whaT If we’re good now? *nods head*

Palpatine_Power

13 In A Row Participation Certificate 2023
Apr 9, 2017
4,424
5,329
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Wife asked if we should have a GF party - I legit had to think whether we might be busy (for like .2 milliseconds)
 
Not pictured: A basic understanding of probability.

No, it’s your understanding of quantum mechanical probability that’s not pictured. You’re thinking that team performance is like the weather and is out of our control. Like a roulette table or some s**t.

Zero point energy and the quantum gap that existed just before the Big Bang states that all possibilities must be real before they are observed. It is the place where particles are transformed into atoms - where energy fields of particles and waves literally become matter.

Thought is one such energy field, for the mind creates waves of epsilon, gamma, hyper gamma, delta, beta and alpha frequency that create the world we see around us. In short, it’s our ideas that create our world. This is what is known in quantum physics as the observer effect - if a physicist is expecting to see something, it can influence the quanta to arrange themselves into what was expected.

And since quanta are the building blocks of the entire universe, thoughts and ideas are more powerful than anything.

I was putting it into 50% chance to give it a rate of failure based on historical data so people would actually start thinking of success as a very real probability.
 

Chrizzt

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 17, 2009
8,895
18,210
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
No, it’s your understanding of quantum mechanical probability that’s not pictured. You’re thinking that team performance is like the weather and is out of our control. Like a roulette table or some s**t.

Zero point energy and the quantum gap that existed just before the Big Bang states that all possibilities must be real before they are observed. It is the place where particles are transformed into atoms - where energy fields of particles and waves literally become matter.

Thought is one such energy field, for the mind creates waves of epsilon, gamma, hyper gamma, delta, beta and alpha frequency that create the world we see around us. In short, it’s our ideas that create our world. This is what is known in quantum physics as the observer effect - if a physicist is expecting to see something, it can influence the quanta to arrange themselves into what was expected.

And since quanta are the building blocks of the entire universe, thoughts and ideas are more powerful than anything.

I was putting it into 50% chance to give it a rate of failure based on historical data so people would actually start thinking of success as a very real probability.
I mean, I have a PhD in Physics, and what you're talking about is not physics, hey.

Disregarding the babble of your middle paragraphs, what you originally were talking about was akin to the Gambler's fallacy. Additionally, the mistake you've made is confusing possibility with probability, which you've tried to correct by subtly reframing your argument in your next post as "putting it into 50% chance... based on historical data..."

As the superannuation ads say: past performance is no guarantee of future performance.

I'm all for trying to be positive, and sure we've collected a few 5-wins-in-a-row certificates under Hinkley, but to equate that with a 50% probability is just nonsensical.
 
Oct 12, 2007
30,503
52,055
The Hills
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
The real question here is ...

What if Ken she finally realised his strengths and weakness and decided to/been forced to delegate his weaknesses.

Have we finally found a formula that works?

I think that is more likely than Ken suddenly learning new tricks after 7 years.

Either way if they can put their egos aside and make it work, long may it continue.

On SM-G960F using
BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Last edited:
01AE158C-426E-446F-B23B-DF6FA0C826A6.jpeg
 
I mean, I have a PhD in Physics, and what you're talking about is not physics, hey.

Disregarding the babble of your middle paragraphs, what you originally were talking about was akin to the Gambler's fallacy. Additionally, the mistake you've made is confusing possibility with probability, which you've tried to correct by subtly reframing your argument in your next post as "putting it into 50% chance... based on historical data..."

As the superannuation ads say: past performance is no guarantee of future performance.

I'm all for trying to be positive, and sure we've collected a few 5-wins-in-a-row certificates under Hinkley, but to equate that with a 50% probability is just nonsensical.

In 3 out of 6 years, we’ve won 5 games in a row. We won those games based on the belief of the team and the effort that the players put in. It’s not a random coin toss where a win or a loss is determined by statistical probability - there is actual method and effort taking place.

That’s why bookmakers don’t use pure probability when setting markets. They take into account prior form, historical precedents, expert opinion, weather etc. There is a historical precedent that this team, under this coach, and when it backs itself in, has gone on a run of form. That’s why the market for this game is set for us being favourites, even though Brisbane is higher on the ladder. That’s where my concept of us having a 50% chance of going on a run comes from - which I stated in my first post by referencing the seasons we did it.

