22nd November - draw - Page 4 - TA specific - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

22nd November - draw


Bonny79

Recommended Posts

On 11/19/2019 at 9:26 PM, dohadeer said:

If what you are saying did actually happen, and the four top seeds drew the four bottom seeds, that is in fact a 23% chance, in a random draw featuring 8 teams. Not even ‘highly unlikely,’ let alone mathematically impossible.

It’s really amazing the sort of conspiracy theories that appear when you combine paranoia, poor understanding of probability, and confirmation bias (ie thinking things happen more often than they do, when they go against your own team).

Where are you getting 23% from?  You need the total number of possible outcomes, i.e. Team 1 could play any of 2-8, then keep going with all your other possible combos. 

You're saying that there's nearly a 1 in 4 chance of that exact combination happening in a purely random draw of 8 teams?  However, if Team 1 is drawn against Team 2 then there are still another 14 possible outcomes that could occur.  Same if Team 1 plays against 3, 4, etc.

All looks pretty mathematically impossible to me.  That is of course with no seedings and it is purely random.  Apologies if I've picked you up wrong.  I see Kumnio has had a go at it but he was assuming seeding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, daviebee said:

Where are you getting 23% from?  You need the total number of possible outcomes, i.e. Team 1 could play any of 2-8, then keep going with all your other possible combos. 

You're saying that there's nearly a 1 in 4 chance of that exact combination happening in a purely random draw of 8 teams?  However, if Team 1 is drawn against Team 2 then there are still another 14 possible outcomes that could occur.  Same if Team 1 plays against 3, 4, etc.

All looks pretty mathematically impossible to me.  That is of course with no seedings and it is purely random.  Apologies if I've picked you up wrong.  I see Kumnio has had a go at it but he was assuming seeding.

We’re not talking about ONE exact combination of 4 matches coming out. That would be a different debate - although still not ‘astronomically’ unlikely odds, like the conspiracy theorist tried to claim. We’re talking about any combination of matches where the four ‘seeds’ avoid each other.

There are 105 possible different outcomes to the draw, and 24 of those see the 4 seeds avoid each other. That’s a 23% chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, dohadeer said:

We’re not talking about ONE exact combination of 4 matches coming out. That would be a different debate - although still not ‘astronomically’ unlikely odds, like the conspiracy theorist tried to claim. We’re talking about any combination of matches where the four ‘seeds’ avoid each other.

There are 105 possible different outcomes to the draw, and 24 of those see the 4 seeds avoid each other. That’s a 23% chance.

Got you now.  👍  Forgot about all the different ways the top seeds could play the bottom ones!  Still unlikely though and yet it happened.  A bit like Celtic and Rangers not meeting in semis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, daviebee said:

Got you now.  👍  Forgot about all the different ways the top seeds could play the bottom ones!  Still unlikely though and yet it happened.  A bit like Celtic and Rangers not meeting in semis.

Again, another common Scottish football conspiracy theory, which I assume is a myth. Any stats you can put alongside that claim to back it up? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dohadeer said:

Again, another common Scottish football conspiracy theory, which I assume is a myth. Any stats you can put alongside that claim to back it up? 

I remember Reporting Scotland running a feature on it.  Quite a few years ago now.  I don't really intend looking up every post-war semi-final and running calculations on them, got better things to do tonight.  Everyone knows it went on.  If by any chance there was a weaker team and one of the OF was missing then the other invariably got the weaker side.  It's maybe not so prevalent now as the capacity of Hampden has been greatly reduced since the terracing days and so it's easier to fill on cup final day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DaveyDenoon said:

Jesus it’s not exactly hardcore paranoia and I’m well aware of the difference between 0% and 49.9%.
 

I'm merely suggesting it’s slightly suspicious or worthy of question that UEFA got the outcome they wanted despite of being a less that 1 in 4 chance. Of course it is possible that the draw was conducted absolutely above board and the 23% chance just happened to come about. I also suggested we’d never really know. But as someone who does not like coincidences there will always be a valid question mark over it.

Despite some English paranoia it’s pretty clear FIFA is corrupt. Who says UEFA can’t be too? Just because nothing has been exposed doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. I’m certainly open to the possibility. Again, I’m not saying it was 100% definitely a fix, I am saying it is suspicious and there is a question mark. Plenty suspicious people have been found innocent. Some though, guilty. Who knows 🤷‍♂️

I also made it clear that I don’t think anyone but Scotland is to blame for Scotland not qualifying in over 22 years. If I was guilty of gross paranoia then I’m sure I’d be blaming UEFA/FIFA/The Man In The Moon or whatever.

