How many golds for team gb

My personal view is people are underestimating the home advantage. Some people are going over every event and estimating that way. And that's good as long as you adjust for home advantage at the end. My general feeling is 25-30 being most likely.

I think there us good money to be made from the olympics. People don't understand it because it only happens every four years. There are excellent opportunities. For example, I layed £74 on Chris hoy in the sprint last night after it was known he isn't even in the event! Now, thereis a chance through illness etc. that ge will, but that's remote.

If I was having a bet in this market which I'm not I'd lay 19 and under and 26 and over.  I put them on 23 so I think the hcap line on this one is spot on and I reckon its probably not as variable as the market suggests.

That's exactly wat I mean

u see most countries probs do well wen they have home advantage but it's different with the uk.

Maybe they won't get as many medals simply because of added presure.

The media put alot of pressure on them. They could break

We won't break as a nation, it's down to each individual hope they cope with added expectation. But that is a negative way of looking at it that is not supported by historical data. On average, home countries win 54% more golds. I think laying 19 or fewer golds is a decent bet.

If you put GB on 15 gold medals in 2008, which I would argue was a fairer reflection of where we actually were in 2008 in terms of Olympic sporting prowess, then a 54% increase actually leaves you on 23.

Ok let me break it down a little bit since the 19 golds gb got in 2008. Here's y I think they won't do as well:

cycling: will lose at least 3 golds because of added competition from France, Australia etc etc

rebbeca addlington should lose a gold in 400m freestyle.

Christine orgogroha was a very unlikely winner in 400 meters.

Degale has gone pro.

I think the will lose 1 maybe 2 golds in rowing.

That's losing 7 to 8 golds, so we r on between 10-12 golds:

where will the golds come from:

Joshua, selby and stalker have excellent chances of gold. Best team gb has ever sent to an olympic games in boxing. So I say 2 more golds in boxing is very possible. Probs even more.

Sailing could see 2 more golds than in 2008.

Athletics could see 3 more golds in Moh farrah, mens 400 and maybe spring a few suprises as they have invested well in this feild.

I'm running out of ideas now. Any1 help

That's about 20 golds. Let's say 5 or 6 suprises and they hit 25 or 26. Max IMO.

Added presure could see them lose a 2 or 3 golds leaving them on between 15-17.

So IMO if they do well it's 25-26 golds. If they fold under the pressure then I'm afraid abt 15sh.   

If u feel iv left summit out than feel free to add in the gold medal contenders.

Of course diving could bring a gold.

Surpassing 19 will not be a doodle IMO. 25-30 golds will be difficult. Over 30 in my opinion is too optimistic.

Of course it's about opinions and I ain't got a problem with any1 disagreeing

Athletics 2
Swimming 2
Boxing 3
Canoeing 1
Equestrian 2
Taekwondo 1
Cycling 5
Rowing 4
Triathlon 2
Sailing 2

Which is actually 22.  Must have took one away somewhere along the line

So 20 golds +54% is 31 golds. I know we don't know where they will come from but no home country ever does! Yet that's what happens on average. There is no evidence countries buckle under pressure. It is not supported by evidence.

cant add up lol actually that comes to 24.  Must have added one somewhere along the line

Seems like u got 24 there.

5 golds in cycling is a bit high IMO as is 4 in rowing.

Boxing could be uks best sport in 2012. Very good chance of 3 golds and a further 2 or 3 outside  chances of gold.

Boxing could have 5 or 6 golds.

Dnt u agree for team gb to 5 golds they can't afford any slip ups.


Let's try and be realistic instead of optimistic or negative.

Keep it real cus money means more to us than anything

Countries get more golds slayer because they invest years in advance.  We are where we are and we are not going to get 54% more than where we are just because we are at home.

