Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Munster Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread III

Options
12467…325

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    jm08 wrote: »
    ?

    see how frustrating it is to see something written and wholly unqualified?


  • Options
    #93
    Bogota
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 537 ✭✭✭Bogota


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Sport is not different.

    Munster were not judged as massively improbable to win that game. They were what, about 10/1 at the very, very, very, very widest. Which means that they were given ~ 10% chance of winning the game.

    The odds were much, much shorter. I was looking at Harlequins form coming into the Munster game and they had lost something like 5 out of their last 6 games (the only win coming over relegation placed Sale)

    It seems like history has been rewritten to include it as a 'miracle game' when in reality Harlequins had hit a slump in form and like any premiership contenders, were well beatable anyway, even by an under firing Munster


  • Options
    #94
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Lelantos wrote: »
    It's actually about 1 in 4 or 5 of being in a crash, I prefer your odds

    well maybe if you multiply those second set of digits by ~ 10Exp16


  • Options
    #95
    Lelantos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,612 ✭✭✭Lelantos


    .ak wrote: »
    Is it? I drive to work 5 times every week, should I crash once a week? :confused:

    Just because there is a chance, doesn't mean it will happen. Makes Munsters win even greater ;)


  • Options
    #96
    jm08
    Registered Users Posts: 11,300 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    Deleted User wrote: »
    see how frustrating it is to see something written and wholly unqualified?

    I don't find that frustrating. Its up to you:D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    .ak
    Registered Users Posts: 30,308 Mod ✭✭✭✭.ak


    It's good thing I don't drive, then.


  • Options
    #98
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Lelantos wrote: »
    Just because there is a chance, doesn't mean it will happen. Makes Munsters win even greater ;)

    well, that's a completely different probability isn't it?
    The chances of getting in a car crash over the course of a year might well be 1 in 4.
    I asked you if the chances of getting in a car crash every time you drove to work was 1 in 10 would you consider it safe?

    If you only drove to work twice a year, maybe that would be the case.


  • Options
    #99
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    jm08 wrote: »
    I don't find that frustrating. Its up to you:D

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86005211&postcount=80
    That's what you responded to by saying "Sport is Different".
    Usually you'd be expected to explain why you think that is.

    Of course, if you "just believe", then that's fine. But that's your belief. You cannot just qualify something based on that and expect us all to agree.
    Especially if you don't explain why you even think it is different. That logic and reason simply don't apply to sports?


  • Options
    #100
    jm08
    Registered Users Posts: 11,300 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    Deleted User wrote: »
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86005211&postcount=80
    That's what you responded to by saying "Sport is Different".
    Usually you'd be expected to explain why you think that is.

    Of course, if you "just believe", then that's fine. But that's your belief. You cannot just qualify something based on that and expect us all to agree.
    Especially if you don't explain why you even think it is different. That logic and reason simply don't apply to sports?

    You missed a bit there - this is what I responded with:
    Sport is different though. Before the Quins v Munster game, the rational thought was that Munster hadn't a hope particularly after some poor performances in the League and scraping through their group and this was in the Stoop.

    It turned out different though.

    Thats sport - anything can happen.


  • Options
    #101
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Doesn't make it different one bit.

    Anything can happen in life too. What is different about sport?

    also - this is painful


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Lelantos wrote: »
    Just because there is a chance, doesn't mean it will happen. Makes Munsters win even greater ;)

    If the probability of being in a car crash every week was 1 in 4 then there would be 2478125299 crashes every year in the usa. There are actually about 11 million. 1 for every 20 drivers or so. And by my estimation (im no emmet) thats about a 0.44% chance every week.


  • Options
    #103
    Cookiemunster
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 11,870 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cookiemunster


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Underdog the wrong word there as it was a 1v1 event, what I meant was that 1 in 10 chances happen all the time.

    1 in 10 isn't massively unlikely whatsoever.

    If I told you you had a 1 in 10 chance of getting in a car crash every time you drove to work, would you do it?

    In sporting terms when any team that is 10/1 to win when there's only two teams involved it means they're massive underdogs.

    For example in last Sundays community shield Wigan were 10/1, while Utd were 4/11 on to win. Wigan were massive underdogs and not expected to win.


  • Options
    #104
    justsomebloke
    Registered Users Posts: 10,407 ✭✭✭✭justsomebloke


    Can we please keep this on the Topic of Munster please.


    i.e. so on average at least 5 Munster players are in a crash every day


  • Options
    #105
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Cookiemunster wrote: »
    In sporting terms when any team that is 10/1 to win when there's only two teams involved it means they're massive underdogs.

    For example in last Sundays community shield Wigan were 10/1, while Utd were 4/11 on to win. Wigan were massive underdogs and not expected to win.

    And that team will win about 10% of the time. Or 8-9% if the bookies are doing a good job.


  • Options
    #106
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cookiemunster wrote: »
    In sporting terms when any team that is 10/1 to win when there's only two teams involved it means they're massive underdogs.

    For example in last Sundays community shield Wigan were 10/1, while Utd were 4/11 on to win. Wigan were massive underdogs and not expected to win.

    which is exactly why I corrected the post....


