Super Rugby play-offs: Stormers - Sharks in Cape Town (28/07/2012)

[Dizzy]

No-one is saying the Chiefs or Crusaders don't have a chance of beating the Stormers in South Africa. I'm just suggesting that the Chiefs/Crusaders will have a much better chance of winning when playing at home against a Sharks team who have won less than 50% of their away matches this season, rather than away against a Stormers team who are unbeaten at home this season.......

Go the Sharks! I don't think either the Chiefs or Crusaders will beat the Stormers in South Africa, but I think they would have a much better chance of beating Sharks in New Zealand....

This should be a good game - at this stage I'd think the Stormers will be favourites, but I will wait until I've seen the lineups before making any predictions....

Sorry Darwin but I'm pretty sure you were the one who said it.

[TRF_Darwin]

Sorry Darwin but I'm pretty sure you were the one who said it.

?????

I stated I didn't think that the Chiefs/Crusaders would beat the Stormers in South Africa - by this I meant that the Stormers would be favorites in such a match (and I still firmly believe this). In no way was that meant to suggest that the Chiefs/Crusaders have no chance of beating the Stormers (as you seemed to suggest)! Being underdogs in a match is very different to having no chance in a match

I stick by my original statement: There is a much higher chance of a New Zealand team winning the tournament if the Sharks win this match.....

[Dizzy]

?????

I stated I didn't think that the Chiefs/Crusaders would beat the Stormers in South Africa - by this I meant that the Stormers would be favorites in such a match (and I still firmly believe this). In no way was that meant to suggest that the Chiefs/Crusaders have no chance of beating the Stormers (as you seemed to suggest)! Being underdogs in a match is very different to having no chance in a match

I stick by my original statement: There is a much higher chance of a New Zealand team winning the tournament if the Sharks win this match.....

I understand what you're trying to say, just read it as it was typed.
I guess if it was worded correctly then I wouldn't have "seemed to suggest" exactly what you said.

There is a massive difference between "I think the Stormers are favorites" and "I don't think the Chiefs/Crusaders will win" the same way you stated there is a difference between "underdogs" and "no chance"

[dudeabides]

The odds I've seen at p'power for this one are 4/9 Stormers at home, and 7/4 for the away Sharks. And that is not enough of a payoff to risk betting on the Sharks to me, am I wrong?

[TRF_Darwin]

The odds I've seen at p'power for this one are 4/9 Stormers at home, and 7/4 for the away Sharks. And that is not enough of a payoff to risk betting on the Sharks to me, am I wrong?

I'd say it was almost worth betting on the Sharks at those odds. While having a week off can help freshen up a team, they can take time to get back up to speed again - if the Sharks were able to get an early try (or 2) on the board the Stormers may struggle to come back... especially as they would mainly be scoring in 3's!

I understand what you're trying to say, just read it as it was typed.
I guess if it was worded correctly then I wouldn't have "seemed to suggest" exactly what you said.

There is a massive difference between "I think the Stormers are favorites" and "I don't think the Chiefs/Crusaders will win" the same way you stated there is a difference between "underdogs" and "no chance"

It was worded correctly.

There is no difference between "I think the Stormers are favorites" and "I don't think the Chiefs/Crusaders will win".

The favourite by definition is: "the competitor thought most likely to win a game or contest, especially by people betting on the outcome."

Therefore stating "I think the Stormers are favourites" and "I think the Stormers will win" is saying exactly the same thing. Stating "I think the Stormers will win" is exactly the same as stating "I don't think the Crusaders/Chiefs will win". Therefore simple algebra tells us that "I think the Stormers are favourites" is the same as "I don't think the Crusaders/Chiefs will win"

[smartcooky]

I'd say it was almost worth betting on the Sharks at those odds. While having a week off can help freshen up a team, they can take time to get back up to speed again - if the Sharks were able to get an early try (or 2) on the board the Stormers may struggle to come back... especially as they would mainly be scoring in 3's!



It was worded correctly.

There is no difference between "I think the Stormers are favorites" and "I don't think the Chiefs/Crusaders will win".

The favourite by definition is: "the competitor thought most likely to win a game or contest, especially by people betting on the outcome."