I just feel that in football for example we wouldnt even question the idea there is a big home advantage, even though it's all in the same country. And past results say there us a big advantage in the olympics. Ladbrokes had us at 40-1 for over 33 medals. They cut it to 25-1 then they took it down as I'm sure they realised they'd got it very wrong.

slayerofthe'kins     20 Jul 12 21:37  
So 20 golds +54% is 31 golds. I know we don't know where they will come from but no home country ever does! Yet that's what happens on average. There is no evidence countries buckle under pressure. It is not supported by evidence.


Team gb is different. Wimbledon is a classic example.


I just can't see 31 golds. It's not keeping it real.

USA won 36 in 2008 and china 32 I think in 2004.


Would like to see a Market for most medals without USA and china

I don't agree it's because of investment years in advance. Look at football. Huge advantage at home. Why? Not investment years in advance. It's due to travel, crowd support, and being familiar with the pitch/environment.

I think of the 54%, say 44% of it comes from preparation and investment and only 10% from inspiration on the day or favourable judges decisions.

As far as Wimbledon and Football the pressure that Andy Murray and the England football team is off the scale compared to the GB team here.  One of the rpoblems is expectations are too great.  That's not the case with the Olympic team who will probably exceed public expectation.

Why is Wimbledon an example? We've always performed to the world ranking of the British players, I would say better even. We never had anyone good enough to win it.

Carlos, there is a Market up without USA or china.

slayerofthe'kins     20 Jul 12 21:46  
I just feel that in football for example we wouldnt even question the idea there is a big home advantage, even though it's all in the same country. And past results say there us a big advantage in the olympics. Ladbrokes had us at 40-1 for over 33 medals. They cut it to 25-1 then they took it down as I'm sure they realised they'd got it very wrong.



Bang on. I remember mate. But tbh I have to say team gb were very lucky to get 19 golds. I'd say they got 7 more than they were due too.

This time the opposite has happened. Market opened at 24sh golds now at 22.5.

31 golds is too much. I can't see it. Odds at laddies are excellent for it to happen if u fancy it. 16/1 for 31-33 golds

The pressure only applies to Andy Murray Greg Rusedski and Tim Henman as they were the only capable of winning anything.  They didnt thrive on it imo

without US + China is just a match between Russia and GB with Germany as a very big outsider

slayerofthe'kins     20 Jul 12 21:55  
Carlos, there is a Market up without USA or china.


Where is it mate??? 

Ino of the most golds without USA and china but not most medals without china and USA.

I'm pretty sure Russia will win that 1 and will back them if they r around the 4/6sh price

Russia will win that one.  4/6 would be massive.  More like 1/4

Btw any1 know y Kelly holmes has been slashed from 7/1 to like 2/1 to light the Olympic flame.

Here's me thinking redgrave was banged on at 4/6 yesterday but now 10/11. Weird

Agreed

Semi finals and a final this year. That's not an underperformance I don't think. Anyway 2 of those aren't even English! And after Murray said in 2006 that he'd be cheering on all of englands opponents in the world cup I'm happy to accept he's not from this country and cheer on federer.

surely home town advantage in olympic games is particularly prevalent in judged sports. GB could profit in the likes of boxing and gymnastics.

plenty of examples of shocking hometown decisions - the korean boxer shamefully getting the nod over roy jones jr and sarah stevenson originally being robbed in the bout against the chinese girl last time. suppose subconsciously the home crowd cheering massively must affect the judges

You're right Carlos, it's most golds with USA china not medals.

Murray never beat anyone ranked above him when he was a contender plus he lost to Roddick who he was expected to bt.  He never won at odds against.  Henman possibly the same, whilst Rusedski was awful at Wimbledon from memory.

except we only have two possibilities in gymnastics and that's stretching it as I think only Louis Smith is a gold medal contender.  I built that into my prediction of 3 golds in boxing and 2 in equestrian fwiw

I gave us a gold in taekwondo too which was generous tbh and obviously we cant get more than 2 triathlon.  That said I could have given 3 in athletics and I've ignored the claims of Ton Daley and Louis Smith.  Swings and roundabouts and all that

suppose you can see the effect of chucking money at it by GB going from their worst olympics in the living memory to the best in 4 years. obviously the lottery funding was too late to have any effect in 1996 but certainly was bearing fruit by 2000.

