Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community
Guest

Match results decided before game?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, XaW said:

*Makes a mental note to never talk about the Monty Hall problem here*

Oh go on. Then we’ll have a thousand page thread and there will still be poeople who won’t understand it 🐐📦📦

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hovis Dexter said:

Oh go on. Then we’ll have a thousand page thread and there will still be poeople who won’t understand it 🐐📦📦

Switch damnit! It's not that hard! :seagull:

Damn, forgot my mental note! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Behind one of these doors is a worldclass striker...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had something similar, and I was about to be relegated, and played the game and low and behold I was sacked. 


Luckily, I had saved just before, and didn't want to be sacked, didn't really mind relegation.

I replayed the game about 50 times and lost everytime, it seemed inevitable I would be sacked by beloved Leeds and I couldn't face it. 

Then I switched the high attacking wingers to wide midfielders and shifted them back to the halfway line.

I set my keeper to Sweeper and Support. 

And set my mentality to counter attack. 

I won the game - but still got relegated as another team also won (which they had previously lost all other versions).

I got to keep the job though... I was delighted, even though relegated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 ore fa, XaW ha scritto:

I won't be dragged into wide mathematical discussion here, and I'm sorry I ever mentioned coin flips seeing how this is evolving.

*Makes a mental note to never talk about the Monty Hall problem here*

That is a false and the player has from the starting the 50% to win. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, FlorianAlbert9 said:

That is a false and the player has from the starting the 50% to win. 

Nope, I'm not discussing this here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Haiku said:

Gambling is placing bets on very small chance of winning,. If people with gambling issues really do the math and understand the probability theory, they wouldn't do it. Yes you will get that 21 points on Black Jack in one of hundred games, and indeed you will inevitably win this game, but will that cover all your previous and further losses? **** no. I explained the ultimate roulette wheel winning strategy which is banned from all casinos and you'll be kicked out if you dare to try it. Here it is again:

Game 1: Placing 1$ on RED, comes out BLACK, total loss: 1$

Game 2: Placing 2$ on RED, comes out BLACK, total loss: 2+1=3$

Game 3: Placing 4$ on RED, comes out BLACK, total loss 4+3=7$

Game 4: Placing 8$ on RED, comes out BLACK, total loss 8+7=15$

Game 5: Placing 16$ on RED, comes out BLACK, total loss 16+15=31$

Game 6: Placing 32$ on RED, comes out RED, You WIN 32$ on top of your 32$ bet, total loss = 31$, balance 32-31=1$ earned.

Game 7: Placing 1$ on RED.... and so on.

The idea is that if you have 512$ cash you have a 99,9% chance to win good money over continuous playing using this strategy based on probability. But again, casinos will not allow you to play like that.

This system gives you a decent chance of short-term returns but still loses out in the long run since your wins tend to be quite small, but your eventual loss is huge. House always wins in the end :)

We've had a string of people bringing up threads about 'predetermined matches' etc. None of it is true. The amount of people that reload their saves when they lose is huge, if the results were fixed then people would have worked it out long before now. As others have said, there's a huge amount of factors that go in to match performance, some of which will have been from before you saved the game. Sometimes the opposition are just really fired up for the match and you need to play more cautiously to react to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I acknowledge match results are not predetermined. At least we should give credit to OP's dedication to replay a single match 63 times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Changed my mind on matches being predetermined after spotting my striker having "apprehensive" body language whilst a goal up after an hour against relegation contenders in my unbeaten side. Obviously he knew about the three goals the opposition were about to score ;) 

-

 

Casinos will happily indulge anyone idiotic enough to play roulette by martingaling if they've got the cash to play on high stakes tables. Though they'd probably chuck you out if you didn't tip the $1 you risked loads of money gambling back to the croupier...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 0 exists on a roulette wheel for a reason. It guarantees the odds are slightly against you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The probability stuff has blown my mind. 

The guy who said I'm complaining about losing 63 in a row rather than the 63rd - that's exactly the point. Which would seem to indicate that it's possible to do things prior to entering a game that make it really unlikely you can win that game. Which to me, seems counterintuitive. I've tried some really random stuff in the tactics - not actually changing formations, but putting full on high line press, closing down, marking tight, ultra slow/ultra fast tempo, short/long passing, etc - all of which I've done. And - you'd expect one of those combinations would yield a win. 

I've deleted the  save - ages ago, but I'm about to try an experiment. I'm getting the same thing vs swansea. I'm 4th, swansea are 16th. It's away, but - first game I was 2-0 up. I lost it 3-2 with a goal in the final minute. So - what should happen if i replay the game with exactly the same conditions? I've done it 3 times now. I've had two 2-0 defeats and this time i'm 3-0 down at half time.  That's suspicious to me because in the first game, I was 2-0 up within 15 minutes. Now I'm not even scoring. So - how does that make sense? The match engine can have two different reactions to my tactics - BUT always the same outcome? I've played exactly the same team. So it would appear that there is sufficient randomness built into the match engine to allow me to race into a 2-0 lead in one game, then lose 7 goals without reply over the next 2.5 games.

