List some reasons why Canada will/will not dominate in Sochi?

[xxxx]

In no way have I said or implied that Canada or USA won't win. I'm talking about probabilities, the likelihood of them winning and how that likelihood is reduced by a number of factors, which this thread is about. If you don't understand the concept of 'probability', please ignore my posts.

Here's the implied probability of each team winning gold in Sochi, according to bookmakers (as of Jan 21):

When I'm saying that Canada most likely won't win gold, I'm not saying that they're worse than Czech Republic or Finland. They're still one of the favorites, if not the favorites to win the entire tournament.

Sorry, but this might look very confusing to some people.

Canada is the favorite, but most likely won't win gold.

Of course I understand the logic that if Canada would have had 80 % chance of winning, it remains 20 % for the other teams. So you're technically right that 'nobody' is probably going to win. But that sounds really dumb. To a regular hockey fan, when someone is a favorite, it means he has one of if not the highest chance of winning, therefore talking at the same time about the fact that he's most likely not going to win sounds weird even though you're techically right.

 

[Pyrophorus]

Goaltending

Lu's my starter, since his team is so-so, but has been in some low scoring games.

Price has let in a lot, while being "godly"
Smith didn't look great last night.

 

[xxxx]

So it's not just your math skills that you should improve, your reading skills are also substandard. No one has said anything similar to that.


So why do you keep arguing with me and saying that Canada will dominate the tournament, blow everyone away and win gold?

Most likely they won't win gold. It is absolutely obvious.

Canada can easily dominate the tournament, despite the history, despite 'your' probability or probability of bookmakers.

 

[xxxx]

The fact that they changed their selection process in order to have a better chance on big ice ITSELF proves that the big ice is most definitely a factor.


Certainly doable, sure. You can also lose to Finland in the preliminary round. Or end up playing against Sweden or Russia in the QFs.

Short tournaments are unpredictable and it's nearly impossible to 'dominate' even if you have the most stacked lineup.


Another guy who has no idea how team sports work.

The better team often loses. When losing a single match means you're out of the tournament, you have to be deluded to believe that not winning gold is going to be an upset. The odds are not in your favour.

The odds are not in anyones favour. Therefore, no team wins.

 

[daver]

So why do you keep arguing with me and saying that Canada will dominate the tournament, blow everyone away and win gold?

Most likely they won't win gold. It is absolutely obvious.

When I have said this? They are the favorites on paper and have won the most best-on-best over the years. Normally I would say it is 50/50 they win but I think they are due for a letdown after 2010.

If they don't win, playing on big ice will not be one of the factors.

 

[WakeUpNHL]

mark my words, Canada has no chance in Sochi...

The refs will favor Russia, they surely will if they want to get out of Russia alive.

 

[FlyersFanz]

mark my words, Canada has no chance in Sochi...

The refs will favor Russia, they surely will if they want to get out of Russia alive.

Putin will send them to the Siberian Hockey League.

 

[Namejs]

Sorry, but this might look very confusing to some people.

Canada is the favorite, but most likely won't win gold.

Of course I understand the logic that if Canada would have had 80 % chance of winning, it remains 20 % for the other teams. So you're technically right that 'nobody' is probably going to win. But that sounds really dumb. To a regular hockey fan, when someone is a favorite, it means he has one of if not the highest chance of winning, therefore talking at the same time about the fact that he's most likely not going to win sounds weird even though you're techically right.

That's exactly the problem - people thinking like regular fans. 'We've got the most talented lineup, so we're definitely going to win, right'? Nope. I've been trying to make that point for a number of times now and there are still people out there, who don't quite get it.

It's mind-boggling.

And, no, you're not looking at it entirely right either. It doesn't mean that nobody is going to win, it's just means that there isn't a team in the tournament that is so much better than everyone else, that they're most likely going to win gold.

Some of you just don't quite understand the nature of probability. The odds provided by bookies aren't wrong.

Even if Canada would be so good that they'd win 8 games out of 10 against USA, Sweden and all the other Big 8 countries, they still wouldn't win gold in most cases in the current format.

And they're definitely not good enough to win 8 out of 10 games against other stacked teams like USA or Sweden.

 

[Namejs]

The odds are not in anyones favour. Therefore, no team wins.

 

[Namejs]

Putin will send them to the Siberian Hockey League.

There's only 1 Russian coach in the ice hockey tournament, as far as I know.

 

[PWiz30]

#1 reason why Canada will win gold: Russia's defensemen.
#1 reason why Canada won't win gold: Roberto Luongo will probably be their starting goalie and won't get exposed for how overrated he is until everything is do or die.

 

[Corax]

one think is sure, they wont lose because someone else was better.

 

[Brainiac]

Some of you just don't quite understand the nature of probability. The odds provided by bookies aren't wrong.

Even if Canada would be so good that they'd win 8 games out of 10 against USA, Sweden and all the other Big 8 countries, they still wouldn't win gold in most cases in the current format.

And they're definitely not good enough to win 8 out of 10 games against other stacked teams like USA or Sweden.

Well, if we go for the simplest possible scenario, assuming QF, SF and then Finals with uniform probabilites etc., it will look like:

0.8 x 0.8 x 0.8 = 0.51

So yes, Canada would win in most cases!

But yeah, as it is, Canada not winning gold (75% likely) is not an upset at all. Although I really don't like these odds. Russia seems way too high. I'd say Canada is more around 30% and Russia around 20%.

 

[PWiz30]

Well, if we go for the simplest possible scenario, assuming QF, SF and then Finals with uniform probabilites etc., it will look like:

0.8 x 0.8 x 0.8 = 0.51

So yes, Canada would win in most cases!

But yeah, as it is, Canada not winning gold (75% likely) is not an upset at all. Although I really don't like these odds. Russia seems way too high. I'd say Canada is more around 30% and Russia around 20%.

The media (and apparently Vegas) sees Russia's top 6 forwards and overrate them big time. In 2010 they had 1 reliable defenseman and suspect goaltending and I still got laughed at when I predicted they wouldn't medal. Now they've at least added a second reliable dman and should get decent goaltending. Still, a 20% chance of a gold medal is pushing it for them.

 

[Namejs]

Well, if we go for the simplest possible scenario, assuming QF, SF and then Finals with uniform probabilites etc., it will look like:

0.8 x 0.8 x 0.8 = 0.51

So yes, Canada would win in most cases!

Nope, you forgot about the game vs. Finland in the preliminary round and the 2 other games.

20% chance of having to play in the qualification play-offs and a 20% chance of losing in the qualification play-offs equals not winning gold in most cases.

But yeah, as it is, Canada not winning gold (75% likely) is not an upset at all. Although I really don't like these odds. Russia seems way too high. I'd say Canada is more around 30% and Russia around 20%.

I agree that Russia is a tad bit overrated.

 

[jgoud*]

That's exactly the problem - people thinking like regular fans. 'We've got the most talented lineup, so we're definitely going to win, right'? Nope. I've been trying to make that point for a number of times now and there are still people out there, who don't quite get it.

It's mind-boggling.

And, no, you're not looking at it entirely right either. It doesn't mean that nobody is going to win, it's just means that there isn't a team in the tournament that is so much better than everyone else, that they're most likely going to win gold.

Some of you just don't quite understand the nature of probability. The odds provided by bookies aren't wrong.

Even if Canada would be so good that they'd win 8 games out of 10 against USA, Sweden and all the other Big 8 countries, they still wouldn't win gold in most cases in the current format.

And they're definitely not good enough to win 8 out of 10 games against other stacked teams like USA or Sweden.

First off, it's extremely hard to argue with someone that is using pie-charts from bookies as the base of their argument, it's almost as if you're giving away the fact that you are a teenager. You do realize that hockey is not like roulette and poker, and that the odds can't be calculated exactly and are completely biased, right? The guy that created that pie-chart on bookies is likely a hockey expert, but picked the teams he thought would perform best and ranked them. It would be just like if I created my own pie chart right now and posted it to this thread, it would mean absolutely nothing and would be extremely biased.

Second, in all the previous pages you are placing a huge emphasis on the past when very few players who played in 2006 are returning for the olympics this year.

You're just jumping from excuse to excuse and they are awful. Canada has the best chances of winning, period.

 

[Chad Thundercock]

mark my words, Canada has no chance in Sochi...

The refs will favor Russia, they surely will if they want to get out of Russia alive.

This shouldn't be underestimated. It may not happen in hockey, but there's going to be shenanigans these Olympics.

 

[PWiz30]

Nope, you forgot about the game vs. Finland in the preliminary round and the 2 other games.

20% chance of having to play in the qualification play-offs and a 20% chance of losing in the qualification play-offs equals not winning gold in most cases.


I agree that Russia is a tad bit overrated.

Who says Finland has a 20% chance of beating Canada? The assumption is that the group of other top teams would collectively average 2 wins out of every 10 games against Canada but that doesn't say anything about individual non-Canadian hockey powers. Since the preliminary games are against a known opponent you would have to throw the collective 20% out the window and come up with a separate number specific to Finland in order to determine Canada's odds of winning gold.

 

[Brainiac]

Nope, you forgot about the game vs. Finland in the preliminary round and the 2 other games.

20% chance of having to play in the qualification play-offs and a 20% chance of losing in the qualification play-offs equals not winning gold in most cases.


I agree that Russia is a tad bit overrated.

I said I was simplifying things. Sometimes, clarity is more important than precision, especially on an internet forum!

 

[5150]

Gold medal winner is the team that plays best as a team. Canada is dominating only on paper.

You lost to damn Switzerland twice not too long ago, that tells you something.

Also how quickly people forget Turin? How many would've picked Finland to win 4-0 against mighty Russia, who beat pretty easily Canada on QF's?

tough talk. finland the perennial bronze medal game favorite.

