Bugzy1991 Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 (edited) 50 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said: Are you for real or are you part of the new wave of Trolls we seem to have onboarded in the past few years? What. Lol. You think liverpool is 19points better than city this year? (Two games in hand and klopp has solved football) City have been pretty crazy unlucky this year. And Liverpool lucky. Not that much difference between the two if you watch every game. Edited January 23, 2020 by Bugzy1991 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted January 23, 2020 VT Supporter Share Posted January 23, 2020 3 hours ago, Bugzy1991 said: By that margin, yes. Do they deserve to be leading? Yes possibly/probably. By 13 points with 2 games in hand? No. They are not better than city this year by that margin and it isn't close. Are you telling me Liverpool have turned into a 21 gaming winning side and only drawing one? Klopp has solved football. Whilst city losing 5 games at this stage of the season. Mental. All this to try and attack Bruce a bit more. I'm out (again) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugzy1991 Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 (edited) What you on about? What's mental is to suggest that Liverpool are 13 (19 given you think klopp has solved football and is now unbeatable) better than city. What's mental is that you think every game apart from one this year liverpools equity has been 3 points per game Games with a huge amount of randomness and chance doesn't work like that. They're overperforming and getting lucky. City are "underperforming" and getting unlucky. Newcastle are overperforming and getting lucky. Anyone who's into stats and games know it. Bookies knows it. People who win at sportsbetting know it. You just have a fundamental flaw about sample size and results and how luck influences a lot of it. Edited January 23, 2020 by Bugzy1991 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 Do I need to post the luck quote again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted January 23, 2020 VT Supporter Share Posted January 23, 2020 (edited) 58 minutes ago, Bugzy1991 said: What you on about? What's mental is to suggest that Liverpool are 13 (19 given you think klopp has solved football and is now unbeatable) better than city. What's mental is that you think every game apart from one this year liverpools equity has been 3 points per game Games with a huge amount of randomness and chance doesn't work like that. They're overperforming and getting lucky. City are "underperforming" and getting unlucky. Newcastle are overperforming and getting lucky. Anyone who's into stats and games know it. Bookies knows it. People who win at sportsbetting know it. You just have a fundamental flaw about sample size and results and how luck influences a lot of it. The table in question said based on XG Liverpool should be below City I asked if that meant the only reason they were winning the league was because of luck, which you said yes. So basically you're saying the only reason Liverpool are winning the league is luck. That is mental. You can pretend you're the only one who understand stats and data and trends in the world, but doesn't make what you said any less mental. Liverpool are winning the league because they're **** amazing. Is the margin a bit bigger because of luck? Yeah most likely. They've got luck y in some games and City have been unlucky. Does that account for a 15 odd points swing like the table suggested and you agreed with? Absolutely not. Similarly it doesn't account for Newcastle's position. Are they better off than they could be because of some luck? Absolutely. Does it account entirely for their position, obviously not. Edited January 23, 2020 by Stevo985 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugzy1991 Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: The table in question said based on XG Liverpool should be below City I asked if that meant the only reason they were winning the league was because of luck, which you said yes. So basically you're saying the only reason Liverpool are winning the league is luck. That is mental. You can pretend you're the only one who understand stats and data and trends in the world, but doesn't make what you said any less mental. Liverpool are winning the league because they're **** amazing. Is the margin a bit bigger because of luck? Yeah most likely. They've got luck y in some games and City have been unlucky. Does that account for a 15 odd points swing like the table suggested and you agreed with? Absolutely not. Similarly it doesn't account for Newcastle's position. Are they better off than they could be because of some luck? Absolutely. Does it account entirely for their position, obviously not. What. This is mental. I suggest you go read the posts again lol nowhere did I say Liverpool are top because of luck. I said the MARGIN is down to luck. The huge fkin margin. Just stop mate. I said it's not out of the ordinary about the xg table. Because it isn't lol? I also said I don't fully agree with xg. Stop with your hard on for me and read posts fully next time. I literally said "yeh possibly/probably" they deserve to be top. but are they 13 / 19 in your klopp solved world better than city..hahah no chance. It's way closer Edited January 23, 2020 by Bugzy1991 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 Is xG backward-looking (ie, telling me how the table *should* look now), forward-looking (ie, predicting that Liverpool and Newcastle will begin a period of poorer form) or both? I'm not sure I fully understand what it's doing/what its aim is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugzy1991 Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 (edited) Just use xg as a better way of using "form". It's heavily flawed due to the nature that Messi will have same shot chance % as mings which is obviously bullshit. But at the same time it's a better predictor of future results than using stats like form, goals, chances created, possession, biased eyetest or whatever. Edited January 23, 2020 by Bugzy1991 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 3 minutes ago, Bugzy1991 said: Just use xg as a better way of telling "form". It's heavily flawed due to the nature that Messi will have same shot chance % as mings which is obviously bullshit. But at the same time it's a better predictor of future results than using stats like form, goals, chances created, possession or whatever. So it's a prediction tool then. But is it actually a better predictor? Has someone actually done this comparison? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugzy1991 Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 (edited) Yes. I'll try find later. If it can't be used as a predictor then it's entirely meaningless stat when trying to do a league table as it gives 0 weight to it. (If it's wrong in predicting future results, how can it be right about previous results and what gives it weight?) Again its flawed like crazy in certain areas. But it's better than a lot of things out there. Edited January 23, 2020 by Bugzy1991 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 2 hours ago, Elton said: I don’t think you understand the point I was making.. Anyone who doesn’t think they have had a lot luck with results either hasn’t watched them or doesn't understand football or sport in general. I think I understood clearly. When Newcastle don't lose it's blind luck but when they do lose it's because they have a substandard, monolithic, prehistoric Manager right? Or did I misunderstand that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 1 hour ago, Bugzy1991 said: What. Lol. You think liverpool is 19points better than city this year? (Two games in hand and klopp has solved football) City have been pretty crazy unlucky this year. And Liverpool lucky. Not that much difference between the two if you watch every game. No, I don't think they are - I know they are, that's what the table quite clearly states. They're also European and Club World Champions - they're literally the best team in the world all ends up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugzy1991 Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 4 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said: I think I understood clearly. When Newcastle don't lose it's blind luck but when they do lose it's because they have a substandard, monolithic, prehistoric Manager right? Or did I misunderstand that? Yeh you misunderstood. It's more like on average they get 0.7points from a lot of these games. The way they're playing they get 0.7points from the games. So when they win multiple in a row it's crazy lucky. The closer to the average point they get, the less lucky they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugzy1991 Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 (edited) 8 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said: No, I don't think they are - I know they are, that's what the table quite clearly states. They're also European and Club World Champions - they're literally the best team in the world all ends up. This isn't how it works lol. Genuine question...one team shoots 100000 shots at goal. Hits the post every shot. The other team parked the bus and they scored on one chance. Are they lucky or are they not? Now do a way less extreme point with how Newcastle played and how the games were played over a 4 game sample... And then do a less extreme point with trying to claim that Liverpool equity in all these games are 3 points per game. Edited January 23, 2020 by Bugzy1991 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted January 23, 2020 VT Supporter Share Posted January 23, 2020 32 minutes ago, Bugzy1991 said: What. This is mental. I suggest you go read the posts again lol nowhere did I say Liverpool are top because of luck. I said the MARGIN is down to luck. The huge fkin margin. You literally said it here: 5 hours ago, Bugzy1991 said: Yes they will be 1 or 2 points below city like the previous season. What's the issue there? City have been getting unlucky in games and Liverpool lucky. Not that out of ordinary there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugzy1991 Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: You literally said it here: Yes in that xg table which I didn't post.. Which I said it's not that out of the ordinary for that to happen. Now go read the following posts after. Where did I say it's all down to luck? Edited January 23, 2020 by Bugzy1991 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted January 23, 2020 VT Supporter Share Posted January 23, 2020 You're moving the goalposts. I'm out (really this time) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 12 minutes ago, Bugzy1991 said: This isn't how it works lol. Genuine question...one team shoots 100000 shots at goal. Hits the post every shot. The other team parked the bus and they scored on one chance. Are they lucky or are they not? Now do a way less extreme point with how Newcastle played and how the games were played over a 4 game sample... And then do a less extreme point with trying to claim that Liverpool equity in all these games are 3 points per game. Genuine answer - team A were incredibly wasteful, I mean 100,000 shots at goal and they miss every one, I’d say that’s criminally poor efficiency. Team B were the opposite and incredibly efficient. The beauty of football is there is no one way to win a game, shame so many people seem to have forgotten that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugzy1991 Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 5 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: You're moving the goalposts. I'm out (really this time) No you're making things up. Where have I claimed that Liverpool don't deserve to be top? Where I have claimed that Liverpool are lucky to be top? I've repeatedly said it's the margin which is lucky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elton Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 10 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said: I think I understood clearly. When Newcastle don't lose it's blind luck but when they do lose it's because they have a substandard, monolithic, prehistoric Manager right? Or did I misunderstand that? Lol! Yes, you clearly misunderstand. Perhaps I’ll make up opinions you hold based on nothing? I’m not anti Bruce at all. I wanted him to be our manager. He did well until his ‘3rd’ season. I didn’t call for him to be sacked but agreed with the board his time was up. I wish him well but it’s clear that Newcastle have had a lot of luck getting to the points tally they have. They have also played mainly very poor football, which some Newcastle supporting work friends agree with me about. If this is not clear enough for you then try reading it slowly. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts