|
Post by Little Gary Patel on Jan 2, 2020 13:26:18 GMT
Back to exposing yourself as an idiot in this thread now you've had to give up on Tom Ince. How's your stats pHD going out of interest? Every time tachyon comes on here and explains you refuse to listen and stick to your idiotic guns about it being "nonsense". You complain like fuck about our recruitment, yet admire Brentfords. Are they just plucking it out of thin air? Think they might have some predictors about future player performance or players who are undervalued? Nah, they're nonsense. Of course it’s bollocks. That was about 3-0 game yesterday or should have been. It just doesn’t relate to reality. Explain yourself..... I'd love to see tachyon absolutely rip you apart here. You are a prime example of "opinion is fact" in this post truth world. Don't need any logical arguments to back it up, as long as you say it, then it's fact. edit: I don't think you actually understand probability to be honest, it's binary with you.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jan 2, 2020 13:32:44 GMT
Of course it’s bollocks. That was about 3-0 game yesterday or should have been. It just doesn’t relate to reality. Explain yourself..... I'd love to see tachyon absolutely rip you apart here. You are a prime example of "opinion is fact" in this post truth world. Don't need any logical arguments to back it up, as long as you say it, then it's fact. edit: I don't think you actually understand probability to be honest, it's binary with you. I do understand it. It said Jones was unlucky. That’s enough. It’s absolute fantasy stuff. It’s a subjective measure that people use fact. That’s my issue with it. And people don’t seem to get that it’s subjective.
|
|
|
Post by Little Gary Patel on Jan 2, 2020 13:35:11 GMT
Explain yourself..... I'd love to see tachyon absolutely rip you apart here. You are a prime example of "opinion is fact" in this post truth world. Don't need any logical arguments to back it up, as long as you say it, then it's fact. edit: I don't think you actually understand probability to be honest, it's binary with you. I do understand it. It said Jones was unlucky. That’s enough. It’s absolute fantasy stuff. It’s a subjective measure that people use fact. That’s my issue with it. And people don’t seem to get that it’s subjective. So it's not predictive at all?
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jan 2, 2020 13:38:48 GMT
I do understand it. It said Jones was unlucky. That’s enough. It’s absolute fantasy stuff. It’s a subjective measure that people use fact. That’s my issue with it. And people don’t seem to get that it’s subjective. So it's not predictive at all? Not when it says Jones was unlucky. People hang their hat on it, which I just find odd. Because it usually doesn’t tally with what you’ve seen on the pitch.
|
|
|
Post by Little Gary Patel on Jan 2, 2020 13:42:20 GMT
So it's not predictive at all? Not when it says Jones was unlucky. People hang their hat on it, which I just find odd. Because it usually doesn’t tally with what you’ve seen on the pitch. he was to some extent, Butland performing WELL below the level that he should (don't start with the he shouldn't have started him, thats not the point) you don't think Allen missing from 3 yards when he hits the post is a better chance than either of Campbells yesterday? Just because the outcome is different doesn't make Campbells chance better so explain how it was "a 3-0" yesterday then..... because that doesn't tally with what I saw on the pitch....
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jan 2, 2020 13:48:29 GMT
Not when it says Jones was unlucky. People hang their hat on it, which I just find odd. Because it usually doesn’t tally with what you’ve seen on the pitch. he was to some extent, Butland performing WELL below the level that he should (don't start with the he shouldn't have started him, thats not the point) you don't think Allen missing from 3 yards when he hits the post is a better chance than either of Campbells yesterday? Just because the outcome is different doesn't make Campbells chance better so explain how it was "a 3-0" yesterday then..... because that doesn't tally with what I saw on the pitch.... Why isn’t it the point! Of course he shouldn’t have played him. You’ve only got yourself to blame if you play such a liability. I expect Allen to miss them, I expect Campbell to score his second 9 out of 10 times. The first was a special finish but I don’t want that falling to anyone else we have. He’s the only one that can finish it. We battered them. We shouldn’t have conceded bar for said liability (who shouldn’t have been playing).
