, trabalha atualmente nos Estados Unidos, orientando o Rochester, da MLS Next Pro League.

A confirmar-se, será a segunda passagem por Inglaterra, onde trabalhou como adjunto de Lamouchi, no Nottingham Forest."

Here it is in the Daily Mail: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...ester-New-York-LOSE-coach-Bruno-Baltazar.html

 

[Plum]

This is very left field and to be honest i've never heard of him but newspape Ojogo his reporting he's a possibility. It seems he worked as an assistent at Forest.

"
Bruno Baltazar está a ser apontado ao Hull City, da segunda divisão inglesa.

De acordo com o Daily Mail, Bruno Baltazar é hipótese para treinar o Hull City, do segundo escalão inglês. O técnico português, de 45 anos, trabalha atualmente nos Estados Unidos, orientando o Rochester, da MLS Next Pro League.

A confirmar-se, será a segunda passagem por Inglaterra, onde trabalhou como adjunto de Lamouchi, no Nottingham Forest."

Picked up by Daily Mail too, must be true, errr....
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...ester-New-York-LOSE-coach-Bruno-Baltazar.html

edit: double post, must be happening

 

[Cityzen]

There may well be money on him,maybe someone has put a sizeable wedge on him,that of course would tighten his odds,that's a given but it's not necessarily what bookmaking is all about.

I used to know a stable lad who worked for a well known,high profile trainer in Newmarket.He'd sometimes give me a nudge in the right direction about an unraced 2 year old or whatever that was 'catching pigeons' in morning gallops on Newmarket Heath.The bookies would open up the book on a Friday night and before a penny landed in their satchel on a Saturday morning it would be chalked up as 4/5 favourite in an 18 runner maiden? Why was that if not a penny had been laid? You and I both know the answer,the bookies know about 'talking horses' or good things and actually have gallops watchers or inside info...It's no different with next manager books,of course it doesn't always materialise and things can happen last minute but they take no chances,they protect their own interests as any business should.

A book is made so you are covered whoever wins. If no one bet a penny on Man City winning the title the odds would be better than Brighton if the bookies faced paying out on them because people had backed them. The object is to pay out less on the winner than what you have taken in on the others no matter who wins.

 

[Idi Amin]

#CertainRelegation

 

[Idi Amin]

Ain't that Vardys team he has been managing? They are essentially North Ferriby sort of level.

**** it, may as well offer Chris Bolder the job.

 

[WestStandTiger]

Must be some powerpoint from a guy in the second division of the US to be preferred over Championship play off finalist managers.

Or is it the fact he’s not bothered he won’t have total say over the team?

 

[Ric Glasgow]

A book is made so you are covered whoever wins. If no one bet a penny on Man City winning the title the odds would be better than Brighton if the bookies faced paying out on them because people had backed them. The object is to pay out less on the winner than what you have taken in on the others no matter who wins.

That's correct in theory and all major bookmakers generally make on any event.The exception to the rule being on-course bookmakers,they'll usually have one or two on the book that will take more out than they've taken in.

It's all computerised nowadays and they'll generally have a horse in the 'red' section on their computer(it's quite fascinating to look at actually).They'll slash the odds on that horse and push the rest out to attract money on others,sometimes they'll lay the bet off with one of the big firms at fractionally higher odds.I've seen some on-course bookies going home wishing they hadn't bothered turning up that day.

 

[Asterix]

A book is made so you are covered whoever wins. If no one bet a penny on Man City winning the title the odds would be better than Brighton if the bookies faced paying out on them because people had backed them. The object is to pay out less on the winner than what you have taken in on the others no matter who wins.

The book on any event is made by the probable chances of "whatever" winning, with the bookies profit on top, the over-round. Before a shilling, never mind the housekeeping, is wagered, the bookmaker will have considered the percentage chance of each entrant and marked it up as odds/prices. Subsequent money will cause these prices to shorten or lengthen. Steam or drift. It is very rare to see a short priced favourite be ousted at the top of the market by money for any of the rest of the field.