I actually don't think match results are predetermined MOSTLY, but on some occasions it seems the run up to a match might create circumstances where there's such a little chance you'll win they might as well be. 

I think it works both ways too - I've had it happen the other way.  Must replay one of them some time!

Edited by Guest
typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
В 29.01.2019 в 5:36 AM, Haiku сказал:

Gambling is placing bets on very small chance of winning,. If people with gambling issues really do the math and understand the probability theory, they wouldn't do it. Yes you will get that 21 points on Black Jack in one of hundred games, and indeed you will inevitably win this game, but will that cover all your previous and further losses? **** no. I explained the ultimate roulette wheel winning strategy which is banned from all casinos and you'll be kicked out if you dare to try it. Here it is again:

Game 1: Placing 1$ on RED, comes out BLACK, total loss: 1$

Game 2: Placing 2$ on RED, comes out BLACK, total loss: 2+1=3$

Game 3: Placing 4$ on RED, comes out BLACK, total loss 4+3=7$

Game 4: Placing 8$ on RED, comes out BLACK, total loss 8+7=15$

Game 5: Placing 16$ on RED, comes out BLACK, total loss 16+15=31$

Game 6: Placing 32$ on RED, comes out RED, You WIN 32$ on top of your 32$ bet, total loss = 31$, balance 32-31=1$ earned.

Game 7: Placing 1$ on RED.... and so on.

The idea is that if you have 512$ cash you have a 99,9% chance to win good money over continuous playing using this strategy based on probability. But again, casinos will not allow you to play like that.

It's wrong, just illusion of sequence

 

There are only two possible variants.

First is every new chance is independent. In case of coin it will be 50/50 every time and no anything else. Even you have 100 times one side, it will be 50% for 101 time too.

And this is simple why casino always win. Your bank is smaller and in chances 50/50 winner who have more resources

 

Second variant is accumulative. If you play in card game without refresh of card deck you can predict and with every next card chance/% of your prediction will rise.
But as you understand your chances in coin or red/black havent this effect. 

 

Moreover, if you throw a coin 200 times in a row, you will have a series, it is a statistically proven pattern. But you can't predict time or distance of series, with  accuracy at least

Edited by Novem9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has to be a element of scripted nature to keep the game realistic, otherwise anyone can beat anyone and there will be no realistic structure to the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, GS1981 said:

There has to be a element of scripted nature to keep the game realistic, otherwise anyone can beat anyone and there will be no realistic structure to the game.

There isn't any scripting at all. It's based on the huge variety of inputs to the game, such as player morale, personality, attributes, formation, tactics, and all of those again for your opponent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Novem9 said:

It's wrong, just illusion of sequence

 

There are only two possible variants.

First is every new chance is independent. In case of coin it will be 50/50 every time and no anything else. Even you have 100 times one side, it will be 50% for 101 time too.

And this is simple why casino always win. Your bank is smaller and in chances 50/50 winner who have more resources

 

Second variant is accumulative. If you play in card game without refresh of card deck you can predict and with every next card chance/% of your prediction will rise.
But as you understand your chances in coin or red/black havent this effect. 

 

Moreover, if you throw a coin 200 times in a row, you will have a series, it is a statistically proven pattern. But you can't predict time or distance of series, with  accuracy at least

What is wrong? What I'm saying is if you throw a coin 10 times, the chances not to hit a tail at least once is so small that it's very much less than 0,1%. It's simple math if you multiply all 10 throws on 50/50 chance and you'll get that number. It's calculating probability using 5th grade math. I don't get what you're arguing here? Of course there are patterns, but if you throw 10000 times you'll probably have a serie of 10 consecutive heads/tails only once if any.

Here's a graph on 5 throws, I'm just too bored to make it for 10:

f14f85a70a4b81d5da9faaaccee1c763.png

 

P.S. actually if you throw 10000 times you have greater chance than I initially thought, because you're not dividing 10x10 throws and your serie may start from 5th to 15th shot, which gives you much more flexibility and chances grow significantly. Unfortunately I can not calculate in this case. BUT if you make 1000 x 10 throws, you can expect a serie of 10 tails only once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/01/2019 at 00:16, TheOriginalJimiVegas said:

if they're locked then it's pre-determined. not 100% pre-determined, but heavily influenced. Life isn't really like that. 

 

On 26/01/2019 at 00:25, themadsheep2001 said:

You can't replay life either, so you're not making the best comparison. 

 

On 26/01/2019 at 00:28, TheOriginalJimiVegas said:

you can't replay life doesn't make sense mate and isn't really relevant.

 

It absolutely is relevant. You have absolutely no frame of reference if it's realistic or not, because you simply can't replay real life. 

