Kerrydale Meltdown -Europa League Edition

Lawwell is working his ticket for a move to Man Utd to replace Ed Woodward, so he’s checked out.


:))
I don't think so.

hqdefault.jpg
 
I dare someone on here to try and work this one out :D


Unfortunately, the time taken for luck to even itself out exceeds the length of a season. To show this look at last year, Celtic were the better team and won the league by 0.36 points/game (13-14 points over the course of a normal season).

Taking the top two teams records we have the following win/lose/draw percentages:



Let’s assume that we know those figures above are the chance of a I prefer men in every game played over a 38-game season (simple assumption, but this is to illustrate point). If we then play out the season randomly 10,000 times for each team, we see the following pattern:
Assuming this is genuine, and not a wind up, it's a great example of misuse of Bayesian statistics. He's taking a sample (last seasons results) and assuming that's a valid prior for computing future results. Which is obviously ridiculously simplistic, and it's why every financial services advert you see has a line like "past performance is not indicative of future returns" or similar in the small print.
 
I dare someone on here to try and work this one out :D

Whilst I don’t think luck is the reason we put in such a poor display on Saturday- anyone watching the game could tell you that Celtic deserved to get beat- I do think short-term poor luck played its part in ensuring we had a makeshift team in place for Saturday.

Luck is present in every game, e.g. a shot ball ricocheting into the path of an attacker instead of going out for a goal kick. And when considering injuries, or covid-19 related issues, a team can be unlucky over the course a number of weeks/months. In the long-run, luck should even out, e.g. a perfectly weighted coin tossed thousands of times, there will be cases where there are long runs of heads but, in the end, there should be roughly as many heads as tails.

However, luck in football is perhaps more prevalent than other sports due to the low scoring levels, and this was one the reasons football analytics began to consider expected goals (xG) alongside real goals. The aim of this move was to remove short-term luck from the data to help analyse the underlying performance of a team (although simpler models do this whilst ignoring the quality of the player shooting, which may bias the result more than luck itself).

The effect of short-term luck can therefore take longer to even out as it’s easier for a team to outscore the expected goals for a length of time or underscore expected goals if their best goal scorer missing from the team (i.e. like Saturday).

Unfortunately, the time taken for luck to even itself out exceeds the length of a season. To show this look at last year, Celtic were the better team and won the league by 0.36 points/game (13-14 points over the course of a normal season).

Taking the top two teams records we have the following win/lose/draw percentages:



Let’s assume that we know those figures above are the chance of a I prefer men in every game played over a 38-game season (simple assumption, but this is to illustrate point). If we then play out the season randomly 10,000 times for each team, we see the following pattern:



There is a wide-range of outcomes possible over the course of 10,000 simulations of the same 38-game season using last year’s figures. To illustrate this here are some numbers surrounding the above distribution:


Over the 10,000 Celtic season simulations, the minimum points we’d have ended with was 76, whereas the maximum was full points (although this was less than 0.3% of the time)! For Rangers this was 59 and 110 (one such case in 10,000).

More helpfully, the bottom/top rows on the table show the bottom/top 5% of the simulations. For example, the above table states that Celtic got less than 92 points in less than 5% of the simulations and more than 109 points in less than 5% of the simulations. For Rangers, the gap between bottom and top 5% is far wider, which helps to illustrate what ‘luck’ can do.

Finally, even if we know that Celtic are the better team (i.e. assuming the I prefer men record above is true), there will be occasions when Rangers win a 38-game season through luck. Intuitively this is true as well, when thinking back to 02-03 and 04-05.

If we pair each of the 10,000 simulations from Celtic with one from Rangers, and compare the points, then, excluding ties, we see the following win rates:


This means that even though Rangers were the worse team (their I prefer men rate is inferior), they won the league in 5.7% of the 38-game seasons.

The main point is that luck is an inherent component of a short 38-game season. Whilst luck should even itself out over the long-term, over the short-to-medium-term this can play a massive factor.
He must squeeze about £40k a year out of Universal Credit
 
I dare someone on here to try and work this one out :D

Whilst I don’t think luck is the reason we put in such a poor display on Saturday- anyone watching the game could tell you that Celtic deserved to get beat- I do think short-term poor luck played its part in ensuring we had a makeshift team in place for Saturday.

