Luck

SPA2TACU5 · Mar 19, 2013

Solid444 said: ↑

Within the possible outcomes of an event, there were several where Chelsea ties a game and wins the other, this does not necessarily mean that this is the most likely outcome to happen. You have to look at the probabilites of this game as the intersection of two normal distribution curves. Hell, within the range of possibilities there were instances of Chelsea winning both games, but these were probabily less likely than Barca winning both games. Just because a certain event X takes place, does not mean that X is the most likely outcome.

Forget Chelsea and Barcelona, lets look at another example, Switzerland vs Spain in the World Cup. I think Spain had a much bigger chance of winning this game. And even though Switzerland won, this does not mean that this was the most probable outcome of that matchup.

And yes, this is subjective because I am judging the true level of both teams based on my opinion. But guess what, your are judging the teams based on your subjective opinion. You subjectively think that 180 minutes is enough to claim that Chelsea had a better chance of beating Barcelona, I do not think that is enough of a sample size given that research has shown that all things being equal 1) the team with the more talent (measured by salary) will usually win a game between two teams. But even if you look at the series that you are trying to use as the ultimate indicator of possible outcomes, Barcelona led for longer, during the 180 minutes, than Chelsea. This is hardly an indicator of anything but a possible outcome where both teams get very similar result.

Any diferentiation that you make between the Switzerland/Spain game and Chelsea/Barcelona is just as subjective as my analisis of the teams.
Click to expand...

Haha, this is so much bull shit that I'm not gonna waste any more of my time on you.

It's called FOOTBALL · Mar 19, 2013

Solid444 said: ↑

Seriously? You are either playing with me or these concepts are so far over your head that you need a telescope to see them. I think its best for us to not continue this conversation, it would probably be a waste of both of our time.
Click to expand...

I understand exactly what you've been trying to argue, but you need to understand that you cannot prove these hypotheticals. I hope that that concept is not over your head.

You are trying to tell us that you know what would happen in imaginary games. You don't, so you have no argument. You can't debate with hypotheticals, only with facts.

It's called FOOTBALL · Mar 19, 2013

Guigs said: ↑

Outside of Science where you speculate all hypothesis until you get it right.. oh ok..
Click to expand...

In science, you test your hypotheses. Speculation is not the same as testing. Lol.

The 900 minute game can not be tested. It will never be tested. A Chelsea-Barca 10 game series will never be tested. That will never happen.

These are just hypotheticals, and hypotheticals can never win an argument. That's Debating 101.

yankeeRoyal · Mar 19, 2013

Solid444 said: ↑

I dont even know where you are going with the first half of your post, it seems you are just confusing yourself.

About your observation regarding the 900 minute game vs the 90 minute game, yes, you are right, if one lucky occurance happens every 90 minutes then you could have 10 lucky occurances in a 900 minute game and this is precicely the reason why the luck is less likely to factor in to the result because it will be distributed among the teams.

Lets say two people are playing a game where they have to flip a coin and whoever called the result wins. This is a game that takes 0 skill and 100% luck.If a match is played with only one flip, one player will win every single time. As you increase the number of flips, then luck will favor each player about 50% of the time. So in a 90 minute game example, imagine that before the game starts the team flips a coin and the winner will get that lucky occurance (whether that is a goal, a pk, a dangerous set piece, etc). In this scenario the winning team will be the only one that benefits from the lucky occurance. Now, if you are playing a 900 minute game where you have to flip the coin every 90 minutes, you could expect the luck to be distributed more evenly, if mot 5-5, then maybe 6-4 or 7-3, but at least it is not as lopsided as one team getting 100% of the luck.

This is why at the end of a 38 game season, the teams with more talent will usually always be on the top, because they have flipped the coin many times throughout the season and even though it has hurt them sometimes, they have also benefited other times. On the other had, the FA cuop requieres less flips per round, and it is not unlikely for less talented teams to surpas more talented teams.

So ironically, the more instances of luck that are in a sample size, the more effect that other factors have in a result.
Click to expand...

Yes.

yankeeRoyal · Mar 19, 2013

Solid444 said: ↑

Because of the distribution.

Assume that the lucky occurance is that the ref fails to call a clear pk because a player was blocking his field of vision. If this were to happen once in a 90 minute game, then it would probably cost the fouled team 1 goal and considering a game is decided by one goal, then this will have a direct effect on the score line.

In the 900 minute game, the ref would fail to call a pk 10 times, 5 for one team and 5 for the other. The net benefit that a team gets because of luck is 0 (5-5), so luck is not going to play a factor in the result of the game. But even if the distribution is not 50/50, if for instance, a ref fails to call 4 penalties for one team and 6 for the other, even if one team was affected by a factor of +2, its not going to matter as much in the result because if the goal differential of 90 minutes is 1, then the goal differential of 900 is 10, and therefore 10+2 or 10-2 is not going to determine if one team wins or loses.
Click to expand...

yes again.

yankeeRoyal · Mar 19, 2013

Guigs said: ↑

Problem is when people play the results they can never be wrong. So they hide behind hindsight and refuse to discuss something unless they have results. I don't get why they would apply such logic to a thread based on luck or any thread in this forum. Because most of it here, is discussion about things we don't know yet.
From the place of Messi in history to who's going to win the next world cup. Following their line of thinking, we're not supposed to have an opinion on the subject until it has played out. Then we can make judgement.
Click to expand...

You kinda blew my mind there.
Excellent post. Cheers.

yankeeRoyal · Mar 28, 2013

Solid444 said: ↑

I am a little surprised how some people here have attempted to derail the conversation.

In basketball, while a bad call may have the same probability of happening, it doesnt affect the end result because at the most it will end up being 2 points for one team, which is about 1% of the total points scored in a game. In football, one bad call can lead to 100% of the points scored in a game. This is why I find it absolutely mind boggling that Fifa doesnt feel the urge to do everything possible in order to improve refereeing.
Click to expand...

You had me until your "refereeing" conclusion. FIFA should increase scoring first.

Refereeing 22 guys is impossible for 1 guy (or even 3 counting linesmen).