| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 02:51 - May 2 with 13910 views | Dr_Parnassus |
Firstly congratulations to Steve Cooper, the players and everyone at the club for not only reaching the playoffs for the second consecutive year, but amassing a points tally equal to our record best in this division, held previously by our incredible Brendan Rodgers side the year we went up.
We do have a chance to topple that record with any kind of positive result against Watford next week.
2011
2021
Not only is the points tally being exactly the same pretty remarkable, but also the fact we were going in with the best defensive record and yet the worst (joint) scoring record. Whether or not you like the style, like the manager - the blueprint has been very similar with regards to that.
But now the playoffs have been decided and we can look ahead...
The worst possible result for us sadly. They are one of those teams we don’t seem to do well against and think it’s fair to say that on paper have the strongest squad in the playoffs. Our last 6 meetings:-
Bournemouth 3-0 Swansea
Swansea 0-0 Bournemouth
Bournemouth 1-0 Swansea
Swansea 0-0 Bournemouth
Bournemouth 2-0 Swansea
Swansea 0-3 Bournemouth
0 goals scored. 9 goals conceded.
As many may have gathered by now I approach football the same way as I do with most aspects of life, methodical with a focus on statistics, trends and probabilities.
That premise suggests that you want to avoid the best team over the longest period of time. If you must meet that team then you have a greater chance to beat that team over a shorter period of time.
For example if Man City played Sheff United over a 90 minute match, they would probably be in the region of 1/10 to win, if the rules of the game made that a 180 minute match the odds would probably be 1/20, because the longer the time you have the more chance that the class difference will tell.
So ideally we would have wanted them in the final where aspects such as luck can play a part and not have chance to even itself out over the longer course of 2 legs.
So it’s going to be tough. But not impossible. We had a similar route in the Carling Cup where we were faced with playing Chelsea over 2 legs which set up an easier final. So it’s not out of the question.
Bournemouth rested a host of players against Wycombe yesterday and will probably do so again next week. We didn’t rest as many as I thought we would so would like to see that happen next week, which really is a dead rubber. It would be pretty galling to pick up an injury or red card.
All that is left to play for is home advantage in the second leg.
What will be will be. But whatever happens from here on in, this has been yet another successful season. [Post edited 2 May 2021 3:06]
|  |
| |  |
| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 on 14:33 - May 8 with 1181 views | 9MilesHigh |
So it’s Bournemouth
Get this fraud gone.
Embarrassing [Post edited 8 May 2021 14:35]
|  | | |
| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 on 14:36 - May 8 with 1161 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 on 14:33 - May 8 by 9MilesHigh |
So it’s Bournemouth
Get this fraud gone.
Embarrassing [Post edited 8 May 2021 14:35]
|
Yep Bournemouth was the favourite. Now it’s certainly Barnsley.
The maths is there for you Christopher, I went into great detail.
Any part you are stuck on, let me know and will happily explain slowly. | |
| |
| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 on 14:37 - May 8 with 1154 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 on 02:15 - May 4 by Dr_Parnassus |
It’s not definite, just probability wise. There is a scenario we can face Barnsley but it’s the most unlikely outcome out of all possible ones left. Barnsley have Norwich and Bournemouth have Stoke.
Bournemouth aren’t going to want to lose their grip on the middle two places because that means instead of us, they play Brentford without home advantage in the second leg.
If anyone wants the details and breakdown of it specifically:-
Bournemouth have a 55.4% chance to win, 26.3% chance to draw and 18.3% chance to lose.
Barnsley have a 35.7% chance to win, 26.4% chance to draw and 37.7% chance to lose.
So in order for Barnsley to even have a chance to overtake them, that chance will only present itself 44.6% of the time. Once it presents itself they will only take advantage 62.1% of the time (in terms of picking up points), but there is still the chance they both draw and still don’t overtake them (6.9% chance).
So when you convert those % odds, multiply them and convert that to implied probability, it states that the chances of us playing Bournemouth is 79.1%.
Not at all out of the question that we face Barnsley, just statistically the least likely.
As most people are more familiar with odds as opposed to %, with bookies over round applied, it would look something similar to this...
“Swansea to face Bournemouth in the playoffs: 1/5” [Post edited 4 May 2021 3:13]
|
Read above.
Ta | |
| |
| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 on 14:38 - May 8 with 1149 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 on 14:33 - May 8 by Dr_Parnassus |
It’s maths. It’s not wrong.
You just don’t understand it, like you don’t understand anything even remotely past the basics.
