Other games (2024/25)

[toon25]

Steve Bruce would have been proud of that Leicester performance 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I wasn’t saying it was a perfect representation based on all the exact maths. I don’t think anyone thinks that. 

[HaydnNUFC]

Liverpool had been in patchy form all season up when they played Arsenal at Anfield. Win 3 or 4 on the spin, lose to Leeds at home. Beat Man City, put 7 past Rangers away from home, get battered at Brighton, Brentford and Wolves consecutively. Put 7 past Man Utd, lose to Bournemouth. I'm not surprised a few thought they wouldn't win their 9 remaining games because they haven't shown that kind of form all season, nor have many clubs this season shown their usual form from seasons gone by; Chelsea, Wolves, Leicester to name a few.

 

But they're probably going to do it and fair play to them for doing so. We've just needed to do our own job which I hope we can, 6 points from our last 2 home games and they can't catch us. 

 

Either way, the 'bedwetting' patter and the opposing quasi 'told you so' patter is boring as fuck. 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

It was very unlikely that liverpool would win every game. If they do it, fair enough, but it was still a very bold prediction. 
 

To me it did seem to be based more on fear than logic. 

 

 

Edited May 15, 2023 by AyeDubbleYoo

[huss9]

think they missed a trick tonight.

could have another 2 or 3 if they;d really gome for it.

[The College Dropout]

They don’t really believe they’ll get it themselves Liverpool.  

[Kid Icarus]

2 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

I don’t understand but I don’t think we can resolve this. 

Probability doesn't apply to every team indiscriminately for a start, that's why Leicester winning despite being top for all of 15/16 was still a huge shock when it happened. 

 

How many times have we watched teams lose from winning positions in the league, either top or top 4 and go on to let it slip?

 

There's no way that the frequency with which that happens aligns with the probability of, for example, Newcastle United making the Champions League 93 times out of 100 with 4 games to go with having-already-done-it-multiple-times Liverpool behind them on 30% probability 

[Kid Icarus]

26 minutes ago, Pata said:

 

I know I'm not the fool if the bookies gave you an opportunity to 15-20x your money on something that you deemed likely (let's say two times out three so 1.5x) and you didn't use the opportunity.

 

I don't really gamble, especially at the moment. Weird thing to say considering ponsaelius does and has made loads of money from it though. 

 

 

Edited May 15, 2023 by Kid Icarus

[ponsaelius]

I don't even gamble usually  Haven't in 10 years. I just got in on it recently to try and offset the heartbreak and because I couldn't believe how good the odds were for Liverpool to win all their games/us to finish outside the top four with Liverpool/Man United in.

 

Part of it was definitely just to alleviate stress, but it was equally because of how tempting the odds were. I've got two separate bets on now that will pay out about £700 just from free bets.

 

 

Edited May 15, 2023 by ponsaelius

[Kid Icarus]

17 minutes ago, HaydnNUFC said:

Liverpool had been in patchy form all season up when they played Arsenal at Anfield. Win 3 or 4 on the spin, lose to Leeds at home. Beat Man City, put 7 past Rangers away from home, get battered at Brighton, Brentford and Wolves consecutively. Put 7 past Man Utd, lose to Bournemouth. I'm not surprised a few thought they wouldn't win their 9 remaining games because they haven't shown that kind of form all season, nor have many clubs this season shown their usual form from seasons gone by; Chelsea, Wolves, Leicester to name a few.

 

But they're probably going to do it and fair play to them for doing so. We've just needed to do our own job which I hope we can, 6 points from our last 2 home games and they can't catch us. 

 

Either way, the 'bedwetting' patter and the opposing quasi 'told you so' patter is boring as fuck. 

Woah woah woah, as far as I can tell the 'told you so' patter wouldn't even be happening if pata wasn't flat out calling people thick for predicting it would happen. Anyone doing that is fair game in my book.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

15 minutes ago, huss9 said:

think they missed a trick tonight.

could have another 2 or 3 if they;d really gome for it.

 

So could we against Spurs. 

 

I totally get conservation of energy, but we could have knocked another couple during the first half if we had kept at their throats passed 25 minutes.

