Just because you're paranoid...

[cheeks]

Haha i never said it was scripted, i was just adding weight to what the other person has posted and i think you have all tried to look at this in a far more complex manner that what it should be, regardless of how many variables and influencing factors there are, there are still only 3 possible outcomes of the match in the simplest form,

Win
Lose
Draw

So in relation to a team winning they have 33% chance due to the the number of possible outcomes of 3. These will never change due to there only ever being 3 possible outcomes so effectively for this

n^42 depicts chelseas odds of winning every match in a row where n is the chance being 33%. So 0.33^42 equates to something hideous

Clearly there are a myriad of underlying factors that can influence these odds in relation to each teams reactions to one anothers tactics, player traits, so on so forth. However as the person who created this posted put in a simple form of "how can i lose so many matches in a row", the response i provided adequately explained this in it simplest form

 

[mersk]

Haha i never said it was scripted, i was just adding weight to what the other person has posted and i think you have all tried to look at this in a far more complex manner that what it should be, regardless of how many variables and influencing factors there are, there are still only 3 possible outcomes of the match in the simplest form,

Win
Lose
Draw

So in relation to a team winning they have 33% chance due to the the number of possible outcomes of 3. These will never change due to there only ever being 3 possible outcomes so effectively for this

n^42 depicts chelseas odds of winning every match in a row where n is the chance being 33%. So 0.33^42 equates to something hideous

So basically, everything I've ever heard about odds and bookmakers was a lie. The odds of any team winning any match is 1/3. Alright, thanks, good to know.

 

[Dynamo_ZahnZee]

Haha i never said it was scripted, i was just adding weight to what the other person has posted and i think you have all tried to look at this in a far more complex manner that what it should be, regardless of how many variables and influencing factors there are, there are still only 3 possible outcomes of the match in the simplest form,

Win
Lose
Draw

So in relation to a team winning they have 33% chance due to the the number of possible outcomes of 3. These will never change due to there only ever being 3 possible outcomes so effectively for this

n^42 depicts chelseas odds of winning every match in a row where n is the chance being 33%. So 0.33^42 equates to something hideous

Clearly there are a myriad of underlying factors that can influence these odds in relation to each teams reactions to one anothers tactics, player traits, so on so forth. However as the person who created this posted put in a simple form of "how can i lose so many matches in a row", the response i provided adequately explained this in it simplest form

3 possible outcomes dose not equate to a 33% in correctly predicting a result. It' means that you've a 33% chance of blindly predicting a result. You've done the opposite of us and gone too simplistic

 

[cheeks]

3 possible outcomes dose not equate to a 33% in correctly predicting a result. It' means that you've a 33% chance of blindly predicting a result. You've done the opposite of us and gone too simplistic

haha i have gone simplistic indeed as i said, just because its a good base to start from plus im "presuming" if this person has used the same tactic before each of these 42 games and saved just before the match, the odds for his match on FM coupled with morale, injuries, weather and all the jazz will all be the same so we would basically have the same % before each of these games, remotely like the 33%. clearly i dont know what his % would be, for all i know it could be 5% due to injuries, morale, tactic interaction and weather so this person losing 42 games in a row is not all that surprising. however like **** am i going to work any of that **** out.

this is why i have 3 separate tactics and get called the tinker man, gives me a more +ve % haha

 

[WJ]

Well, I was on holiday. It was in the hands of my assistant. But my point really is that the game WAS different every time. Sometimes 4-0. Sometimes 2-1. Sometimes 3-2. Sometimes 2-0.

Once it was 7-0. Once - only once - there was a penalty shootout after a 5-5 draw.

The only thing that never happened is that my team - despite leading the Premier League - managed to win the tie. And that is statistically very unlikely.

The only thing you've managed to prove, is that your assistant is **** and shouldn't be left in charge of a match day.