I can’t help you there Riscs. |
Okay mate |  | | |
| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 on 14:38 - May 8 with 1147 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 on 14:38 - May 8 by 34dfgdf54 |
Okay mate |
Good boy. | |
| |
| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 on 14:39 - May 8 with 1138 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 on 06:53 - May 4 by Dr_Parnassus |
I showed the calculations above, those are calculations with the scenarios you described already taken into consideration by the algorithm. |
 | | | |
| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 on 14:41 - May 8 with 1128 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 on 14:39 - May 8 by 34dfgdf54 |
|
Yes. That statement is correct.
Which bit has confused you? | |
| |
| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 on 14:42 - May 8 with 1124 views | 9MilesHigh |
| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 on 14:39 - May 8 by 34dfgdf54 |
|
Rainman had a bit more about him than this guy | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 on 14:43 - May 8 with 1116 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 on 14:42 - May 8 by 9MilesHigh |
Rainman had a bit more about him than this guy |
I’ve never known a fella so sure of himself, get so much wrong it’s marvellous. | | | |
| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 on 14:43 - May 8 with 1116 views | jack_lord |
| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 on 14:33 - May 8 by Dr_Parnassus |
It’s maths. It’s not wrong.
You just don’t understand it, like you don’t understand anything even remotely past the basics.
I can’t help you there Riscs. |
Algorithm's don't play on the pitch and hopefully the results will have worked in our favour |  |
| |
| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 on 14:44 - May 8 with 1110 views | Garyjack |
| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 on 14:41 - May 8 by Dr_Parnassus |
Yes. That statement is correct.
Which bit has confused you? |
Has your missus got the gingerbread man in the oven? |  | | |
| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 on 14:45 - May 8 with 1103 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 on 14:44 - May 8 by Garyjack |
Has your missus got the gingerbread man in the oven? |
| | | |
| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 on 14:47 - May 8 with 1094 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 on 14:42 - May 8 by 9MilesHigh |
Rainman had a bit more about him than this guy |
Rainman was just as correct as this guy.
The fact you cannot grasp it is mind blowing. But not entirely unexpected.
If I say a coin is more likely to be heads... and it lands on heads. It doesn’t mean that statement is correct, in fact it’s entirely incorrect.
The outcome has no bearing on the facts. Come on now, I know you get all aroused whenever you see my username but trying to state the laws of mathematical principles are incorrect is almost as mad as your other stuff. Almost. | |
| |
| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 on 14:47 - May 8 with 1084 views | 9MilesHigh |
| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 on 14:43 - May 8 by 34dfgdf54 |
I’ve never known a fella so sure of himself, get so much wrong it’s marvellous. |
A whole article about Bournemouth and how unlucky we are to play them and the only thing to play for is home advantage....was apparently mathematically correct.... yet we end up with Barnsley who didn’t get a mention
Like he says, he approaches life methodically and mathematically like he does with everything in life....... and still gets it all to c0ck 😂😂😂😂😂 | | | |
| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 on 14:49 - May 8 with 1081 views | 9MilesHigh |
| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 on 14:47 - May 8 by Dr_Parnassus |
Rainman was just as correct as this guy.
The fact you cannot grasp it is mind blowing. But not entirely unexpected.
If I say a coin is more likely to be heads... and it lands on heads. It doesn’t mean that statement is correct, in fact it’s entirely incorrect.
The outcome has no bearing on the facts. Come on now, I know you get all aroused whenever you see my username but trying to state the laws of mathematical principles are incorrect is almost as mad as your other stuff. Almost. |
😂😂😂😂😂😂 | | | |
| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 on 14:50 - May 8 with 1073 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 on 14:43 - May 8 by jack_lord |
Algorithm's don't play on the pitch and hopefully the results will have worked in our favour |
They don’t claim to.
Algorithms churn out implied probability and over-rounds to 106%. Time dictates the accuracy of the algorithms, and year on year they make 6% profit. They are incredibly accurate.
...and were so again.
They stated that it was more likely we would face Bournemouth. Which was correct and always will be correct. | |
| |
| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 on 14:51 - May 8 with 1063 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 on 14:43 - May 8 by 34dfgdf54 |
I’ve never known a fella so sure of himself, get so much wrong it’s marvellous. |
Wrong?
Don’t be so silly.
Maths is never wrong. I’ve explained that already. | |
| |
| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 on 15:15 - May 8 with 1000 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 on 14:51 - May 8 by Dr_Parnassus |
Wrong?
Don’t be so silly.
Maths is never wrong. I’ve explained that already. |
Swansea fans and mathematics statistics are very distant rleatives. The SCST are looking to go to court and every one else in the world thinks they are mad. I have presented a case with figures than make it seem the case is pointless even with a 100% win and all I get is bouncing coins.
