Calling all NCFC maths geniuses!

[Feedthewolf 4,846]

1 minute ago, lake district canary said:

I wonder who were more sensible - the Leicester fans who bet on them winning the league or the statisticians who said that betting on them to win was nonsense and a waste of money.......

 

That doesn't make the statement I put in bold any less boIIocks.

[lake district canary 4,531]

Just now, Feedthewolf said:

That doesn't make the statement I put in bold any less boIIocks.

Maybe, or maybe statistics/numbers/probabilities actually get in the way of reality sometimes......

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-35747633

 

[Feedthewolf 4,846]

Just now, lake district canary said:

Maybe, or maybe statistics/numbers/probabilities actually get in the way of reality sometimes......

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-35747633

 

That's the same point you just made. The bold statement is still boIIocks.

[Ian 1,129]

9 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

Maybe, or maybe statistics/numbers/probabilities actually get in the way of reality sometimes......

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-35747633

 

Okay, a quick question for you. Why did the Leicester fan stand to win so much money from a relatively small stake?

[lake district canary 4,531]

 

2 minutes ago, Ian said:

Okay, a quick question for you. Why did the Leicester fan stand to win so much money from a relatively small stake?

Two answers to that - beacuse the fan believed it was possible and because were odds were so ridiculously wrong. 

Edited July 8, 2019 by lake district canary

[Ian 1,129]

Just now, lake district canary said:

Life is strange and full of variables - probabilities i

Two answers to that - beacuse the fan believed it was possible and because were odds were so ridiculously wrong. 

So what you're saying is, that a Leicester or Norwich fan staking £50 on their team to win the Prem, versus a Man City/Liverpool fan should all be given odds around the 20 to 1 mark?

[Thirsty Lizard 3,163]

4 minutes ago, Ian said:

So what you're saying is, that a Leicester or Norwich fan staking £50 on their team to win the Prem, versus a Man City/Liverpool fan should all be given odds around the 20 to 1 mark?

If you are saying that Lakey please pm me as I have a number of bets I would like to make with you - (as I am sure you are confident enough to put your money where your mouth is)......

[lake district canary 4,531]

4 minutes ago, Ian said:

So what you're saying is, that a Leicester or Norwich fan staking £50 on their team to win the Prem, versus a Man City/Liverpool fan should all be given odds around the 20 to 1 mark?

Hmmm..no, but 2000-1 is just wrong, not that I will be complaining if my £10 bet comes off.

 

Edited July 8, 2019 by lake district canary

[Ian 1,129]

1 minute ago, lake district canary said:

Hmmm..no, but 2000-1 is just wrong.

 

So then, why are all 20 teams not given the same odds?

[dylanisabaddog 4,919]

2000-1 seems about right to me and possibly worth a £1 each way bet. If Lakey wants to see the odds lower then a series of £1,000 bets should do it. 

Of more interest to me is the 25-1 that Sky is offering on us at Liverpool. Once again it's probably correct mathemically but it's very generous for a Premier league game. 

[Feedthewolf 4,846]

11 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

2000-1 seems about right to me and possibly worth a £1 each way bet. If Lakey wants to see the odds lower then a series of £1,000 bets should do it. 

Of more interest to me is the 25-1 that Sky is offering on us at Liverpool. Once again it's probably correct mathemically but it's very generous for a Premier league game. 

I agree that's extremely generous for a two-horse race. Will definitely stick a tenner on that.

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

2 hours ago, Feedthewolf said:

Does anyone else understand this, or is it me being thick?

Don't be so hard on yourself Wolfo, it's LDC being, well , LDC.

[Feedthewolf 4,846]

Just now, wcorkcanary said:

Don't be so hard on yourself Wolfo, it's LDC being, well , LDC.

Yeah, shouldn't have doubted myself really. He's talking bobbins.

[Nuff Said 5,131]

1. 2000-1 is not “wrong”, it’s a bookie’s representation of a probability. It may be too high (or too low) but it isn’t wrong to use odds to illustrate your view of the chances of something happening.

2. As has been explained many times in here, bookies’ odds are not a scientific measure of how likely they believe something is, they are highly influenced by the amount of money wagered. Bookies are only really interested in avoiding big losses, which is why odds change. If you put £100K on Norwich winning the PL, you could also place a big bet on the odds coming down very quickly.

[Bill 1,788]

5 hours ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

Erm... I think you've made a mistake of some sort there. 10/1 maximum. 

And anyway, you say that odds are 'wrong', but the bookies are always there or thereabouts. If they were wrong all the time, or even sometimes, they'd be out of business.

err, that's because their odds reflect what money has been bet

not what they think will happen

the clue is in the name........... bookmaker

not predictors

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,820]

5 minutes ago, Bill said:

err, that's because their odds reflect what money has been bet

not what they think will happen

the clue is in the name........... bookmaker

not predictors

So when they set the Premier League outright market, all teams start at the same price on the first day because nobody has bet yet, do they?