 

[Logorex]

Why would you leave tactics to your assistant? Most of the assistants on this game are retarded tactically, even if they have 20 Tactical Knowledge.

 

[dantonsdeath]

I mentioned coin tossing only to point out to people saying "Oh, 42 times doesn't seem very unlikely" that a 50:50 event happening 42 times in a row is in fact extraordinarily unlikely. If you tossed a coin every second for 30 years, you'd have tossed about a billion coins. And, for context, the odds of getting 30 heads in a row is about one billion to one.

I'm not saying the pre-kick-off probability of my team beating Chelsea is 50:50. But it if it anywhere near 50:50 - in fact if there is ANY significant possibility of it happening - then losing 42 times in a row is not just highly unusual, it's actually astounding.

Of course any actual football result is the product of any number of factors before and during the game.

We presume that the FM match engine also takes into account a number of factors before, during and after a game. Plus presumably random factors to account for the fact that even if the world is deterministic, it is deterministic in a way that no human being can calculate. No human being can possibly know ALL the physical information he or she would need to 'work out' the result of a game before a ball was kicked.

Given that FM is a game that can only take into account what the programmers want to take into account, the important question really is this: what do we think the odds SHOULD be of my team beating Chelsea for the game to be fair, and fun, and accurate, and responsive to in-game decisions?

Now given that a) my players' relevant stats are similar to my opponents, and b) I'm comfortably ahead of them in the league (have won more recent matches), and c) my morale is high etc etc

...And given that we know it is astronomically unlikely for a 50:50 (or 60:40, or 75:25, or 90:10) event to happen 42 times in a row,

...Then what actually happened to me very strongly implies that the random factors are having little or no impact, and that certain determined factors are quite strictly controlling the outcome. Only these factors aren't obviously linked to player ability, or recent form, or anything like that. So then what are they linked to, and how?

That's really all I was trying to say.

 

[mersk]

I mentioned coin tossing only to point out to people saying "Oh, 42 times doesn't seem very unlikely" that a 50:50 event happening 42 times in a row is in fact extraordinarily unlikely. If you tossed a coin every second for 30 years, you'd have tossed about a billion coins. And, for context, the odds of getting 30 heads in a row is about one billion to one.

Actually, the odds of getting 30 heads in a row during a longer sequence of coin-tossing is lower than one to one billion. In a sequence of 100 coin tosses, the odds of getting 30 heads in a row during that sequence is one to 30 million. Source: Has Anyone Ever Flipped Heads 76 Times in a Row? | Roots of Unity, Scientific American Blog Network

Also, the fact that you're admitting coin-tossing is a 50/50 chance, and that football is not, renders your argument irrelevant and useless.

 

[WJ]

I mentioned coin tossing only to point out to people saying "Oh, 42 times doesn't seem very unlikely" that a 50:50 event happening 42 times in a row is in fact extraordinarily unlikely. If you tossed a coin every second for 30 years, you'd have tossed about a billion coins. And, for context, the odds of getting 30 heads in a row is about one billion to one.

I'm not saying the pre-kick-off probability of my team beating Chelsea is 50:50. But it if it anywhere near 50:50 - in fact if there is ANY significant possibility of it happening - then losing 42 times in a row is not just highly unusual, it's actually astounding.

Of course any actual football result is the product of any number of factors before and during the game.

We presume that the FM match engine also takes into account a number of factors before, during and after a game. Plus presumably random factors to account for the fact that even if the world is deterministic, it is deterministic in a way that no human being can calculate. No human being can possibly know ALL the physical information he or she would need to 'work out' the result of a game before a ball was kicked.

Given that FM is a game that can only take into account what the programmers want to take into account, the important question really is this: what do we think the odds SHOULD be of my team beating Chelsea for the game to be fair, and fun, and accurate, and responsive to in-game decisions?

Now given that a) my players' relevant stats are similar to my opponents, and b) I'm comfortably ahead of them in the league (have won more recent matches), and c) my morale is high etc etc

...And given that we know it is astronomically unlikely for a 50:50 (or 60:40, or 75:25, or 90:10) event to happen 42 times in a row,

...Then what actually happened to me very strongly implies that the random factors are having little or no impact, and that certain determined factors are quite strictly controlling the outcome. Only these factors aren't obviously linked to player ability, or recent form, or anything like that. So then what are they linked to, and how?

That's really all I was trying to say.

You gave the job to your assistant for 42 games, so how do you know that he made even remotely close to the right decisions in the match? You don't know anything, apart from the fact that you lost. There are obviously other factors that influence matches, but tactics and tactical decisions (not forgetting player quality though) are the most influential.

If it concerns you so, upload the save. Promise you, you'll get people who'd win/draw instantly.

 

[WJ]

Also, this is a League Cup final against, what sounds like, a better team. The mix of better quality players and the big occasion of a cup final are factors too. Can your players handle the pressure? Big matches? Did your team talks help or hinder the situation?

They're the better team. It's a cup final. It's not that surprising. Also sounds like you have a young squad, so I'd wonder about their consistency, big match temperament and pressure handling.

I am wondering about your tactics though and also your in-match decisions, before you decided to let your assistant lose.

 

[dantonsdeath]

Also, the fact that you're admitting coin-tossing is a 50/50 chance, and that football is not, renders your argument irrelevant and useless.

Wow, that's quite a leap.

I completely accept the point about the odds lowering during a long sequence; I should have said the odds of tossing 30 heads in a row _right now_ are about a billion to one.

But, again, I'm not saying that BECAUSE the odds of tossing a coin X times is Y THEREFORE the chances of a football match ending with the same result X times is also around Y. That would indeed be ludicrous.

The coin example is for context: most people would have no idea how unlikely it is that a random 50:50 event should happen 20, or 30, or 40 times in a row.

My argument is:
a) It is incredibly unlikely that a random event should happen 20, 30, 40 times in a row
b) The FM match engine is presumably a combination of random and determined factors
c) The determined factors presumably include the skills of the players, morale, tactics, and also changes in these during the game,
d) Given a) and b) if a game ends in the same outcome 42 times then this VERY STRONGLY SUGGESTS that the random factors are having a minimal - in fact tiny - influence on the outcome.
e) Given that my team are roughly as strong as Chelsea man-for-man, and in roughly equal form, the determined factors that are largely deciding the result are neither player skill nor form.

So what then? Maybe tactics, the clash of styles being inexorably in Chelsea's favour? Maybe. But I'd say that if this is leading to the same result 42 times between two fairly evenly-matched teams, it's putting way too much weight on tactics. Ditto 'inexperience of big games' among my squad (which is surely a factor, but should it be THAT MUCH of a factor?)

Ditto my (clearly) useless assistant.

I'm happy to have someone explain why that argument is 'irrelevant and useless', or which premise is wrong, but it seems interesting and pretty sound to me.

 

[udotbdot5]

someone mentioned earlier that all these probability points are almost invalid because.... this is not a sequence of results.

if you had a run of fixtures against chelsea all with the same conditions and lost all of them (42) then that would be crazy. the fact that you have reset the game and done the same thing, more or less, means it is the same event over and over.

dont get me wrong, id be very annoyed if i was in your shoes, but the fact is that the games nuances and all the factors relating to your team and the odds etc are NOT being played over and over. they are being played once. in the same way.
i know, playing football manager that i would love to know that what i am putting in is directly influencing the result. the idea that the game should behave differently, randomly would infuriate me more than knowing that it is consistent and measured.

most frustrations on here are people unhappy that everything is random, with no basis, that their tactics are great, their opposition is weak, but they still lose. randomly. its refreshing to see that your post is the opposite - proof that the game has logic to it...that it works!