Luck is present in every game, e.g. a shot ball ricocheting into the path of an attacker instead of going out for a goal kick. And when considering injuries, or covid-19 related issues, a team can be unlucky over the course a number of weeks/months. In the long-run, luck should even out, e.g. a perfectly weighted coin tossed thousands of times, there will be cases where there are long runs of heads but, in the end, there should be roughly as many heads as tails.

However, luck in football is perhaps more prevalent than other sports due to the low scoring levels, and this was one the reasons football analytics began to consider expected goals (xG) alongside real goals. The aim of this move was to remove short-term luck from the data to help analyse the underlying performance of a team (although simpler models do this whilst ignoring the quality of the player shooting, which may bias the result more than luck itself).

The effect of short-term luck can therefore take longer to even out as it’s easier for a team to outscore the expected goals for a length of time or underscore expected goals if their best goal scorer missing from the team (i.e. like Saturday).

Unfortunately, the time taken for luck to even itself out exceeds the length of a season. To show this look at last year, Celtic were the better team and won the league by 0.36 points/game (13-14 points over the course of a normal season).

Taking the top two teams records we have the following win/lose/draw percentages:



Let’s assume that we know those figures above are the chance of a I prefer men in every game played over a 38-game season (simple assumption, but this is to illustrate point). If we then play out the season randomly 10,000 times for each team, we see the following pattern:



There is a wide-range of outcomes possible over the course of 10,000 simulations of the same 38-game season using last year’s figures. To illustrate this here are some numbers surrounding the above distribution:


Over the 10,000 Celtic season simulations, the minimum points we’d have ended with was 76, whereas the maximum was full points (although this was less than 0.3% of the time)! For Rangers this was 59 and 110 (one such case in 10,000).

More helpfully, the bottom/top rows on the table show the bottom/top 5% of the simulations. For example, the above table states that Celtic got less than 92 points in less than 5% of the simulations and more than 109 points in less than 5% of the simulations. For Rangers, the gap between bottom and top 5% is far wider, which helps to illustrate what ‘luck’ can do.

Finally, even if we know that Celtic are the better team (i.e. assuming the I prefer men record above is true), there will be occasions when Rangers win a 38-game season through luck. Intuitively this is true as well, when thinking back to 02-03 and 04-05.

If we pair each of the 10,000 simulations from Celtic with one from Rangers, and compare the points, then, excluding ties, we see the following win rates:


This means that even though Rangers were the worse team (their I prefer men rate is inferior), they won the league in 5.7% of the 38-game seasons.

The main point is that luck is an inherent component of a short 38-game season. Whilst luck should even itself out over the long-term, over the short-to-medium-term this can play a massive factor.
Really wanted to read this but then thought "fuckit mad mentally challenged"
 
glorious :D

Something that we and every other club in the country should be all over in truth. I'm not just saying this because they're having a purple patch, but they're cheating. There is no way they are within FFP limits and it needs calling out.

When the old club did it we all stood by lamely and let them get away with it and it cost us a few titles and a lot of European money. Our board are being negligent again if they let this continue without asking questions. I honestly believe that they would happily stop us winning the 10 even if it means they go bust. They know that they will get favour from the authorities like the old club did. A few years in the lower leagues to stop us would be worth it to them and we need to make sure it doesn't happen. I can accept losing fairly but surely there is not a single Celtic fan who wants this to happen again.

Ramblings of a madman.
 
I dare someone on here to try and work this one out :D

Whilst I don’t think luck is the reason we put in such a poor display on Saturday- anyone watching the game could tell you that Celtic deserved to get beat- I do think short-term poor luck played its part in ensuring we had a makeshift team in place for Saturday.

Luck is present in every game, e.g. a shot ball ricocheting into the path of an attacker instead of going out for a goal kick. And when considering injuries, or covid-19 related issues, a team can be unlucky over the course a number of weeks/months. In the long-run, luck should even out, e.g. a perfectly weighted coin tossed thousands of times, there will be cases where there are long runs of heads but, in the end, there should be roughly as many heads as tails.

However, luck in football is perhaps more prevalent than other sports due to the low scoring levels, and this was one the reasons football analytics began to consider expected goals (xG) alongside real goals. The aim of this move was to remove short-term luck from the data to help analyse the underlying performance of a team (although simpler models do this whilst ignoring the quality of the player shooting, which may bias the result more than luck itself).