[Bill 1,788]

absolutely yes ☺️

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,820]

2 minutes ago, Bill said:

absolutely yes ☺️

Well in that case, I can't wait to be the first person to bet on the Premier League outright market next season. £1000 on each of the big six at 16/1 or so and I'm quids in. 

[Bill 1,788]

1 minute ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

Well in that case, I can't wait to be the first person to bet on the Premier League outright market next season. £1000 on each of the big six at 16/1 or so and I'm quids in. 

oh dear

 

[hogesar 9,658]

Lakey:

[lappinitup 629]

54 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Of more interest to me is the 25-1 that Sky is offering on us at Liverpool. Once again it's probably correct mathemically but it's very generous for a Premier league game. 

Where can you see this. Just joined up to place a bet but only 16-1 now. What am I missing?

[Bill 1,788]

2 minutes ago, lappinitup said:

Where can you see this. Just joined up to place a bet but only 16-1 now. What am I missing?

the days when you had to place your bets with some dodgy bloke in the pub 😉

[All the Germans 1,075]

1 hour ago, lake district canary said:

I wonder who were more sensible - the Leicester fans who bet on them winning the league or the statisticians who said that betting on them to win was nonsense and a waste of money.......

 

The bookmakers, always the bookmakers. They were jumping for joy as Leicester won the league. OK, they had to pay a very, very few people big money but every Arsenal, Man Utd, Liverpool, Man City, Spurs, Chelsea fan who bet, far, far more than this on their team lost.

As pointed out previously, bookies always tip the odds so that whatever happens, they win. They are always the more sensible than literally anyone who bets on anything, as they win regardless.

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,820]

10 minutes ago, Bill said:

oh dear

 

The response of a man who clearly has no response.

[Fuzzar 1,702]

3 hours ago, lake district canary said:

It means probability is only relevant to what is perceived as being probable, as on us finishing mid-table last season. The fact that we won the league and were promoted by eleven points clear of third suggests that the probability factor at the start of the season was less than accurate - in other words it wasn't improbable at all that we would win the league - because we did it. 

So probability is only relative to what is perceived from the information available at the time. 

Lakey, you are Donald Rumsfeld and I claim my £5.

"There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don't know we don't know."

Edited July 8, 2019 by Fuzzar

[Indy 3,298]

6 hours ago, Canary Jedi said:

What's the probability of this happenning? There is no doubt a way to show this mathematically:

My 14 year old son last week in his Maths lesson had a 21 sided dice. He challenged his teacher that if the teacher rolled 17 three times in a row then Norwich would win the league.

According to my son (I gave him the full interrogation treatment on this as I didn't believe him at first) the teacher did exactly that - rolled the number 17 three times in a row!

It got me thinking that to do it once is a 1 in 21 change - quite do-able. To do it twice, the probability is a lot more, still do-able maybe. But 3 times in a row?

So what are the chances? And more importantly, can it come true 😉

I love all the debate which follows, the reality is every time you pick up that dice you have a 1 in 21 chance, it resets as soon as you pick it up. It’s just as likely as say 17, flowed by 3 then a 5!

I love those who cube it to try and gain the probability! Nah you can’t do that......it’s like tossing a coin it’s always 50 / 50.

[Bill 1,788]

2 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

The response of a man who clearly has no response.

I do, I just thought it best to keep your joke going

[Bill 1,788]

1 minute ago, Indy said:

I love all the debate which follows, the reality is every time you pick up that dice you have a 1 in 21 chance, it resets as soon as you pick it up. It’s just as likely as say 17, flowed by 3 then a 5!

I love those who cube it to try and gain the probability! Nah you can’t do that......it’s like tossing a coin it’s always 50 / 50.

yep, that's about it

though it does spoil the 'fun' of the lottery draw

"and there's number 31 who hasn't been seen since before Xmas, so he was due out at some point....meanwhile number 7 has appeared twice this month which is a little unusual as we haven't seen him since last summer....................."

[Indy 3,298]

Don’t get probability and likelihood mixed up!

Probability is the certain occurrence of the event,  say that dice has 21 sides so the probability of that number being thrown is 1 in 21.

Likelihood is the condition of probability, so if you throw that dice three times and throw 17 three times is conditional so it’s calculated.

So if you ask about probability it’s static at 1 in 21 every time. Likelihood is much harder to calculate.

[canarydan23 4,060]

1 hour ago, Bill said:

err, that's because their odds reflect what money has been bet

not what they think will happen

the clue is in the name........... bookmaker

not predictors

Lakey:   No one will make a more stupid comment regarding odds and probability.

Bill:        Hold my beer.