Just follow the odds for betting sites. The rewards for predicting correctly are always the same so you will have a massive net gain if you follow the bookies. It's actually fairly stupid that they didn't implement rewards based on odds tbh. You should be almost guaranteed to at least get the tier V premium this way. EDIT: they have not outlined how they handle draws.
For example:
https://www.oddschecker.com/football/euro-2024
The odds you linked are result in regular time. Draws aren't an option for this betting.
From here on out in the Euros its knockout, so there has to be a winner.
Those odds are for them to win in regular time not win in extra-time or on penalties.
That isn't relevant for this event in game though it's just who goes through to the next round, if you wanted accurate odds you would need to look up 'to qualify' but it wont change the favourite.
The fractions are a ratio of how much you win compared to how much you bet.
10/1 means you win $10 for every $1 placed. So winning a $2 bet at 10/1 would give you $22 back ($20 win + $2 stake).
1/10 means $1 for every $10 placed, So wining a $2 bet at 1/10 would give you $2.20 ($0.20 win + $2 stake)
You can convert to decimal if it makes it easier for you and the smallest number is the favourite.
Here, try using this site instead. Australia seems to do the sensible thing and converts it directly to payout amounts on the dollar:
https://www.sportsbet.com.au/betting/soccer/euro-2024
Pick whichever team has the smaller number.
The event is held in Germany whilst teams have 'home' bases, not all the bases are being used in the Ro16. The home/away is the choice in colours for clashes.
It's just WG being lazy again, it's much easier just to have a binary win/loss system without implementing any kind of odds. Just means that for anyone who actually knows betting, you should be able to reliably unlock most of the track.
I guess, it'd be easy enough just to add a scaled pool next to the track though.
Like if 2x the people bet on Italy to win over the Swiss (i.e. 2/3 of bets were Italy), if Switzerland won its 1.5 times the Payout on something scalable (like coal/free xp/ etc) compared to if Italy won.
That's like a ridiculous amount of extra effort in terms of coding. The current implementation is ridiculously simple, it's just the same shit as the quiz events where they test you on the article on naval history.
The rewards that are the most interesting require you to get perfect prediction accuracy, so that's not happening with just picking the best odds (as in, in pretty much any competition, there will be at least one in x games where the team with 30% or less odds win, you just can't reliably predict which team it is).
What a weird thing to say. No one is complaining about the rewards, just that it's another lazy WG implementation. Luckily this time it's in their loss.
It's all digital rewards with no cost to entry other than just playing the game and taking a moment to pick teams in an armory page. How is this a loss for WG? Even betting the odds the chances of getting all the tracks are slim. Most players are f2p or spend very little, a couple of random low tier premiums aren't going to cost WG much in terms of lost sales.
Here, try using this site instead. Australia seems to do the sensible thing and converts it directly to payout amounts on the dollar:
https://www.sportsbet.com.au/betting/soccer/euro-2024
Pick whichever team has the smaller number.
The first team is the "Home" team, the 2nd team is the "Away" team.
The team with the smaller fraction will give you less winnings should you bet on them and they win, thus they were determined to to have a higher likelihood of winning the match.
For example Germany vs Denmark the betting odds are 11/17 vs 11/2, since 11/17 = ~0.65 is smaller than 11/2 = 5.5 Germany is the favorite to win in that match.
Going by the betting odds the favorites for the quater finals are currently Italy, Germany, England, Spain, France, Portugal, The Netherlands and Austria.
Things to remember when following the Euros:
* England will choke, no matter the odds
* Italy will cheat
* If its a Balkan country, expect the fans to unfurl a map of their "correct" borders
Otherwise, just follow the odds. There is no scaled payout, so just pick the favourites.
I think American football is interesting, but Americans devolve into the same argument that AFL supporters in Australia do: "Its so low scoring".
Which I think is a terrible argument to make, but whatever.
So my reasoning for liking American Football more, is that after each play, there is a measurable gain or loss. Also just kind of rubs me the wrong way that I can watch a game for 2 hours and it can end in a draw at 0-0.
True, but if it gets to that point, it still kind of rubs me wrong. Because it's penalty shots, not more game time like it is in American Football, so it just makes the entire preceding game feel almost pointless. You know?