Therefore stating "I think the Stormers are favourites" and "I think the Stormers will win" is saying exactly the same thing. Stating "I think the Stormers will win" is exactly the same as stating "I don't think the Crusaders/Chiefs will win". Therefore simple algebra tells us that "I think the Stormers are favourites" is the same as "I don't think the Crusaders/Chiefs will win"

Its soooooooo obvious that you're right Darwin.



Any idiot could see that. Its as plain as the nose on your face!!!

[Dizzy]

It was worded correctly.

There is no difference between "I think the Stormers are favorites" and "I don't think the Chiefs/Crusaders will win".

The favourite by definition is: "the competitor thought most likely to win a game or contest, especially by people betting on the outcome."

Therefore stating "I think the Stormers are favourites" and "I think the Stormers will win" is saying exactly the same thing. Stating "I think the Stormers will win" is exactly the same as stating "I don't think the Crusaders/Chiefs will win". Therefore simple algebra tells us that "I think the Stormers are favourites" is the same as "I don't think the Crusaders/Chiefs will win"

Lol.... I don't know if you're taking the piss or what...

This is what you said. "I don't think either the Chiefs or Crusaders will beat the Stormers in South Africa"


You gave me a definition of "favorite" yet that isn't even the word you used in the sentence that started this exchange.Perhaps if you had used it, your point would be valid.

That doesn't suggest the game can go either way.
It doesn't suggest the Stormers are merely favorites but the Chiefs/Crusaders could possibly win.
The only thing that sentence suggests is that you don't believe the Chiefs or Crusaders will beat the Stormers in South Africa and that's pretty much it.

[TRF_Draggs]

Its soooooooo obvious that you're right Darwin.



Any idiot could see that. Its as plain as the nose on your face!!!

In B4 Feic sees this and tears it to bits or something.




OK, I know he does physics...

[HB Scot]

Darwin...
Would have to agree with you there, that from Chiefs or Crusaders perspective a Sharks win is order of the day.

[Feicarsinn]

In B4 Feic sees this and tears it to bits or something.




OK, I know he does physics...

Huh? I wasn't going to say anything!




Although they are all just equations for mean value, so I don't see how they could tell you anything about probability. Oh, and the first two are exactly the same.

I'm not particularly good at probability and stats, I only really use them for experimental margins of error and QM and the like. But I digress...

[smartcooky]

OK, I know he does physics...

The won't do him much good.. the formulae are Statistical!

[Feicarsinn]

The won't do him much good.. the formulae are Statistical!

Psh, statistical mechanics, quantum mechanics, experimental data treatment.


But anyway, Stormers by 7-10.

[TRF_Darwin]

Lol.... I don't know if you're taking the piss or what...

This is what you said. "I don't think either the Chiefs or Crusaders will beat the Stormers in South Africa"


You gave me a definition of "favorite" yet that isn't even the word you used in the sentence that started this exchange.Perhaps if you had used it, your point would be valid.

I gave you a definition of favourite to show that the statements "I think the Stormers are favourites" and "I don't think the Chiefs/Crusaders will beat the Stormers" mean exactly the same thing!

Let me make it simple:

I think the Stormers will beat the Crusaders/Chiefs.
Therefore, I think the Stormers are favourites.
Therefore, I don't think the Crusaders/Chiefs are favourites.
Therefore, I don't think the Crusaders/Chiefs will beat the Stormers.

Which of the above statements do you disagree with?

That doesn't suggest the game can go either way.
It doesn't suggest the Stormers are merely favorites but the Chiefs/Crusaders could possibly win.
The only thing that sentence suggests is that you don't believe the Chiefs or Crusaders will beat the Stormers in South Africa and that's pretty much it.

That is correct. My statement didn't suggest anything except that I didn't think the Chiefs/Crusaders would win (i.e. I thought the Stormers would win). It didn't imply anything about the closeness of the game, or how much of a chance the Chiefs/Crusaders would have (apart from the fact it was below 50%), and it certainly didn't suggest that the Chiefs/Crusaders had no chance of winning!

[Erich]

There is no difference between "I think the Stormers are favorites" and "I don't think the Chiefs/Crusaders will win".

The favourite by definition is: "the competitor thought most likely to win a game or contest, especially by people betting on the outcome."

