Orford Demands Release...

[big boppa eel]

It's got nothing to do with people disagreeing with me.

I said it in a show of mock petulance because a couple of people paid me out for my epic post.

I'm sorry you've lost somebody but you have to realise some people live different lives to you and have developed different ways of coping with the horrors of life, and sometimes that results in gallows humour.

For your own sake you need to relax and take everything with a grain of salt. Alternatively you could just f**k off.

Paying out? dont be suck a f**ken sheila, people dont want to read novels so u go whishing "painful" cancer on everyone, oh thats right u were joking:sarcasm: and the disgusting thing is u dont give a sh*t, harden up u tosser.

 

[PB]

Once again you fail to understand something you've heard of.

'Gambler's fallacy' is the mistaken belief that probabilities varying from the average will tend to even themselves out. Saying that players will perform better after a poor year and worse after a good year might appear to be gambler's fallacy to the dim-witted, but such is not the case.

Gambler's fallacy would be if somebody predicted players to have an above average season after having a below average season - the fallacy being that the deviation from average would lead to increased likelihood of deviation in the other direction. However I didn't predict that our poorly-performing players would have better-than-average seasons next year; I predicted they would have average seasons (the law of averages says that they will tend every year to have an average season). Which is why I said they will play better next year than this year.

Regardless of how they went the season before, players will tend to have an average season the next year. That's how the law of averages works. What this means (and why you confused my prediction with gambler's fallacy) is that if a player has a poor season, he will tend to have a better season the next year because an average season is better than a poor one.

Note this is in no way a prediction of a better-than-average season; it is a prediction of an average season, which happens to be better than a poor season, and worse than a good season.

Do you see where you went wrong?

One of my favourite movie lines, its from Billy Madison, funny movie although not particularly intellectual, so you may not have watched it. Any way the line from the Emcee is...

"what you've just said... is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

my, my my do me a favour and grab a thesaurus (or a maths and stats text book). The "law of averages" is just like "gamblers fallacy". It is a none statistical based belief that everything evens out.

Hey i know i stretched the definition of "gamblers fallacy", just like you did with your latin "erectile dysfunction" or whatever it was.

So if we were to run with your "the law of averages" theory, how did the Dragons win back to back minor premierships with essentially the same players? Shouldn't those players who played well in 2009 have had just and "average" performance in 2010, understanding that "average" is better than "poor", but one would assume still not good enough to win consecutive minor premierships?

NB I wouldn’t usually be so patronising – but if you want to be a douche and call me a “dim wit” (aside from the other comment which has got people off-side), this is what you get.

 

[TheParraboy]

Geez, been away awhile and check in for the latest on Orford and what the :?:

When did this thread chuck a right turn and end up down a dark alley? Gotta love the off season. :?

I personally just think everyione is on edge and itching to smack a pom in the 1st ashes test on nov 25 tbh

 

[lingard]

Mate you're the biggest f**king stirrer on this board.

You think changing the subject with some inane comment constitutes an "intelligent reply"? Get over yourself.

And stop stalking me or I'll report you to a mod.

I don`t think you`re an idiot, Pou Pou. I think the cancer thing was pretty much out of character for you and probably meant nothing at all. However, I can understand why some people have been offended (I also think some people have taken great mileage from it, for whatever reason). Just a suggestion, mate; but maybe an appology might be in order.
Cheers.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Paying out? dont be suck a f**ken sheila, people dont want to read novels so u go whishing "painful" cancer on everyone, oh thats right u were joking:sarcasm: and the disgusting thing is u dont give a sh*t, harden up u tosser.

:lol:

Make up your mind. Have I hurt your feelings or do I need to harden up?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

my, my my do me a favour and grab a thesaurus (or a maths and stats text book). The "law of averages" is just like "gamblers fallacy". It is a none statistical based belief that everything evens out.

No, that's the wikipedia definition of the Law of Averages.

If you look at my definition of the Law of Averages (a popular term that I thought you might understand) you will see it corresponds exactly with what wikipedia terms the Law of Large Numbers. And you clearly do all your research on wikipedia because you've obviously googled 'Law of Averages' without looking at the definition I gave you.

Hey i know i stretched the definition of "gamblers fallacy", just like you did with your latin "erectile dysfunction" or whatever it was.

That's because you don't understand what you read. It's the problem with having so much information at the fingertips of somebody like yourself. I blame the education system.

So if we were to run with your "the law of averages" theory, how did the Dragons win back to back minor premierships with essentially the same players?

Because the aggregate quality of the players in their squad is better than all the other teams (except Melbourne). So if the sum of the performances of these players is averaged out through the season (The Law of Large Numbers coming into effect the more games that are played) we should expect that they will win more games, since the 'average' performance of the 'average' Dragons player is better than that of all the other clubs (except Melbourne whose motivation clearly isn't as high).