 

[dantonsdeath]

The chances a tactic and team combo meets a tactic and team combo that's superior or its counter will lose thirty times in a row is nine hundred ninety nine thousand nine hundred ninety nine in one million.

In real life or in FM?

If you mean in real life that's absurd - you're essentially claiming that every game of football you've ever watched, or will ever watch, was/will be won by the team with the superior players and tactics. That leaves absolutely no room for chance, or flashes of genius above and beyond what a player might normally be capable of.

I wouldn't want to estimate what proportion of games are won by the team with (sometimes marginally) inferior players and tactics but I'd suggest it is a fair bit closer to one in two than one in a million, as you suggest.

If you mean in FM than frankly that would make the game unbelievably boring and predictable, and not, in fact, a good representation of real football.

 

[dantonsdeath]

I take the point but it isn't the same event entirely; yes it involves the same players (except on those occasions where I changed them beforehand), with the same mental frailties, form, etc. And yes the initial tactics would have been the same, at least most of the time.

But a game is surely also shaped by what actually happens; an early goal, an injury, etc etc. An unlucky bounce of the ball or a single poor decision.

Random things as well as determined things.

The fact is whenever I replayed the game the result was 'different' in terms of numbers of goals scored, who scored first, second etc, what substitutes were made... It was a different game with similar starting conditions.

The only thing that remained constant was the Chelsea won.

The interesting question to me is this: given the extent to which FM is based on random as well as determined factors, what were my odds of winning before the first ball was kicked? And losing the same game 42 times suggests they were very, very bad. Suggesting the random factors aren't that significant.

Which is fine. But given that the two teams were apparently evenly matched and in similar form, it suggests player stats and form weren't THAT significant either.

So what factors were significant? And is it possible the game overstates their significance? It seems to me it must.

Anyway thanks to all for your thoughts - will leave it here.

 

[WJ]

Well, you said you're top of the league "somehow". Why use that word if you have a quality team? You made it sound like you have a team at the top of the table, who shouldn't be there.

Your squad is young, according to you, and I still have a feeling that they're inconsistent and (this, especially) go missing in big matches, like cup finals.

 

[Dynamo_ZahnZee]

A point I forgot to mention earlier, you're pitting your Assistant Manager up against Jose Murhino. It doesn't really matter how good your tactic is, or how good your players are, Murinho will out manage him and change things enough in game to beat him. That's one of the dynamic elements I was mentioning; how well your assistant copes with small changes from a coach who's world-rewound for begin a tactical genius.

 

[Death Ball]

In real life or in FM?

If you mean in real life that's absurd - you're essentially claiming that every game of football you've ever watched, or will ever watch, was/will be won by the team with the superior players and tactics. That leaves absolutely no room for chance, or flashes of genius above and beyond what a player might normally be capable of.

I wouldn't want to estimate what proportion of games are won by the team with (sometimes marginally) inferior players and tactics but I'd suggest it is a fair bit closer to one in two than one in a million, as you suggest.

If you mean in FM than frankly that would make the game unbelievably boring and predictable, and not, in fact, a good representation of real football.

You've misread the point. (By the way, what you thought I was saying is what would come from people unwilling to accept the minnow with a few shots from their defensive tactic can win the match against a superior team.)

I mean when you get in the day and match in which one side has been the nemesis of the other and you repeat the same day with same tactics and same everything the same will happen every time, Groundhog Day style.

 

[sickness81]

WHY THE **** RELOAD A MATCH 42 F#CKING TIMES

you win some you loose some cope with it.

 

[MANUMAD]

WHY THE **** RELOAD A MATCH 42 F#CKING TIMES

you win some you loose some cope with it.

Somebody (hint: it was you) was quite bored a while ago it seems:$

 

[Fanty111]

This is the most incredible thread I have ever seen on this forum.

I might create a league where two evenly matched teams are the only ones in it Eg man city and.Chelsea and simulate 42 game just to see what happens.
Very complicated debate and discussion