Therefore stating "I think the Stormers are favourites" and "I think the Stormers will win" is saying exactly the same thing. Stating "I think the Stormers will win" is exactly the same as stating "I don't think the Crusaders/Chiefs will win". Therefore simple algebra tells us that "I think the Stormers are favourites" is the same as "I don't think the Crusaders/Chiefs will win"

The bold part is key: "I think the Sormers will win" means, quite simply, that I think the Stormers will win

"The Stormers are favourites" means that the bettors, as a whole, on average if you will, think the Stormers will win.

So we have a difference between what I think and what the aggregate of bettors thinks.

So then when I say "I think the Stormers are favourites" it means that I think that the bettors, as a whole, think that the Stormers will win.

Now, I might disagree with the bettors as a whole; I might think the opposite of what they think.

Therefore, the statements "I think the Stormers will win" and "I think the Stormers are favourites" are NOT equivalent.

The first sentence is only about what I think. The second sentence is about what I think other people think.

[Dizzy]

I gave you a definition of favourite to show that the statements "I think the Stormers are favourites" and "I don't think the Chiefs/Crusaders will beat the Stormers" mean exactly the same thing!

Unfortunately for you, they don't mean exactly the same thing.

Let me make it simple:

Let me make it simpler

I think the Stormers will beat the Crusaders/Chiefs.
Therefore, I think the Stormers are favourites. Stormers are favourites but that doesn't mean you don't count the Crusaders/Chiefs out.
Therefore, I don't think the Crusaders/Chiefs are favourites. Stormers are favourites but that doesn't mean you don't count the Crusaders/Chiefs out.
Therefore, I don't think the Crusaders/Chiefs will beat the Stormers. You don't think the Chiefs/Crusaders will beat the Stormers at all.

Which of the above statements do you disagree with?

Again I come back to, if it was worded correctly, the confusion wouldn't have emerged.

And my prediction on the game, The Sharks to win by 12!

[Gena_ZA]

[TRF_Darwin]

The bold part is key: "I think the Sormers will win" means, quite simply, that I think the Stormers will win

"The Stormers are favourites" means that the bettors, as a whole, on average if you will, think the Stormers will win.

So we have a difference between what I think and what the aggregate of bettors thinks.

So then when I say "I think the Stormers are favourites" it means that I think that the bettors, as a whole, think that the Stormers will win.

Now, I might disagree with the bettors as a whole; I might think the opposite of what they think.

Therefore, the statements "I think the Stormers will win" and "I think the Stormers are favourites" are NOT equivalent.

The first sentence is only about what I think. The second sentence is about what I think other people think.

Yes, technically you are correct if you consider the term "favourites" to refer solely to what bettors as a whole think. However I think it is perfectly acceptable to use the term favourites to solely refer to who you think is most likely to win. For any specific event there could be an number of "favourites" - e.g. a "bookies favourite" (who the bookies think will win), a "public favourite" (who the general public think will win), and "personal favourite" (who you personally think will win). I suppose it is my own fault for choosing a definition for favourite that included "especially by people betting on the outcome" - I probably should have stuck with the following definition: "favourite - a competitor thought likely to win"...

In any case this isn't really relevant. The main point is that stating that I don't think the Crusaders/Chiefs will win is not the same thing as stating the Crusaders/Chiefs have no chance of winning!

Unfortunately for you, they don't mean exactly the same thing.

Let me make it simpler

Again I come back to, if it was worded correctly, the confusion wouldn't have emerged.

And my prediction on the game, The Sharks to win by 12!

You are seriously suggesting that stating that "I think 'team x' are favourites" is different than stating "I think 'team x' will win"?

Instead of just stating "they are not the same", you will have to explain to my why they are not the same! Stating you think a team will win does not mean you think the opposition has no chance I'm sure every week you will say something like "I think the Hurricanes will beat the Highlanders" - I'm sure you don't think that implies that the Highlanders have no chance. Likewise stating a team is a 'favourite' does not saying anything about what you think the opposition chances of winning are (other than they are less than 50%). If the All Blacks were to play Japan they would be considered favourites, but that doesn't mean Japan have a realistic chance of winning!