[Alberto2005]

3 minutes ago, Colos Short and Curlies said:

 

So could we against Spurs. 

 

I totally get conservation of energy, but we could have knocked another couple during the first half if we had kept at their throats passed 25 minutes.

We scored 5 in one half what more do you want 

No team just relentlessly attacks for the whole game it's not realistic, you see it all the time teams winning 4 by half-time and then not scoring again.

[HaydnNUFC]

9 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

as far as I can tell the 'told you so' patter wouldn't even be happening if...

 

It absolutely would be.  

 

Regardless of whether its boring or not, airing opposing and differing views is the point of a forum at the end of the day and being called thick for them isn't on obviously. 

[Colos Short and Curlies]

6 minutes ago, Alberto2005 said:

We scored 5 in one half what more do you want 

No team just relentlessly attacks for the whole game it's not realistic, you see it all the time teams winning 4 by half-time and then not scoring again.

 

At 25 minutes I wanted the premier league record and double figures 

 

Personally I think we'll scrape top 4, but if we do lose out it will be by very fine margins (Isak's second against Liverpool, Willock vs Palace, potentially goal difference where 1 or 2 additional goals against Spurs may have seen us home). So its not frustration per se about the game, just that you get games where you can use it to improve your goal difference and we may have potentially taken the foot off the pedal 15 minutes too early.

[Kid Icarus]

1 minute ago, HaydnNUFC said:

 

It absolutely would be.  

 

Regardless of whether its boring or not, airing opposing and differing views is the point of a forum at the end of the day and being called thick for them isn't on obviously. 

Can only speak for myself but there's no fucking way I'd be saying I told you so with 2 games left for Liverpool to play, especially when my overriding belief is that football is chaos.

[HaydnNUFC]

Just now, Kid Icarus said:

Can only speak for myself but there's no fucking way I'd be saying I told you so with 2 games left for Liverpool to play, especially when my overriding belief is that football is chaos.

 

Not saying you would, and I'm not saying you're one of these either as I think you're a top poster (hope that's not come across patronising as fuck ) but there's always been pessimists who post their pessimism about various things to do with the club, ie getting top 4, relegations, promotions, the takeover, Benitez staying or going et cetera and due to emotional investment in the club people get rubbed up the wrong way by it. Probably just need to get a grip, like. But y'kna. 

 

I think they'll end up winning both, a home match and a game against a team that will finish the season on 24 points, we just have to get our 6 points and do our job. 2 home games left out of 3, howay. I'll be screaming my head off in the ground on Thursday night after 7 or 8 pints. 

[Pata]

10 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

Can only speak for myself but there's no fucking way I'd be saying I told you so with 2 games left for Liverpool to play, especially when my overriding belief is that football is chaos.

It’s fucking probabilities man. If something happens that has a 5-10% chance, it doesn’t change the fact that it was 5-10% chance initially instead of likely to happen. Even if Liverpool win next 20 games in a row it doesn’t change the fact that winning 9 games was never likely.

 

The whole forum can go ’told you so’ on me, doesn’t mean I was wrong.  That 5-10% might have been 10-15% in reality but it’s still massively unlikely to happen.

 

I’m sorry if I’m offending people but this is honestly very basic stuff.

 

 

Edited May 15, 2023 by Pata

[Kid Icarus]

I think you're mistaking a rejection of your premise -at the time and now - for a basic misunderstanding of probability tbh.  

 

This Liverpool team has won 9 games in a row countless times in the last few seasons, they've been in these high pressure clutch situations loads, did this 2 years ago, have had over 90+ points a few times, winning titles and trophies. Then there's the favourable fixtures and players returning from injury.

 

The idea all of that and other factors can be reduced to a 5-10% probability or similar solely because of their poorer form earlier this season is your or whoever else's call to make, but telling people that have pretty clearly explained why they think it's a very obviously bad call that it's just that they don't understand basic probability, as if the figures are indisputable, or that it's illogical and based on fear is a bit nauseating like.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 15, 2023 by Kid Icarus

[Scotty66]

Bookies odds are never accurate anyway, they're always less than the true probability because that little slice of probability that they leave out is how they make their money and can afford to pay your bet if you win. 

