Jump to content

WCQ: Third Round - Window 3 (November 12-16, 2021)


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, BuzzAndSting said:

It's probability based on the most likely outcomes of the higher ELO ranked team beating the lower ranked ELO ranked team with a small bias for home field. The simulation is run 5000 times. Obviously it's not a perfect model but it will be correct more often than it's not. 

It feels like the model has a fairly significant home field bias.  It adds 100 points to the home team's Elo rating.  Beyond that, there is also a different formula used for expected goals that appears to further favour the home team.  I don't know how the 100-point factor was developed, but the expected goals formula is based on historical international results that takes the 100-points into consideration. 

Should the home field advantage be the same for a match in fan-less Jamaica as it is for a projectile-throwing El Salvador?  Probably not.  But models need simplifications. 

It is interesting to see how the implied probabilities match up with actual betting odds.  They seem to be in the same ballpark but there are certainly some differences. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no doubt the weather is huge for us. I live in an area where we have alot of Jamaican and Mexican farm workers. When the weather in spring or fall falls below 10 they are bundled up in sweaters and winter coats immediately. I know our guys also probably would prefer warmer weather, but they are significantly more acclimatized than the Costa Ricans or Mexicans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, BuzzAndSting said:

It's probability based on the most likely outcomes of the higher ELO ranked team beating the lower ranked ELO ranked team with a small bias for home field. The simulation is run 5000 times. Obviously it's not a perfect model but it will be correct more often than it's not. 

You basically just admit you really don't understand it and are apeing what you read about it.

The simulator, rather than being correct, is in fact based on its errors. It adjusts for them as it goes, from the very start so that, the deeper you get into a tournament, the more "accurate" it will get. As if that is a virtue, when it is really an admission of a defect.

The exact opposite of a betting model, which will give you better odds if you are "correct" with your bet made at the very start, than betting the same team doing well half way into a tournament.

The higher odds better says fuck the simulator from the get-go, the coward who cites it late, makes virtually nothing and boasts about being right.

And how does anything change? According to the simulator, the "correct" model is based on things not changing. Only if the simulator screws up, and a lower ranked team takes points from or beats a better one, then it adjusts. It is constantly wiping its own shit off its face.

I don't know if you realise how assinine it is, apart from not having any predictive value at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Sal333 said:

What exactly betrays me? And how does it betray me? You got me mixed up with some other poster because you've liked every post of mine where I talk about Herdman. Every one except for this one. Maybe you're betraying yourself.

Also, you're putting words into my mouth. I never said he's getting the bare minimum. You said that and now you're trying to shove those words into my mouth. I said Herdman has got them punching at their level. Herc has miscalculated the talent on this team and thinks the quality he sees is mostly Herdman's doing.

See how what I said is completely different from the horseshit you claimed I said?

I like your posts as an exercise in irony, but I appreciate you have no way of knowing that.

I just find you overstate pretty well everything, and get the sense you do it because you believe it is better to have strong opinions rather than weak ones. It is what some call being more Papist than the Pope.

Which leaves you with extremely strong opinions in favour of Canada, which no one can really argue with in spirit--and that is why I usually like them, even if they are way over the top and you rarely bother to so much argue a point.

Edited by Unnamed Trialist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Cblake said:

Can not really see it going to the Big O, the CSA really will have no interest among other things of taking a chance with a typical January snow storm and having to postpone it due build up on the roof. It was such a good deal at $240 return from Toronto to Vancouver that at worst I will have a credit with Air Canada down the line.

You’re right.  I was looking at flights, direct from Ottawa return.  Thursday through the Monday.  $385. Never seen it that cheap to Vancouver.  Booked it!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

You basically just admit you really don't understand it and are apeing what you read about it.

The simulator, rather than being correct, is in fact based on its errors. It adjusts for them as it goes, from the very start so that, the deeper you get into a tournament, the more "accurate" it will get. As if that is a virtue, when it is really an admission of a defect.

The exact opposite of a betting model, which will give you better odds if you are "correct" with your bet made at the very start, than betting the same team doing well half way into a tournament.

The higher odds better says fuck the simulator from the get-go, the coward who cites it late, makes virtually nothing and boasts about being right.

And how does anything change? According to the simulator, the "correct" model is based on things not changing. Only if the simulator screws up, and a lower ranked team takes points from or beats a better one, then it adjusts. It is constantly wiping its own shit off its face.

I don't know if you realise how assinine it is, apart from not having any predictive value at all. 

Wow. Please point to the area where Monte Carlo simulations hurt you.

If you don't like the simulations and you don't agree with them, can you just move on? Some of the rest of us find it insightful. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/14/2021 at 11:49 AM, dyslexic nam said:

No dea how we approach the Mexico home game in this window.  I suspect it will depend on part on the result of CR game.  If we grab 3 points from CR, maybe a single point against Mexico would be “success” (I would be fam happy with 4 points from this window).  
 

But in the first game, I think we go out on the front foot.  Set up to attack on something like a 3-5-2 if the personnel are available and healthy, and look to use our speed to destroy them.  If Panama couldn’t handle us rampaging forward, I am thinking a creaky CR defence will be overwhelmed.  Not saying we should be naive but grabbing that 3 PTs will be huge so I think we need to press and harass them, and overwhelm them with our speed.   

I think Herman has made it pretty clear he'll go for it in almost all scenarios. In a 2 game, single location window this will be our best 11 to go for it, regardless of how the CR game goes.