Obviously the nature of football makes it difficult to predict what is an 'average' performance vs a poor or good performance - performances consistently deviating from the average (and over a large enough sample of performances, IAW the Law of Large Numbers) would probably indicate that the expected 'average' performance should be reassessed.

It is for this reason you can't say that Moimoi and Hindmarsh are past it just because they had one poor season - one season of games isn't a large enough sample size for the players' 'average' performance to be reassessed.

Shouldn't those players who played well in 2009 have had just and "average" performance in 2010

Because we didn't know until their second year of 'above average' performances that the performances of 2009 were in fact average performances for that group of players.

Many commentators believed the Dragons overachieved in 2009, but having repeated their minor premiership this year, it can be argued that 2009 was an average year for that squad. If it weren't for the salary cap (rightly) taking two of their key forwards this off-season it's likely the Dragons would have another 'average' season next year and win a third successive minor premiership.

understanding that "average" is better than "poor", but one would assume still not good enough to win consecutive minor premierships?

They have the best depth, the best coach, and both years they had a high level of motivation due to an enduring lack of success. Two minor premierships (and the premiership) proved they were the best team over both years and therefore their minor premierships should have been expected.

But as I said, we usually can't tell the difference between overachievement and simple high quality until after the fact. Hindsight's a hell of a thing.

NB I wouldn’t usually be so patronising – but if you want to be a douche and call me a “dim wit” (aside from the other comment which has got people off-side), this is what you get.

Mate, I welcome your continued grasping at straws.

 

[caylo]

I personally just think everyione is on edge and itching to smack a pom in the 1st ashes test on nov 25 tbh

my last exam (spanning 3 exams over 2 days) is on the 30th Nov/1st Dec and i will find it very very very difficult to study for with the fricken Ashes on. With North scoring a centry in Sheffied Shelid he will probably be there too, which might give me reason to not watch it

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I don`t think you`re an idiot, Pou Pou.

Oh gosh thanks mate! That's the nicest thing anybody's ever said to me.

I think the cancer thing was pretty much out of character for you and probably meant nothing at all. However, I can understand why some people have been offended (I also think some people have taken great mileage from it, for whatever reason).

I'll tell you what the reason is.

We live in a world where we've bent so far backwards to empower victims that victimhood has become an attractive position to aspire to.

Once upon a time, being offended was an absolutely horrible state of affairs that people would do anything to avoid. Now the world's full of whiny bitches looking for any opportunity to be offended.

It's a sad state of affairs that the best most people can ever hope to aspire to is to become a victim. Maybe they'll get some kind of government payout and STFU.

Just a suggestion, mate; but maybe an appology might be in order.
Cheers.

I've never seen an apology solve anything. If a grievance is so big that it causes people this kind of pain then a simple apology won't fix it.

At best, an apology would mollify whoever it is who's having a cry (I think it's parra pete and one other poster) by letting them think they'd successfully bullied me into submissive behaviour.

At worst it will reinforce the attractiveness of victimhood in the eyes of all observers and I've got too much conscience to let that kind of lesson stand.

 

[mrpwnd]

Paying out? dont be suck a f**ken sheila, people dont want to read novels so u go whishing "painful" cancer on everyone, oh thats right u were joking:sarcasm: and the disgusting thing is u dont give a sh*t, harden up u tosser.

Wouldn't telling someone to harden up mean tell em to get over it and stop giving a sh*t?
You sound like the same arrogant wanker that you seem to percieve poupou to be.

At least know the meaning of the words you use to denigrate someone, in this case I suggest you harden the f**k up.

 

[mrpwnd]

Oh gosh thanks mate! That's the nicest thing anybody's ever said to me.



I'll tell you what the reason is.

We live in a world where we've bent so far backwards to empower victims that victimhood has become an attractive position to aspire to.

Once upon a time, being offended was an absolutely horrible state of affairs that people would do anything to avoid. Now the world's full of whiny bitches looking for any opportunity to be offended.

It's a sad state of affairs that the best most people can ever hope to aspire to is to become a victim. Maybe they'll get some kind of government payout and STFU.



I've never seen an apology solve anything. If a grievance is so big that it causes people this kind of pain then a simple apology won't fix it.

At best, an apology would mollify whoever it is who's having a cry (I think it's parra pete and one other poster) by letting them think they'd successfully bullied me into submissive behaviour.

At worst it will reinforce the attractiveness of victimhood in the eyes of all observers and I've got too much conscience to let that kind of lesson stand.

You know it's funny, there are blokes here calling you a dickhead, wanker, tosser etc and yet your only crime is having an accurate grasp on reality that most lack.
At least there's a bloke on here who won't play the victim card at every opportunity.

