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?
« Previous Page
grappler0000
1/4/09 9:49:10PM

Posted by MikeyG


Posted by grappler0000




nothing to say bud?



I think I summed it up quite nicely...thanks.
JimiMak
1/4/09 10:16:23PM
It usually doesn't work. there's more examples than i care to name. Just thw world wide LHW scene has a tone of examples. I don't believe it's better than 50% I think in higher level matches it's much lower, in small level c or d level fighters it may work more often.
decken
1/4/09 10:26:53PM
MikeyG is right. Probability and statistics so are so completely useless. They never help predict future outcomes. I mean meteorologist, advertisers, doctors, physicist, mathematicians, politicians, the FDA, the FBI, the CDC, car manufactures,, stock brokers, sport teams, casinos NEVER use statistics to help predict what is most likely going to happen.

MikeyG you know nothing about statistics and you are pulling of the most basic fallacy in statistics. The Ecological fallacy: You can not apply or infer that because something is true for the whole group that it is true for the individual. Just because you can give individual examples where mma math does not work does not mean that as a whole it does not work. If statistics have been done correctly and MMA math works lets say 70%(mean) of the time and you have a standard deviation of 5% then 95% of the time if you make your picks off of mma math then you will get between 60 and 80% of them right based on mma MATH. That is a fact deal with it!



EDIT:
All of this is only possible if the math and data have been collected correctly and statistically mma math has been shown to work.
dannyfrank
1/4/09 11:07:35PM

Posted by MikeyG

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



probability and statistics is a better base for an argument than repeating the words "luck" and "coincidence" 80,000 times
Diamondback2
1/4/09 11:53:39PM
I agree mmamath can be used but it has lost me more big money matches than simply reviewing prior fights.

After Matt Serra beat GSP i forever gave up on using mma math. There was NOTHING there to add up to that.....

Now one way i do use MMA math is when looking how a fighter performs against a certain type of fighter. Example when somebody fights Brock from now on I'm going to look at how the opponent has done in the past with bis strong wrestlers.

Just always doing MMA Math however when there is no similarities between fighter A/B and C or whatever is not going to be as useful as always doing it IMO.

But to each their own...
Pitbull09
1/4/09 11:56:51PM

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



However, the perecentages are based on events that arnt mathmatically proven. If fighter A were to beat fighter C more or less times in the future, the percentage would change and prove the percentage was faulty.
In the end. The percentage doesnt make the fight, the fighters and styles do. In most cases this can help you like with your examples but not like higher competition fights like Liddel/ Silva/ Jackson (unless your counting now)

If these are the only examples you are using, there is a hole in them as you are using fighter A (who is a top UFC fighter) vs. fighters B and C (who arent close to as good). It doesnt take MMAth to decide those fights and styles contrasting and a detailed look at each fighter will always do better for picks
decken
1/5/09 12:14:27AM

However, the perecentages are based on events that arnt mathmatically proven. If fighter A were to beat fighter C more or less times in the future, the percentage would change and prove the percentage was faulty.
In the end. The percentage doesnt make the fight, the fighters and styles do. In most cases this can help you like with your examples but not like higher competition fights like Liddel/ Silva/ Jackson (unless your counting now)

If these are the only examples you are using, there is a hole in them as you are using fighter A (who is a top UFC fighter) vs. fighters B and C (who arent close to as good). It doesnt take MMAth to decide those fights and styles contrasting and a detailed look at each fighter will always do better for picks





No it would not prove that it was mathematically faulty. Assuming that mma math is right 70% of the time then fighter A lossing to fighter C would mean that fight falls within the 30% mma math is wrong. Also the mma math in this forum never addressed rematches and only if Fighter A>B>C=A>C so any point bring up rematches is moot.

Also by looking at your record I do not see any distinct advantage to how you pick your fights. And you have zero evidence to back up your claims. And looking at different styles of fighters and picking your fights that way is very subjective and will depend on the individual(individuals making the pick:edit). Individuals will vary.
mentalcase
1/5/09 12:41:24AM

Posted by Pitbull09


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



However, the percentages are based on events that arnt mathmatically proven. If fighter A were to beat fighter C more or less times in the future, the percentage would change and prove the percentage was faulty.
In the end. The percentage doesnt make the fight, the fighters and styles do. In most cases this can help you like with your examples but not like higher competition fights like Liddel/ Silva/ Jackson (unless your counting now)

If these are the only examples you are using, there is a hole in them as you are using fighter A (who is a top UFC fighter) vs. fighters B and C (who arent close to as good). It doesnt take MMAth to decide those fights and styles contrasting and a detailed look at each fighter will always do better for picks



no no not just this mmath topic i mean other mmaths aswell like i have a good prediction accuracy for fighter iv never even seen fight because i look at their record check how they have done in their past few fights and I'm able to make accurate picks

and mikeyG why are u arguing with npayant clearly he knows what hes talking about check his fuken record 68% ufc and 72% secondary league he came #7 for the season in the ufc league #6 for the season in secondary league and also check my record while ur at it

now ill repeat what i first said

mmath dose not work all the time but it dose work some of the time
and I'm not just talking about this particular equation that this topic is titled






hippysmacker
1/5/09 1:09:45AM
This thread is locked now, as more has been said than needed to be. Everybody needs to chill some. No need to insult anyone . Remember whenevr you throw down a gauntlet, somebody will pick it up, but the tone of this conversation is out of line. Arguing for arguments sake is pointless, and counterproductive. So lets just let everyone agree to disagree and change the subject.
Pages: 1 [2]
Related Topics