They may be getting ready to being fleeced on a very long expensive walk up the garden path. |  |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 on 15:23 - May 8 with 978 views | Chief |
| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 on 15:15 - May 8 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Swansea fans and mathematics statistics are very distant rleatives. The SCST are looking to go to court and every one else in the world thinks they are mad. I have presented a case with figures than make it seem the case is pointless even with a 100% win and all I get is bouncing coins.
They may be getting ready to being fleeced on a very long expensive walk up the garden path. |
Haha i thought you'd been quiet on that but somehow you've managed to shoehorn it into a completely random thread. This is up there with one of your most bizarre and tenuous ones.
****RANDOM UNWARRANTED DIG AT SUPPORTERS TRUST ALERT**** |  |
| |
| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 on 15:25 - May 8 with 975 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 on 15:15 - May 8 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Swansea fans and mathematics statistics are very distant rleatives. The SCST are looking to go to court and every one else in the world thinks they are mad. I have presented a case with figures than make it seem the case is pointless even with a 100% win and all I get is bouncing coins.
They may be getting ready to being fleeced on a very long expensive walk up the garden path. |
Correct. It’s amazing how distant a relation.
If I made the factual statement “If they both play, Andre Ayew has more chance to score the first goal for Swansea than Freddie Woodman in the next game”... I’m sure if Woodman scored the first goal in some freak wind assisted kick from his own half, you would have the usual lot saying “see you were wrong”.
However back on planet earth; Woodman could score 9 in the next game in a 9-0 win and the statement would still be correct.
As for the Trust, I tend to agree. That ship sailed long ago. | |
| |
| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 on 15:55 - May 8 with 934 views | 9MilesHigh |
| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 on 15:25 - May 8 by Dr_Parnassus |
Correct. It’s amazing how distant a relation.
If I made the factual statement “If they both play, Andre Ayew has more chance to score the first goal for Swansea than Freddie Woodman in the next game”... I’m sure if Woodman scored the first goal in some freak wind assisted kick from his own half, you would have the usual lot saying “see you were wrong”.
However back on planet earth; Woodman could score 9 in the next game in a 9-0 win and the statement would still be correct.
As for the Trust, I tend to agree. That ship sailed long ago. |
But you made the actual statement....
“So it’s Bournemouth...”
Just shut up for a wee while boy, you’re like a clown on here. | | | |
| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 on 16:02 - May 8 with 921 views | trampie |
| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 on 14:50 - May 8 by Dr_Parnassus |
They don’t claim to.
Algorithms churn out implied probability and over-rounds to 106%. Time dictates the accuracy of the algorithms, and year on year they make 6% profit. They are incredibly accurate.
...and were so again.
They stated that it was more likely we would face Bournemouth. Which was correct and always will be correct. |
But it was wrong in reality, you also thought Swans chances of automatic had improved after a home draw with Wycombe with a handful of games to go didn't you.  |  |
| |
| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 on 16:04 - May 8 with 916 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 on 15:55 - May 8 by 9MilesHigh |
But you made the actual statement....
“So it’s Bournemouth...”
Just shut up for a wee while boy, you’re like a clown on here. |
“What” is Bournemouth?
You have made your own conclusion.
“So It’s Bournemouth” was in relation to the article, which they were concentrated on due to the 79.1% likelihood we would be playing them.
I went on to clarify the position when questioned and said:-
“ It’s not definite, just probability wise. There is a scenario we can face Barnsley but it’s the most unlikely outcome out of all possible ones left.”
And
“ Not at all out of the question that we face Barnsley, just statistically the least likely. ”
Calm down now child. | |
| |
| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 on 16:06 - May 8 with 911 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 on 16:02 - May 8 by trampie |
But it was wrong in reality, you also thought Swans chances of automatic had improved after a home draw with Wycombe with a handful of games to go didn't you. |
It was correct in whatever reality you wish to state.
It was also a fact that our chances of automatics had improved after the draw.
I explained that to you in detail too.
I’m good like that, very patient. | |
| |
| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 on 16:07 - May 8 with 908 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| So it’s Bournemouth... plus we equal 2011 on 16:04 - May 8 by Dr_Parnassus |
“What” is Bournemouth?
You have made your own conclusion.
“So It’s Bournemouth” was in relation to the article, which they were concentrated on due to the 79.1% likelihood we would be playing them.
I went on to clarify the position when questioned and said:-
“ It’s not definite, just probability wise. There is a scenario we can face Barnsley but it’s the most unlikely outcome out of all possible ones left.”
And
“ Not at all out of the question that we face Barnsley, just statistically the least likely. ”
Calm down now child. |
Hahahahahaha dear me | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