People always make the same basic error every time this topic comes up. "It's the team playing '63' different games". No, they're playing the exact same game 63 times. A crucial difference. 

I'm surprised no-one's touched on the real issue here, however. Why on earth would you ever replay the same match 63 times? That's almost two seasons worth of matches to play. It takes me weeks to finish just one season!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, GS1981 said:

There has to be a element of scripted nature to keep the game realistic, otherwise anyone can beat anyone and there will be no realistic structure to the game.

There is no scripting, in the way you mean it anyway. The game does not force you to lose. 

On the probability, well, damn. I know it is a tough subject, but this is quite simple. You toss a coin 63 times. We can then define 2 things.

A. You throw 62 heads. What is the probability your 63rd throw is a head?  The answer is 0.5. the fact it is a 63rd flip does not matter here. Coin tossing are independent, the probability before doesn't influence the probability after.

B. What is the probability you throw 63 heads in a row? Here the answer is 0.5 to the power of 63, which is 1.0842e-19. So really, really small. This again follows because each throw is independent. Both A and B are true because they look at very different things. 

I will not even talk about the fact that repeating games in FM are not independent trials and these examples do not work. Let's assume they do. Since you do not know the probability of winning a match beforehand (indeed, you cannot, you play a match once, repeats aren't independent trials), you do not know if losing 63 times is weird or wrong from a probability point of view. For example, if we go to an extreme and say you have 0.99 chance of losing a match. After 63 trials, the probability of losing all those matches is 0.53. Which is not very unlikely. 

 

Edit. Who would have thought I would reach post 2000 discussing probability theory :D

Edited by sporadicsmiles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 часов назад, Haiku сказал:

What is wrong? What I'm saying is if you throw a coin 10 times, the chances not to hit a tail at least once is so small that it's very much less than 0,1%. It's simple math if you multiply all 10 throws on 50/50 chance and you'll get that number. It's calculating probability using 5th grade math. I don't get what you're arguing here? Of course there are patterns, but if you throw 10000 times you'll probably have a serie of 10 consecutive heads/tails only once if any.

Here's a graph on 5 throws, I'm just too bored to make it for 10:

f14f85a70a4b81d5da9faaaccee1c763.png

 

P.S. actually if you throw 10000 times you have greater chance than I initially thought, because you're not dividing 10x10 throws and your serie may start from 5th to 15th shot, which gives you much more flexibility and chances grow significantly. Unfortunately I can not calculate in this case. BUT if you make 1000 x 10 throws, you can expect a serie of 10 tails only once.

Before I forget, you said

Цитата

You've heard the formula of success? - Keep trying and you inevitably will succeed.

At first you remind me phrase of Albert Einstein - "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result"
At second is amazing article about success. A lot of millionaires and billionaires are not people of extraordinary mental abilities. Why? Relatively speaking, smart people with advanced analytical skills checked possible variants and seeing big risks, abandoned this venture. Some people who havent this skills, decided to try this. And, relatively speaking, 99% were failed. But 1% to be a success. And he is like an example for other - just try and you will win. Not enough, sir, not enough.

 

OK, I understand what you mean, but there is no accumulative effect. 9 times of Tail no give you 99% of Head.
And casino denied this type of bets just because it's only one type of bets with 50% of win. (Actually it's 48,61% because I have a green Zero)
All other bets are 33% in best case. And everybody will play in B/R only without limits.

 

As you understand, statistical rule of throw is series. I know a story about professor who gives homework to throw coin 200 times and write the results in a notebook.
And this professor can easy to detect - student throwed a coin or just wrote random results.

I throw a coin right now, it always goes into series. So beautiful

THHTHHTHTHTTHTHTHTTTHHHTHHTHTHTHTTTHTTHHHTTHHHTTHHTTTHHHHHHHTTTHHHTTTTTHHHHTHTHHTH

Edited by Novem9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
8 hours ago, Dagenham_Dave said:

It absolutely is relevant. You have absolutely no frame of reference if it's realistic or not, because you simply can't replay real life. 

People always make the same basic error every time this topic comes up. "It's the team playing '63' different games". No, they're playing the exact same game 63 times. A crucial difference. 

I'm surprised no-one's touched on the real issue here, however. Why on earth would you ever replay the same match 63 times? That's almost two seasons worth of matches to play. It takes me weeks to finish just one season!! 

Fast forward - high speed matches...that's what it's for ;-)

 

30 minutes ago, Novem9 said:

At first you remind me phrase of Albert Einstein - "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result"


I didn't say I was sane! FM does that to you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, TheOriginalJimiVegas said:

Fast forward - high speed matches...that's what it's for ;-)

So do you make any changes during a match? Do you take note of how it's going and adjust?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Novem9 said:

Before I forget, you said

(1)At first you remind me phrase of Albert Einstein - "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result"
At second is amazing article about success. A lot of millionaires and billionaires are not people of extraordinary mental abilities. Why? Relatively speaking, smart people with advanced analytical skills checked possible variants and seeing big risks, abandoned this venture. Some people who havent this skills, decided to try this. And, relatively speaking, 99% were failed. But 1% to be a success. And he is like an example for other - just try and you will win. Not enough, sir, not enough.