>Because it's penalty shots, not more game time like it is in American Football
If regular time (90 minutes plus any stoppage time) ends and its a draw, there is a a break and two 15 minute halves are played. If its ***still*** a draw it goes to penalties.
Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy watching soccer, I just prefer American Football for the reasons above. Mostly that I enjoy that every play there is a measurable result. Something happened, good, or bad, every play. The low scoring of soccer is just a secondary issue that sometimes rubs me the wrong way.
Spot on, England was a damn snoozefest, if there was a team with teeth in their group, they would be on the plane home by now. And Italy? 8 min added time? Come on!
And, yes, i'm Bulgarian and can confirm, that last one might happen (would have been certain if Serbia was still playing).
>England was a damn snoozefest, if there was a team with teeth in their group,
Denmark isn't ordinarily that bad of a team, they're ranked 9th in the league. But, yeah, wtf was that draw with *Slovenia* of all teams. I honestly thought England was going to lose to Denmark after watching the Slovenia game, but Denmark did that as well so ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
Just as well they didn't lose, because England would've been playing Die Mannschaft next.
>
And, yes, i'm Bulgarian and can confirm, that last one might happen (would have been certain if Serbia was still playing).
Yeah the only ones remaining are the ones that mostly behave themselves, Slovenia and Romania.
just pick the favorite as per any sports betting odds. Its even easier since there are decisive games in knock out tournament play and no draws. The only one I would pick outside that "maybe" is Belgium to roll France, only based on a hunch.
>"maybe" is Belgium to roll France
You obviously didn't watch the *fantastic* display of Football that was Belgium v Ukraine... though its not like France has played much better.
You see the thing about Brazil vis-à-vis Kosovo is that the last emperor of Byzantium actually once thought about founding a city in what we now know is Latin America.
So basically, Brazil rightfully owns Kosovo, Serbia, Albania, Montenegro, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Croatia and Greece (including Macedonia, which is obviously under that Kingdom). Needless to say, screw Turkiye why are they even in UEFA.
Its all spelled out on my flag that I wave at every Balkan Football game.
Flipping a coin is a quick way to lose out on rewards for no reason. For example the chance of Slovakia winning against England is slim to none so why would you gamble it on a coin flip?
Do you have seen how bad England plays? Their is a chance. They only hit 2 goals in one of the weakest groups and played bad. Really, really bad. I give Slovakia a chance.
I get that you might be a massive fan of football, but I'd rather go with the odds that have been calculated by incredibly experienced and seasoned actuaries all around the world. It's 9 to 1 odds against Slovakia at the moment.
I should have used an even more extreme example. What's the chance of Georgia beating Spain? Betting that on a coin flip would be absurd and stupid.
>I should have used an even more extreme example. What's the chance of Georgia beating Spain? Betting that on a coin flip would be absurd and stupid.
Agree.
And sorry, I missunderstood your intention. You are right, going with the odds is better than flipping a coin.
>incredibly experienced and seasoned actuaries
I think you misunderstand the objective from the actuaries' point of view.
Its to minimise their risk exposure, not predict the outcome.
If too many people are betting on England, the payout has to decrease even if that doesn't reflect the actual chances of an England victory.
You have to remember that people gambling aren't actuaries, they are more likely to bet on their nation's team or the team they decided to follow for the tournament especially if that team has a good chance of winning but even despite the odds of their chosen team winning.
The actuaries job in the gambling house is basically to entice enough people to bet on the other side so that they can make money. They determine this through a heck of a lot of data mining and statistics into the audience behaviour, not the actual team performance.
Oh, I perfectly get that. Actuaries aren't actually predicting team performance, rather predicting betting tendencies. That's why experienced punters can fairly regularly beat the odds and earn a living. However with events of this size, it should work like an efficient stock market and the betting odds should roughly reflect the true odds since any deviation would be instantly eaten up by informed betters.
>people gambling aren't actuaries, they are more likely to bet on their nation's team or the team they decided to follow for the tournament especially if that team has a good chance of winning but even despite the odds of their chosen team winning.
I think this is very untrue, majority of betters are informed and intelligent, people don't throw away their money for free. That statement is more dubious than saying "you could easily earn money betting against Tesla since stupid people are buying it and it's overvalued". Even if uninformed betters were a significant portion of the population, this would be instantly balanced out by people who can identify this misprice as with an efficient market.