I gave up betting a while ago but after many years I learnt that you can only make money from them by getting true value, and that the bookies favourites can and will absolutely lose. Hence Liverpool and Man Utd being favourites for each of their remaining games can be a positive for us 

[Pata]

43 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

 games in a I think you're mistaking a rejection of your premise -at the time and now - for a basic misunderstanding of probability tbh.  

 

This Liverpool team has won 9 games in a row countless times in the last few seasons, they've been in these high pressure clutch situations loads, did this 2 years ago, have had over 90+ points a few times, winning titles and trophies. Then there's the favourable fixtures and players returning from injury.

 

The idea all of that and other factors can be reduced to a 5-10% probability or similar solely because of their poorer form earlier this season is your or whoever else's call to make, but telling people that have pretty clearly explained why they think it's a very obviously bad call that it's just that they don't understand basic probability, as if the figures are indisputable, or that it's illogical and based on fear is a bit nauseating like.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I try to make this as basic as possibly. Let's make Liverpool 80% favourites in all those remaining 9 games. It's way too high but I'm trying to keep it simple, for example they were 60% favourites today against dreadful Leicester. As 80% favourites the probability of them winning all those 9 games is 13.4%. 

 

Let's lower that to 70% which is still way too high and the probability drops down to 4%. This is very basic probability math that works in anything in life. All the bookies in the world know the history of Liverpool and how good they can be but that doesn't make it anymore likely to happen. Them winning 9 in a row in the past doesn't make them winning 9 in a row now anymore likely and their defense and midfield are nowhere near as good as they used to be few years ago. I also have trouble understanding why your 'football is chaos' theory doesn't apply to them.

 

It's still about coinflip that they win their two remaining games, fair play if they do win 9 games in a row but it was still massively and extremely unlikely to happen even if it happens.

[La Parka]

Faes was an absolute liability last night. 

[buzza]

1 hour ago, La Parka said:

Faes was an absolute liability last night. 

Aye, the ball that was in the air so long and he let it drop behind him so that Luis could get in behind him. Schoolboy defending would have been better!

[Kid Icarus]

11 hours ago, Pata said:

 

I try to make this as basic as possibly. Let's make Liverpool 80% favourites in all those remaining 9 games. It's way too high but I'm trying to keep it simple, for example they were 60% favourites today against dreadful Leicester. As 80% favourites the probability of them winning all those 9 games is 13.4%. 

 

Let's lower that to 70% which is still way too high and the probability drops down to 4%. This is very basic probability math that works in anything in life. All the bookies in the world know the history of Liverpool and how good they can be but that doesn't make it anymore likely to happen. Them winning 9 in a row in the past doesn't make them winning 9 in a row now anymore likely and their defense and midfield are nowhere near as good as they used to be few years ago. I also have trouble understanding why your 'football is chaos' theory doesn't apply to them.

 

It's still about coinflip that they win their two remaining games, fair play if they do win 9 games in a row but it was still massively and extremely unlikely to happen even if it happens.

 

I thought I had been pretty clear tbh, but obviously not.

 

So just to clarify, yes, I understand probability and the multiplication rule, I and others are saying that using that is flawed for the reasons I've gone through. This isn’t anything really controversial, they’re known, obvious limitations.

 

If you were just explaining the basics of probability to me because, as you've made pretty clear, you think we're all thick, fair enough, but you've clearly missed the point being made while you were fixating on having such a low opinion of everyone.

 

Probability being subjective is an obvious disadvantage for a start, but the multiplication rule is also only really useful for predicting simple outcomes based on known probabilities and values. It’s not really useful for predicting things like winning runs or finishing positions in football because of the contextual factors that have been mentioned time and again. You can’t just reduce it to a calculation based on known values because not only do we not know and the probabilities they're based on aren't reliable, but you also need to take into account a wide range of factors like each team’s history, form, fixtures, injuries, luck, psychology etc. 

 

Yes, it's partly a case of looking at those probability tables and making a judgement call based on experience of previous situations in the Premier League and with certain teams in particular, but all of the factors that have been listed numerous times do matter as part of complex statistical models too. If they didn’t matter, statistics and data analytics wouldn’t exist as an industry.