 

(2)OK, I understand what you mean, but there is no accumulative effect. 9 times of Tail no give you 99% of Head.
And casino denied this type of bets just because it's only one type of bets with 50% of win. (Actually it's 48,61% because I have a green Zero)
All other bets are 33% in best case. And everybody will play in B/R only without limits.

 

(3)As you understand, statistical rule of throw is series. I know a story about professor who gives homework to throw coin 200 times and write the results in a notebook.
And this professor can easy to detect - student throwed a coin or just wrote random results.

I throw a coin right now, it always goes into series. So beautiful

THHTHHTHTHTTHTHTHTTTHHHTHHTHTHTHTTTHTTHHHTTHHHTTHHTTTHHHHHHHTTTHHHTTTTTHHHHTHTHHTH

(1) Absolutely agree with every word. I said keep trying, not just try. It's statistical proven that out of 10 newly started businesses, 1 will be successful and 9 will fail. Successful people keep trying things before they find a niche. Of course business skills play a huge role in who will become successful and who won't, but still virtually every millionaire who created an empire from scratch had a rough time at the beginning, it's just that they didn't gave up.

(2) True

(3)Agree, patterns appear. Mathematically speaking, It's still valid that to get 10 consecutive heads/tails from 10 throws, not just 10 consecutive from undefined number of throws is just 0,1% chance for heads and 0,1% chance for tails. That means if 1000 people throw a coin 10 times it is expected that two will make 10 heads/tails. Though, it is probability and not a fixed value, so results will differ, but shouldn't be far off that percentage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without reading all the comments above and noticing the title of this thread here is my take on it.

I have been playing FM since 2008 and there are some consistent patterns I notice.

When I have been playing big sides (I usually play as Man Utd for the record) and we start brilliantly, the other team always seems to have a way of getting back into the match when they are the home side, regardless of how I change my tactics to protect my lead. I just know it is going to happen. The other day I went into a 2-0 lead against Liverpool at Anfield, we absolutely dominated the first half, they never had a sniff. It looked suspiciously too good to be true....and so it was.
Before the 2nd half, the team were 'walking through walls' after my team talk and I decided to change team instructions slightly which would see us protect the lead in the 2nd half by holding possession. They made NO changes but came out in the 2nd half and blew us apart to win 5-2. Never before in my save had I conceded 5 in a match let alone in one half. They did nothing tactically to change anything and neither did I much.

Before I have also taken 3-0 leads away from home in Champions League 1st leg matches against the likes of Bayern Munich only to be beaten at home 0-4 (which never happens) by a goal in the 94th minute. You have to suspect these things are pre-determined.


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well think about it this way @cjhill44 who gains anything from it? If the FM game robs you of a result what gain is there? 

Stalling victory tactics (or in other terms, adding a grind) has only ever historically been a part of games that looked to put barriers between you and getting somewhere (usually RPG's with powerful items) and in recent times its become almost the sole preserve of games that insert it to encourage you to spend money to expedite the process. FM doesn't do that. So who gains?

FM isn't a subscription model, once you pay you own the game and that's it there's no real difference to SI whether you play the game for 1 hour or 1000 hours. Furthermore, wouldn't it be safe to assume that you winning would actually keep you playing more if you feel successful? So whatever gain you perceive there, it seems like it would be served better if you win.

Finally, there are two ways in which games tend to be. The kinds like FM, like Crusader Kings, various simulators which basically offer you an environment in which there is no set goal you just do what you want. Then there are games with a story to tell, or a path to follow (sometimes poorly) but the aim of these games is typically to be defeated in a way that feels satisfying. I'm sure I've seen the comments that in games, well designed bosses aren't impossible to beat, they're designed to lose convincingly. FM is as I mentioned one of the former games - an environment in which there's a framework with no goals you set your own goals, do it your own way within that framework. Even if you don't believe that to be true, conventional game design would suggest its better for you to lose 3-0 and then snatch a 4-0 win in the second leg with a 94th minute. 

So the question still remains, who gains?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎29‎/‎01‎/‎2019 at 12:20, FlorianAlbert9 said:

That is a false and the player has from the starting the 50% to win. 

On ‎29‎/‎01‎/‎2019 at 12:51, XaW said:

Nope, I'm not discussing this here.

OK, yes, I'll be the stupid one. 

Background:  So, for people who don't know what 'the Monty Hall problem' refers to, it's the following scenario:  you have three doors in front of you.  There's a prize randomly behind one of the three doors.  You're asked to pick the door that you think the prize might be behind.  Let's say you pick Door 1.  Your host, Monty Hall, opens one of the other two doors, let's say Door 3, to show you that the prize is *not* behind Door 3 and asks you if, on the basis of that information, whether you want to change your mind and choose Door 2 instead of your original selection, Door 1. 