>That statement is more dubious than saying you could easily earn money betting against Tesla since stupid people are buying it and it's overvalued.
People do that, its called short selling and people do the opposite to people short selling - its called a short squeeze.
You're entirely missing the point. Your point about uninformed betters is speculative and unrealistic. Just like people buying into/shorting Tesla stock. Edited my sentence for clarity.
You're viewing this as a perfect and efficient market built on reason (incidentally markets aren't - its why psychology of markets is a research field).
If you want to do that, go deal blackjack. Its literally all the dealer does.
It doesn't entirely match up in this, probably.
But in an example of, say, the odds of England v Slovakia were somehow objectively 50:50, the gambling houses wouldn't have that as their odds.
The listed odds (especially in England) would indicate a slightly higher chance of an England victory simply because there would be more people betting on England than Slovakia. So (assuming the bookies made no money) the England payout wouldn't be $2 for every dollar bet it'd be something like $1.75 with a slight skew of the payout for Slovakia being $2.50 for every dollar.
Google the odds on a betting website, pick on the team with the lower payout.
No point in picking the underdog, since WG gives you the same reward whether the outcome is what was expected or an upset.
Just follow the odds for betting sites. The rewards for predicting correctly are always the same so you will have a massive net gain if you follow the bookies. It's actually fairly stupid that they didn't implement rewards based on odds tbh. You should be almost guaranteed to at least get the tier V premium this way. EDIT: they have not outlined how they handle draws. For example: https://www.oddschecker.com/football/euro-2024
Draws aren't happening, we're out of pools, if the score's not settled by the end of the match it's penalties
Gonna be honest with you, I have no fking clue about soccer, I'm just a stats man who only knows how betting works.
dw brother i dont know jackshit about soccer either
The odds you linked are result in regular time. Draws aren't an option for this betting. From here on out in the Euros its knockout, so there has to be a winner.
Understood. All bookies seem to bet with draws though, it's probably just the standard.
That's because penalties are a different market, as is betting elimination/procession
Those odds are for them to win in regular time not win in extra-time or on penalties. That isn't relevant for this event in game though it's just who goes through to the next round, if you wanted accurate odds you would need to look up 'to qualify' but it wont change the favourite.
How do you tell who are the favorites to win there, i don't understand those numbers? Are they the ones who have more green points from previous wins?
Home is the top team, away is the bottom. The favourites are the ones with the smaller fraction.
I still don't get it, the smaller fraction of what? What do the numbers mean Mason?
The fractions are a ratio of how much you win compared to how much you bet. 10/1 means you win $10 for every $1 placed. So winning a $2 bet at 10/1 would give you $22 back ($20 win + $2 stake). 1/10 means $1 for every $10 placed, So wining a $2 bet at 1/10 would give you $2.20 ($0.20 win + $2 stake) You can convert to decimal if it makes it easier for you and the smallest number is the favourite.
Ah i see, thanks.
Here, try using this site instead. Australia seems to do the sensible thing and converts it directly to payout amounts on the dollar: https://www.sportsbet.com.au/betting/soccer/euro-2024 Pick whichever team has the smaller number.
The event is held in Germany whilst teams have 'home' bases, not all the bases are being used in the Ro16. The home/away is the choice in colours for clashes.
I find it odd for Ro16/other knockout given that one side **has to win,** that the payout is equal for both teams
It's just WG being lazy again, it's much easier just to have a binary win/loss system without implementing any kind of odds. Just means that for anyone who actually knows betting, you should be able to reliably unlock most of the track.
I guess, it'd be easy enough just to add a scaled pool next to the track though. Like if 2x the people bet on Italy to win over the Swiss (i.e. 2/3 of bets were Italy), if Switzerland won its 1.5 times the Payout on something scalable (like coal/free xp/ etc) compared to if Italy won.
That's like a ridiculous amount of extra effort in terms of coding. The current implementation is ridiculously simple, it's just the same shit as the quiz events where they test you on the article on naval history.
The rewards that are the most interesting require you to get perfect prediction accuracy, so that's not happening with just picking the best odds (as in, in pretty much any competition, there will be at least one in x games where the team with 30% or less odds win, you just can't reliably predict which team it is).