There was nothing wrong with my original wording - the fact you (twice) thought that "I don't think the Crusaders/Chiefs will beat the Stormers" is the same as stating "I think the Crusaders/Chiefs have no chance against the Stormers" is really beyond my control

[Dizzy]

Yes, technically you are correct if you consider the term "favourites" to refer solely to what bettors as a whole think. However I think it is perfectly acceptable to use the term favourites to solely refer to who you think is most likely to win. For any specific event there could be an number of "favourites" - e.g. a "bookies favourite" (who the bookies think will win), a "public favourite" (who the general public think will win), and "personal favourite" (who you personally think will win). I suppose it is my own fault for choosing a definition for favourite that included "especially by people betting on the outcome" - I probably should have stuck with the following definition: "favourite - a competitor thought likely to win"...

In any case this isn't really relevant. The main point is that stating that I don't think the Crusaders/Chiefs will win is not the same thing as stating the Crusaders/Chiefs have no chance of winning!



You are seriously suggesting that stating that "I think 'team x' are favourites" is different than stating "I think 'team x' will win"?

Instead of just stating "they are not the same", you will have to explain to my why they are not the same! Stating you think a team will win does not mean you think the opposition has no chance I'm sure every week you will say something like "I think the Hurricanes will beat the Highlanders" - I'm sure you don't think that implies that the Highlanders have no chance....

There was nothing wrong with my original wording - the fact you (twice) thought that "I don't think the Crusaders/Chiefs will beat the Stormers" is the same as stating "I think the Crusaders/Chiefs have no chance against the Stormers" is really beyond my control

Hahahaha Ok you've convinced me on this alone!!
+rep

[TRF_Darwin]

Hahahaha Ok you've convinced me on this alone!!
+rep

It is a bit boring talking about rugby when you team isn't involved - we have to resort to arguing about the meaning of words!

[Sker]

Are you perhaps lawyers?


Edit: Speaking of English, I always thought "clandestine" meant something to do with nuns, or virgins. I have no clue why, just sounded like that.

[stormer2010]

That's just fine. You all talk about anything you like right up to the point the Stormers take the title. Then i will make damn sure the Stormers are all anyboy's talking about whether you find it tedious or not.

If we don't win I suppose I will have to find a way to travel to a dimension where we did take the title because that would be easier than waiting another year without silverware (I don't count the Vodacom- and SR conference cups).

[heineken]

That's just fine. You all talk about anything you like right up to the point the Stormers take the title. Then i will make damn sure the Stormers are all anyboy's talking about whether you find it tedious or not.

If we don't win I suppose I will have to find a way to travel to a dimension where we did take the title because that would be easier than waiting another year without silverware (I don't count the Vodacom- and SR conference cups).

looks like someone struck a nerve somewhere...

It would be nice if the Stormers finally had a trophy of value in their cabinet, so that Newlands can finally appoint a cleaner and buy some Mr. Min...

[Gena_ZA]

looks like someone struck a nerve somewhere...

It would be nice if the Stormers finally had a trophy of value in their cabinet, so that Newlands can finally appoint a cleaner and buy some Mr. Min...

on that note, renew the contract with your cleaner and buy in bulk as it seems the Bulls are some distance away from even smelling the silverware again

[heineken]

on that note, renew the contract with your cleaner and buy in bulk as it seems the Bulls are some distance away from even smelling the silverware again

Really? Based on one tournament??

At least most of us here has actually seen the Bulls lift a trophy... The last time the Stormers/WP won something, some of the members on TRF was still in diapers...

[Gena_ZA]

yes really, but based on two seasons (in 2011 you finished 7th), short memory when it suits you it seems

I am stating the fact that for the last two seasons your precious team of champions did not even reach the play-off's, sorry and sad, but true
Get among the best again and I will gladly give your team the credit and hit on my own if we sucked as much

[Sker]

2001 was the last time we won something, mmm... 2001 I was in grade 3, had a crush on my teacher and coke cost R2.00

[TRF_Ezequiel]

2001... The year I left high-school.... Man, that's a while ago!

[TRF_Draggs]

I can't believe 2001 was 11 years ago!
If someone says something was a decado ago to me, I still think late 90's.

[heineken]

2001... The year I left high-school.... Man, that's a while ago!

LOL!!

so I can really call you Oom??

[stormer2010]

I can't believe 2001 was 11 years ago!
If someone says something was a decado ago to me, I still think late 90's.

+1 because I know that feel.

Well the Bulls supporters remain bullish and full of BS despite the fact that they have been our bitches for a while now. That's fine; we like 'em feisty.