 

Liverpool have had 9 game winning sequences 14 times in the last 3 seasons and have a wealth of experience in these situations. That along with other factors demonstrably matter. Bear in mind though, what’s being overlooked here is that Liverpool reaching the CL wasn’t even dependent upon them winning 9 games in a row, that was just something that some people thought had a good chance of happening.

 

The fundamental problem raised about these probability tables like FiveThirtyEight’s weren’t because a 12% chance of Liverpool winning 9 games was ridiculous, it’s that a 12% chance of them making the Champions League was ridiculous and a 95% chance of us making the CL was ridiculous.  

 

Maybe you were just using the multiplication rule as a basic way of explaining and I’m sure FiveThirtyEight and others adjust or factor these variables in to their models, but the point is that the outcome probabilities looked so obviously wrong that it suggests they haven't been factored in enough or at all. A 95% and 12% chance of Newcastle and Liverpool making the CL was even on the surface and with 'football is chaos' in mind, then and now, clearly flawed in a fundamental way.

 

 

 

Edited May 16, 2023 by Kid Icarus

[madras]

24 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

I thought I had been pretty clear tbh, but obviously not.

 

So just to clarify, yes, I understand probability and the multiplication rule, I and others are saying that using that is flawed for the reasons I've gone through. This isn’t anything really controversial, they’re known, obvious limitations.

 

If you were just explaining the basics of probability to me because, as you've made pretty clear, you think we're all thick, fair enough, but you've clearly missed the point being made while you were fixating on having such a low opinion of everyone.

 

Probability being subjective is an obvious disadvantage for a start, but the multiplication rule is also only really useful for predicting simple outcomes based on known probabilities and values. It’s not really useful for predicting things like winning runs or finishing positions in football because of the contextual factors that have been mentioned time and again. You can’t just reduce it to a calculation based on known values because not only do we not know and the probabilities they're based on aren't reliable, but you also need to take into account a wide range of factors like each team’s history, form, fixtures, injuries, luck, psychology etc. 

 

Yes, it's partly a case of looking at those probability tables and making a judgement call based on experience of previous situations in the Premier League and with certain teams in particular, but all of the factors that have been listed numerous times do matter as part of complex statistical models too. If they didn’t matter, statistics and data analytics wouldn’t exist as an industry.

 

Liverpool have had 9 game winning sequences 14 times in the last 3 seasons and have a wealth of experience in these situations. That along with other factors demonstrably matter. Bear in mind though, what’s being overlooked here is that Liverpool reaching the CL wasn’t even dependent upon them winning 9 games in a row, that was just something that some people thought had a good chance of happening.

 

The fundamental problem raised about these probability tables like FiveThirtyEight’s weren’t because a 12% chance of Liverpool winning 9 games was ridiculous, it’s that a 12% chance of them making the Champions League was ridiculous and a 95% chance of us making the CL was ridiculous.  

 

Maybe you were just using the multiplication rule as a basic way of explaining and I’m sure FiveThirtyEight and others adjust or factor these variables in to their models, but the point is that the outcome probabilities looked so obviously wrong that it suggests they haven't been factored in enough or at all. A 95% and 12% chance of Newcastle and Liverpool making the CL was even on the surface and with 'football is chaos' in mind, then and now, clearly flawed in a fundamental way.

 

 

 

 

Behold, the heir of htt.

 

 

tl;Dr

 

 

[Pata]

I’m using the multiplication to show how unlikely something that’s deemed very likely is to happen 9 times in a row. I didn’t realise that it doesn’t somehow apply to football. I have no idea why you think the outcome probabilities were so badly wrong when Liverpool have won seven games in a row and still need help from other teams. Seemed a pretty long shot then to begin with?

Bookies saying Liverpool winning a game 6 times out of 10 is just stupid and thick and in reality it’s something like 98-100% due to their experience and stuff? Somehow no one else in the world has noticed this with their thick models and bookies are still raking it in when in reality everyone could be millionaires just by betting on Liverpool? I urge you to start betting as you clearly know better than the rest of the world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 16, 2023 by Pata