The effect of short-term luck can therefore take longer to even out as it’s easier for a team to outscore the expected goals for a length of time or underscore expected goals if their best goal scorer missing from the team (i.e. like Saturday).

Unfortunately, the time taken for luck to even itself out exceeds the length of a season. To show this look at last year, Celtic were the better team and won the league by 0.36 points/game (13-14 points over the course of a normal season).

Taking the top two teams records we have the following win/lose/draw percentages:



Let’s assume that we know those figures above are the chance of a I prefer men in every game played over a 38-game season (simple assumption, but this is to illustrate point). If we then play out the season randomly 10,000 times for each team, we see the following pattern:



There is a wide-range of outcomes possible over the course of 10,000 simulations of the same 38-game season using last year’s figures. To illustrate this here are some numbers surrounding the above distribution:


Over the 10,000 Celtic season simulations, the minimum points we’d have ended with was 76, whereas the maximum was full points (although this was less than 0.3% of the time)! For Rangers this was 59 and 110 (one such case in 10,000).

More helpfully, the bottom/top rows on the table show the bottom/top 5% of the simulations. For example, the above table states that Celtic got less than 92 points in less than 5% of the simulations and more than 109 points in less than 5% of the simulations. For Rangers, the gap between bottom and top 5% is far wider, which helps to illustrate what ‘luck’ can do.

Finally, even if we know that Celtic are the better team (i.e. assuming the I prefer men record above is true), there will be occasions when Rangers win a 38-game season through luck. Intuitively this is true as well, when thinking back to 02-03 and 04-05.

If we pair each of the 10,000 simulations from Celtic with one from Rangers, and compare the points, then, excluding ties, we see the following win rates:


This means that even though Rangers were the worse team (their I prefer men rate is inferior), they won the league in 5.7% of the 38-game seasons.

The main point is that luck is an inherent component of a short 38-game season. Whilst luck should even itself out over the long-term, over the short-to-medium-term this can play a massive factor.
That's unbelievable
 
I dare someone on here to try and work this one out :D

Whilst I don’t think luck is the reason we put in such a poor display on Saturday- anyone watching the game could tell you that Celtic deserved to get beat- I do think short-term poor luck played its part in ensuring we had a makeshift team in place for Saturday.

Luck is present in every game, e.g. a shot ball ricocheting into the path of an attacker instead of going out for a goal kick. And when considering injuries, or covid-19 related issues, a team can be unlucky over the course a number of weeks/months. In the long-run, luck should even out, e.g. a perfectly weighted coin tossed thousands of times, there will be cases where there are long runs of heads but, in the end, there should be roughly as many heads as tails.

However, luck in football is perhaps more prevalent than other sports due to the low scoring levels, and this was one the reasons football analytics began to consider expected goals (xG) alongside real goals. The aim of this move was to remove short-term luck from the data to help analyse the underlying performance of a team (although simpler models do this whilst ignoring the quality of the player shooting, which may bias the result more than luck itself).

The effect of short-term luck can therefore take longer to even out as it’s easier for a team to outscore the expected goals for a length of time or underscore expected goals if their best goal scorer missing from the team (i.e. like Saturday).

Unfortunately, the time taken for luck to even itself out exceeds the length of a season. To show this look at last year, Celtic were the better team and won the league by 0.36 points/game (13-14 points over the course of a normal season).

Taking the top two teams records we have the following win/lose/draw percentages:



Let’s assume that we know those figures above are the chance of a I prefer men in every game played over a 38-game season (simple assumption, but this is to illustrate point). If we then play out the season randomly 10,000 times for each team, we see the following pattern:



There is a wide-range of outcomes possible over the course of 10,000 simulations of the same 38-game season using last year’s figures. To illustrate this here are some numbers surrounding the above distribution:


Over the 10,000 Celtic season simulations, the minimum points we’d have ended with was 76, whereas the maximum was full points (although this was less than 0.3% of the time)! For Rangers this was 59 and 110 (one such case in 10,000).

More helpfully, the bottom/top rows on the table show the bottom/top 5% of the simulations. For example, the above table states that Celtic got less than 92 points in less than 5% of the simulations and more than 109 points in less than 5% of the simulations. For Rangers, the gap between bottom and top 5% is far wider, which helps to illustrate what ‘luck’ can do.

Finally, even if we know that Celtic are the better team (i.e. assuming the I prefer men record above is true), there will be occasions when Rangers win a 38-game season through luck. Intuitively this is true as well, when thinking back to 02-03 and 04-05.