still think you can't dismiss the home crowd and getting inspired on the day too easily though. wouldn't be surprised if we pick 2 or 3 golds from people no one's really considering now

I understand wat ur saying clydebank. It's a tough 1 to evaluate. The way I see it gb will get 15 medals plus 8 suprise medals:

Athletics 3
Swimming 1
Boxing 1
Canoeing 1
Equestrian ??? Dnt know about this
Taekwondo, Diving, judo, gymnastics 1/2
Cycling 2
Rowing 3
Triathlon??? No idea
Sailing 3

so on the above I say 15sh golds.

Now add between 3-12 more golds on to the 15 and IMO u will get the finishing tally for team gb. I say 15 being the lowest and 27 being the highest under normal circumstances.

If team gb do realy badly I say 12 golds is as low as they get.

If they do extremely well, above expectations I see them getting 30.

Just the other day I was studying team gb and found it is possible for them to win 44 golds. I'd expect them to get about half of them.

U win some u lose some.

I'm going for 22

I'm starting to change my mind on this. I took the odds for each individual event and calculated the expected number of medals from that. And the answer is 21. Now, that doesn't correct for bookmakers overround. This is quite big, even when taking the best prices from oddschecker and I think we are looking at 19 or 20 on average. Now, if it's true and we are going to win 54% more than last time on average, one can bet every event and have a large edge. Somehow this doesn't seem likely to me.

I backed every combination over 24 with Ladcrooks before they hacked all of those prices back at a combined 2.85.  This is still worse than the 3.65 26 and over on here, which I think is a great price.  Call this idiotic patriotism if you like (I might even end up cheering on Murray at this rate), but looking back to Beijing, we had very few short-priced favourites that didn't oblige - Shanaze Reade was the obvious one but having backed her in all sorts of short price doubles, trebles and up with all of our track cycling winners, my first sight of BMX made me realise the folly of taking a short price in this crazy sport - and we had a few surprise winners such as Cooke and Degale.  Also, events of the last week or so look to have increased our chances, e.g. Wiggins and Cavendish, Ohoruogu and Shakes-Drayton.  I think that we will do better than other posters have suggested in Athletics - Farah is in great shape and could win two, Ennis should win and Greene only has Coulson to beat and he is a great championship competitor. We then have half a dozen others who have good chances if things fall right, incl, Christine O who really wants this, and some field events where results are always more unpredictable.  We should win 4 track cycling golds in both team pursuits, Hoy in the Keirin and Trott in the womens' Omnium, and all of our other trackies have realistic chances, and Wiggins and Cav will now both be hot favourites for road events. Adding Swimming 2, Rowing 3-4, Sailing 2-3, Boxing 2-3, Triathlon 1-2, Equestrian 1-2 and Canoeing 1 takes us up to 25ish with barely any surprises and even allows for a first-round Murray exit.  I also think that most of our Olympic sports are so much better prepared than they used to be and they have been preparing for this and nothing else this for years.  Cycling is still the best prepared but Swimming, Rowing and Sailing are all pretty good.

Yeh but wat ur forgetting is will all these win and on top of this gb will win a few more with suprises.

Not too sure.

We shall see.

I just can't see anything above 30 golds. I realy can't see it.

It's about opinions

I'm not forgetting this.  I don't need 30, 25 will do.

If forced to pick over or under the hcap line I'd go over on both golds and medals but unfortunately GB is one of the best lines around imo.  4 years and 4 months ago **** were going 10/3 over 10.5 golds   Seemed massive at the time, seems mental now.

Tbh most firms were doing under and over 11.5 which IMO was the correct Market.

