Albert Posted January 22, 2015 Author Share Posted January 22, 2015 Maths dont scare me, do them all day long. People try and serve stats up to me all day long, mostly contradictary and bollx.Even got two people once to do me a little project, knowing full well they had differing views, the results were...... Predictable.Same set of data and completely different results.So what you're saying is that you're scared of math.If you have two people with the same dataset getting different rules you should be able to have a look at what they did, and figure out why they're different. What you've said just suggests that you went "maths! Ha!" and moved on.If you think there is something invalid with the way the analysis was done, that's fine, please explain the issue. At this time you've offered no argument, you've just said that you don't like math. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRBee Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 "This is not predictive, it is a method to quantify the chances teams have of finishing in certain areas of the table. " contradictory! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted January 22, 2015 Author Share Posted January 22, 2015 "This is not predictive, it is a method to quantify the chances teams have of finishing in certain areas of the table. " contradictory!Predictive: X will happenQuantifying chances: There is X chance that X will happenFor example:- We will go up as Albentosa is the best defender in the league: Predictive- Based on our current position, and that of the other teams we have a 1 in 3 chance of going up: Quantifying the chances- Based on Thorne's return we have a 90% chance of going up top 2: An admix of bothWhen you try and predict things, it can be in the form of odds, this however is not trying to predict who is going to go better or worse, but rather just give context to the league table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Ram Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 So what you're saying is that you're scared of math. If you have two people with the same dataset getting different rules you should be able to have a look at what they did, and figure out why they're different. What you've said just suggests that you went "maths! Ha!" and moved on. If you think there is something invalid with the way the analysis was done, that's fine, please explain the issue. At this time you've offered no argument, you've just said that you don't like math. No you have just twisted something to suit your argument that I don't like maths. I never mentioned that, you did. Did I say 'maths ha', nope you did. Typical stats man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted January 22, 2015 Author Share Posted January 22, 2015 No you have just twisted something to suit your argument that I don't like maths. I never mentioned that, you did. Did I say 'maths ha', nope you did.Typical stats man.Consider the following quote:So to sumarise, its all bollx?When asked why you thought it was "bollx", you simply stated:See post #49 it all means absolutely nothing... It all boils down to ifs buts and maybe's...You dont need 2000 words to say that.Stats prove zero..Your statements came across as anti-statistics and anti-math. Rather than offering reasons you didn't agree with any of the analysis you instead just said it's "bollx" without any reasoning given. How else do you want it read?The funny part is that what you're currently posting this on, the device, the manner in which it is transmitted, all of it, is dependent on research which includes theoretical work, statistics and a lot of "bollx" as you'd define.By the way, I'm not a statistician (or stats man as you put it), I'm a theoretician. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Ram Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Not anti maths, as I stated, I do maths all day long... Anti stats, yes... Can be suited and twised to your arguement. It was 'bollx' in so far as much as it to 3 hours to read and then you added your closing statement. That was best summed up by IRam. I am not a theoretician, i got a job.. ( only joking ) So in two paragraphs ( short ) sum up what you have said in 5000 words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted January 22, 2015 Author Share Posted January 22, 2015 Not anti maths, as I stated, I do maths all day long... Anti stats, yes... Can be suited and twised to your arguement.It was 'bollx' in so far as much as it to 3 hours to read and then you added your closing statement. That was best summed up by IRam.I am not a theoretician, i got a job.. ( only joking )So in two paragraphs ( short ) sum up what you have said in 5000 words.So essentially, you're still saying you're anti maths. You can't be "not anti math" and "anti stats".If you have any issues in how the analysis was done, I'm happy to discuss that, otherwise you're not really going anywhere here.If by the way you're referring to:These all are assuming our opponents move along at the same rate. Any slip up from them could see a different scenario.The analysis doesn't assume that, the:Additionally it's worth putting into perspective what a run could do now, either way.Winning:1. 38.1% (+5.6%)2. 43.9% (+5.8%)3. 49.6% (+5.7%)4. 55.3% (+5.7%)Draws:1. 27.2% (-5.3%)2. 22.3% (-4.9%)3. 17.9% (-4.4%)4. 13.7% (-4.2%)Losing:1. 22.2% (-10.3%)2. 13.7% (-8.5%)3. 7.4% (-6.3%)4. 3.4% (-4.0%)...does. The analysis takes into account teams up and downs, that's the core concept. What that statement was about was that those are the probabilities without moving the rest of the league forward. That is, giving us 1, 2, 3, 4 wins, 1, 2, 3, 4 draws or 1, 2, 3, 4 losses on the bounce to show what kind of impact that might have. I guess I didn't put it that well though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashz09 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 What was the chances of Palace going up that season. Would of loved to have seen that when they was near relegation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted January 22, 2015 Author Share Posted January 22, 2015 What was the chances of Palace going up that season. Would of loved to have seen that when they was near relegation.2003-04, let's have a look, at the point of 22 matches played:Playoffs: 0.00231% (1 in 43,290)Relegation: 26.6%From there they needed to win the playoffs.The