If we pair each of the 10,000 simulations from Celtic with one from Rangers, and compare the points, then, excluding ties, we see the following win rates:


This means that even though Rangers were the worse team (their I prefer men rate is inferior), they won the league in 5.7% of the 38-game seasons.

The main point is that luck is an inherent component of a short 38-game season. Whilst luck should even itself out over the long-term, over the short-to-medium-term this can play a massive factor.
Even the nuthouse would reject this crank. Barking.
 
I dare someone on here to try and work this one out :D

Whilst I don’t think luck is the reason we put in such a poor display on Saturday- anyone watching the game could tell you that Celtic deserved to get beat- I do think short-term poor luck played its part in ensuring we had a makeshift team in place for Saturday.

Luck is present in every game, e.g. a shot ball ricocheting into the path of an attacker instead of going out for a goal kick. And when considering injuries, or covid-19 related issues, a team can be unlucky over the course a number of weeks/months. In the long-run, luck should even out, e.g. a perfectly weighted coin tossed thousands of times, there will be cases where there are long runs of heads but, in the end, there should be roughly as many heads as tails.

However, luck in football is perhaps more prevalent than other sports due to the low scoring levels, and this was one the reasons football analytics began to consider expected goals (xG) alongside real goals. The aim of this move was to remove short-term luck from the data to help analyse the underlying performance of a team (although simpler models do this whilst ignoring the quality of the player shooting, which may bias the result more than luck itself).

The effect of short-term luck can therefore take longer to even out as it’s easier for a team to outscore the expected goals for a length of time or underscore expected goals if their best goal scorer missing from the team (i.e. like Saturday).

Unfortunately, the time taken for luck to even itself out exceeds the length of a season. To show this look at last year, Celtic were the better team and won the league by 0.36 points/game (13-14 points over the course of a normal season).

Taking the top two teams records we have the following win/lose/draw percentages:



Let’s assume that we know those figures above are the chance of a I prefer men in every game played over a 38-game season (simple assumption, but this is to illustrate point). If we then play out the season randomly 10,000 times for each team, we see the following pattern:



There is a wide-range of outcomes possible over the course of 10,000 simulations of the same 38-game season using last year’s figures. To illustrate this here are some numbers surrounding the above distribution:


Over the 10,000 Celtic season simulations, the minimum points we’d have ended with was 76, whereas the maximum was full points (although this was less than 0.3% of the time)! For Rangers this was 59 and 110 (one such case in 10,000).

More helpfully, the bottom/top rows on the table show the bottom/top 5% of the simulations. For example, the above table states that Celtic got less than 92 points in less than 5% of the simulations and more than 109 points in less than 5% of the simulations. For Rangers, the gap between bottom and top 5% is far wider, which helps to illustrate what ‘luck’ can do.

Finally, even if we know that Celtic are the better team (i.e. assuming the I prefer men record above is true), there will be occasions when Rangers win a 38-game season through luck. Intuitively this is true as well, when thinking back to 02-03 and 04-05.

If we pair each of the 10,000 simulations from Celtic with one from Rangers, and compare the points, then, excluding ties, we see the following win rates:


This means that even though Rangers were the worse team (their I prefer men rate is inferior), they won the league in 5.7% of the 38-game seasons.

The main point is that luck is an inherent component of a short 38-game season. Whilst luck should even itself out over the long-term, over the short-to-medium-term this can play a massive factor.
They've got an "I prefer men" filter on their forum too?
 
I dare someone on here to try and work this one out :D

Whilst I don’t think luck is the reason we put in such a poor display on Saturday- anyone watching the game could tell you that Celtic deserved to get beat- I do think short-term poor luck played its part in ensuring we had a makeshift team in place for Saturday.

Luck is present in every game, e.g. a shot ball ricocheting into the path of an attacker instead of going out for a goal kick. And when considering injuries, or covid-19 related issues, a team can be unlucky over the course a number of weeks/months. In the long-run, luck should even out, e.g. a perfectly weighted coin tossed thousands of times, there will be cases where there are long runs of heads but, in the end, there should be roughly as many heads as tails.

However, luck in football is perhaps more prevalent than other sports due to the low scoring levels, and this was one the reasons football analytics began to consider expected goals (xG) alongside real goals. The aim of this move was to remove short-term luck from the data to help analyse the underlying performance of a team (although simpler models do this whilst ignoring the quality of the player shooting, which may bias the result more than luck itself).

