If A beats B and B beats C, will A beat C?
MMAPlayground.com »
MMA General »
General MMA Talk »
If A beats B and B beats C, will A beat C?
mentalcase
1/4/09 7:46:17AM
Fight Matrix
It’s an interesting subject that probably comes up more in boxing than in MMA, but it’s definitely more intriguing in the MMA world due to the large variance in styles.
So how often does A beat C? First, let’s acknowledge the potential issues in analyzing this statistic.
One problem is that sometimes these A/B, B/C, and A/C bouts take place multiple times, with varying results. Another problem lies in the timing of said bouts. So I laid out some guidelines.
A/B and B/C must both take place before A/C. This is an obvious one.
The most recent A/B and B/C results before A/C are acknowledged. In other words, if A beat B five years before A/C, but A lost to B three months ago in their most recent bout before A/C, then this chain won’t be included in the analysis.
If multiple A/C results are available and all guidelines are met, then all A/Cs will be counted.
In the end, A prevailed over C at a 71% success rate.
When all three bouts occur within a 3 year window, the success rate improves to 72.3%.
Within a 2 year window, 73%.
18 months, 74.2%.
12 months, 75.2%.
9 months, 77.5%
6 months, 80.9%
3 months, 85.6%
Sample Analysis: Cheick Kongo
Cheick Kongo (A) beat Andre Tete (B) on 6/10/2001
Andre Tete (B) beat Dave Dagliesh (C) on 12/1/2002
Cheick Kongo (A) beat Dave Dagliesh (C) on 12/11/2005
Cheick Kongo (A) beat Christian Wellisch (B) on 8/26/2006
Christian Wellisch (B) beat Dan Evensen (C) on 4/1/2006
Cheick Kongo (A) beat Dan Evensen (C) on 8/9/2008
Cheick Kongo (A) beat Mirko Filipovic (B) on 9/8/2007
Mirko Filipovic (B) beat Heath Herring (C) on 6/8/2003
Cheick Kongo (A) failed to beat Heath Herring (C) on 3/1/2008
It’s an interesting subject that probably comes up more in boxing than in MMA, but it’s definitely more intriguing in the MMA world due to the large variance in styles.
So how often does A beat C? First, let’s acknowledge the potential issues in analyzing this statistic.
One problem is that sometimes these A/B, B/C, and A/C bouts take place multiple times, with varying results. Another problem lies in the timing of said bouts. So I laid out some guidelines.
A/B and B/C must both take place before A/C. This is an obvious one.
The most recent A/B and B/C results before A/C are acknowledged. In other words, if A beat B five years before A/C, but A lost to B three months ago in their most recent bout before A/C, then this chain won’t be included in the analysis.
If multiple A/C results are available and all guidelines are met, then all A/Cs will be counted.
In the end, A prevailed over C at a 71% success rate.
When all three bouts occur within a 3 year window, the success rate improves to 72.3%.
Within a 2 year window, 73%.
18 months, 74.2%.
12 months, 75.2%.
9 months, 77.5%
6 months, 80.9%
3 months, 85.6%
Sample Analysis: Cheick Kongo
Cheick Kongo (A) beat Andre Tete (B) on 6/10/2001
Andre Tete (B) beat Dave Dagliesh (C) on 12/1/2002
Cheick Kongo (A) beat Dave Dagliesh (C) on 12/11/2005
Cheick Kongo (A) beat Christian Wellisch (B) on 8/26/2006
Christian Wellisch (B) beat Dan Evensen (C) on 4/1/2006
Cheick Kongo (A) beat Dan Evensen (C) on 8/9/2008
Cheick Kongo (A) beat Mirko Filipovic (B) on 9/8/2007
Mirko Filipovic (B) beat Heath Herring (C) on 6/8/2003
Cheick Kongo (A) failed to beat Heath Herring (C) on 3/1/2008
MikeyG
1/4/09 9:26:19AM
mmath is a coincidence and lays only on skill set and chance
AchillesHeel
1/4/09 10:06:36AM
It's certainly an interesting discovery, although I want to know what his sample sizes are.