 

[The EELiminator]

god i thought kimmoreley took forever to make his mind up i dont really care if orford comes or not just SAY SOMETHING ffs he should give up football and get a job as a tv writer for those end of season cliffhanger episodes he's really good at leaving people in suspense lol

 

[Maroubra Eel]

Oh dear.

 

[mrpwnd]

god i thought kimmoreley took forever to make his mind up i dont really care if orford comes or not just SAY SOMETHING ffs he should give up football and get a job as a tv writer for those end of season cliffhanger episodes he's really good at leaving people in suspense lol

Poor him though, has the longest career for a halfback and his entire rep career to date has been as a scapegoat/fill in. I guess he just wanted to go out with a bang.

 

[Eels Dude]

god i thought kimmoreley took forever to make his mind up i dont really care if orford comes or not just SAY SOMETHING ffs he should give up football and get a job as a tv writer for those end of season cliffhanger episodes he's really good at leaving people in suspense lol

Well it's not all up to him. He needs to be granted a release before he can sign, and probably cannot even say anything publicly.

 

[Eels Dude]

Poor him though, has the longest career for a halfback and his entire rep career to date has been as a scapegoat/fill in. I guess he just wanted to go out with a bang.

I dunno about that... after Melbourne won the comp in '99 Kimmorley at one stage held even Joey out of the Aussie and NSW sides.

 

[fish eel]

Do you really need to use this forum to plug your site Casper?

 

[Maroubra Eel]

*edit quoted post deleted*

In regrads to poupous cancer comments maybe a link to a story about an arsehole would be more appropriate.

 

[True EEL]

sooooo........any news on Orford's release, or any related football news...?
or are people simply just going to continue to carry out their own version of Days of Our Lives on here b*tching at each other and trying to come up with the most high and mighty and profound-sounding response....?????

 

[PB]

No, that's the wikipedia definition of the Law of Averages.
If you look at my definition of the Law of Averages (a popular term that I thought you might understand) you will see it corresponds exactly with what wikipedia terms the Law of Large Numbers. And you clearly do all your research on wikipedia because you've obviously googled 'Law of Averages' without looking at the definition I gave you.



Mate, I welcome your continued grasping at straws.

Wikipedia – I have heard of that – and you are welcome to come and check my internet history if you like. But you seem to know more about what is on Wikipedia than me so I will take your word for it.

No I get my definitions and views from my university study and from 7 years working in sports statistics.

And whatever you paid for your degree, ask for your money back because “the Law of Large Numbers” – very different to the “Law of Averages”. The law of averages suggests that there is some sort of intangible corrective that will bring results back to the expected average, the law of large numbers does not (it is an actual mathematical theorem – as you would no doubt know). Neither has much value in this topic because you are not dealing with absolutes.

Most of what you said about the dragons above is right, but it has nothing to do with the “law of averages” (which was your basis for the Eels improving next year).

At the end of the day you have assumed that because the Eels played very poorly for half of 2009 and very well for half. Then played poorly in 2010, that there average is somewhere in the middle. We don’t know where their “average” lies until they are finished. Their "average" is constantly moving and if they start th eyear poorly next year, their average will be lower again.

At the end of the day, statistically, they are no more likely to improve next year than play worse. As individuals you would have to provide some statistical evidence that there is some common “trends” in players 30 years and over performing better in years subsequent to years of individual diminished performance. But such data doesn’t exist, so all you can do is speculate. I will speculate, from observations that players 30+ don’t, in most cases, improve or correct a sliding trend in their performance and given that none of our 30+ players (or Orford) are players of amazing class (Hindy being the exception and he has value although not the same value he had at his peak), I don’t expect that this will translate into performances equal to or better than 2009 from these players.


Anyway, I think I am done with this argument (it has got completely off track – I think it started with Orford stinks! ). If you have a counter argument, feel free to send me a private message, but seriously lets move on.

 

[lingard]

Oh gosh thanks mate! That's the nicest thing anybody's ever said to me.



I'll tell you what the reason is.

We live in a world where we've bent so far backwards to empower victims that victimhood has become an attractive position to aspire to.

Once upon a time, being offended was an absolutely horrible state of affairs that people would do anything to avoid. Now the world's full of whiny bitches looking for any opportunity to be offended.

It's a sad state of affairs that the best most people can ever hope to aspire to is to become a victim. Maybe they'll get some kind of government payout and STFU.



I've never seen an apology solve anything. If a grievance is so big that it causes people this kind of pain then a simple apology won't fix it.

At best, an apology would mollify whoever it is who's having a cry (I think it's parra pete and one other poster) by letting them think they'd successfully bullied me into submissive behaviour.

At worst it will reinforce the attractiveness of victimhood in the eyes of all observers and I've got too much conscience to let that kind of lesson stand.

You`re barking up the wrong tree. Go f**k yourself.