The effect of short-term luck can therefore take longer to even out as it’s easier for a team to outscore the expected goals for a length of time or underscore expected goals if their best goal scorer missing from the team (i.e. like Saturday).

Unfortunately, the time taken for luck to even itself out exceeds the length of a season. To show this look at last year, Celtic were the better team and won the league by 0.36 points/game (13-14 points over the course of a normal season).

Taking the top two teams records we have the following win/lose/draw percentages:



Let’s assume that we know those figures above are the chance of a I prefer men in every game played over a 38-game season (simple assumption, but this is to illustrate point). If we then play out the season randomly 10,000 times for each team, we see the following pattern:



There is a wide-range of outcomes possible over the course of 10,000 simulations of the same 38-game season using last year’s figures. To illustrate this here are some numbers surrounding the above distribution:


Over the 10,000 Celtic season simulations, the minimum points we’d have ended with was 76, whereas the maximum was full points (although this was less than 0.3% of the time)! For Rangers this was 59 and 110 (one such case in 10,000).

More helpfully, the bottom/top rows on the table show the bottom/top 5% of the simulations. For example, the above table states that Celtic got less than 92 points in less than 5% of the simulations and more than 109 points in less than 5% of the simulations. For Rangers, the gap between bottom and top 5% is far wider, which helps to illustrate what ‘luck’ can do.

Finally, even if we know that Celtic are the better team (i.e. assuming the I prefer men record above is true), there will be occasions when Rangers win a 38-game season through luck. Intuitively this is true as well, when thinking back to 02-03 and 04-05.

If we pair each of the 10,000 simulations from Celtic with one from Rangers, and compare the points, then, excluding ties, we see the following win rates:


This means that even though Rangers were the worse team (their I prefer men rate is inferior), they won the league in 5.7% of the 38-game seasons.

The main point is that luck is an inherent component of a short 38-game season. Whilst luck should even itself out over the long-term, over the short-to-medium-term this can play a massive factor.
Every 1 of the 10,000 simulations confirmed 1 fact: Mentalist
 
Just had a wee snoop on Kerryfail Street.

They’ve actually started a full new thread entitled “Luck”, which is dedicated to talking about how lucky we are and how unlucky they are :)) :))

The club that get every decision going from officials, that score an abundance of deflected and last minute goals and that have had a decade of unchallenged dominance due to us being out of the picture are apparently unlucky:))

It must be torturous going through life so blinded due to the chip on your shoulder.
Just had a look at that, the most mentally challenged-esq thread. Voodoo no worky.
 
As a Spanish resident, I will just say that, according to my professora, in Spanish you pronounce every letter of the word. The vowels as we know them are pronounced ah eh ee ohh oo. The letter v is always pronounced as a b, and a double LL is pronounced as eey. The problem is you know the English spelling... the Spanish spell it Sevilla...hence that Spanish city you refer to is properly pronounced Sebeeyah. And don't start me on the letters c, h, j, and z. Every day a school day, but the bottom line is it's just the TV pundits trying to be smart arses.
Todo bien amigo
 
They are so bad for possibly the first time in history they have been defeated without claiming to have been cheated
Possibly due to there not being 60k in the stadium claiming for imaginary penalties and offsides they seem to now be acknowledging they are in fact woeful
You know what, now you mention that it is right, there has been no mention of being cheated.

Incredible.
 
Yup.

Probably a good pumping, as normal!

Although, I'd love nothing better than you throwing this comment back at me on Sunday afternoon with the mother of all "I told you"!
I think them taking a pumping as normal but somehow managing to salvage a lucky 1-1 would be best for us.

And Lennon, got to keep him there as long as possible, he must master their total demise.
 
I dare someone on here to try and work this one out :D

Whilst I don’t think luck is the reason we put in such a poor display on Saturday- anyone watching the game could tell you that Celtic deserved to get beat- I do think short-term poor luck played its part in ensuring we had a makeshift team in place for Saturday.

Luck is present in every game, e.g. a shot ball ricocheting into the path of an attacker instead of going out for a goal kick. And when considering injuries, or covid-19 related issues, a team can be unlucky over the course a number of weeks/months. In the long-run, luck should even out, e.g. a perfectly weighted coin tossed thousands of times, there will be cases where there are long runs of heads but, in the end, there should be roughly as many heads as tails.