|
|
|
Post by Little Gary Patel on Jan 2, 2020 13:53:31 GMT
You've literally argued against expected goals, then said Campbell should score that goal 0.90xG for fucks sake. (Which is completely wrong also)
I can't decide if you're just stubborn and refuse to budge, stupid or on the wind up. I'm out. I can't be arsed to find out.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jan 2, 2020 13:56:02 GMT
You've literally argued against expected goals, then said Campbell should score that goal 0.90xG for fucks sake. (Which is completely wrong also) I can't decide if you're just stubborn and refuse to budge, stupid or on the wind up. I'm out. I can't be arsed to find out. It’s not wrong. It’s what I think. Which proves my point nicely. It’s subjective bollocks.
|
|
|
Post by Little Gary Patel on Jan 2, 2020 13:58:59 GMT
Genuine lol Good luck in future endeavours. I'm not biting anymore.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jan 2, 2020 14:01:50 GMT
Genuine lol Good luck in future endeavours. I'm not biting anymore. Biting? Campbell is a predator, he finishes that chance 9/10 times, it’s what he does. Anyone who’s watched him knows that. This is why XG is toss. I expect him to finish it 9/10 times. That’s my opinion. That’s what xg is. Opinion that is hidden as a definite value. It’s shite.
|
|
|
Post by cheekymatt71 on Jan 2, 2020 14:08:58 GMT
Everyone stop arguing with Bayern and he might just leave the thread to people who are interested.
Campbell scored 2 goals from outside the box.
Vokes scored 1 and should have scored at least one more with the chances created.
Uddersfield didnt have a single shot until the 48th minute.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Jan 2, 2020 14:10:45 GMT
The very concept that Jones could have got this squad in a play off position is beyond ludicrous and that's my problem with it. Things weren't just about to click at anytime soon and to anyone with even a casual interest in football it was entirely obvious that we were far more of a relegation outfit than a play off one. Its presumption of equality of ability and inability to factor in things like Jones' utter lunacy and the fact the players thought he was a prick means it has serious flaws. I don't mind people referencing it as a guide and occasionally you might get a decent insight into who are the underperforming and overperforming sides, it's when people use it as a bible it pisses me off. Jones's Stoke is probably the best example of all, on this metric we were the biggest underperforming team in the UK under him, yet any basic empirical research into what a car crash we were on and off the pitch would have told you that we were exactly where we deserved to be. If you used the xG table as a basic guide to betting on Stoke under Jones you'd have far more money believing your own eyes (and the actual table) than this model and that's a stone cold fact.
|
|
|
Post by cheekymatt71 on Jan 2, 2020 14:10:49 GMT
Genuine lol Good luck in future endeavours. I'm not biting anymore. Biting? Campbell is a predator, he finishes that chance 9/10 times, it’s what he does. Anyone who’s watched him knows that. This is why XG is toss. I expect him to finish it 9/10 times. That’s my opinion. That’s what xg is. Opinion that is hidden as a definite value. It’s shite. You do know XG is based upon averages and NOT based upon WHO had the shot? Of course a striker is more likely to score than a defender. Thats pretty bloody obvious but XG doesnt take that into account as you well know Bayern
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jan 2, 2020 14:12:10 GMT
Biting? Campbell is a predator, he finishes that chance 9/10 times, it’s what he does. Anyone who’s watched him knows that. This is why XG is toss. I expect him to finish it 9/10 times. That’s my opinion. That’s what xg is. Opinion that is hidden as a definite value. It’s shite. You do know XG is based upon averages and NOT based upon WHO had the shot? Of course a striker is more likely to score than a defender. Thats pretty bloody obvious but XG doesnt take that into account as you well know Bayern Which makes it all the more useless! Who the chance falls to is absolutely fundamental.