Manfred
1/4/09 11:31:47AM
Interesting but one of the most glaring exceptions:
Hughes (A) beat Trigg (B) TWICE
Trigg (B) Hallman (C) TWICE
Hallman (C) beat Hughes (A) TWICE
Hughes (A) beat Trigg (B) TWICE
Trigg (B) Hallman (C) TWICE
Hallman (C) beat Hughes (A) TWICE
Diamondback2
1/4/09 1:00:06PM
Yeah that's nice but i would like to know how many fights were involved in this. If it was just the Kongo sample than thats dumb.....
MMAMath dosent work as has been proven 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times
MMAMath dosent work as has been proven 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times
mentalcase
1/4/09 2:45:45PM
Posted by Diamondback2
Yeah that's nice but i would like to know how many fights were involved in this. If it was just the Kongo sample than thats dumb.....
MMAMath dosent work as has been proven 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times
mmath dose work that's how i can make accurate picks
what u should say i mmath dose not work all the time
there is a percentage of how often it works and when u can correctly estimate the percentage that's how u can improve ur fight predictions
MikeyG
1/4/09 2:59:15PM
Posted by mentalcase
Posted by Diamondback2
Yeah that's nice but i would like to know how many fights were involved in this. If it was just the Kongo sample than thats dumb.....
MMAMath dosent work as has been proven 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times
mmath dose work that's how i can make accurate picks
what u should say i mmath dose not work all the time
there is a percentage of how often it works and when u can correctly estimate the percentage that's how u can improve ur fight predictions
no dude, theres no predetermined such results like mmath, just because you pick fights right dosnt mean that mmath works even some of the time its about skill set, luck and coincidence like i said before, this isnt some astrology b/s everything that happens is and always will be coincidence
seanfu
1/4/09 3:50:43PM
There are ways to calculate winners, not necessarilly mathmatically, but you can calculate them if you can put about 15 minutes or more into every pick.
My first 3 event's i did it but I said F it because my computer is superslow and it was taking super long.
But when I was doing it it was like 68 percent or something.
The only real loopholes are new guys and guys who improved a crazy amount. Checking the quality of each opponent and show are a pain in the ass. Calculating sub rates and all that good stuff sucks too.
My first 3 event's i did it but I said F it because my computer is superslow and it was taking super long.
But when I was doing it it was like 68 percent or something.
The only real loopholes are new guys and guys who improved a crazy amount. Checking the quality of each opponent and show are a pain in the ass. Calculating sub rates and all that good stuff sucks too.
npayant
1/4/09 4:13:48PM
Posted by MikeyG
Posted by mentalcase
Posted by Diamondback2
Yeah that's nice but i would like to know how many fights were involved in this. If it was just the Kongo sample than thats dumb.....
MMAMath dosent work as has been proven 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times
mmath dose work that's how i can make accurate picks
what u should say i mmath dose not work all the time
there is a percentage of how often it works and when u can correctly estimate the percentage that's how u can improve ur fight predictions
no dude, theres no predetermined such results like mmath, just because you pick fights right dosnt mean that mmath works even some of the time its about skill set, luck and coincidence like i said before, this isnt some astrology b/s everything that happens is and always will be coincidence
He's not saying it works 100% of the time... and he clearly showed that in his original post. But mmath DOES work (strictly when it comes to picking fights correctly) more than 50% of the time... believe me, I use it MANY times when predicting fights. Numerous times, I said well A beat B and B beat C, so because I don't know much about these two fighters, I'll pick A beats C. Of course, it doesn't always work... but it does definitely work. I know, I know.... you could show me many times where it didn't, but I could show you just as many where it did.
Good topic.
GrandMaster313
1/4/09 6:09:47PM
I say do your homework and you wont have to worry about your A,B,C's 
MikeyG
1/4/09 6:32:10PM
Posted by npayant
Posted by MikeyG
Posted by mentalcase
Posted by Diamondback2
Yeah that's nice but i would like to know how many fights were involved in this. If it was just the Kongo sample than thats dumb.....