The correct, but unintuitive answer:  You should always switch doors.  The chance of the prize being behind the original door you selected is 33.3% (one in three), but the chance of the prize being behind the other door is 66.6%.  So you're twice as likely to get the prize if you switch doors.

Why that's usually felt to be unintuitive (see above):  It seems like you're just down to two doors.  The prize has to be behind one of them, why isn't it just 50% each, and therefore switching doesn't matter?

The most intuitive way I've found to talk about this problem is to see it from Monty Hall's perspective.  This issue comes up a lot in Bridge (the card game), where it's called "Restricted Choice". 

Your original choice of Door 1 straightforwardly has a 1 in 3 chance of being right.  If your original choice was correct, then Monty Hall could have opened *either* Door 2 or Door 3.  It wouldn't have mattered, since the prize isn't behind either one.

However, your original choice had a 66.6% of being wrong.  In that circumstance, Monty Hall's choice of which door to open is restricted.  If he shows you Door 2, it's because he had to -- the prize was behind Door 3, so he couldn't have chosen it.  If he shows you Door 3, then that's because the prize was behind Door 2. 

So there's a 66.6% chance that Monty Hall's choice of door was restricted, and therefore a 66.6% chance that the prize is behind the door that Monty Hall didn't choose to open, and therefore you should take the offer to switch.

How's that?  Make sense? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Rayista Geoff said:

OK, yes, I'll be the stupid one. 

Background:  So, for people who don't know what 'the Monty Hall problem' refers to, it's the following scenario:  you have three doors in front of you.  There's a prize randomly behind one of the three doors.  You're asked to pick the door that you think the prize might be behind.  Let's say you pick Door 1.  Your host, Monty Hall, opens one of the other two doors, let's say Door 3, to show you that the prize is *not* behind Door 3 and asks you if, on the basis of that information, whether you want to change your mind and choose Door 2 instead of your original selection, Door 1. 

The correct, but unintuitive answer:  You should always switch doors.  The chance of the prize being behind the original door you selected is 33.3% (one in three), but the chance of the prize being behind the other door is 66.6%.  So you're twice as likely to get the prize if you switch doors.

Why that's usually felt to be unintuitive (see above):  It seems like you're just down to two doors.  The prize has to be behind one of them, why isn't it just 50% each, and therefore switching doesn't matter?

The most intuitive way I've found to talk about this problem is to see it from Monty Hall's perspective.  This issue comes up a lot in Bridge (the card game), where it's called "Restricted Choice". 

Your original choice of Door 1 straightforwardly has a 1 in 3 chance of being right.  If your original choice was correct, then Monty Hall could have opened *either* Door 2 or Door 3.  It wouldn't have mattered, since the prize isn't behind either one.

However, your original choice had a 66.6% of being wrong.  In that circumstance, Monty Hall's choice of which door to open is restricted.  If he shows you Door 2, it's because he had to -- the prize was behind Door 3, so he couldn't have chosen it.  If he shows you Door 3, then that's because the prize was behind Door 2. 

So there's a 66.6% chance that Monty Hall's choice of door was restricted, and therefore a 66.6% chance that the prize is behind the door that Monty Hall didn't choose to open, and therefore you should take the offer to switch.

How's that?  Make sense? 

 

It absolutely does.

Should we now move to the birthday paradox? :p 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

I said again. 

The player has 50% to win the game since the game starts.

The host opening the door is not a probability, but a  (mathematical) constant since starting.

So, It doesn't matter how many doors the player has if the host opens all but 2 (the one choosen by player plus another one).

 

If the 33-66% was the correct answer then if the player has 300000000000000000 doors and the host close 299999999999999998 doors, then how many % to win does player have?

 

 

Edited by FlorianAlbert9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, FlorianAlbert9 said:

No.

I said again. 

The player has 50% to win the game since the game starts.

The host opening the door is not a probability, but a  (mathematical) constant since starting.

So, It doesn't matter how many doors the player has if the host opens all but 2 (the one choosen by player plus another one).

 

If the 33-66% was the correct answer then if the player has 300000000000000000 doors and the host close 299999999999999998 doors, then how many % to win does player have?

 

 

This isn't FM related at all, but he's right, you have a 2/3 chance of winning if you 'twist'.

The key is that the host will always choose an incorrect door when removing one of the options. You pick 1 door out of 3, then, since the host always removes an incorrect door, the only way you lose by 'twisting' is if you chose the correct door initially. Which means you have 2/3 chance of winning.

If there were 300000000000000000 doors and the host closes 299999999999999998 of the incorrect doors, then the optimal solution is to stick with your choice until you're down to the last 2, then switch.

You can find more information here: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MontyHallProblem.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, FlorianAlbert9 said:

No.

I said again. 

