Good evening everyone I'm not the type to complain when I lose a match but today something happened that was not normal I'll explain, my opponent in the match ie had posted a team composed of young people with 40 overall score and not present I was so I could make my 5 changes and not him the blow, my team 95 of overall mark against a team 40 of overall mark and which more is tired as not possible I had 17 chances of goal with a xg of 4 and my adversary 0,1 I would show you the screen there was 1,7 % quont faire 0 0 et c'est ce qui s'est passé j'ai jamais voulu croire toutes les personnes qui me dit que le moteur de match était foireux et que le jeu était devenu du lotto car je suis une personne qui croit pas ce qu'on lui dit mais qui croit ce quil voit et bien je peux vous assurer que aujourd'hui j'ai vue et j'en ai vrement la preuve même mon adversaire quand il s'est connecté ma mp pour me demander comment celaais possible et je n'suai pas sue quoi répondre voici la preuve mon pseudo AndrewLyon mon club Olympique Lyonnais

Is 1.7% equal to 0?

Nah, that's true, as far as I'm concerned 1.7% isn't equal to 0 and 17 opportunities don't mean a thing, so thank you.

That means you had a 95.9% chance of winning... and a 4.1% chance of not winning.
You have nothing to reproach yourself for, you maximised your chances of victory, but you weren't successful.
The match engine would be "not normal" if all matches like this ended in a win for the team that had 17 chances.

Blagoje Vidinic: Est-ce que 1.7% est égal à 0 ?

No blag(oje)ing with the match engine!

Apart from increasing the chances of scoring (the maximum xG of a chance is currently around 0.27, i.e. 1 chance in 4 of scoring), this will continue to happen.
It's a subject that's already been discussed 150 times here and nothing has changed.

For me, we should be able to stick to 10xG and have 0.9xG chances that have a 90% chance of going in when the gap is huge, such as 300 attackers vs 23 defenders in the zone, but hey.

The real question is could he have changed the result?
Or was it the match moderator who decided?
Is it really worth the waste of time or not?

Yes, I think you're right. I'm the one who's a bit paranoid about the edges, so for me I hadn't thought that 1.7% didn't equal 0, so for me, thank you for your answers.

junior: Moi la vrai question c'est aurait il pu changer le résultat ?
Ou es le modérateur de match qui a décidé ?
Es que ça vaut vraiment la perte de temps ou pas ?

The result is not written in advance.
He had a 1 in 4 chance of scoring on each occasion... And each opportunity is independent of the others, so until the last opportunity he could win.

Blagoje Vidinic: Le résultat n'est pas écrit à l'avance.
Il avait 1 chance sur 4 de marquer à chaque occasion... Et chaque occasion est indépendante des autres donc jusqu'à la dernière opportunité il pouvait gagner.

Thank you for your reply

Blagoje Vidinic: Le résultat n'est pas écrit à l'avance.
Il avait 1 chance sur 4 de marquer à chaque occasion... Et chaque occasion est indépendante des autres donc jusqu'à la dernière opportunité il pouvait gagner.

In fact, 1 in 4, whatever the opportunity you get, is probably the biggest aberration in this game.

It was a small push there is now on the game of small push Quevilly marked the spirits of Virtuafoot it must put small push it is realistic but there are many on Virtuafoot 😅😅😅😂😂😂

Tell your players to stop betting on sports to avoid match-fixing 😂😂😂😂

If I don't understand 1 chance in 4 of scoring on each occasion, so 17 chances, does that seem normal? Let's say I place 4 glasses on a table with a random ball in one of the glasses 17 times in a row, what are the chances you'll find the ball among the 4 glasses 17 times in a row? If it is the case you quickly played in Euro Millions between us who think that it is possible to find the ball among 4 glasses 17 times in a row without it being wrong once? Of course I specify that they are not transparent glasses I prefer to specify it one never knows have risk to say to me that it is possible if the glasses are transparent I would not be shocked as much to be clear ^^

Hi
I'm not an expert and I don't read the matrix, so this is just my hypothesis.
The probability of 1 in 4 is only when you have a full chance, but there are also small chances that fall below that.
To get an 'average' probability for your match, I divide the final xg by the number of chances.
I've had 19 chances with a xg of 5, so I end up with 5/19 = 0.26, so 19 times I've had big chances.
On the other hand I have a xg of 1.5 although I've had 10 chances, I fall to an average of 0.15 so 15% chance (maybe some chances at 25 and others at 10%) and despite my 10 chances the 0 goal is more likely.
However, I don't know at what minimum this triggers an opportunity (and that explains why you can have 0.10 xg without having had a single opportunity).

AndrewLyon: Si je comprend pas 1 chance sur 4 de marqué sur chaque occasions donc 17 occasions ca parrait normal ? Disont que je place 4 verre sur une table avec une boule au hasard dans l'un des verre et cela a 17 reprise, quelles sont les probabilités que vous tombiez sur la boule parmis les 4 verres et cela 17 fois de suite ? Si c'est le cas vous vite joué a Euro Millions entre nous qui pensse que cest possible de trouvé la boule parmis 4 verre a 17 reprises d'affilée sans ce tromper une seule fois ? ...

Hello,

In fact, to follow your comparison, it would be more like saying that out of 4 -opaque- glasses, only 1 of which contains the ball you want to get, you would take one of the 3 glasses that don't contain the ball 17 times in a row.
That's more or less what happened in your match.
But you used your luck for Vf, too late for the Euro Millions :D

Then there's the urban legend of the 'black season' boolean, which says that every now and then we have a season that adds a penalty to our chances of scoring, so that even if we have 20 chances, none of them will go in.

Gerets' analogy is the right one. And the probability of never coming across a glass containing the ball in this case is about 8 per thousand.

Gerets autant pour moi c'est vrai que j'ai les choses dans l'autre sens javais pas bien compris effectivement tu a raison mais malgré tout ca reste incroyable au point que je post sur le forum alors que je suis quelqu'un de très discret c'est vrement que ça ma supris surtout that the guy I played against wasn't on and that I had to make 5 changes because of his absence, not him and despite everything it's a bit like there was nothing to do, we could have played the match for 4h00 and I would have had maybe 40 chances and none would have gone in. After all, I'm someone who loves this game and fair play, so I'll accept a defeat, even a draw, but as I keep hearing about the match engine, and I used to say I didn't believe in it, I'm starting to wonder about it, and I think it's sad that such a good game has been abandoned. I'll continue to play because I love this game but I'll have to accept the lottery aspect from now on.

There's nothing to say that the 18th chance wouldn't have led to a goal, as well as the 19th, 20th and 21st.
Maybe if you'd had 4 more chances you'd have won 4-0 and wouldn't have opened the scoring, but the string of 17 goalless chances would have been just as astonishing.

It's a bit like a cat biting its own tail, because if I'd had 50 chances without scoring, you might as well have told me that there's nothing to say that I wouldn't have scored on 51, 52, 53 or 54 of those chances. I think that 16 chances is already a fair amount of inconsistency against a B team made up of youngsters in the early stages of their training.

This is what we call probability.