code isn't great on those extremities though (the optimisation causes some rounding errors), so it might be slightly more likely than that, but not much (basically, well under 0.5%). It works much better for the teams with what a realistic chance, Palace never had that, they pulled off a miracle turnaround that season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Ram Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 So essentially, you're still saying you're anti maths. You can't be "not anti math" and "anti stats". If you have any issues in how the analysis was done, I'm happy to discuss that, otherwise you're not really going anywhere here. If by the way you're referring to: The analysis doesn't assume that, the: ...does. The analysis takes into account teams up and downs, that's the core concept. What that statement was about was that those are the probabilities without moving the rest of the league forward. That is, giving us 1, 2, 3, 4 wins, 1, 2, 3, 4 draws or 1, 2, 3, 4 losses on the bounce to show what kind of impact that might have. I guess I didn't put it that well though. I guess two paragraphs was too much to ask. Just on the train going in to London, will have a closer look at this later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Ram Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 MODs think we need a dedicated stats room for the anoraks' amongst us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashz09 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 2003-04, let's have a look, at the point of 22 matches played: Playoffs: 0.00231% (1 in 43,290) Relegation: 26.6% From there they needed to win the playoffs. The code isn't great on those extremities though (the optimisation causes some rounding errors), so it might be slightly more likely than that, but not much (basically, well under 0.5%). It works much better for the teams with what a realistic chance, Palace never had that, they pulled off a miracle turnaround that season. Wow doesn't surprise me. Would of made a lot of money if one punter betted on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramshankered Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 No you have just twisted something to suit your argument that I don't like maths. I never mentioned that, you did. Did I say 'maths ha', nope you did. Typical stats man. Baba bwi ba ba bada bo, baba ba da bo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van der MoodHoover Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Being an actuary by profession, there's nothing I like better than a well constructed probability model(which is what this is - note for all similar pedants, the stats part is the historic analysis that has created the parameters for Albert to use in calibrating his forward looking model).The assumption of normality can be questioned in the curves but that's unlikely to be material given Albert is working with a pdf over a finite domain (maths ****** for the only possible outcomes from each match are 0,1 or 3 points hence the possible outcome for the season is "bounded").Well done to the posters who quite correctly point out that statisticians (and actuaries) are defined amongst other things as "highly remunerated experts who can tell you today, with micrometric precision, why what they said yesterday would happen tomorrow did not come to pass".Have a like Albert and please give us updates from time to time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheron85 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 MODs think we need a dedicated stats room for the anoraks' amongst us. Er... It's called any thread that Albert starts... C'mon Angry you've been around long enough to know that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovis aries Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Big chance next Tuesday, again , if we do not take advantage then I have serious doubts about us finishing top two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tombo Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Stats won't tell you anything if you don't want to listen. As Albert says, it just gives context to the league table. If you're not interested in the maths- or 'scared' of it as Albert put it- then you're not going to get it because you can't see what he's trying to do. Him doing the maths and quantifying our chances doesn't tell you anything if you choose to believe in the mystery of the game and that 'anything could happen'. I love football stats. You've got to realise that while there are some oddities and anomalies, those are accounted for because we're talking about probability and probability doesn't lie. The game has seen it all before, and the stats reflect the possibility- or more accurately the probability- of something crazy hurting our chances or improving our chances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagerbob Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 I already have doubts. We arent as good as last season in my opinion. Sorting out the midfield conundrum and getting greater leadership on the field should be priority number 1. Im really hoping Warnock is the answer while Eustace and Thorne are out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
top 6 finish Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Newcomers may not know that the creature called"Albert" is an alien who lives in a distant galaxy,where football isn't played on grass with a ball.It's played on computer using,graphs.stats and spreadsheets. He has been banished for constant Trolling,don't reply to his posts it only encourages him.Also he did the same thing a couple of years ago,and got everything totally wrong.Teams just wouldn't perform like they were supposed to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted January 22, 2015 Author Share Posted January 22, 2015 Newcomers may not know that the creature called"Albert" is an alien who lives in a distantgalaxy,where football isn't played on grass with a ball.It's played on computer using,graphs.statsand spreadsheets. He has been banished for constant Trolling,don't reply to his posts it only encourages him.Alsohe did the same thing a couple of years ago,and got everything totally wrong.Teams just wouldn'tperform like they were supposed to.???When did I "get everything totally wrong"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.