The player has 50% to win the game since the game starts.

The host opening the door is not a probability, but a  (mathematical) constant since starting.

So, It doesn't matter how many doors the player has if the host opens all but 2 (the one choosen by player plus another one).

 

If the 33-66% was the correct answer then if the player has 300000000000000000 doors and the host close 299999999999999998 doors, then how many % to win does player have?

 

 

If there’s ever a game show with 300 billion doors and after picking one, the host opens every other door except one, anyone who doesn’t switch doors needs committing!!

Edited by vishers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 ore fa, Jack Joyce ha scritto:

This isn't FM related at all, but he's right, you have a 2/3 chance of winning if you 'twist'.

The key is that the host will always choose an incorrect door when removing one of the options. You pick 1 door out of 3, then, since the host always removes an incorrect door, the only way you lose by 'twisting' is if you chose the correct door initially. Which means you have 2/3 chance of winning.

If there were 300000000000000000 doors and the host closes 299999999999999998 of the incorrect doors, then the optimal solution is to stick with your choice until you're down to the last 2, then switch.

You can find more information here: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MontyHallProblem.html

No, Sorry. 

The usual error with this problem is to think that you have 1/3 at starting.

You have alwasy 1/2 with 3, 10 or 10000000 doors. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, FlorianAlbert9 said:

No, Sorry. 

The usual error with this problem is to think that you have 1/3 at starting.

You have alwasy 1/2 with 3, 10 or 10000000 doors. 

This is the reason I won't discuss this. It's so easy to go into the trap you have found yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, FlorianAlbert9 said:

No, Sorry. 

The usual error with this problem is to think that you have 1/3 at starting.

You have alwasy 1/2 with 3, 10 or 10000000 doors. 

The main crux you're missing is that Monty Hall KNOWS where the car is so he's not randomly opening doors. There are some great Monty Hall simulators that show why it is always best to swap doors

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minuti fa, XaW ha scritto:

This is the reason I won't discuss this. It's so easy to go into the trap you have found yourself.

The trap it's thinking that you have 1/3 at starting cause there are 3 doors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, FlorianAlbert9 said:

The trap it's thinking that you have 1/3 at starting cause there are 3 doors.

As I said, I'm not doing this again. Look at the link you got a couple of posts above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

:D

I've personally never seen an upload that was "unwinnable", safe for Matches where the user was a) against a MUCH superior side etc. However, some of them were tricky Affairs, in parts also to inherently match engine and AI tactical decision making idiosyncrasies. If you wouldn't be aware of them, bust and be exploited by that particularly opposition every time you hit the kick off. Basically, if Opposition Players would sit in Yards of space, randomly flipping formations Levers means randomly flipping Levers. They would still sit in Yards of space.

Usually not guaranteed losses in themselves, but examples off Prior iterations of such:


The Three Fisherman conundrum
The Wide Midfielder Defending conundrum
etc.

The reason why Uploads when provided upon request are inherently winnable on These boards is that users tend to have gained a well above average understanding of the game. FM tends to be a game you don't Need to gain such an understanding of to be (generally) succesful. Which is both a curse and a gift -- for its makers anyway. 

Edited by Svenc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minuti fa, vishers ha scritto:

The main crux you're missing is that Monty Hall KNOWS where the car is so he's not randomly opening doors. There are some great Monty Hall simulators that show why it is always best to swap doors

No. You have 1/2 precisely because the Money Hall Knows.

So it's the same if the host open the door after the player's choice or if he open the door before. 

It's a math constant.

The trap in the problem is thinking that player have 2 goats and 1 car, when he have only 1 goat and 1 car. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minuti fa, XaW ha scritto:

As I said, I'm not doing this again. Look at the link you got a couple of posts above.

I read It. It not follow the main rule that is: the host always opens a losing door. 

Always. That's the Key of the problem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I hate to break up this in-depth discussion- let's get back on topic please with at least a semblance of relevance to FM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is getting out of hand.

To return to the OP, what would FM gain from predetermining results? And if that were the case, how would someone take Gateshead to the Champions League?

It's simply a series of inputs, some in the moment (substitutions) some set in motion well before the match (form). There is categorically no predetermination. However, if one of those inputs is too powerful, for example going into a match in poor form is too much of an overriding factor on that one result, then that would be worth us looking into. Instead of shouting into the wind regarding scripting and probability, let's focus on actually improving the ME.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Things definitely aren't "scripted" but I do tend to think whatever influence form/morale have on the ME are a bit outsized.  Home advantage seems a little overpowered as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the sake of the Argument, I think this Needs a perspective from the other end of the spectrum as well.

Whilst SI have stated numerous times that they never intend to Code the game for their purely tactical hardcore, it's an oft demonstrated fact that in particular this Portion of their audience experiences the completely opposite. E.g. rather than the game Feeling "out of Control", or pre-determined they manage to Keep the randomness to a bare minimum.