 

[Namejs]

First off, it's extremely hard to argue with someone that is using pie-charts from bookies as the base of their argument, it's almost as if you're giving away the fact that you are a teenager. You do realize that hockey is not like roulette and poker, and that the odds can't be calculated exactly and are completely biased, right? The guy that created that pie-chart on bookies is likely a hockey expert, but picked the teams he thought would perform best and ranked them. It would be just like if I created my own pie chart right now and posted it to this thread, it would mean absolutely nothing and would be extremely biased.

You obviously have 0 knowledge about betting and sports trading.

It is absolutely nothing like you creating your own pie chart.

Saying that the odds provided by bookmakers mean nothing is like saying that the New York Stock Exchange is 'not like roulette and poker' and that the prices are 'completely biased'. The stock brokers are apparently all teenagers as well.

Such an opinion is laughable not only because it is uninformed, ignorant and based on your imagination and stereotypes about betting/sports trading, but also because you're half a step away from calling your opponent in the discussion an idiot, whilst not even remotely addressing the arguments provided by him.

Second, in all the previous pages you are placing a huge emphasis on the past when very few players who played in 2006 are returning for the olympics this year.

I was using past examples only to prove that big ice is a factor. If we want to analyze if big ice is a factor, not using past examples is impossible, as future examples are not yet available.

You're just jumping from excuse to excuse and they are awful.

Can you name one 'excuse' that I've used?

Canada has the best chances of winning, period.

Can you show a single person here who has argued against that?

Pens have the best chances of winning the Stanley Cup. Does it mean they will dominate and blow everyone away and most likely actually win the Stanley Cup? Nope.

Canada is not going to be a dominant force in the Olympics.

Just to give you a comparison: the US basketball team was dominant in the London Olympics.

Get some perspective.

 

[Namejs]

Who says Finland has a 20% chance of beating Canada? The assumption is that the group of other top teams would collectively average 2 wins out of every 10 games against Canada but that doesn't say anything about individual non-Canadian hockey powers. Since the preliminary games are against a known opponent you would have to throw the collective 20% out the window and come up with a separate number specific to Finland in order to determine Canada's odds of winning gold.

God Almighty.

Read the thread before replying.

It was just a thought experiment to show people how probability works. The numbers were made up and have nothing to do with the actual chance of Canada winning in any individual game.

And Finnish chances of defeating Canada (including OT/SO) are going to be higher than 20%, btw.

 

[jgoud*]

You obviously have 0 knowledge about betting and sports trading.

It is absolutely nothing like you creating your own pie chart.

Saying that the odds provided by bookmakers mean nothing is like saying that the New York Stock Exchange is 'not like roulette and poker' and that the prices are 'completely biased'. The stock brokers are apparently all teenagers as well.

Such an opinion is laughable not only because it is uninformed, ignorant and based on your imagination and stereotypes about betting/sports trading, but also because you're half a step away from calling your opponent in the discussion an idiot, whilst not even remotely addressing the arguments provided by him.


I was using past examples only to prove that big ice is a factor. If we want to analyze if big ice is a factor, not using past examples is impossible, as future examples are not yet available.


Can you name one 'excuse' that I've used?


Can you show a single person here who has argued against that?

Pens have the best chances of winning the Stanley Cup. Does it mean they will dominate and blow everyone away and most likely actually win the Stanley Cup? Nope.

Canada is not going to be a dominant force in the Olympics.

Just to give you a comparison: the US basketball team was dominant in the London Olympics.

Get some perspective.

Wow, you just compared bookies to the stock exchange. The argument I'm using is that sports betting is not anything like a roulette bet or playing poker, and that is true. Since you don't understand that concept, i'll explain it.

In playing roulette for example, there is an exact chance you can calculate. If you bet on red, there will be a little less than 50% chance of winning (because of the 0 and 00). In sports, if you are betting on let's say Denver, there are experts who come up with the odds based on Defensive stats, offensive stats, ect and create the odds. However, there are too many variables too calculate to create perfect odds. The odds are even less exact for the olympics since there is no previous data on the current teams playing each other, let's say, compared to an NBA game.

As for comparing gambling odds and the stock exchange, I find that absolutely hilarious. Yes, you can technically "play the odds" on a stock, but the day you want to buy/sell, the price given is what you will buy or sell at. How is that in any way related to a sports bet? It's almost as ridiculous as comparing a grocery store to sports odds.

 

[Hammer Time]

Canada has never dominated an international best-on-best tournament since the 1991 Canada Cup. Why would this one be any different?

 

[jgoud*]

Canada has never dominated an international best-on-best tournament since the 1991 Canada Cup. Why would this one be any different?

See 2005 World Juniors. I don't think any rational person thinks Canada will dominate the tournament, but Canada along with Sweden and the States are favorites to win. Russia has 2 forward lines that are equivalent in talent with Canada, Sweden and the USA, but their bottom 6 along with D is a trainwreck compared to the other 3 country's, and that's going to be a huge reason for their failure this tournament. A perfect comparison are the oilers, who have a great top 6 but nothing besides that. And they are second last in the league...