However, luck in football is perhaps more prevalent than other sports due to the low scoring levels, and this was one the reasons football analytics began to consider expected goals (xG) alongside real goals. The aim of this move was to remove short-term luck from the data to help analyse the underlying performance of a team (although simpler models do this whilst ignoring the quality of the player shooting, which may bias the result more than luck itself).

The effect of short-term luck can therefore take longer to even out as it’s easier for a team to outscore the expected goals for a length of time or underscore expected goals if their best goal scorer missing from the team (i.e. like Saturday).

Unfortunately, the time taken for luck to even itself out exceeds the length of a season. To show this look at last year, Celtic were the better team and won the league by 0.36 points/game (13-14 points over the course of a normal season).

Taking the top two teams records we have the following win/lose/draw percentages:



Let’s assume that we know those figures above are the chance of a I prefer men in every game played over a 38-game season (simple assumption, but this is to illustrate point). If we then play out the season randomly 10,000 times for each team, we see the following pattern:



There is a wide-range of outcomes possible over the course of 10,000 simulations of the same 38-game season using last year’s figures. To illustrate this here are some numbers surrounding the above distribution:


Over the 10,000 Celtic season simulations, the minimum points we’d have ended with was 76, whereas the maximum was full points (although this was less than 0.3% of the time)! For Rangers this was 59 and 110 (one such case in 10,000).

More helpfully, the bottom/top rows on the table show the bottom/top 5% of the simulations. For example, the above table states that Celtic got less than 92 points in less than 5% of the simulations and more than 109 points in less than 5% of the simulations. For Rangers, the gap between bottom and top 5% is far wider, which helps to illustrate what ‘luck’ can do.

Finally, even if we know that Celtic are the better team (i.e. assuming the I prefer men record above is true), there will be occasions when Rangers win a 38-game season through luck. Intuitively this is true as well, when thinking back to 02-03 and 04-05.

If we pair each of the 10,000 simulations from Celtic with one from Rangers, and compare the points, then, excluding ties, we see the following win rates:


This means that even though Rangers were the worse team (their I prefer men rate is inferior), they won the league in 5.7% of the 38-game seasons.

The main point is that luck is an inherent component of a short 38-game season. Whilst luck should even itself out over the long-term, over the short-to-medium-term this can play a massive factor.
We are through the f.ucking looking glass here people.
 
Assuming this is genuine, and not a wind up, it's a great example of misuse of Bayesian statistics. He's taking a sample (last seasons results) and assuming that's a valid prior for computing future results. Which is obviously ridiculously simplistic, and it's why every financial services advert you see has a line like "past performance is not indicative of future returns" or similar in the small print.
yip if that worked i'd be lying on some warm beach sucking cocktails from a straw :))this guy has it all worked out mate ....not
 
Inter are occasionally known as fc internazionale Milano. AC Milan have always used the English spelling, as you say because of their British links.
Inter were also founded by a Brit, were they not, I remember they had a St. George’s flag kit to honour their English roots.
 
They've got an "I prefer men" filter on their forum too?

No. When @Ubik has copied and pasted it here, FF's filter has kicked in and replaced W L D with 'I prefer men', because the FF admins have set up the filter to work on an l (L) being used in place of an i by folk attempting to beat the filter.

I know this because I tried to use W L D in one of my posts and thought "what the fùck???" before working out what had happened.

I wasn't using it in a mental stats headshrinker of a post explaining why we never get beat by a better team, but instead by a 1 in a 10,000 stroke of luck or something.
 
Last edited:
I dare someone on here to try and work this one out :D

Whilst I don’t think luck is the reason we put in such a poor display on Saturday- anyone watching the game could tell you that Celtic deserved to get beat- I do think short-term poor luck played its part in ensuring we had a makeshift team in place for Saturday.

Luck is present in every game, e.g. a shot ball ricocheting into the path of an attacker instead of going out for a goal kick. And when considering injuries, or covid-19 related issues, a team can be unlucky over the course a number of weeks/months. In the long-run, luck should even out, e.g. a perfectly weighted coin tossed thousands of times, there will be cases where there are long runs of heads but, in the end, there should be roughly as many heads as tails.