MMAMath dosent work as has been proven 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times
mmath dose work that's how i can make accurate picks
what u should say i mmath dose not work all the time
there is a percentage of how often it works and when u can correctly estimate the percentage that's how u can improve ur fight predictions
no dude, theres no predetermined such results like mmath, just because you pick fights right dosnt mean that mmath works even some of the time its about skill set, luck and coincidence like i said before, this isnt some astrology b/s everything that happens is and always will be coincidence
He's not saying it works 100% of the time... and he clearly showed that in his original post. But mmath DOES work (strictly when it comes to picking fights correctly) more than 50% of the time... believe me, I use it MANY times when predicting fights. Numerous times, I said well A beat B and B beat C, so because I don't know much about these two fighters, I'll pick A beats C. Of course, it doesn't always work... but it does definitely work. I know, I know.... you could show me many times where it didn't, but I could show you just as many where it did.
Good topic.
re-read what i said before jumping to conclusions
npayant
1/4/09 6:50:32PM
Posted by MikeyG
re-read what i said before jumping to conclusions
I did... and you're clearly saying "just because you pick fights right doesn't mean that mmath works even some of the time "
And I'm saying it does when it comes to predicting the winner of a fight. Like I said, I use the concept all of the time.... it works for me.
MikeyG
1/4/09 7:19:06PM
Posted by npayant
Posted by MikeyG
re-read what i said before jumping to conclusions
I did... and you're clearly saying "just because you pick fights right doesn't mean that mmath works even some of the time "
And I'm saying it does when it comes to predicting the winner of a fight. Like I said, I use the concept all of the time.... it works for me.
clearly you didnt comprehend what i said if thats what you got out of it, coincidence is the key word if you refuse to understand it
AchillesHeel
1/4/09 7:19:53PM
Posted by MikeyG
re-read what i said before jumping to conclusions
I've re-read what you wrote five or six times now, and it still doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The "MMAth" in the first post looks very straightforward to me. It isn't astrology, it's statistics.
A 71% winning percentage sounds significant to me, although as I said earlier, I'd like to know what the sample size was. Statistical analysis of MMA fighters is tough because of the tiny sample sizes and the lack of hard data. I also wonder what the overall winning percentage of Fighters A, B, and C are. It would be interesting if Fighter A's winning percentage was higher against Fighter C than against Fighter D (a fighter has never fought any of the other three). Then you might be able to say that Fighter A actually performs better than he usually does against Fighter C, which I think would actually make "MMAth" credible (again, small sample sizes, yadda-yadda...). But I'm not really a math guy, and I haven't given it enough thought to be able to say that for sure.
MikeyG
1/4/09 7:20:43PM
Posted by AchillesHeel
Posted by MikeyG
re-read what i said before jumping to conclusions
I've re-read what you wrote five or six times now, and it still doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The "MMAth" in the first post looks very straightforward to me. It isn't astrology, it's statistics.
A 71% winning percentage sounds significant to me, although as I said earlier, I'd like to know what the sample size was. Statistical analysis of MMA fighters is tough because of the tiny sample sizes and the lack of hard data. I also wonder what the overall winning percentage of Fighters A, B, and C are. It would be interesting if Fighter A's winning percentage was higher against Fighter C than against Fighter D (a fighter has never fought any of the other three). Then you might be able to say that Fighter A actually performs better than he usually does against Fighter C, which I think would actually make "MMAth" credible (again, small sample sizes, yadda-yadda...). But I'm not really a math guy, and I haven't given it enough thought to be able to say that for sure.
so what, anyone can beat anyone and everything is a coincidence, anyone who thinks results are predetermined by mmath are fooling themselves regardless of "stats" no more needs to be said on the subject
AchillesHeel
1/4/09 7:22:29PM
...says the guy with the 47-38 record. 
Okay, after reading your edit, it's becoming evident that you might not know what statistic is being cited here, or what statistics are, more generally. It's about probabilities, not divining the future. Probabilities are of course a valuable tool for predictions, insofar as past performance is indicative of future performance. Statistics are just a method for understanding what's already taken place. Of course, knowing when past performance doesn't predict future performance is the key to being able to make accurate picks in a game like MMA Playground.
