To Those Who Incessantly Berate Hughton For Being Incompetent

I'm sorry, Robbie, I am dumb at this stuff, but I don't understand. If Lawro predicts a draw, for example, he isn't predicting a draw or a not-draw, but one of three possibilities. How is it different from him predicting between (say) three colours? He is not predicting yellow and not-yellow, he is predicting yellow or green or blue. So if he gets 50% that is more than he should achieve. Am I being stupid?

 

I understand your point - X or not X is clearly 50% and therefore he is bang on the percentage call. But why should we select x/not X rather than X, Y or Z as our defining criteria?

 

That's to simplistic. It's not 50 50. You just need to ask yourself which is easier to predict, 10 Barcelona games at home, or 10 random Premiership games. You can expect wins.

If it really was 50 50 nobody would be bothered about playing at home.

 

It's the kind of silly thing people often come out with after they've been proven wrong and have nothing further to come back with. They start huffing and puffing, possibly flapping their arms about, and then start to address an entirely different point in a sarcastic fashion to try to make the person they have lost the debate against look unreasonable.

Except it doesn't work, and all it does is make them sound even more ridiculous than if they'd just left it when they weren't too far behind.

It becomes all the more ironic when you consider the debate was originally about not moving the goalposts within an argument, which is exactly what he's done here.