The 0.02% guy is plainly just trolling - if not then he needs help. Even though our chances have diminished after the draw if he’s offering 50,000-1 I’ll have some of it.

I think that there are two main reasons why it IS 'hardcore' paranoia on your part.

 

Firstly, I don't say this to be rude or insulting, but the evidence has shown that you don't know what you're talking about. You claimed the odds of something happening were 'astronomically' high, when in fact it was a 23% chance. Even without doing the calculation, it looked fairly obvious that the odds weren't astronomical. The claim of astronomical odds seemed so bizarre, that I went and checked it as soon as I read it.

Secondly, you have chosen to hold on to a belief for over 15 years, still grumbling about it to this day, and yet at no point in that time did you take the 30 seconds to do the calculation, or ask someone to do the calculation for you. If I had such a belief as that, the very first thing that I'd do was check the calculation in question, which I did straight away as soon as I read it. You preferred to throw the word 'astronomical' around, to try and give weight to your claim, rather than checking the most obvious bit of evidence which was right at your fingertips!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, daviebee said:

I remember Reporting Scotland running a feature on it.  Quite a few years ago now.  I don't really intend looking up every post-war semi-final and running calculations on them, got better things to do tonight.  Everyone knows it went on.  If by any chance there was a weaker team and one of the OF was missing then the other invariably got the weaker side.  It's maybe not so prevalent now as the capacity of Hampden has been greatly reduced since the terracing days and so it's easier to fill on cup final day.

There goes my Friday evening......

I wish people would stop making such outlandish claims on here, as I'll now have to trawl through almost 150 years of Scottish football history, to attempt to disprove yet more baseless nonsense. 

The onus should be on you to prove such a claim! You shouldn't be able to just throw that kind of accusation out there without evidence. What exactly is it that you're claiming, so that I know what I'm trying to check for/disprove?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dohadeer said:

There goes my Friday evening......

I wish people would stop making such outlandish claims on here, as I'll now have to trawl through almost 150 years of Scottish football history, to attempt to disprove yet more baseless nonsense. 

The onus should be on you to prove such a claim! You shouldn't be able to just throw that kind of accusation out there without evidence. What exactly is it that you're claiming, so that I know what I'm trying to check for/disprove?

You don't actually HAVE to.  :lol:   FFS go enjoy your evening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, daviebee said:

You don't actually HAVE to.  :lol:   FFS go enjoy your evening.

So, for Scottish Cups, the Old Firm have reached the semi finals in the same year, on 35 occasions. 11 times they've been drawn together, and 24 times drawn apart.

I hope that there's nobody on here that needs it explaining that the expected frequency of two teams being drawn together in the semi final is 33%!

So, the Old Firm have been drawn together on 31% of occasions, and drawn apart on 69% of occasions. As somebody who has studied statistics to a reasonable level, I can categorically state that that 2% dip below expectation, does not in any way signify anything untoward. Again, I hope that nobody on here tries to claim otherwise. In fact, that's nearly as close to the expected values as you can get, from 35 samples!

 

Please don't make me do the League Cup as well! I'm sure if that comes out as a fair draw, then people will try to bring the Glasgow Cup into it......... Just let me go and enjoy my weekend! I should be getting paid for the amount of nonsense claims on here that I have to calculate the statistics to disprove.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Pocketrocketman1888 said:

In my opinion it is based upon what ive seen and our usual lack of bottle and belief on the big stage going back 50 years

So we haven’t won a game away from home against a team the same level as Norway or Serbia in the last 50 years?

There’s always a chance. Hopefully the players don’t share your opinion because if they do then we’re definitely screwed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Texas Pete said:

So we haven’t won a game away from home against a team the same level as Norway or Serbia in the last 50 years?

There’s always a chance. Hopefully the players don’t share your opinion because if they do then we’re definitely screwed. 

