The Europeometer™ (2024/25)

[Unbelievable]

1 minute ago, Kid Icarus said:

Or to phrase it another way, 9 wins in a row is obviously now more likely having won 5 already, but these upcoming 4 games are now more likely to include draws and losses based purely on how rare a 9 game winning streak is.

No. It is mathematically more likely because a 4 game win streak is more likely than a 5 game win streak. It is also quite a bit more likely in real life because of the confidence the 5 game win streak brings.

[Kid Icarus]

1 minute ago, Unbelievable said:

I'm with Pata on this one. Mathematically previous results have no bearing on future results. In footballing terms confidence counts for a lot, so let's just say we are more likely to win the next four than we were to win the last five. Still small odds obviously, but it's not like each win makes it less likely to win the next. Just that starting from scratch you are less likely to get a n+1 games winning streak than it is to get a n games winning streak.

 

 

 

It's nothing to do with our previous results in terms of maths and probability, it's to do with how often it actually happens in reality. It's extremely rare because football is so chaotic and over a long enough timeline it'll churn out 'unlikely' individual results regardless of form, confidence, strength of opposition etc.

 

You don't even need to know the maths, just look at how many times 9 wins on the bounce has actually happened in 32 years.

[Kid Icarus]

2 minutes ago, Displayname said:

Would you have the same thought process if we were talking about flipping coins?

 

That it would be less likely to get 4 in a row if you had 5 in a row previously?

 

 

 

No, because football is nothing like flipping coins. 

[cubaricho]

Math nonces god damn  

[timeEd32]

13 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

It's not that it's less likely than before we went on this run, it's that these 4 are less likely to win as part of an extended run of 9 wins than they would have been as their own 4 game winning streaks if we'd drawn or lost against Spurs.

No. Just no.

[Kaizero]

2 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

It's nothing to do with our previous results in terms of maths and probability, it's to do with how often it actually happens in reality. It's extremely rare because football is so chaotic and over a long enough timeline it'll churn out 'unlikely' individual results regardless of form, confidence, strength of opposition etc.

 

You don't even need to know the maths, just look at how many times 9 wins on the bounce has actually happened in 32 years.

 

But it's not less likely because a 9 game win streak is an unlikely feat to pull off. That 9 game streak has nothing to do with how likely/unlikely it is for us to win the next four fixtures, it has no impact on anything in the world as it's an artificial measure we've made up and applied to the current fixture list. The next four matches exist completely outside of any measurable force applied to them by "9 wins in a row is unlikely".

 

 

Edited Sunday at 20:20 by Kaizero

[Unbelievable]

2 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

It's nothing to do with our previous results in terms of maths and probability, it's to do with how often it actually happens in reality. It's extremely rare because football is so chaotic and over a long enough timeline it'll churn out 'unlikely' individual results regardless of form, confidence, strength of opposition etc.

 

You don't even need to know the maths, just look at how many times 9 wins on the bounce has actually happened in 32 years.

[Kid Icarus]

2 minutes ago, Unbelievable said:

No. It is mathematically more likely because a 4 game win streak is more likely than a 5 game win streak. It is also quite a bit more likely in real life because of the confidence the 5 game win streak brings.

No it's not. Those 4 could be much better teams and you can be out of form, have injuries etc.  You can flatten out the creases in football and talk about it in terms of your chosen factors, or probability, it's a minefield.

[Hanshithispantz]

1 minute ago, Kid Icarus said:

No, because football is nothing like flipping coins. 

You don't think Howe could coach a few 20p coins to all land head 4 times in a row?

[Checko]

8 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

Or to phrase it another way, 9 wins in a row is obviously now more likely having won 5 already, but these upcoming 4 games are now more likely to include draws and losses based purely on how rare a 9 game winning streak is.

No that's not how it works

 

Eg flipping a 50/50 coin - odds of 10 heads in a row is 0.098% or about 1 in a thousand. Super unlikely to keep getting heads. 9 in a row is about 1 in 500 chance. But if you flip 9 in a row the next coin you flip still has a 50% chance of being a head.

 

 

 

 

Edited Sunday at 20:21 by Checko

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

Fucking hell. 

[Kid Icarus]

Just now, Kaizero said:

 

But it's not less likely because a 9 game win streak is an unlikely feat to pull off. That 9 game streak has nothing to do with how likely/unlikely it is for us to win the next four fixtures.

Yes it does, but I'll bow out. The Scandinavian reddit maths nonces are out in force and I cba

[David Edgar]

 

[Kaizero]

The argument "9 wins in a row is unlikely" is only applicable to a situation before any of said 9 matches have been played. Once the first of nine have been played, that standard of probability "measurement" is void.

[Kid Icarus]

Just now, Checko said:

No that's not how it works

 

Eg flipping a 50/50 coin - odds of 10 heads in a row is 0.098% or about 1 in a thousand. Super unlikely to keep getting heads. But the next coin you flip still has a 50% chance of being a head.

 

 

You're not flipping coins man.

[Displayname]

Just now, Kid Icarus said:

No, because football is nothing like flipping coins. 

But i can use the exact same logical fallacy that you are using.

Getting head 9 times in a row is extremely rare.

[Kaizero]

Just now, Kid Icarus said:

Yes it does, but I'll bow out. The Scandinavian reddit maths nonces are out in force and I cba

 

It just doesn't, though  You're arguing on behalf of a logical fallacy

 

 

Edited Sunday at 20:22 by Kaizero

[Hanshithispantz]

1 minute ago, Checko said:

No that's not how it works

 

Eg flipping a 50/50 coin - odds of 10 heads in a row is 0.098% or about 1 in a thousand. Super unlikely to keep getting heads. 9 in a row is about 1 in 500 chance. But if you flip 9 in a row the next coin you flip still has a 50% chance of being a head.

 

 

 

 

 

I think KI understands this like 

[Checko]

Just now, Kid Icarus said:

You're not flipping coins man.

Don't think I've even seen a coin since the pandemic!

[Unbelievable]

Just now, Kid Icarus said:

No it's not. Those 4 could be much better teams and you can be out of form, have injuries etc.  You can flatten out the creases in football and talk about it in terms of your chosen factors, or probability, it's a minefield.

 

Look mate, you are just flat out wrong on the mathematics/probability side of things (to win 4 in a row given a chance to win a single one is exactly the same regardless of what has happened before). The footballing side of things is a completely different discussion obviously, but I would suggest that a team playing well is more likely to win four on the trot than a team doing badly, just like a good team is more likely to do it than a bad team, etc.

[Hanshithispantz]

The law of averages is the commonly held belief that a particular outcome or event will, over certain periods of time, occur at a frequency that is similar to its probability.[1][2] Depending on context or application it can be considered a valid common-sense observation or a misunderstanding of probability.

 

Think the bit in bold is where we're getting stuck here 

[Checko]

Just now, Hanshithispantz said:

I think KI understands this like 

Not based on what I quoted tbh!

[Fak]

It’s a Sunday night man, lads. 

[timeEd32]

This discussion is infuriating and yet way better than if we were losing.

[Checko]

1 minute ago, Fak said:

It’s a Sunday night man, lads. 

And what were the odd of that!

 

 

Edited Sunday at 20:26 by Checko