|
|
|
Post by Little Gary Patel on Jan 2, 2020 14:16:16 GMT
Everyone stop arguing with Bayern and he might just leave the thread to people who are interested. Campbell scored 2 goals from outside the box. Vokes scored 1 and should have scored at least one more with the chances created. Uddersfield didnt have a single shot until the 48th minute. The more advanced models that we are unlikely to have access to, due to them making millions of pounds (I have seen one in the sense I know what data they collect and will use), account for location, assist type, shot type (header etc), player and position of defenders also where the "assist" came from, deep cross or pulled back from byline etc...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2020 14:19:47 GMT
You've literally argued against expected goals, then said Campbell should score that goal 0.90xG for fucks sake. (Which is completely wrong also) I can't decide if you're just stubborn and refuse to budge, stupid or on the wind up. I'm out. I can't be arsed to find out. It’s not wrong. It’s what I think. Which proves my point nicely. It’s subjective bollocks. It's about as subjective as someone saying the club are pursuing a "Brexit policy" Except one has an element of science behind it and one is pure waffle......
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jan 2, 2020 14:21:45 GMT
It’s not wrong. It’s what I think. Which proves my point nicely. It’s subjective bollocks. It's about as subjective as someone saying the club are pursuing a "Brexit policy" Except one has an element of science behind it and one is pure waffle...... They’re both subjective.
|
|
|
Post by terryconroysmagic on Jan 2, 2020 16:24:33 GMT
Back to exposing yourself as an idiot in this thread now you've had to give up on Tom Ince. How's your stats pHD going out of interest? Every time tachyon comes on here and explains you refuse to listen and stick to your idiotic guns about it being "nonsense". You complain like fuck about our recruitment, yet admire Brentfords. Are they just plucking it out of thin air? Think they might have some predictors about future player performance or players who are undervalued? Nah, they're nonsense. Of course it’s bollocks. That was about 3-0 game yesterday or should have been. It just doesn’t relate to reality. Love your broad stroke “of course it bollocks” statement Of course statistical analysis has a part to play, data and data analysis is important in many different walks of life. You’re coming across a little narrow minded and sanctimonious here. Where did you think we’d be at this stage, if I recall correctly, bottom 3?
|
|
|
Post by tachyon on Jan 3, 2020 8:29:11 GMT
The very concept that Jones could have got this squad in a play off position is beyond ludicrous and that's my problem with it. Things weren't just about to click at anytime soon and to anyone with even a casual interest in football it was entirely obvious that we were far more of a relegation outfit than a play off one. Its presumption of equality of ability and inability to factor in things like Jones' utter lunacy and the fact the players thought he was a prick means it has serious flaws. I don't mind people referencing it as a guide and occasionally you might get a decent insight into who are the underperforming and overperforming sides, it's when people use it as a bible it pisses me off. Jones's Stoke is probably the best example of all, on this metric we were the biggest underperforming team in the UK under him, yet any basic empirical research into what a car crash we were on and off the pitch would have told you that we were exactly where we deserved to be. If you used the xG table as a basic guide to betting on Stoke under Jones you'd have far more money believing your own eyes (and the actual table) than this model and that's a stone cold fact. Bit of a strawman, that. xG models had Stoke coming down from the Prem as a mid table Championship team. Bookmakers had us as favourites for promotion. At the start of this season xG models had Stoke as the 11th best team in the Championship (all documented). Bookmakers had us as the joint fourth best team. Only one evaluation process has continually over estimated how good Stoke have been since relegation and it hasn't been xG, it's been the bookies. Stone cold fact. Teams aren't assessed on the current table, xG or otherwise. They are assessed on a weighted average of at least a full season's worth of games, if not more.
|
|
|
Post by scfc75 on Jan 3, 2020 9:09:31 GMT
I’ve collected data from tens of thousands of posts over many years, and my modelling suggests that Bayern won’t back down.