Okay, after reading your edit, it's becoming evident that you might not know what statistic is being cited here, or what statistics are, more generally. It's about probabilities, not divining the future. Probabilities are of course a valuable tool for predictions, insofar as past performance is indicative of future performance. Statistics are just a method for understanding what's already taken place. Of course, knowing when past performance doesn't predict future performance is the key to being able to make accurate picks in a game like MMA Playground.
MikeyG
1/4/09 7:26:10PM
Posted by AchillesHeel
...says the guy with the 47-38 record.
wow you got me bud, since i have a mediocre pick record that makes what i say irrelevent... you have no further argument so you resort to that, sad
dannyfrank
1/4/09 7:33:30PM
Posted by MikeyG
Posted by AchillesHeel
...says the guy with the 47-38 record.
wow you got me bud, since i have a mediocre pick record that makes what i say irrelevent... you have no further argument so you resort to that, sad
i guess you didnt see this part of his argument
Posted by AchillesHeel
Okay, after reading your edit, it's becoming evident that you might not know what statistic is being cited here, or what statistics are, more generally. It's about probabilities, not divining the future. Probabilities are of course a valuable tool for predictions, insofar as past performance is indicative of future performance. Statistics are just a method for understanding what's already taken place. Of course, knowing when past performance doesn't predict future performance is the key to being able to make accurate picks in a game like MMA Playground.
casey64
1/4/09 7:33:36PM
How I see it is what Dana White said: Any thing Fing happen in MMA.
npayant
1/4/09 7:40:55PM
Posted by AchillesHeel
...says the guy with the 47-38 record.
Okay, after reading your edit, it's becoming evident that you might not know what statistic is being cited here, or what statistics are, more generally. It's about probabilities, not divining the future. Probabilities are of course a valuable tool for predictions, insofar as past performance is indicative of future performance. Statistics are just a method for understanding what's already taken place. Of course, knowing when past performance doesn't predict future performance is the key to being able to make accurate picks in a game like MMA Playground.
Exactly! Thank you for more clearly stating what I was trying to say.
MikeyG
1/4/09 7:41:42PM
Posted by AchillesHeel
...says the guy with the 47-38 record.
Okay, after reading your edit, it's becoming evident that you might not know what statistic is being cited here, or what statistics are, more generally. It's about probabilities, not divining the future. Probabilities are of course a valuable tool for predictions, insofar as past performance is indicative of future performance. Statistics are just a method for understanding what's already taken place. Of course, knowing when past performance doesn't predict future performance is the key to being able to make accurate picks in a game like MMA Playground.
im talking about how the human elements are in effect every fight and how mmath is useless so what if someone beat someone twice before or whatever your the one sporting the rampage av and your talking to me about mmath? but i guess that dosnt count because its an ABC situation huh, thats so hypocritical i dont know where to start
fights accord to skill set, luck and chance, im not saying anything about stats or probabilty and dont insult my intellect, who the hell are you? its becoming evident that you dont understand coincidence
and if your so smart why dont you have a perfect record since you brought that up, since your so called stats are so valid why arnt you getting them all right, oh wait mmath only works "sometimes" according to you
MikeyG
1/4/09 7:43:20PM
Posted by npayant
Posted by AchillesHeel
...says the guy with the 47-38 record.
Okay, after reading your edit, it's becoming evident that you might not know what statistic is being cited here, or what statistics are, more generally. It's about probabilities, not divining the future. Probabilities are of course a valuable tool for predictions, insofar as past performance is indicative of future performance. Statistics are just a method for understanding what's already taken place. Of course, knowing when past performance doesn't predict future performance is the key to being able to make accurate picks in a game like MMA Playground.
Exactly! Thank you for more clearly stating what I was trying to say.
i understand what your all saying but its crap
MikeyG
1/4/09 7:46:37PM
Posted by dannyfrank
Posted by MikeyG
...says the guy with the 47-38 record.
wow you got me bud, since i have a mediocre pick record that makes what i say irrelevent... you have no further argument so you resort to that, sad
i guess you didnt see this part of his argument
well i guess you missed how he edited his post, maybe look at that before saying something like this
npayant
1/4/09 7:51:24PM
Posted by MikeyG
Posted by npayant
Posted by AchillesHeel
...says the guy with the 47-38 record.