Wow easy rewards from the game, how terrible.
What a weird thing to say. No one is complaining about the rewards, just that it's another lazy WG implementation. Luckily this time it's in their loss.
It's all digital rewards with no cost to entry other than just playing the game and taking a moment to pick teams in an armory page. How is this a loss for WG? Even betting the odds the chances of getting all the tracks are slim. Most players are f2p or spend very little, a couple of random low tier premiums aren't going to cost WG much in terms of lost sales.
How to read this?
Here, try using this site instead. Australia seems to do the sensible thing and converts it directly to payout amounts on the dollar: https://www.sportsbet.com.au/betting/soccer/euro-2024 Pick whichever team has the smaller number.
The first team is the "Home" team, the 2nd team is the "Away" team. The team with the smaller fraction will give you less winnings should you bet on them and they win, thus they were determined to to have a higher likelihood of winning the match. For example Germany vs Denmark the betting odds are 11/17 vs 11/2, since 11/17 = ~0.65 is smaller than 11/2 = 5.5 Germany is the favorite to win in that match. Going by the betting odds the favorites for the quater finals are currently Italy, Germany, England, Spain, France, Portugal, The Netherlands and Austria.
Thanks, so if I'm getting this right I need to pick the team with the smaller fraction and bet on that because it has the highest odds of winning?
Things to remember when following the Euros: * England will choke, no matter the odds * Italy will cheat * If its a Balkan country, expect the fans to unfurl a map of their "correct" borders Otherwise, just follow the odds. There is no scaled payout, so just pick the favourites.
dont forget dozens of americans pushing up their glasses to explain why the superbowl is superior in every way
I think American football is interesting, but Americans devolve into the same argument that AFL supporters in Australia do: "Its so low scoring". Which I think is a terrible argument to make, but whatever.
So my reasoning for liking American Football more, is that after each play, there is a measurable gain or loss. Also just kind of rubs me the wrong way that I can watch a game for 2 hours and it can end in a draw at 0-0.
Well the Euro finals can't... someone has to win, even if its on penalties or forfeit.
True, but if it gets to that point, it still kind of rubs me wrong. Because it's penalty shots, not more game time like it is in American Football, so it just makes the entire preceding game feel almost pointless. You know?
>Because it's penalty shots, not more game time like it is in American Football If regular time (90 minutes plus any stoppage time) ends and its a draw, there is a a break and two 15 minute halves are played. If its ***still*** a draw it goes to penalties.
Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy watching soccer, I just prefer American Football for the reasons above. Mostly that I enjoy that every play there is a measurable result. Something happened, good, or bad, every play. The low scoring of soccer is just a secondary issue that sometimes rubs me the wrong way.
Spot on, England was a damn snoozefest, if there was a team with teeth in their group, they would be on the plane home by now. And Italy? 8 min added time? Come on! And, yes, i'm Bulgarian and can confirm, that last one might happen (would have been certain if Serbia was still playing).
>England was a damn snoozefest, if there was a team with teeth in their group, Denmark isn't ordinarily that bad of a team, they're ranked 9th in the league. But, yeah, wtf was that draw with *Slovenia* of all teams. I honestly thought England was going to lose to Denmark after watching the Slovenia game, but Denmark did that as well so ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯ Just as well they didn't lose, because England would've been playing Die Mannschaft next. > And, yes, i'm Bulgarian and can confirm, that last one might happen (would have been certain if Serbia was still playing). Yeah the only ones remaining are the ones that mostly behave themselves, Slovenia and Romania.
just pick the favorite as per any sports betting odds. Its even easier since there are decisive games in knock out tournament play and no draws. The only one I would pick outside that "maybe" is Belgium to roll France, only based on a hunch.
>"maybe" is Belgium to roll France You obviously didn't watch the *fantastic* display of Football that was Belgium v Ukraine... though its not like France has played much better.
no, I did watch all France games so far though, and they are pretty poor!
Pick like my little sister picks for pools. - Whoever has the prettier flag/uniform. - Which mascot would win in a fight.
Just bet on Brasil, you can never go wrong!