|
|
|
Post by harlequin on Jan 3, 2020 10:03:19 GMT
The very concept that Jones could have got this squad in a play off position is beyond ludicrous and that's my problem with it. Things weren't just about to click at anytime soon and to anyone with even a casual interest in football it was entirely obvious that we were far more of a relegation outfit than a play off one. Its presumption of equality of ability and inability to factor in things like Jones' utter lunacy and the fact the players thought he was a prick means it has serious flaws. I don't mind people referencing it as a guide and occasionally you might get a decent insight into who are the underperforming and overperforming sides, it's when people use it as a bible it pisses me off. Jones's Stoke is probably the best example of all, on this metric we were the biggest underperforming team in the UK under him, yet any basic empirical research into what a car crash we were on and off the pitch would have told you that we were exactly where we deserved to be. If you used the xG table as a basic guide to betting on Stoke under Jones you'd have far more money believing your own eyes (and the actual table) than this model and that's a stone cold fact. Bit of a strawman, that. xG models had Stoke coming down from the Prem as a mid table Championship team. Bookmakers had us as favourites for promotion. At the start of this season xG models had Stoke as the 11th best team in the Championship (all documented). Bookmakers had us as the joint fourth best team. Only one evaluation process has continually over estimated how good Stoke have been since relegation and it hasn't been xG, it's been the bookies. Stone cold fact. Teams aren't assessed on the current table, xG or otherwise. They are assessed on a weighted average of at least a full season's worth of games, if not more. The bookies couldn’t predict Rowett being inept.
Expected goals couldn’t predict that but also didn’t take into account that our chances and therefore expected goals came against superior opposition in the prem.
In effect it was correct by being wrong twice. Which is one way to look at how it operates in general. It's wrong multiple times over the course of the season which eventually evens out.
For this season, we were on course for relegation until we took action and changed manager who in turn changed the tactics and personal which is what is produced the turn around. Unless it predicted us changing manager its not really valid to claim this season as a victory for it either. Waiting it out didn't work and much to my chagrin wasn't going to. It was a negative downwards spiral which effected confidence and therefore finishing.
People who used it to support Jones didn’t take into account that it only models chances and requires corrective behaviors like replacing the manager.
|
|
|
Post by rawli on Jan 3, 2020 10:05:14 GMT
I’ve collected data from tens of thousands of posts over many years, and my modelling suggests that Bayern won’t back down. His expected bollocks rating is off the scale though.
|
|
|
Post by tachyon on Jan 3, 2020 10:31:02 GMT
Bit of a strawman, that. xG models had Stoke coming down from the Prem as a mid table Championship team. Bookmakers had us as favourites for promotion. At the start of this season xG models had Stoke as the 11th best team in the Championship (all documented). Bookmakers had us as the joint fourth best team. Only one evaluation process has continually over estimated how good Stoke have been since relegation and it hasn't been xG, it's been the bookies. Stone cold fact. Teams aren't assessed on the current table, xG or otherwise. They are assessed on a weighted average of at least a full season's worth of games, if not more. The bookies couldn’t predict Rowett being inept. Expected goals couldn’t predict that but also didn’t take into account that our chances and therefore expected goals came against superior opposition in the prem. In effect it was correct by being wrong twice. Which is one way to look at how it operates in general. It's wrong multiple times over the course of the season which eventually evens out.
For this season, we were on course for relegation until we took action and changed manager who in turn changed the tactics and personal which is what is produced the turn around. Unless it predicted us changing manager its not really valid to claim this season as a victory for it either. Waiting it out didn't work and much to my chagrin wasn't going to. It was a negative downwards spiral which effected confidence and therefore finishing.
People who used it to support Jones didn’t take into account that it only models chances and requires corrective behaviors like replacing the manager.
1) Of course it takes into consideration that we came up against superior opposition in the Prem. 2) we've never been odds on to go down, so "on course to survive" would be more apt. 3) xG looks at the process & ours was/is mid table. If the process improves, so does the xG evaluation, but it does so gradually, not in a knee jerk way.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Jan 3, 2020 11:00:30 GMT
The very concept that Jones could have got this squad in a play off position is beyond ludicrous and that's my problem with it. Things weren't just about to click at anytime soon and to anyone with even a casual interest in football it was entirely obvious that we were far more of a relegation outfit than a play off one. Its presumption of equality of ability and inability to factor in things like Jones' utter lunacy and the fact the players thought he was a prick means it has serious flaws. I don't mind people referencing it as a guide and occasionally you might get a decent insight into who are the underperforming and overperforming sides, it's when people use it as a bible it pisses me off. Jones's Stoke is probably the best example of all, on this metric we were the biggest underperforming team in the UK under him, yet any basic empirical research into what a car crash we were on and off the pitch would have told you that we were exactly where we deserved to be. If you used the xG table as a basic guide to betting on Stoke under Jones you'd have far more money believing your own eyes (and the actual table) than this model and that's a stone cold fact. Bit of a strawman, that. xG models had Stoke coming down from the Prem as a mid table Championship team. Bookmakers had us as favourites for promotion. At the start of this season xG models had Stoke as the 11th best team in the Championship (all documented). Bookmakers had us as the joint fourth best team. Only one evaluation process has continually over estimated how good Stoke have been since relegation and it hasn't been xG, it's been the bookies. Stone cold fact. Teams aren't assessed on the current table, xG or otherwise. They are assessed on a weighted average of at least a full season's worth of games, if not more. That all seems a bit Infinite monkey theorem to me!
|
|
|
Post by harlequin on Jan 3, 2020 11:19:53 GMT
The bookies couldn’t predict Rowett being inept. Expected goals couldn’t predict that but also didn’t take into account that our chances and therefore expected goals came against superior opposition in the prem. In effect it was correct by being wrong twice. Which is one way to look at how it operates in general. It's wrong multiple times over the course of the season which eventually evens out.
For this season, we were on course for relegation until we took action and changed manager who in turn changed the tactics and personal which is what is produced the turn around. Unless it predicted us changing manager its not really valid to claim this season as a victory for it either. Waiting it out didn't work and much to my chagrin wasn't going to. It was a negative downwards spiral which effected confidence and therefore finishing.
People who used it to support Jones didn’t take into account that it only models chances and requires corrective behaviors like replacing the manager.
1) Of course it takes into consideration that we came up against superior opposition in the Prem. 2) we've never been odds on to go down, so "on course to survive" would be more apt. 3) xG looks at the process & ours was/is mid table. If the process improves, so does the xG evaluation, but it does so gradually, not in a knee jerk way. So there's a modifier dependant on league? If so, conceded.
We were second from bottom, the trend predicted relegation, the bookies own odds could well have taken into account his possible removal. Meanwhile xG predicted us near the top of the table.
I didn't say that well, I think what I was trying to say is we were heading for catastrophe and only the corrective behavior of sacking the manager brought us closer to the predicted outcome.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jan 3, 2020 12:50:04 GMT
I am keen on statistics and qualified. I used them throughout my 40+ years in industrial management and consider them a useful tool for prediction in technical, engineering, and even marketing activities. But when it comes to use them for human activities such as sport, I think there should be used with extreme caution. It is very difficult to predict human behaviour from statistics or past behaviour and when it becomes a team activity I think it is even more unpredictable. For one very good reason, people's behaviour is driven by circumstances and when people realise they are "in trouble" or have a problem, they usually do something about it. The clubs themselves will be analysing their performances down to individual players, and taking action to improve them.
I should like to see the evidence that supports the opposite of my view. It is easy for me to quote the unpredictability of sport, e.g. in the last few days the world darts championship. Or more relevant to our discussion, Christmas 2014 Leicester were "certain" to be relegated, the next season they were Champions. Who accurately predicted the referendum or last general election results based on statistics? It is easy to say 2 or the 3 Championship promoted side will be relegated from the Prem. next season, but it isn't always the case and which 2 is more difficult. Of last season's 3 promoted sides, how many would have predicted Norwich would be doing the worst in the Prem. today?
