FA Cup Quarter-Final Draw | Burnley (H)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 81382
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SebastianBlue said:
I happen to be a mathematician (and data scientist), too, so can say with full confidence of nearly two decades in my field that I am not “talking bollocks”. ;-)

This is basic statistical analysis taught at uni.

Edit: I will say, the gap in most people’s understanding of how probability (and statistics more generally) work, especially with larger datasets—partly due to poor education and partly due to the human mind not actually being very good at it to begin with—is heavily exploited in modern times and is one of the most overlooked dangers to a reasonably functioning society in the age of ever-quickening technological progress.

To sum up my previous posts:

1) discrete event probability (flipping a coin once) and aggregate expected value probability (flipping a coin hundreds of times) are two different things

2) the cup draw is far from ‘random’; as is actually flipping a coin

3) in most time-period based data analytics recency and trend are where insights are found

4) I make no qualitative judgement of United’s home draw run, only state that it could reasonably be described as aberrational
Click to expand...
SebBlue.jpg
 
paska said:
Rags semi, Bernardo with a screamer
Brighton in the final.

Put a nice stripey scalf round Pep’s neck and a baseball cap on De Zerbi’s head. Pukka
Click to expand...
Last time Brighton were at Wembley with us they were cunts hope not again
 
woody1968 said:
Absolutely correct-the outcome of a series of coin tosses is classed as mutually exclusive as each toss has a 50/50 chance of being H or T and one toss does not effect in any way the outcome of the next toss and therefore any combination of either H or T has exactly the same odds
Click to expand...

BUT,

10 Heads on the bounce is much less likely than a combination (permutation) of 5 Heads and 5 Tails (HHHHHTTTTT, HHHHTTTTTH, HHHHTTTTHT, HHHHTTTHTT, HHHHTTHTTT, etc...etc...etc, I'm NOT going to list ALL 252 to explain it to you, but I hope you catch my drift ;)
 
the-ecstacy-of-eight said:
BUT,

10 Heads on the bounce is much less likely than a combination (permutation) of 5 Heads and 5 Tails (HHHHHTTTTT, HHHHTTTTTH, HHHHTTTTHT, HHHHTTTHTT, HHHHTTHTTT, etc...etc...etc, I'm NOT going to list ALL 252 to explain it to you, but I hope you catch my drift ;)
Click to expand...
Also, I was trying not to get in to this because a few are already having a go at me for making pretty basic statistical factual points about the discussion, but ‘flipping a coin’ is absolutely not an equivalent to the cup draw process.

The discrete event probabilities in each are quite different and the Cup draw’s aggregate expected value probabilities are substantially more complex than simply flipping a coin hundreds of times.

To be clear, the cup draw process is not ‘random’. No statistician worth their salt if asked to create a ‘random’ number selection process would ever choose to have people affiliated with the organisation running the selection using their hands to draw balls out of a bowl on international television.

In fact, they should at least be using ‘no human interaction’ lottery standards, but they chose not to for… reasons.
 
BlueMoonRisin’ said:
Will be a tight game mate. This isn't Sean Dyche's team of up and over plodders anymore. Kompany has instilled playing out from the back with neat and tidy passing. They work hard to keep possession. Similar to how we play.
Click to expand...
That will suit us though pal no putting 11 behind the ball Haaland will have a field day
 
domalino said:
The constant whining about hot balls and FA conspiracies grates after a while.

People who were convinced United would get Grimsby 30 minutes ago already complaining they'll get an easy draw in the next round.
Click to expand...
No issue with the FA Cup draw at all, its the Caraboo draws that raise suspicion with the clear, easy to see through glass bowl where you can see the numbers on the balls and always a Rag to do the draws it seems this year.
 
SebastianBlue said:
Also, I was trying not to get in to this because a few are already having a go at me for making pretty basic statistical factual points about the discussion, but ‘flipping a coin’ is absolutely not an equivalent to the cup draw process.

The discrete event probabilities in each are quite different and the Cup draw’s aggregate expected value probabilities are substantially more complex than simply flipping a coin hundreds of times.

To be clear, the cup draw process is not ‘random’. No statistician worth their salt if asked to create a ‘random’ number selection process would ever choose to have people affiliated with the organisation running the selection using their hands to draw balls out of a bowl on international television.

In fact, they should at least be using ‘no human interaction’ lottery standards, but they chose not to for… reasons.
Click to expand...
So was I mate, as I thought I'd given up explaining "watered down probability" to people who insist "It's 50/50 sir" about 20 years ago :) :) :)

And I absolutely agree with you 100% on everything you've written. Also liked your earlier explanation about the minor discrepancies that "could" (cough! cough!) be present on each ball.
 
domalino said:
The constant whining about hot balls and FA conspiracies grates after a while.

People who were convinced United would get Grimsby 30 minutes ago already complaining they'll get an easy draw in the next round.
Click to expand...
I can understand that, and agree it can get a bit much (even from me at times), but the reason it persists is because the FA chooses to use a non-random, fairly easily influenced process for selection for no real reason.

Even if they wanted to use a ball selection process, they should be using the ‘no human contact’ lottery standard, but they don’t.

I personally raise these concerns as a professional in the field of data science because there really is no reason for them other than to possibly allow influencing outcomes (under the guise of presumably increasing viewership by using famous people to “liven up” the process).

It’s not a random draw—not even remotely close to it—and the design makes undue influence actually fairly easy, and so criticism of it is fairly reasonable.
 
the-ecstacy-of-eight said:
So was I mate, as I thought I'd given up explaining "watered down probability" to people who insist "It's 50/50 sir" about 20 years ago :) :) :)

And I absolutely agree with you 100% on everything you've written. Also liked your earlier explanation about the minor discrepancies that "could" (cough! cough!) be present on each ball.
Click to expand...
Like I said, in a world where statistical and probabilistic analytics is increasingly being used to literally determine people’s lots in life and daily experience, it is more important than many realise that we collective improve understanding of this branch of maths.

It is not an exaggeration to say or kids’ futures will largely depend on their proficiency in this sort of thing.
 
SebastianBlue said:
Like I said, in a world where statistical and probabilistic analytics is increasingly being used to literally determine people’s lots in life and daily experience, it is more important than many realise that we collective improve understanding of this branch of maths.

It is not an exaggeration to say or kids’ futures will largely depend on their proficiency in this sort of thing.
Click to expand...
From my experience, you'll be akin to a dog chasing its own tail if you attempt to educate, or expect, the vast majority of the population to even care about ANY branch of Mathematics, let alone improve their understanding of it :)
 
the-ecstacy-of-eight said:
From my experience, you'll be akin to a dog chasing its own tail if you attempt to educate, or expect, the vast majority of the population to even care about ANY branch of Mathematics, let alone improve their understanding of it :)
Click to expand...
Of course you are correct, as the “you must be fun at parties” and “thanks professor” responses to my posts obviously support.

For me, having being deep in the field for so long, and seeing how it is being increasingly used to influence, manipulate, (and at times control) people’s lives, it is frightening the level of apathy or outright resistance to anyone trying to raise these concerns and help educate others about the way these systems work and why they are important.

I think a lot of that comes with the “we’ve had enough of experts” and the anti-intelligencia movements over the last few decades.

And I can say from experience many entities—public and private—are absolutely capitalising on those trends to take advantage of people. Which is both sad and frustrating from my perspective.
 
SebastianBlue said:
Of course you are correct, as the “you must be fun at parties” and “thanks professor” responses to my posts obviously support.

For me, having being deep in the field for so long, and seeing how it is being increasingly used to influence, manipulate, (and at times control) people’s lives, it is frightening the level of apathy or outright resistance to anyone trying to raise these concerns and help educate others about the way these systems work and why they are important.

I think a lot of that comes with the “we’ve had enough of experts” and the anti-intelligencia movements over the last few decades.

And I can say from experience many entities—public and private—are absolutely capitalising on those trends to take advantage of people. Which is both sad and frustrating from my perspective.
Click to expand...
Keep up the good work, Maths was the only subject I ever excelled at when at school.

I achieved a 97% mark in my GCE 'O Level' and was pissed off that I did not get the 100%.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top