However, luck in football is perhaps more prevalent than other sports due to the low scoring levels, and this was one the reasons football analytics began to consider expected goals (xG) alongside real goals. The aim of this move was to remove short-term luck from the data to help analyse the underlying performance of a team (although simpler models do this whilst ignoring the quality of the player shooting, which may bias the result more than luck itself).

The effect of short-term luck can therefore take longer to even out as it’s easier for a team to outscore the expected goals for a length of time or underscore expected goals if their best goal scorer missing from the team (i.e. like Saturday).

Unfortunately, the time taken for luck to even itself out exceeds the length of a season. To show this look at last year, Celtic were the better team and won the league by 0.36 points/game (13-14 points over the course of a normal season).

Taking the top two teams records we have the following win/lose/draw percentages:



Let’s assume that we know those figures above are the chance of a I prefer men in every game played over a 38-game season (simple assumption, but this is to illustrate point). If we then play out the season randomly 10,000 times for each team, we see the following pattern:



There is a wide-range of outcomes possible over the course of 10,000 simulations of the same 38-game season using last year’s figures. To illustrate this here are some numbers surrounding the above distribution:


Over the 10,000 Celtic season simulations, the minimum points we’d have ended with was 76, whereas the maximum was full points (although this was less than 0.3% of the time)! For Rangers this was 59 and 110 (one such case in 10,000).

More helpfully, the bottom/top rows on the table show the bottom/top 5% of the simulations. For example, the above table states that Celtic got less than 92 points in less than 5% of the simulations and more than 109 points in less than 5% of the simulations. For Rangers, the gap between bottom and top 5% is far wider, which helps to illustrate what ‘luck’ can do.

Finally, even if we know that Celtic are the better team (i.e. assuming the I prefer men record above is true), there will be occasions when Rangers win a 38-game season through luck. Intuitively this is true as well, when thinking back to 02-03 and 04-05.

If we pair each of the 10,000 simulations from Celtic with one from Rangers, and compare the points, then, excluding ties, we see the following win rates:


This means that even though Rangers were the worse team (their I prefer men rate is inferior), they won the league in 5.7% of the 38-game seasons.

The main point is that luck is an inherent component of a short 38-game season. Whilst luck should even itself out over the long-term, over the short-to-medium-term this can play a massive factor.

One of the best posts Ive read
 
Couple of comments from the paedoboard...

" got to say from what I`ve seen so far.....Duffy is an utter donkey. he`s worse then Jack Hendry."

" Shane Duff "


He's not the most popular player, is he?
Hopefully they sign him permanently. Start the bidding at £8m
 
I dare someone on here to try and work this one out :D

Whilst I don’t think luck is the reason we put in such a poor display on Saturday- anyone watching the game could tell you that Celtic deserved to get beat- I do think short-term poor luck played its part in ensuring we had a makeshift team in place for Saturday.

Luck is present in every game, e.g. a shot ball ricocheting into the path of an attacker instead of going out for a goal kick. And when considering injuries, or covid-19 related issues, a team can be unlucky over the course a number of weeks/months. In the long-run, luck should even out, e.g. a perfectly weighted coin tossed thousands of times, there will be cases where there are long runs of heads but, in the end, there should be roughly as many heads as tails.

However, luck in football is perhaps more prevalent than other sports due to the low scoring levels, and this was one the reasons football analytics began to consider expected goals (xG) alongside real goals. The aim of this move was to remove short-term luck from the data to help analyse the underlying performance of a team (although simpler models do this whilst ignoring the quality of the player shooting, which may bias the result more than luck itself).

The effect of short-term luck can therefore take longer to even out as it’s easier for a team to outscore the expected goals for a length of time or underscore expected goals if their best goal scorer missing from the team (i.e. like Saturday).

Unfortunately, the time taken for luck to even itself out exceeds the length of a season. To show this look at last year, Celtic were the better team and won the league by 0.36 points/game (13-14 points over the course of a normal season).

Taking the top two teams records we have the following win/lose/draw percentages:



Let’s assume that we know those figures above are the chance of a I prefer men in every game played over a 38-game season (simple assumption, but this is to illustrate point). If we then play out the season randomly 10,000 times for each team, we see the following pattern:



There is a wide-range of outcomes possible over the course of 10,000 simulations of the same 38-game season using last year’s figures. To illustrate this here are some numbers surrounding the above distribution:


Over the 10,000 Celtic season simulations, the minimum points we’d have ended with was 76, whereas the maximum was full points (although this was less than 0.3% of the time)! For Rangers this was 59 and 110 (one such case in 10,000).