I do not dismiss statistics out of hand, but if it was possible to accurately predict sporting results bookmakers would be out of business. Whilst mentioning bookmakers, there is an inference in the posts above that bookmakers odds are set on some sort of inside knowledge they have of the probable outcome of a sporting event/competition. The reality is they set their odds on the basis of bets placed and and change the odds according to where the money goes. The odds are skewed to ensure a profit on an event, but not so much as to drive punters away, so occasionally the bookmaker has to take a hit, but rarely I would suggest. The only guy I ever knew who was a consistently successful gambler, had a major problem, bookmakers would not take his bets. When I say he was consistently successful, by the time he got married in his early 20s, he had a house and everything in it all paid for by his gambling.
|
|
|
Post by shipshape on Jan 3, 2020 13:13:17 GMT
Bookmakers odds are influenced by the amount of money placed on outcomes but to say its the only thing that is used is far from correct. The firms employ loads of clever analysts and data scientists to build models to give them the edge. It's a desirable career these days for maths graduates. No doubt xG or something similar is one of the many models they use. There will be others and they will constantly be reviewed and tweaked here and there. It a fascinating subject (to me) as I work in a similar field so it's good to see examples in action. Thanks for sharing some of the stuff, it's far from a load of old bollocks.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Jan 4, 2020 0:09:41 GMT
I am keen on statistics and qualified. I used them throughout my 40+ years in industrial management and consider them a useful tool for prediction in technical, engineering, and even marketing activities. But when it comes to use them for human activities such as sport, I think there should be used with extreme caution. It is very difficult to predict human behaviour from statistics or past behaviour and when it becomes a team activity I think it is even more unpredictable. For one very good reason, people's behaviour is driven by circumstances and when people realise they are "in trouble" or have a problem, they usually do something about it. The clubs themselves will be analysing their performances down to individual players, and taking action to improve them. I should like to see the evidence that supports the opposite of my view. It is easy for me to quote the unpredictability of sport, e.g. in the last few days the world darts championship. Or more relevant to our discussion, Christmas 2014 Leicester were "certain" to be relegated, the next season they were Champions. Who accurately predicted the referendum or last general election results based on statistics? It is easy to say 2 or the 3 Championship promoted side will be relegated from the Prem. next season, but it isn't always the case and which 2 is more difficult. Of last season's 3 promoted sides, how many would have predicted Norwich would be doing the worst in the Prem. today? I do not dismiss statistics out of hand, but if it was possible to accurately predict sporting results bookmakers would be out of business. Whilst mentioning bookmakers, there is an inference in the posts above that bookmakers odds are set on some sort of inside knowledge they have of the probable outcome of a sporting event/competition. The reality is they set their odds on the basis of bets placed and and change the odds according to where the money goes. The odds are skewed to ensure a profit on an event, but not so much as to drive punters away, so occasionally the bookmaker has to take a hit, but rarely I would suggest. The only guy I ever knew who was a consistently successful gambler, had a major problem, bookmakers would not take his bets. When I say he was consistently successful, by the time he got married in his early 20s, he had a house and everything in it all paid for by his gambling. Bookmakers and gamblers have been using Xg for years, in fact it was largely pioneered by the gambling industry using the principles of expected value (i.e the average return if you placed the same bet 1000s of times.) The owner of Brentford, Matthew Benham is a professional gambler who set up his own xG driven stats based company SmartOdds who sell their xG information that has much more sensitive and accurate algorithms than those produced by Opta. They then sell this data to high rolling gamblers who place the bets on Asian markets to avoid the issue you mentioned about his bets not being taken. They use the same algorithms to inform their recruitment and performance. They have compiled a global “xG fairness” table which has various weightings and basically assesses how well a team is playing and places them on a global league table. If a team is performing well, they take an indepth look at who the major factor is. They’ve done this for the litany of players they’ve signed for peanuts and then sold for 10x profit. This has also allowed them to build systematically towards promotion despite having the second smallest budget in the league for several years. The formula used to calculate odds in expected value (so that the punter is ultimately always likely to lose money) is literally the exact formula used to calculate xG. Benham himself has said he will only sack a manager if their xG performance and thus expected points performance is low. It’s working a treat, many wanted Frank gone early in the year and now they’re firing on all cylinders. I still think it’s highly misunderstood because of the stilted way its been introduced to the common football fan, if it was total nonsense, football would have ditched it years ago. It’s a measure of performance, not result. If the only stat that “mattered” was goals scored then we’d barely talk about what happened in the 90 minutes, all xG is, is another method of saying “we should have scored those sitters eh?”. A very good example is Dortmund in 14/15, halfway through the season they were bottom, but their xG data suggested they should be 5th. They rallied to 7th by seasons end but their xG barely changed, they simply met their expected performance.
|
|
|
Post by rawli on Jan 4, 2020 9:43:25 GMT
I am keen on statistics and qualified. I used them throughout my 40+ years in industrial management and consider them a useful tool for prediction in technical, engineering, and even marketing activities. But when it comes to use them for human activities such as sport, I think there should be used with extreme caution. It is very difficult to predict human behaviour from statistics or past behaviour and when it becomes a team activity I think it is even more unpredictable. For one very good reason, people's behaviour is driven by circumstances and when people realise they are "in trouble" or have a problem, they usually do something about it. The clubs themselves will be analysing their performances down to individual players, and taking action to improve them. I should like to see the evidence that supports the opposite of my view. It is easy for me to quote the unpredictability of sport, e.g. in the last few days the world darts championship. Or more relevant to our discussion, Christmas 2014 Leicester were "certain" to be relegated, the next season they were Champions. Who accurately predicted the referendum or last general election results based on statistics? It is easy to say 2 or the 3 Championship promoted side will be relegated from the Prem. next season, but it isn't always the case and which 2 is more difficult. Of last season's 3 promoted sides, how many would have predicted Norwich would be doing the worst in the Prem. today? I do not dismiss statistics out of hand, but if it was possible to accurately predict sporting results bookmakers would be out of business. Whilst mentioning bookmakers, there is an inference in the posts above that bookmakers odds are set on some sort of inside knowledge they have of the probable outcome of a sporting event/competition. The reality is they set their odds on the basis of bets placed and and change the odds according to where the money goes. The odds are skewed to ensure a profit on an event, but not so much as to drive punters away, so occasionally the bookmaker has to take a hit, but rarely I would suggest. The only guy I ever knew who was a consistently successful gambler, had a major problem, bookmakers would not take his bets. When I say he was consistently successful, by the time he got married in his early 20s, he had a house and everything in it all paid for by his gambling. Bookmakers and gamblers have been using Xg for years, in fact it was largely pioneered by the gambling industry using the principles of expected value (i.e the average return if you placed the same bet 1000s of times.) The owner of Brentford, Matthew Benham is a professional gambler who set up his own xG driven stats based company SmartOdds who sell their xG information that has much more sensitive and accurate algorithms than those produced by Opta. They then sell this data to high rolling gamblers who place the bets on Asian markets to avoid the issue you mentioned about his bets not being taken. They use the same algorithms to inform their recruitment and performance. They have compiled a global “xG fairness” table which has various weightings and basically assesses how well a team is playing and places them on a global league table. If a team is performing well, they take an indepth look at who the major factor is. They’ve done this for the litany of players they’ve signed for peanuts and then sold for 10x profit. This has also allowed them to build systematically towards promotion despite having the second smallest budget in the league for several years. The formula used to calculate odds in expected value (so that the punter is ultimately always likely to lose money) is literally the exact formula used to calculate xG. Benham himself has said he will only sack a manager if their xG performance and thus expected points performance is low. It’s working a treat, many wanted Frank gone early in the year and now they’re firing on all cylinders. I still think it’s highly misunderstood because of the stilted way its been introduced to the common football fan, if it was total nonsense, football would have ditched it years ago. It’s a measure of performance, not result. If the only stat that “mattered” was goals scored then we’d barely talk about what happened in the 90 minutes, all xG is, is another method of saying “we should have scored those sitters eh?”. A very good example is Dortmund in 14/15, halfway through the season they were bottom, but their xG data suggested they should be 5th. They rallied to 7th by seasons end but their xG barely changed, they simply met their expected performance. They could save a fortune following some of the advice on here. The multi millionaire idiots.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jan 4, 2020 10:15:45 GMT