You’re the one bringing up abstract probability as if it has any meaning to sport. It’s not a casino and it’s not a game of chance. If it was, each game market would be framed as 2 to 1 odds without any line and both teams could just flip a coin to see who wins and loses instead of actually taking the field.

Now let’s consider historical probability, which is exactly what I was referencing, since no one can actually predict the future and it’s all we have to go on.

The historical probability of beating Brisbane is around 64% because we’ve won 11 of 17 games at home. It’s 100% at AO - 4 from 4.

The historical probability of beating Richmond is 60% because they’ve only won 4 and drawn 1 game out of 10 games when they play us at home. And we historically play the MCG well - won 20, lost 25 (that includes those rubbish games against Geelong in 2007 and Carlton in 2015).

The historical probability of beating GWS is exactly 50% because we’ve won 2 and lost 2 games against them at home. If you want to go by AO, we’ve won 1 game and lost 2, so it’s around 33%.

The historical probability of beating Essendon is around 43% because we’ve only beaten them 7 times out of 16 away from home. At Marvel, we’ve won 6 and lost 8, so it’s about the same - around 43%,

Hence - 50% chance of winning 5 in a row. It’s actually 59% based on the actual venues we are playing at but I wouldn’t want to nitpick.
 
In 3 out of 6 years, we’ve won 5 games in a row. We won those games based on the belief of the team and the effort that the players put in. It’s not a random coin toss where a win or a loss is determined by statistical probability - there is actual method and effort taking place.

That’s why bookmakers don’t use pure probability when setting markets. They take into account prior form, historical precedents, expert opinion, weather etc. There is a historical precedent that this team, under this coach, and when it backs itself in, has gone on a run of form. That’s why the market for this game is set for us being favourites, even though Brisbane is higher on the ladder. That’s where my concept of us having a 50% chance of going on a run comes from - which I stated in my first post by referencing the seasons we did it.

You’re the one bringing up abstract probability as if it has any meaning to sport. It’s not a casino and it’s not a game of chance. If it was, each game market would be framed as 2 to 1 odds without any line and both teams could just flip a coin to see who wins and loses instead of actually taking the field.

Now let’s consider historical probability, which is exactly what I was referencing, since no one can actually predict the future and it’s all we have to go on.

The historical probability of beating Brisbane is around 64% because we’ve won 11 of 17 games at home. It’s 100% at AO - 4 from 4.

The historical probability of beating Richmond is 60% because they’ve only won 4 and drawn 1 game out of 10 games when they play us at home. And we historically play the MCG well - won 20, lost 25 (that includes those rubbish games against Geelong in 2007 and Carlton in 2015).

The historical probability of beating GWS is exactly 50% because we’ve won 2 and lost 2 games against them at home. If you want to go by AO, we’ve won 1 game and lost 2, so it’s around 33%.

The historical probability of beating Essendon is around 43% because we’ve only beaten them 7 times out of 16 away from home. At Marvel, we’ve won 6 and lost 8, so it’s about the same - around 43%,

Hence - 50% chance of winning 5 in a row. It’s actually 59% based on the actual venues we are playing at but I wouldn’t want to nitpick.

My favourite part of this post was the rubbish game against Geelong in 2007 being casually slotted alongside the rubbish game against Carlton in 2015.
 

Chrizzt

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 17, 2009
8,895
18,210
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
In 3 out of 6 years, we’ve won 5 games in a row. We won those games based on the belief of the team and the effort that the players put in. It’s not a random coin toss where a win or a loss is determined by statistical probability - there is actual method and effort taking place.

That’s why bookmakers don’t use pure probability when setting markets. They take into account prior form, historical precedents, expert opinion, weather etc. There is a historical precedent that this team, under this coach, and when it backs itself in, has gone on a run of form. That’s why the market for this game is set for us being favourites, even though Brisbane is higher on the ladder. That’s where my concept of us having a 50% chance of going on a run comes from - which I stated in my first post by referencing the seasons we did it.

You’re the one bringing up abstract probability as if it has any meaning to sport. It’s not a casino and it’s not a game of chance. If it was, each game market would be framed as 2 to 1 odds without any line and both teams could just flip a coin to see who wins and loses instead of actually taking the field.

Now let’s consider historical probability, which is exactly what I was referencing, since no one can actually predict the future and it’s all we have to go on.

The historical probability of beating Brisbane is around 64% because we’ve won 11 of 17 games at home. It’s 100% at AO - 4 from 4.

The historical probability of beating Richmond is 60% because they’ve only won 4 and drawn 1 game out of 10 games when they play us at home. And we historically play the MCG well - won 20, lost 25 (that includes those rubbish games against Geelong in 2007 and Carlton in 2015).

The historical probability of beating GWS is exactly 50% because we’ve won 2 and lost 2 games against them at home. If you want to go by AO, we’ve won 1 game and lost 2, so it’s around 33%.

The historical probability of beating Essendon is around 43% because we’ve only beaten them 7 times out of 16 away from home. At Marvel, we’ve won 6 and lost 8, so it’s about the same - around 43%,

Hence - 50% chance of winning 5 in a row. It’s actually 59% based on the actual venues we are playing at but I wouldn’t want to nitpick.
Gold Coast have never beaten the crows. Does that mean they are eternally a 0% chance to beat them?
 

El_Scorcho

Hall of Famer
Aug 21, 2007
31,570
98,420
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Aston Villa, San Antonio Spurs
It's hilarious that Janus is talking about base level previous W/L record for the probability that we'll win or lose the next game, while simultaneously talking about how we're magically going to break out of our long term entrenched inconsistency and win the flag.

We can win the flag but probability isn't your friend if you're trying to prove so.
 

Kiss from a Rozee

Goddess
Bring Back the Bars
Nov 23, 2018
2,755
4,503
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
It's hilarious that Janus is talking about base level previous W/L record for the probability that we'll win or lose the next game, while simultaneously talking about how we're magically going to break out of our long term entrenched inconsistency and win the flag.

We can win the flag but probability isn't your friend if you're trying to prove so.
We either win or we don’t.

50-50

;)
 

PAFCsince1870

Premiership Player
Mar 13, 2006
4,040
3,977
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Orlando Magic
In 3 out of 6 years, we’ve won 5 games in a row. We won those games based on the belief of the team and the effort that the players put in. It’s not a random coin toss where a win or a loss is determined by statistical probability - there is actual method and effort taking place.

That’s why bookmakers don’t use pure probability when setting markets. They take into account prior form, historical precedents, expert opinion, weather etc. There is a historical precedent that this team, under this coach, and when it backs itself in, has gone on a run of form. That’s why the market for this game is set for us being favourites, even though Brisbane is higher on the ladder. That’s where my concept of us having a 50% chance of going on a run comes from - which I stated in my first post by referencing the seasons we did it.

You’re the one bringing up abstract probability as if it has any meaning to sport. It’s not a casino and it’s not a game of chance. If it was, each game market would be framed as 2 to 1 odds without any line and both teams could just flip a coin to see who wins and loses instead of actually taking the field.

Now let’s consider historical probability, which is exactly what I was referencing, since no one can actually predict the future and it’s all we have to go on.

The historical probability of beating Brisbane is around 64% because we’ve won 11 of 17 games at home. It’s 100% at AO - 4 from 4.

The historical probability of beating Richmond is 60% because they’ve only won 4 and drawn 1 game out of 10 games when they play us at home. And we historically play the MCG well - won 20, lost 25 (that includes those rubbish games against Geelong in 2007 and Carlton in 2015).

The historical probability of beating GWS is exactly 50% because we’ve won 2 and lost 2 games against them at home. If you want to go by AO, we’ve won 1 game and lost 2, so it’s around 33%.

The historical probability of beating Essendon is around 43% because we’ve only beaten them 7 times out of 16 away from home. At Marvel, we’ve won 6 and lost 8, so it’s about the same - around 43%,

Hence - 50% chance of winning 5 in a row. It’s actually 59% based on the actual venues we are playing at but I wouldn’t want to nitpick.

For simplicity’s sake if we go into each of the next four matches a 50% or 1 in 2 chance of winning each match, it means we are 1 in 16 of winning all four matches in a row, or just 6.25%.

I can’t follow the logic in your post at all. Your argument is akin to suggesting there is a 50% chance of flipping four heads in a row.
 
It's hilarious that Janus is talking about base level previous W/L record for the probability that we'll win or lose the next game, while simultaneously talking about how we're magically going to break out of our long term entrenched inconsistency and win the flag.

We can win the flag but probability isn't your friend if you're trying to prove so.

On the Couch just did a profile on us. Gerard Healy said “Forget the Lions, it’s Port who should be saying “Why not us?””

1st in time in forward half
1st in forward half intercepts
3rd in forward half stoppages
3rd in contested possession differential
1st in clearance differential
 
Back