Your correct i didnt explain myself that well when i said big stage meaning to me a play off win or go home type of affair as much as i enjoyed faddys goal in paris and baxter doing keepy uppy it stood for fvck all ultimately

i was thinking more along lines of belgium 0-2 win to qualify for wc 2002/0-3 horsing v morroco wc98/0-6 play off v holland/0-1 brazil wc90:/russia82/switzerland96:/the mighty georgia away every time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Pocketrocketman1888 said:

Your correct i didnt explain myself that well when i said big stage meaning to me a play off win or go home type of affair as much as i enjoyed faddys goal in paris and baxter doing keepy uppy it stood for fvck all ultimately

i was thinking more along lines of belgium 0-2 win to qualify for wc 2002/0-3 horsing v morroco wc98/0-6 play off v holland/0-1 brazil wc90:/russia82/switzerland96:/the mighty georgia away every time

Hahaha, so your claim is that we’ve lost the game that knocked us out of every major tournament?! I mean, so do every team, except the eventual winners.

Surely we won the key games to get us to those finals and playoffs that you’ve mentioned?! I’m worried that you’re the reincarnation of a certain other recently departed forum member.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Pocketrocketman1888 said:

Your correct i didnt explain myself that well when i said big stage meaning to me a play off win or go home type of affair as much as i enjoyed faddys goal in paris and baxter doing keepy uppy it stood for fvck all ultimately

i was thinking more along lines of belgium 0-2 win to qualify for wc 2002/0-3 horsing v morroco wc98/0-6 play off v holland/0-1 brazil wc90:/russia82/switzerland96:/the mighty georgia away every time

If you’re going back that far then you’re conveniently forgetting that we won a playoff in the 80s to qualify for the World Cup, albeit against Australia.

We also beat Switzerland in 1996. The damage was done in the England game. 

Next March is going to be very tough and if we make it to the final then we are going to be second favourites but anything can happen in a one off game. If we can go to Paris and Wembley and win then we can go to Oslo or Belgrade and win. 

Unlikely? Yes. Impossible? No. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dohadeer said:

Hahaha, so your claim is that we’ve lost the game that knocked us out of every major tournament?! I mean, so do every team, except the eventual winners.

Surely we won the key games to get us to those finals and playoffs that you’ve mentioned?! I’m worried that you’re the reincarnation of a certain other recently departed forum member.

Hahaha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Texas Pete said:

If you’re going back that far then you’re conveniently forgetting that we won a playoff in the 80s to qualify for the World Cup, albeit against Australia.

We also beat Switzerland in 1996. The damage was done in the England game. 

Next March is going to be very tough and if we make it to the final then we are going to be second favourites but anything can happen in a one off game. If we can go to Paris and Wembley and win then we can go to Oslo or Belgrade and win. 

Unlikely? Yes. Impossible? No. 

Australia then were utter shite have u watched the away game they almost beat us and they had nobodies in the team,dave mitchell of rangers was one of their star players- we made very heavy weather of it all; Lucky we got out of jail in cardiff where the only man in the stadium the ref spotted a handball

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Pocketrocketman1888 said:

Australia then were utter shite have u watched the away game they almost beat us and they had nobodies in the team,dave mitchell of rangers was one of their star players- we made very heavy weather of it all; Lucky we got out of jail in cardiff where the only man in the stadium the ref spotted a handball

Who won the playoff though? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, dohadeer said:

I think that there are two main reasons why it IS 'hardcore' paranoia on your part.

 

Firstly, I don't say this to be rude or insulting, but the evidence has shown that you don't know what you're talking about. You claimed the odds of something happening were 'astronomically' high, when in fact it was a 23% chance. Even without doing the calculation, it looked fairly obvious that the odds weren't astronomical. The claim of astronomical odds seemed so bizarre, that I went and checked it as soon as I read it.

Secondly, you have chosen to hold on to a belief for over 15 years, still grumbling about it to this day, and yet at no point in that time did you take the 30 seconds to do the calculation, or ask someone to do the calculation for you. If I had such a belief as that, the very first thing that I'd do was check the calculation in question, which I did straight away as soon as I read it. You preferred to throw the word 'astronomical' around, to try and give weight to your claim, rather than checking the most obvious bit of evidence which was right at your fingertips!

 

 

There is so much shit in this post it’s hardly worth responding.

But if you truly don’t want to be rude or insulting then don't be rude or insulting, stop acting like a dick (in this and other threads) and stop talking shit.

Bye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, DaveyDenoon said:

There is so much shit in this post it’s hardly worth responding.

But if you truly don’t want to be rude or insulting then don't be rude or insulting, stop acting like a dick (in this and other threads) and stop talking shit.

Bye.

Convenient way to avoid answering any of the points raised.

Mainly your ‘astronomical odds’ claim which you didn’t check for 15 years. 

Swearing and having a go at me doesn’t defend you from the accusations of making completely incorrect claims that you didn’t bother to fact check.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...