I am keen on statistics and qualified. I used them throughout my 40+ years in industrial management and consider them a useful tool for prediction in technical, engineering, and even marketing activities. But when it comes to use them for human activities such as sport, I think there should be used with extreme caution. It is very difficult to predict human behaviour from statistics or past behaviour and when it becomes a team activity I think it is even more unpredictable. For one very good reason, people's behaviour is driven by circumstances and when people realise they are "in trouble" or have a problem, they usually do something about it. The clubs themselves will be analysing their performances down to individual players, and taking action to improve them. I should like to see the evidence that supports the opposite of my view. It is easy for me to quote the unpredictability of sport, e.g. in the last few days the world darts championship. Or more relevant to our discussion, Christmas 2014 Leicester were "certain" to be relegated, the next season they were Champions. Who accurately predicted the referendum or last general election results based on statistics? It is easy to say 2 or the 3 Championship promoted side will be relegated from the Prem. next season, but it isn't always the case and which 2 is more difficult. Of last season's 3 promoted sides, how many would have predicted Norwich would be doing the worst in the Prem. today? I do not dismiss statistics out of hand, but if it was possible to accurately predict sporting results bookmakers would be out of business. Whilst mentioning bookmakers, there is an inference in the posts above that bookmakers odds are set on some sort of inside knowledge they have of the probable outcome of a sporting event/competition. The reality is they set their odds on the basis of bets placed and and change the odds according to where the money goes. The odds are skewed to ensure a profit on an event, but not so much as to drive punters away, so occasionally the bookmaker has to take a hit, but rarely I would suggest. The only guy I ever knew who was a consistently successful gambler, had a major problem, bookmakers would not take his bets. When I say he was consistently successful, by the time he got married in his early 20s, he had a house and everything in it all paid for by his gambling. Bookmakers and gamblers have been using Xg for years, in fact it was largely pioneered by the gambling industry using the principles of expected value (i.e the average return if you placed the same bet 1000s of times.) The owner of Brentford, Matthew Benham is a professional gambler who set up his own xG driven stats based company SmartOdds who sell their xG information that has much more sensitive and accurate algorithms than those produced by Opta. They then sell this data to high rolling gamblers who place the bets on Asian markets to avoid the issue you mentioned about his bets not being taken. They use the same algorithms to inform their recruitment and performance. They have compiled a global “xG fairness” table which has various weightings and basically assesses how well a team is playing and places them on a global league table. If a team is performing well, they take an indepth look at who the major factor is. They’ve done this for the litany of players they’ve signed for peanuts and then sold for 10x profit. This has also allowed them to build systematically towards promotion despite having the second smallest budget in the league for several years. The formula used to calculate odds in expected value (so that the punter is ultimately always likely to lose money) is literally the exact formula used to calculate xG. Benham himself has said he will only sack a manager if their xG performance and thus expected points performance is low. It’s working a treat, many wanted Frank gone early in the year and now they’re firing on all cylinders. I still think it’s highly misunderstood because of the stilted way its been introduced to the common football fan, if it was total nonsense, football would have ditched it years ago. It’s a measure of performance, not result. If the only stat that “mattered” was goals scored then we’d barely talk about what happened in the 90 minutes, all xG is, is another method of saying “we should have scored those sitters eh?”. A very good example is Dortmund in 14/15, halfway through the season they were bottom, but their xG data suggested they should be 5th. They rallied to 7th by seasons end but their xG barely changed, they simply met their expected performance. Thank you for that information, very interesting stats, particularly the Dortmund example. Are you saying Stoke should not have sacked Jones and kept him and the results would have improved? Sounds a bit dodgy to me. The person I knew who couldn't get his bets on anywhere was before the days of internet gambling. He would be in his element now!
|
|