Team gb got about 7 unexpected medals:

degale 1
addlington 2
cycling 1
rowing 1
orgaragh 1
1 more I can't remember

The 10/3 was available after the massive success at The World Cycling Championships.  That success filtered through gradually and moved the line to what may have been 11.5   From memory I had them at about 14.  They were paired up with Italy as a pickem which I remember being my main medal bet

Adlington was not unexpected.  She was world ranked number 1 at 800m and 2 or 3 at 400m.

47 medals in total means there's no way the correct line was 11.5 in hindsight

Yes but there was rumours she had a flu just before the olympics and brits were not supposed to do well in beging

iPhone cut me off.

Because of weather and polution comditions etc.

So how many medals do u think team gb will win.

I say 21-23

23.5 and 63.5 would've been my hcap lines

19.5 and 60.5 would be mine

Under 22 for me......Every time UK media over hype our abilities......tend to fall flat on our face.....The idea that we will win the same events as 4 years is pure nonsense.....athletics get older....new ones come in

some interesting views, mine were:

athletics 2
boxing 3 (incl women)
cycling 6 (incl bmx, track & road)
equestrian 2
fencing 1
rowing 3
sailing 2
shooting 1
swimming 2

rest none

total 22

One factor that gets overlooked is the weather. Many Olympics take place in very hot humid weather that eliminates UK from so many of the events that we might otherwise do OK in. It is just possible that it will be hot and humid in London as well but less likely so that could add 3 or 4 more wins. Paula Radcliffe has very seldom been beaten in Marathons when it was 20 degrees or below and has usually been well beaten above 25  but sadly this might come too late in her career.

To get to 23 golds, the boxing and fencing judges really have to do their stuff !!

Cycling and swimming will be hard pushed to achieve the 2008 medal haul, no other sports appear to be any better than 2008 countries, hence the bet must be under 23

Pre-games Athletics looks better than the 1 gold of 4 years ago, same for boxing

We should win both triathlon golds barring injuries. One Equestrian on home soil seems reasonable. 2 Athletics, 3 Yachting, 3 Rowing, one canoeing, 4 swimming including open water, one BMX, 3 road cycling, 3 track cycling, plus 3 other golds in events that I have not really looked at makes 25.

Any1 think team gb to finish 4th or below at 2/5 represents value. Russians r not doing to well either

golds gonna be less than 23 for sure and I have backed the unders everywhere I could and laid overs

not that I am at all anti GB , quite the opposite I have been screaming at the telly and have as sore throat,

just think that there will be few, if any, surprise golds and there has to be a chance that several bankers become blowouts

although I have bankered addlington in a treble with Riner (judo) and Bauge (track cycling) that will pay nicely

i would have thought a good chance GB take over 3rd in the table sometime over the weekend whether we hang though is another matter

had a decent lead over russia in beijing iirc but they have a lot of strong events in the last 2 or 3 days

Thanks judorick and mafia king.

Agree with both of u lads to an extent.

Judorick it's not about being anti gb, it's all about trying to win money. Would love to see gb win lots of medals but we must be unbias.

Mafiaking I think this weekend will be the strong part of the olympics for gb. I'm expecting gb to get into double figures for golds but after that golds will be hard to come by.

Only the boxing looks strong where gb r expecting 3 golds and 5 from athletics

It's not team gb golds that will impact the 2/5 but rather how well r Russia going to do in this next week. Dnt know all that much about the russians

i am still thinking that 22/23 is easily reachable, don't think it's an easy ride for unders backers

.

Should be around 25 now

Could be as high as 30.

Just shocked at how badly Russia r doing

Russia will get a heap of golds in wrestling

Russia do have as many medals as we do. The old Soviet nations have 20 golds. Still our aim was to climb above Russia and we've obliterated that at the moment.

GB were paying 2.6 to beat Russia before the Olympics. Hate those "I wish I hammered that" moments like this in betting

Dressage Gold could be coming up shortly

golds gonna be less than 23 for sure and I have backed the unders everywhere I could and laid overs

for sure???

keep it up Judo,you will be skint soon!

GB back amongst the Golds

24 now i believe

.

Why the feck is this still here.