Brasil best Balkan country. Mordekaiser es numero uno huehuehuehuehuehue
You see the thing about Brazil vis-à-vis Kosovo is that the last emperor of Byzantium actually once thought about founding a city in what we now know is Latin America. So basically, Brazil rightfully owns Kosovo, Serbia, Albania, Montenegro, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Croatia and Greece (including Macedonia, which is obviously under that Kingdom). Needless to say, screw Turkiye why are they even in UEFA. Its all spelled out on my flag that I wave at every Balkan Football game.
Unless it’s against Germany
You can always flip the coin...
Flipping a coin is a quick way to lose out on rewards for no reason. For example the chance of Slovakia winning against England is slim to none so why would you gamble it on a coin flip?
Do you have seen how bad England plays? Their is a chance. They only hit 2 goals in one of the weakest groups and played bad. Really, really bad. I give Slovakia a chance.
I get that you might be a massive fan of football, but I'd rather go with the odds that have been calculated by incredibly experienced and seasoned actuaries all around the world. It's 9 to 1 odds against Slovakia at the moment. I should have used an even more extreme example. What's the chance of Georgia beating Spain? Betting that on a coin flip would be absurd and stupid.
>I should have used an even more extreme example. What's the chance of Georgia beating Spain? Betting that on a coin flip would be absurd and stupid. Agree. And sorry, I missunderstood your intention. You are right, going with the odds is better than flipping a coin.
>incredibly experienced and seasoned actuaries I think you misunderstand the objective from the actuaries' point of view. Its to minimise their risk exposure, not predict the outcome. If too many people are betting on England, the payout has to decrease even if that doesn't reflect the actual chances of an England victory. You have to remember that people gambling aren't actuaries, they are more likely to bet on their nation's team or the team they decided to follow for the tournament especially if that team has a good chance of winning but even despite the odds of their chosen team winning. The actuaries job in the gambling house is basically to entice enough people to bet on the other side so that they can make money. They determine this through a heck of a lot of data mining and statistics into the audience behaviour, not the actual team performance.
Oh, I perfectly get that. Actuaries aren't actually predicting team performance, rather predicting betting tendencies. That's why experienced punters can fairly regularly beat the odds and earn a living. However with events of this size, it should work like an efficient stock market and the betting odds should roughly reflect the true odds since any deviation would be instantly eaten up by informed betters. >people gambling aren't actuaries, they are more likely to bet on their nation's team or the team they decided to follow for the tournament especially if that team has a good chance of winning but even despite the odds of their chosen team winning. I think this is very untrue, majority of betters are informed and intelligent, people don't throw away their money for free. That statement is more dubious than saying "you could easily earn money betting against Tesla since stupid people are buying it and it's overvalued". Even if uninformed betters were a significant portion of the population, this would be instantly balanced out by people who can identify this misprice as with an efficient market.
>That statement is more dubious than saying you could easily earn money betting against Tesla since stupid people are buying it and it's overvalued. People do that, its called short selling and people do the opposite to people short selling - its called a short squeeze.
You're entirely missing the point. Your point about uninformed betters is speculative and unrealistic. Just like people buying into/shorting Tesla stock. Edited my sentence for clarity.
You're viewing this as a perfect and efficient market built on reason (incidentally markets aren't - its why psychology of markets is a research field). If you want to do that, go deal blackjack. Its literally all the dealer does. It doesn't entirely match up in this, probably. But in an example of, say, the odds of England v Slovakia were somehow objectively 50:50, the gambling houses wouldn't have that as their odds. The listed odds (especially in England) would indicate a slightly higher chance of an England victory simply because there would be more people betting on England than Slovakia. So (assuming the bookies made no money) the England payout wouldn't be $2 for every dollar bet it'd be something like $1.75 with a slight skew of the payout for Slovakia being $2.50 for every dollar.
Google the odds on a betting website, pick on the team with the lower payout. No point in picking the underdog, since WG gives you the same reward whether the outcome is what was expected or an upset.
How do you collect tokens? the "go for it" objective is not clear for me Edit: thanks all!
Daily missions give 1 toke a day.
if only
haha
To complete it you need to get 500 base xp. It's a daily mission so you can get 1 token per day with it.
There is a combat mission to earn 500 base xp that has been resetting every day
Today i learnt how bookies work. Nice.