More helpfully, the bottom/top rows on the table show the bottom/top 5% of the simulations. For example, the above table states that Celtic got less than 92 points in less than 5% of the simulations and more than 109 points in less than 5% of the simulations. For Rangers, the gap between bottom and top 5% is far wider, which helps to illustrate what ‘luck’ can do.

Finally, even if we know that Celtic are the better team (i.e. assuming the I prefer men record above is true), there will be occasions when Rangers win a 38-game season through luck. Intuitively this is true as well, when thinking back to 02-03 and 04-05.

If we pair each of the 10,000 simulations from Celtic with one from Rangers, and compare the points, then, excluding ties, we see the following win rates:


This means that even though Rangers were the worse team (their I prefer men rate is inferior), they won the league in 5.7% of the 38-game seasons.

The main point is that luck is an inherent component of a short 38-game season. Whilst luck should even itself out over the long-term, over the short-to-medium-term this can play a massive factor.
What’s that old saying?

There are Lies; Damned Lies; and Statistics!
 
I dare someone on here to try and work this one out :D

Whilst I don’t think luck is the reason we put in such a poor display on Saturday- anyone watching the game could tell you that Celtic deserved to get beat- I do think short-term poor luck played its part in ensuring we had a makeshift team in place for Saturday.

Luck is present in every game, e.g. a shot ball ricocheting into the path of an attacker instead of going out for a goal kick. And when considering injuries, or covid-19 related issues, a team can be unlucky over the course a number of weeks/months. In the long-run, luck should even out, e.g. a perfectly weighted coin tossed thousands of times, there will be cases where there are long runs of heads but, in the end, there should be roughly as many heads as tails.

However, luck in football is perhaps more prevalent than other sports due to the low scoring levels, and this was one the reasons football analytics began to consider expected goals (xG) alongside real goals. The aim of this move was to remove short-term luck from the data to help analyse the underlying performance of a team (although simpler models do this whilst ignoring the quality of the player shooting, which may bias the result more than luck itself).

The effect of short-term luck can therefore take longer to even out as it’s easier for a team to outscore the expected goals for a length of time or underscore expected goals if their best goal scorer missing from the team (i.e. like Saturday).

Unfortunately, the time taken for luck to even itself out exceeds the length of a season. To show this look at last year, Celtic were the better team and won the league by 0.36 points/game (13-14 points over the course of a normal season).

Taking the top two teams records we have the following win/lose/draw percentages:



Let’s assume that we know those figures above are the chance of a I prefer men in every game played over a 38-game season (simple assumption, but this is to illustrate point). If we then play out the season randomly 10,000 times for each team, we see the following pattern:



There is a wide-range of outcomes possible over the course of 10,000 simulations of the same 38-game season using last year’s figures. To illustrate this here are some numbers surrounding the above distribution:


Over the 10,000 Celtic season simulations, the minimum points we’d have ended with was 76, whereas the maximum was full points (although this was less than 0.3% of the time)! For Rangers this was 59 and 110 (one such case in 10,000).

More helpfully, the bottom/top rows on the table show the bottom/top 5% of the simulations. For example, the above table states that Celtic got less than 92 points in less than 5% of the simulations and more than 109 points in less than 5% of the simulations. For Rangers, the gap between bottom and top 5% is far wider, which helps to illustrate what ‘luck’ can do.

Finally, even if we know that Celtic are the better team (i.e. assuming the I prefer men record above is true), there will be occasions when Rangers win a 38-game season through luck. Intuitively this is true as well, when thinking back to 02-03 and 04-05.

If we pair each of the 10,000 simulations from Celtic with one from Rangers, and compare the points, then, excluding ties, we see the following win rates:


This means that even though Rangers were the worse team (their I prefer men rate is inferior), they won the league in 5.7% of the 38-game seasons.

The main point is that luck is an inherent component of a short 38-game season. Whilst luck should even itself out over the long-term, over the short-to-medium-term this can play a massive factor.

img.gif
 
Has a pot 1 side in the Europa League ever finished bottom of their group?
Were Spartak not the pot one team in our group 2 years ago?
Edit no they weren’t but Anderlecht were the pot one team in Group D but finished bottom with 3 points.
timmy might toil to even match that this year
There are likely plenty more tbh just can’t be assed going through the records
 
Last edited:
Back
Top