Also, we're all flying high because of the 3 points but one result can really swing the reception. If we has lost instead of drawn in Jamaica, they would be 2 points behind us right now. With their big guns likely ready for the next window. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, maplebanana said:

Wow. Please point to the area where Monte Carlo simulations hurt you.

If you don't like the simulations and you don't agree with them, can you just move on? Some of the rest of us find it insightful. 

I am glad you find it insightful, I don't.

And I don't buy people making arguing off it or making points based on it, because they are based on very weak understanding of probability, doing simulations and their utility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lurker said:

Im reminded of this game (which I went to)… it was 1-2c and the Mexican’s didn’t look comfortable.  The game had no bearing at that point so hard to draw any conclusions.

 

 

Canada 2 - Mexico 2 in Edmonton (October 2008) also seems like a result where the weather surely must have helped. How else does a starting midfield of Stalteri, Bernier, Harmse(!) and de Jong (replaced by Pozniak(!!) for most the match) hang with Sven Goran Eriksson's Mexico. Not sure of the state of the group at that point.

Edited by jonovision
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stryker911 said:

There is no doubt the weather is huge for us. I live in an area where we have alot of Jamaican and Mexican farm workers. When the weather in spring or fall falls below 10 they are bundled up in sweaters and winter coats immediately. I know our guys also probably would prefer warmer weather, but they are significantly more acclimatized than the Costa Ricans or Mexicans.

Your neighbours are not professional athletes running for 90 minutes though. It just isn't the same. I get Herdman is going in on the building the team mentality aspect of it but I don't think this is sports science in terms of physical differences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

You basically just admit you really don't understand it and are apeing what you read about it.

The simulator, rather than being correct, is in fact based on its errors. It adjusts for them as it goes, from the very start so that, the deeper you get into a tournament, the more "accurate" it will get. As if that is a virtue, when it is really an admission of a defect.

The exact opposite of a betting model, which will give you better odds if you are "correct" with your bet made at the very start, than betting the same team doing well half way into a tournament.

The higher odds better says fuck the simulator from the get-go, the coward who cites it late, makes virtually nothing and boasts about being right.

And how does anything change? According to the simulator, the "correct" model is based on things not changing. Only if the simulator screws up, and a lower ranked team takes points from or beats a better one, then it adjusts. It is constantly wiping its own shit off its face.

I don't know if you realise how assinine it is, apart from not having any predictive value at all. 

Triggered!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, jonovision said:

 

Canada 2 - Mexico 2 in Edmonton (October 2008) also seems like a result where the weather surely must have helped. How else does a starting midfield of Stalteri, Bernier, Harmse(!) and de Jong hang with Sven Goran Eriksson's Mexico. Not sure of the state of the group at that point.

I always remember the Mexican commentator on the Radzinski goal at the 3:55 mark.  Not as good as the Panama commentator but it still kills me every time.

It was match 5 of the semifinal round and we were already eliminated.  Mexico ended up needing that equalizer to make the hex.

Edited by CanadianSoccerFan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Redpunkfiddle said:

Your neighbours are not professional athletes running for 90 minutes though. It just isn't the same. I get Herdman is going in on the building the team mentality aspect of it but I don't think this is sports science in terms of physical differences.

I don't think anyone is claiming that the climatic edge will be decisive, just as playing at midday in San Pedro Sula isn't the only reason we've lost there in the past. And more than most, I'm skeptical of how cold-hardy the Brampton National Team really is when faced with proper prairie cold (which we might not get; +15 would be just as likely as -15 on either day). 

But you'd be foolish to deny that it doesn't give Canada at least a little edge, especially for the Mexico match where Canada will already have been in Edmonton getting acclimated for more than a week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, maplebanana said:

Wow. Please point to the area where Monte Carlo simulations hurt you.

If you don't like the simulations and you don't agree with them, can you just move on? Some of the rest of us find it insightful. 

Not to mention that's a gross misunderstanding of how Monte Carlo simulation works its values.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

So book your flights and hotels already. 

We're on the board!! 27th. I think that's really cool. Even if it's just 0.10% to win it all.


Also some of you bickering in this thread are so salty. Just calm down. You're acting like....
 

(any excuse to rewatch this clip, I will take)

Edited by Yoginess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

I am glad you find it insightful, I don't.

And I don't buy people making arguing off it or making points based on it, because they are based on very weak understanding of probability, doing simulations and their utility.

Cool.

Considering your original message disparaging the simulations, I would argue you have no clue how these simulations work to begin with. They do not just say 'team A is in position x, therefore will finish position x'. But go ahead and think whatever you want. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

I like your posts as an exercise in irony, but I appreciate you have no way of knowing that.

I just find you overstate pretty well everything, and get the sense you do it because you believe it is better to have strong opinions rather than weak ones. It is what some call being more Papist than the Pope.

Which leaves you with extremely strong opinions in favour of Canada, which no one can really argue with in spirit--and that is why I usually like them, even if they are way over the top and you rarely bother to so much argue a point.

Irony? You want to see irony? Re-read your silly post.

You addressed none of the points I brought up concerning your deceptive and deceitful post. But why should you? You were caught with your pants down and now you have to obfuscate.

I came to this forum so I could get some info on the national team and exchange banter with some fellow fans.

And then there are people like you who need to stir up drama - on the internet no less - so they can feel alive. It would be comical if it wasn't so pathetic.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...