Even if the deliberately alienate their Players in the Dressing room, it means Minimum Impact. 
Likewise if they have inferior players, player by Player.

Part of the reason of that is that AI is lacking in match Management context in particular. It's all still mainly about the scorelines as opposed to what is actually going on. But if that were the case, the majority of FM's Player based may be forced to watch a tad more (and understand a tad more), which is what SI may not want. Additionally, at ist most dedicated, it's an FM niche audience overall,  so may not match what the majority tends to experience.
 

Edited by Svenc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jujigatame said:

Things definitely aren't "scripted" but I do tend to think whatever influence form/morale have on the ME are a bit outsized.  Home advantage seems a little overpowered as well.

I agree. There is a snowball effect in the game that makes it really easy to succeed with good morale/form and very difficult when in poor form.

Similar to the OP, I just simmed the same match over 30 times. It wasn't a match involving my team. I just wanted to prevent a Champions League Final from being English team vs. English team. But after 30+ sims, Juventus still could not knock off Man Utd. Even if Man Utd had more talent and were in better form, they should not be "winning" a simulation 30+ consecutive times. The simulator needs to involve more in-game variance rather than pre-game morale/form/team talk dependency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should add to my last sentence: 

Quote

...Part of the reason of that is that AI is lacking in match Management context in particular. It's all still mainly about the scorelines as opposed to what is actually

going on. But if that were the case, the majority of FM's Player based may be forced to watch a tad more (and understand a tad more), which is what SI may not want. Additionally, at ist most dedicated, it's an FM niche audience overall,  so may not match what the majority tends to experience -- or the (limited) AI, for that matter if it were ever able to voice its concerns

 


Without Looking at the Matches it is hard to tell. But I've personally yet to see curious streaks like that aforementioned Juve-United one where there weren't any tactical factors at Play (with the real possibility of an engine-inherent defending issue triggered as well, naturally one in favor of the "Winning" team). The streak will very likely be the result of AI as well as ME related issues at Play. It will have limited to do with any other factors. As hinted at, at the current Level of game AI, the Team constantly on the losing run wouldn't recognize it's thouroughly exploited somewhere no matter how many reloads (and at such streaks I'm ruling out that this isn't happening). Whilst the AI is decent at roughly balancing Risk and reward, and addjusting it accordingly to the scorelines of a match / oppositon -- it is severely limited when it comes to assessing what is specifically going on in a match-up. 

In other words, Things the AI is decent at: 

What is the result we should realistically target against that Opposition at home/away?
What is the current scoreline? Are we in a lead? Are we trailing behind? By how many Goals each?
How many minutes are still left on the Clock? Is it just HT? Is the Clock running out?
How should I genereally react to this to increase my chances of reaching my target?

 


Examples of things the AI is severely limited at assessing, visibly:

Why is that Opposition Player in tons of space on every interception, and how do I cope with that, if possible? (Can involve ME issues SI may aim to fix, see the links in my above posts)
Why is the Opposition so easily able to Control the midfield? Is it because of a specific Player allowed to pull the strings, something else and how do I try to fix this?
Why do I struggle to win the ball back so much? Ditto.
Why do I almost exclusively have attempts from range and how could I adress that some?
What's the weakness of the opposition Formation/ approach specifically, and how may they exploit my own?

Think of AI Mourinho vs AI Guardiola in-game, exccept that neither of which would ever be hugely able to "assess" if their incredibly high lines would be exploited over and over again. Rather, they would go even more aggressive when they notice they are "trailing behind an Opposition lead", increasing the chances to shipping Goals even more. It also doesN't help the AI that the game's UI still allows Play/positioning that barely ever happens in a real match of Football for prolonged periods, but that's another matter... Which the Opening poster has found out himself apparently some with his "experimental" narrowed 3-1-3-3- Formation leading to a defensive shape unable to cover the wide Areas of the pitch. :D 

Edited by Svenc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Overmars said:

I agree. There is a snowball effect in the game that makes it really easy to succeed with good morale/form and very difficult when in poor form.

Similar to the OP, I just simmed the same match over 30 times. It wasn't a match involving my team. I just wanted to prevent a Champions League Final from being English team vs. English team. But after 30+ sims, Juventus still could not knock off Man Utd. Even if Man Utd had more talent and were in better form, they should not be "winning" a simulation 30+ consecutive times. The simulator needs to involve more in-game variance rather than pre-game morale/form/team talk dependency.

Well thats crazy and almost unbelievable even far lesser teams should be able to knoc out Utd in 30 attempts. It would be interesting to see their tactics but i really doubt this could be tactical issue, did Utd use any strange formation with extra men in midfield?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mitja said:

Well thats crazy and almost unbelievable even far lesser teams should be able to knoc out Utd in 30 attempts. It would be interesting to see their tactics but i really doubt this could be tactical issue, did Utd use any strange formation with extra men in midfield?

Man Utd was using a 5-3-2 WB formation. I think Juventus was in a 4-1-2-2-1 (Wide) formation. The match was at Old Trafford, though, and they had bought Dele Alli in my save. Alli and Pogba have been a bit scary to play against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to save before each match with my line up and tactics already set up to go. Once every couple of seasons as a sort of average I will have to replay a match due to a crash or a rare power cut. When this happens I always hope for the same sort of result even if I lost and so I use the same line up, tactics and team talk as previously. However, my result often ends up very different with different players being amazing or bad so my changes later on during the match end up being altered from previously. Sometimes this crash works in my favour and at other times it certainly doesn't. My most recent saw a 4-1 win at home to Arsenal turn into a 2-1 defeat :( 

During all my years of playing FM, I've only once ever seen a match that I've needed to replay turn out exactly 100% the same as the original. So I suppose I could actually argue on that basis that a lot of outcomes during 1 match are nothing other than random. They need to be random to a point though otherwise a top FM manager with a world class team would have no real chance of losing the occasional match. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Overmars said:

Man Utd was using a 5-3-2 WB formation. I think Juventus was in a 4-1-2-2-1 (Wide) formation. The match was at Old Trafford, though, and they had bought Dele Alli in my save. Alli and Pogba have been a bit scary to play against.

Was this a game you watched?

My understanding is that there's still a difference in detail between games you attend/manage and those you don't. (And then also a difference between games in active leagues vs inactive, etc).

So your best chance of getting a different result is probably going to be by watching the game in full.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mitja said:

Well thats crazy and almost unbelievable even far lesser teams should be able to knoc out Utd in 30 attempts. It would be interesting to see their tactics but i really doubt this could be tactical issue, 

AI Managers are kinda "blind" to what their Opposition are "doing", I've uploaded crazy stuff throughout the years myself caused by it. Including AI basically throwing their man Advantage away after a sending off with a tactical switch, etc. Therefore, I'd personally rule out it isn't at least related to tactical picks (with a possible ME issue thrown into the mix). At such a record, it is highly unlikely that Juventus weren't Pretty much "exploited" anyway every time, as else the odds of seeing such a streak are too small.

If Juventus were managed by a better human Player (in particular from FM's tactical community) this wouldn'rt have happened either way, 100%. This is all assuming the CL was put on "full match Details", mind. :D There's a "myth" that you would need to read a tactical bible to be able to cope with FM, but in actual truth, anything more "indepth" tends to be (another) Bonus Point over the game's AI. As argued, SI have never coded the game to be for the tactical hardcore. As a side effect though, the "Tactical battles" between actual top class Managers (AI Mou vs AI Guardiola etc.) aren't quite in the game.

Edited by Svenc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Svenc said:

AI Managers are kinda "blind" to what their Opposition are "doing", I've uploaded crazy stuff throughout the years myself caused by it. Including AI basically throwing their man Advantage away after a sending off with a tactical switch, etc. Therefore, I'd personally rule out it isn't at least related to tactical picks (with a possible ME issue thrown into the mix). At such a record, it is highly unlikely that Juventus weren't Pretty much "exploited" anyway every time, as else the odds of seeing such a streak are too small.

If Juventus were managed by a better human Player (in particular from FM's tactical community) this wouldn'rt have happened either way, 100%. This is all assuming the CL was put on "full match Details", mind. :D There's a "myth" that you would need to read a tactical bible to be able to cope with FM, but in actual truth, anything more "indepth" tends to be (another) Bonus Point over the game's AI. As argued, SI have never coded the game to be for the tactical hardcore. As a side effect though, the "Tactical battles" between actual top class Managers (AI Mou vs AI Guardiola etc.) aren't quite in the game.

Yes you are right just selection of wrong roles, duties can have big influence on the game. For example both wingers with attack duty in gegenpress like tactics throws awey all the advantage of defending in 4141 formation. AI was well aware of such basics before but with fm19 it seems things have become worse. Defending becomes huge problem for AI when it is faced against  extra man in midfield and diamond formations. This is all guessing without knowing their tactics but that's one possibility if Juve played with attack duties on flanks. 433 should be superior to 532 anytime if you ask me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/01/2019 at 00:01, TheOriginalJimiVegas said:

I've just finished playing through the same game 63 times. I lost every single one.

By definition, nothing I've done has influenced the outcome of this match.

 

In a game where every choice you make as manager has some effect on outcomes, either you’re blindly underestimating the choices and the effect of your choices on results, or you are expecting to win by making no changes, tweaks, alterations based on what you see happening during the match. 

Too many people just plug and play tactics and then wonder why they don’t win every game. No manager in real life just sits there on the sidelines and does nothing during the match. You have to adapt to what the other team does, make changes at the right times, use substitutes affectively and identify problems/weaknesses in both your team and the opposition. 

‘Nothing I’ve done has influenced the outcome of this match.’ I’d say there lies your fundamental problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...