Okay, after reading your edit, it's becoming evident that you might not know what statistic is being cited here, or what statistics are, more generally. It's about probabilities, not divining the future. Probabilities are of course a valuable tool for predictions, insofar as past performance is indicative of future performance. Statistics are just a method for understanding what's already taken place. Of course, knowing when past performance doesn't predict future performance is the key to being able to make accurate picks in a game like MMA Playground.
Exactly! Thank you for more clearly stating what I was trying to say.
i understand what your all saying but its crap
Man, I don't understand you... All we're saying is mmath works when trying to predict who is going to win a fight for this Fantasy MMA Game. It's a good strategy to use to predict who is going to win. It doesn't work all of the time, yeah, but it definitely works probably 60 - 70% of the time. You should try it some time...
All I ever see from you in your posts is agruing points just for the sake of doing so. No, I haven't seen all of your posts... but almost every single one I do see, you're arguing with someone.
AchillesHeel
1/4/09 8:02:16PM
Posted by MikeyG
im talking about how the human elements are in effect every fight and how mmath is useless so what if someone beat someone twice before or whatever your the one sporting the rampage av and your talking to me about mmath? but i guess that dosnt count because its an ABC situation huh, thats so hypocritical i dont know where to start
I really don't know what you're talking about.
Posted by MikeyG
fights accord to skill set, luck and chance, im not saying anything about stats or probabilty and dont insult my intellect, who the hell are you? its becoming evident that you dont understand coincidence
If you're not talking about stats or probabilities, you're in the wrong thread.
Posted by MikeyG
and if your so smart why dont you have a perfect record since you brought that up, since your so called stats are so valid why arnt you getting them all right, oh wait mmath only works "sometimes" according to you
Statistics don't "work" or "not work." They don't do anything, they're just information. If the math in the first post is correct, then Fighter A wins fights against Fighter C 71% of the time. I don't understand what you think you're arguing against. It seems like you're just being argumentative.
Posted by MikeyG
i understand what your all saying but its crap
I'm pretty sure you don't.
jiujitsufreak74
1/4/09 8:26:43PM
well the reason this is getting so much opposition is because we have learned to never rely on MMAth. however, the lesson we are suppose to learn is that MMAth is not the end all but instead we take it to mean MMAth is the devil's work lol. i am with Achilles on this one. i mean the statistics he brings up are hard to argue with, but we don't know his sample size or his margin of error. he could have taken this data form only 5% of all fights that fit the description for all we know.
i personally don't rely on MMAth when it comes to the big shows. i feel that higher profile match ups are more unaffected by MMAth than those of lower shows. so with this logic i pick a good amount of my secondary picks with some MMAth while with the higher profile fights i tend to go based off of styles, camps and other variables.
but idk if my logic is solid either, because i have a better scondary record than i do a primary record...so who knows. maybe i should do a study on it for my AP statistics class.
i personally don't rely on MMAth when it comes to the big shows. i feel that higher profile match ups are more unaffected by MMAth than those of lower shows. so with this logic i pick a good amount of my secondary picks with some MMAth while with the higher profile fights i tend to go based off of styles, camps and other variables.
but idk if my logic is solid either, because i have a better scondary record than i do a primary record...so who knows. maybe i should do a study on it for my AP statistics class.
MikeyG
1/4/09 8:39:18PM
Posted by AchillesHeel
I really don't know what you're talking about.
obviously
Posted AchillesHeel
If you're not talking about stats or probabilities, you're in the wrong thread.
nope
Posted by AchillesHeel
I'm pretty sure you don't.
all you got is probabilty this stats that, if you cant get a better base argument to argue the coincidence that is life than dont even bother responding
MikeyG
1/4/09 8:44:05PM
Posted by npayant
Man, I don't understand you...
i know
grappler0000
1/4/09 9:39:57PM
MikeyG
1/4/09 9:45:20PM
Posted by grappler0000
nothing to say bud?