  • Options
    #107
    Micky Dolenz
    Registered Users Posts: 44,080 ✭✭✭✭Micky Dolenz


    Deleted User wrote: »
    well maybe if you multiply those second set of digits by ~ 10Exp16

    You're a right barrel of laughs.


  • Options
    #108
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Personal comments aren't really very useful.

    Expect more from a Mod tbh


  • Options
    #109
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    jm08 wrote: »
    Munster were massive underdogs - listen to Paul O'Connell's after match interview. He talks about how delighted he was for his young team as everyone had written them off and it was hard on them and their families.

    Sport is different though. Logic doesn't dictate who you support - emotions do. Logic would be to support Manchester United because they win a lot, emotion would be to support Celtic - they are never going to win the Champions League, yet they have a massive following.

    Choosing which team you support may be emotional (although in a lot of cases it doesnt seem to be!).

    But predicting how well they will do should be logical.


  • Options
    #110
    Rightwing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,101 ✭✭✭Rightwing


    jm08 wrote: »
    Sport is different though. Before the Quins v Munster game, the rational thought was that Munster hadn't a hope particularly after some poor performances in the League and scraping through their group and this was in the Stoop.

    It turned out different though.

    Thats sport - anything can happen.

    Yes, of course sport is different.

    You have just nailed it. In the most recent example JBM told his young cork hurlers to believe in themselves,,,,no one gave them a chance,, bookies had them at 10/1 a few weeks ago ,,and bingo,,,,they are now favourites @ 8/11


  • Options
    #111
    Micky Dolenz
    Registered Users Posts: 44,080 ✭✭✭✭Micky Dolenz


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    Choosing which team you support may be emotional (although in a lot of cases it doesnt seem to be!).

    But predicting how well they will do should be logical.

    Logic and sport don't always go hand in hand. If it did, there would be no such things as book makers.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Rightwing wrote: »
    Yes, of course sport is different.

    You have just nailed it. In the most recent example JBM told his young cork hurlers to believe in themselves,,,,no one gave them a chance,, bookies had them at 10/1 a few weeks ago ,,and bingo,,,,they are now favourites @ 8/11

    Dublin and Cork were Evens. So the bookies gave them a pretty good chance!


  • Options
    #113
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Micky Dolenz wrote: »
    Logic and sport don't always go hand in hand. If it did, there would be no such things as book makers.

    It does go hand in hand. And that is exactly why there are bookies.


  • Options
    #114
    Rightwing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,101 ✭✭✭Rightwing


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    Dublin and Cork were Evens. So the bookies gave them a pretty good chance!

    In that one yes,,,the bookies learnt after getting spanked whe cork destroyed KK. This is why jm08 is entirely correct.


  • Options
    #115
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Micky Dolenz wrote: »
    Logic and sport don't always go hand in hand. If it did, there would be no such things as book makers.

    I think that you may need to read up on logic.


  • Options
    #116
    Micky Dolenz
    Registered Users Posts: 44,080 ✭✭✭✭Micky Dolenz


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    It does go hand in hand. And that is exactly why there are bookies.

    How so?

    Logically speaking, the strongest team would win against a wreaking team. Or the fastest horse would win.

    Munster, logically speaking should not have gotten anywhere near a HC final last year.


  • Options
    #117
    Buer
    Registered Users Posts: 24,191 ✭✭✭✭Buer


    Rightwing wrote: »
    In that one yes,,,the bookies learnt after getting spanked whe cork destroyed KK. This is why jm08 is entirely correct.

    How could the bookies get spanked when the favourites lose?


  • Options
    #118
    .ak
    Registered Users Posts: 30,308 Mod ✭✭✭✭.ak


    Micky Dolenz wrote: »
    How so?

    Logically speaking, the strongest team would win against a wreaking team. Or the fastest horse would win.

    Munster, logically speaking should not have gotten anywhere near a HC final last year.



    Yeah, but the reason bookies are generally do well is because they apply logic to their odds. The Munster v Quins game obviously flew in the face of that, but those games are the exception, not the norm.

    In short, I don't think think the bookies would ever turn around and go "Okay, I think we need to relook at the odds for the Munster game, I've heard they have a lot of 'belief'.", however, it's perfectly acceptable to think they would've applied the 'POC' effect to the odds, but that's a logical decision.


  • Options
    #119
    thomond2006
    Registered Users Posts: 45,433 ✭✭✭✭thomond2006


    Rightwing wrote: »
    In that one yes,,,the bookies learnt after getting spanked whe cork destroyed KK. This is why jm08 is entirely correct.

    The bookies lose money when favourites lose. In your example they would have wanted cork to win.


  • Options
    #120
    Micky Dolenz
    Registered Users Posts: 44,080 ✭✭✭✭Micky Dolenz


    True. But sport often transcends logic. Mentality and morale are hugely important.

    I wonder, in the last 10 HC, how often was it won by the starting favourite.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    .ak
    Registered Users Posts: 30,308 Mod ✭✭✭✭.ak


    thomond2006 wrote: »
    The bookies lose money when favourites lose. In your example they would have wanted kk to win.

    Is it not the other way around? So when 100 people bet on Quins, but 5 bet on Munster, then the bookies have made more money in only having to pay out to 5 punters (albeit at higher odds)


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement