What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Throw my game to change playoff teams? (1 Viewer)

davearm said:
Bottom line is this -- if you want to make a rule against tanking, then fine. I've got no problem with that.

But absent a rule, a) don't expect that tanking is one of those things that everyone agrees is wrong, and b) don't draw arbitrary lines that attempt to define it as ok sometimes, but not others. It's an all or nothing thing.
Click to expand...
Most leagues I have seen, in fact EVERY dynasty league I have ever been in, have at least some mention of tanking in the rules.

Yet even in the leagues with rules saying you can not tank, I find tanking to stay alive perfectly acceptable and would raise the issue at the time.

And sorry, but NOTHING is an all or nothing thing. Almost anything I can think can change based on the situation. ALMOST, not everything. And these magical arbitrary lines you mention, well, thats why we are talking about it, to maybe DEFINE then. Much like the laws of the country where many things are illegal in some cases but legal in others.

 
ghostguy123 said:
Everything in the world is motivated by self interest. People donate to charity because it makes them feel good. That is a self interest.

People pick up an item that some 95 year old lady drops because it makes them feel good to do it. That is a self interest.
Click to expand...
Well this worldview is clearly false. Adam and others who have spoken up here to say they'd not tank even if it meant missing the playoffs are testament to this. One's self-interest is clearly to tank if confronted with that choice.
Tanking to make the playoffs is motivated by self interest also, like everything else, ever. But unlike any of the other reasons that normally go along with tanking, it is also motivated by not wanting your season to end that day.
Click to expand...
Uh, not wanting your season to end is pretty obviously under the self-interest umbrella. It's not some additional motivation beyond self-interest.
 
ghostguy123 said:
davearm said:
Bottom line is this -- if you want to make a rule against tanking, then fine. I've got no problem with that.

But absent a rule, a) don't expect that tanking is one of those things that everyone agrees is wrong, and b) don't draw arbitrary lines that attempt to define it as ok sometimes, but not others. It's an all or nothing thing.
Click to expand...
Most leagues I have seen, in fact EVERY dynasty league I have ever been in, have at least some mention of tanking in the rules.

Yet even in the leagues with rules saying you can not tank, I find tanking to stay alive perfectly acceptable and would raise the issue at the time.

And sorry, but NOTHING is an all or nothing thing. Almost anything I can think can change based on the situation. ALMOST, not everything. And these magical arbitrary lines you mention, well, thats why we are talking about it, to maybe DEFINE then. Much like the laws of the country where many things are illegal in some cases but legal in others.
Click to expand...
I've got zero tolerance for the "well that rule doesn't apply to me" plea. If tanking is expressly prohibited by the league rules, then that's that.This entire conversation relies on there being no explicit rule...for or against.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you choose not to tank, that's a choice. Choices are motivated by self interest.

If Adam does not tank, that is motivated by his self interest to do what he views as ethical.

A self interest can be something that makes you feel good about doing it, and is not limited to something that adds to your bank account.

 
davearm said:
I've got zero tolerance for the "well that rule doesn't apply to me" plea. If tanking is expressly prohibited by the league rules, then that's that.
Click to expand...
nobody has said otherwise, but if the rule is vague, you can question the rule at the time.

How many times do we have to go round and round in circles on that?

At this point we are talking about the rule itself and why it might just be acceptable in a particular occurance.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe the best idea yet is to set up the playoffs seeding so there is no potential for this to happen.

Use head to head but a VP system incorporated instead of total points. When teams are seeded based on victory points, not sure how you can purposely lose a game to get into the playoffs, where a win knocks you out.

 
ghostguy123 said:
davearm said:
I've got zero tolerance for the "well that rule doesn't apply to me" plea. If tanking is expressly prohibited by the league rules, then that's that.
Click to expand...
nobody has said otherwise, but if the rule is vague, you can question the rule at the time.

How many times do we have to go round and round in circles on that?

At this point we are talking about the rule itself and why it might just be acceptable in a particular occurance.
Click to expand...
Rules saying " you cannot tank" sound like the opposite of vague to me.

 
davearm said:
ghostguy123 said:
davearm said:
I've got zero tolerance for the "well that rule doesn't apply to me" plea. If tanking is expressly prohibited by the league rules, then that's that.
Click to expand...
nobody has said otherwise, but if the rule is vague, you can question the rule at the time.

How many times do we have to go round and round in circles on that?

At this point we are talking about the rule itself and why it might just be acceptable in a particular occurance.
Click to expand...
Rules saying " you cannot tank" sound like the opposite of vague to me.
Click to expand...
It is a pretty vague rule. You can view trying to win that one game as trying to tank your season.

I would bet anything that when the rules were written, this was not addressed or thought of at all.

Which is the same reason why laws in our country have revisions due to issues that come up as time goes on.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Plus like I said 100 times now, all you have to do is bring it up at the time and get a ruling from the commish.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ghostguy123 said:
davearm said:
Tanking is all or nothing to me because I've yet to hear a compelling argument for a middle-ground alternative.
Click to expand...
sounds good. Many disagree.

I have also yet to hear a compelling argument from you that all cases are the same. Works both ways.
Click to expand...
Well you've definitely heard the argument, although the fact that you fixated on "real" and "fake" odds makes me skeptical that you grasped much of what folks were trying to convey.Regardless, If the "5% is 5%" theory doesn't resonate with you for whatever reason, so be it.

At it's most fundamental level, I think all cases are the same because they're all motivated by the desire to improve your chances of winning a championship.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
davearm said:
ghostguy123 said:
davearm said:
Tanking is all or nothing to me because I've yet to hear a compelling argument for a middle-ground alternative.
Click to expand...
sounds good. Many disagree.

I have also yet to hear a compelling argument from you that all cases are the same. Works both ways.
Click to expand...
Well you've definitely heard the argument, although the fact that you fixated on "real" and "fake" odds makes me skeptical that you grasped much of what folks were trying to convey.

Regardless, If the "5% is 5%" theory doesn't resonate with you for whatever reason, so be it.
Click to expand...
I was never fixated on anything. The topic came up and it was discussed. And if you still dont know the difference between actual odds and any other kind of odds, like I said before, go take a class and educate yourself.

 
I also get the 5% is 5% theory just fine. I just don't think mr whatever his name is was thinking about fantasy football.

And unlike the fact that there is a PROVEN difference between actual odds and other odds, you cant prove the 5% author guy would agree that this line of thinking regarding fantasy football is illogical, or that it applies at all.

Until you get a hold of him to hear his thoughts on this particular and mostly unheard of situation, then dont speak for him.

 
ghostguy123 said:
davearm said:
ghostguy123 said:
davearm said:
Tanking is all or nothing to me because I've yet to hear a compelling argument for a middle-ground alternative.
Click to expand...
sounds good. Many disagree.

I have also yet to hear a compelling argument from you that all cases are the same. Works both ways.
Click to expand...
Well you've definitely heard the argument, although the fact that you fixated on "real" and "fake" odds makes me skeptical that you grasped much of what folks were trying to convey.

Regardless, If the "5% is 5%" theory doesn't resonate with you for whatever reason, so be it.
Click to expand...
I was never fixated on anything. The topic came up and it was discussed. And if you still dont know the difference between actual odds and any other kind of odds, like I said before, go take a class and educate yourself.
Click to expand...
I find it both curious and highly amusing that you invariably come back to this tact, considering just about everyone involved in this discussion has demonstrated a firmer grasp on the topic of statistics an probability theory than you have. Irony is awesome, and the unintended kind is the best kind of all.

 
davearm said:
I find it both curious and highly amusing that you invariably come back to this tact, considering just about everyone involved in this discussion has demonstrated a firmer grasp on the topic of statistics an probability theory than you have. Irony is awesome, and the unintended kind is the best kind of all.
Click to expand...
There have been like 2-3 people in this thread who have diagreed that actual odds exist and are different than projections based on non factual things with variable.

There have been about 10-15 people who have chimed in with 1 or 2 posts who pretty clearly agree with me, and completely disagreed with you and those 2-3 other people. They likely would not have chimed in but sometimes people can't just let someone be so blatantly wrong.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I definitely agree about unintend irony though.

I better burn this damn stats book. It is wrong. All these precise odds and stats are just made up???? Damn it. I was button hooked.

 
Or try this.

You give me some dice. I will predict an outcome, lets day rolling an 11. I will say there is a 1/18 chance.

I will roll the dice a million times and see what percent 11 comes up.

FOr you, you take an NFL game. I will let you do everything you can, get all the info you can, and predict the winner.

I will let you simulate the game a million times.

Then we will see who is more accurate.

Oh wait....................you can't simulate an NFL game with the exact same variables a million times??? You can't PROVE your projection??? The HELL you say!!!!!!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ghostguy123 said:
benching active studs for injured studs is not only tanking, but incredibly stupid if you think an inactive player will help you more than an active player.
Click to expand...
Uh... isn't that the premise of the whole discussion we've been having for 10+ pages? There are situations where tanking will get you in the playoffs, etc.?

ghostguy123 said:
[Tanking] is against the rules
Click to expand...
Uh... hasn't the entire discussion been centered on the assumption that tanking isn't against the rules? If it's against the rules, I think every single person has agreed that you shouldn't do it. We're talking about how to act when tanking isn't explicitly prohibited.

 
ghostguy123 said:
davearm said:
I find it both curious and highly amusing that you invariably come back to this tact, considering just about everyone involved in this discussion has demonstrated a firmer grasp on the topic of statistics an probability theory than you have. Irony is awesome, and the unintended kind is the best kind of all.
Click to expand...
There have been like 2-3 people in this thread who have diagreed that actual odds exist and are different than projections based on non factual things with variable.

There have been about 10-15 people who have chimed in with 1 or 2 posts who pretty clearly agree with me, and completely disagreed with you and those 2-3 other people. They likely would not have chimed in but sometimes people can't just let someone be so blatantly wrong.
Click to expand...
Speaking of blatantly wrong, would you be so kind as to bump the 10-15 posts by different people who chimed in to agree with your stance on the mechanics of probability? Thanks in advance.

 
Ignoratio Elenchi said:
ghostguy123 said:
davearm said:
I find it both curious and highly amusing that you invariably come back to this tact, considering just about everyone involved in this discussion has demonstrated a firmer grasp on the topic of statistics an probability theory than you have. Irony is awesome, and the unintended kind is the best kind of all.
Click to expand...
There have been like 2-3 people in this thread who have diagreed that actual odds exist and are different than projections based on non factual things with variable.

There have been about 10-15 people who have chimed in with 1 or 2 posts who pretty clearly agree with me, and completely disagreed with you and those 2-3 other people. They likely would not have chimed in but sometimes people can't just let someone be so blatantly wrong.
Click to expand...
Speaking of blatantly wrong, would you be so kind as to bump the 10-15 posts by different people who chimed in to agree with your stance on the mechanics of probability? Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
Umm, no. Why on earth would I do that work for you.

And it went just fine, thanks. Take a class if you want more info.

The whole stats stuff made me think of the scene in Family Guy with Brian and his girlfriend Jillian.

She randomly calls him, and the coversation goes something like this:

Jillian- Brian, how do I know if I'm Jewish?

Brian- Are you Jewish?

Jillian- No.

Brian- There ya go sport.

Sort of like a conversation going like this

A- How do I know the odds of rolling a 7?

B- What are the odds of rolling a 7?

A- 1/6.

B- There ya go sport.

That would be far different from this convesation

A- How do I figure out exact probability that the Bears beat the Packers?

B- you can't, all you can do i make an educated guess.

A- Oh.

B- There ya go sport.

 
Ignoratio Elenchi said:
ghostguy123 said:
benching active studs for injured studs is not only tanking, but incredibly stupid if you think an inactive player will help you more than an active player.
Click to expand...
Uh... isn't that the premise of the whole discussion we've been having for 10+ pages? There are situations where tanking will get you in the playoffs, etc.?

ghostguy123 said:
[Tanking] is against the rules
Click to expand...
Uh... hasn't the entire discussion been centered on the assumption that tanking isn't against the rules? If it's against the rules, I think every single person has agreed that you shouldn't do it. We're talking about how to act when tanking isn't explicitly prohibited.
Click to expand...
I was just saying that tanking isn't the same as trading an active player for an inactive player.

For one, most trade deadlines arent week 13. And two, if there is no trade deadline and a trade like that went down, you would have to make sure it isnt collusion with those two guys trading the same players back to each other.

But if you want to make a trade like that and lose your week 13 game in that fashion, there is nothing wrong with that. You are just taking a huge risk that you are able to trade for more players, or that the players you did trade for are able to come back and help you in the playoffs.

There is never, nor will there ever be a rule against ANY reason for making a trade outside of collusion or roster dumping. But just from a strategy standpoint, no, nothing wrong with making a trade like the one you mentioned.

 
ghostguy123 said:
Ignoratio Elenchi said:
Speaking of blatantly wrong, would you be so kind as to bump the 10-15 posts by different people who chimed in to agree with your stance on the mechanics of probability? Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
Umm, no. Why on earth would I do that work for you.
Click to expand...
Because I've offered you a simple opportunity to prove that what you said is actually true. But you can't, because we all know that there weren't actually 10-15 people who chimed in to agree with your stance on the mechanics of probability. That's why you won't go bump the 10-15 posts - because they don't exist.

And it went just fine, thanks.
Click to expand...
What went just fine?

Take a class if you want more info.
Click to expand...
I've taken numerous classes on stats and probability. I'd wager I probably have a more extensive background in the topic than you do. Once again, I'm reminded of someone else lecturing everyone on "statistics" earlier in the thread...

 
ghostguy123 said:
Ignoratio Elenchi said:
ghostguy123 said:
benching active studs for injured studs is not only tanking, but incredibly stupid if you think an inactive player will help you more than an active player.
Click to expand...
Uh... isn't that the premise of the whole discussion we've been having for 10+ pages? There are situations where tanking will get you in the playoffs, etc.?

ghostguy123 said:
[Tanking] is against the rules
Click to expand...
Uh... hasn't the entire discussion been centered on the assumption that tanking isn't against the rules? If it's against the rules, I think every single person has agreed that you shouldn't do it. We're talking about how to act when tanking isn't explicitly prohibited.
Click to expand...
I was just saying that tanking isn't the same as trading an active player for an inactive player.

For one, most trade deadlines arent week 13. And two, if there is no trade deadline and a trade like that went down, you would have to make sure it isnt collusion with those two guys trading the same players back to each other.

But if you want to make a trade like that and lose your week 13 game in that fashion, there is nothing wrong with that. You are just taking a huge risk that you are able to trade for more players, or that the players you did trade for are able to come back and help you in the playoffs.

There is never, nor will there ever be a rule against ANY reason for making a trade outside of collusion or roster dumping. But just from a strategy standpoint, no, nothing wrong with making a trade like the one you mentioned.
Click to expand...
It seems you missed the point of my post. Unfortunately at this point, that doesn't come as a surprise.

 
Ignoratio Elenchi said:
I've taken numerous classes on stats and probability. I'd wager I probably have a more extensive background in the topic than you do. Once again, I'm reminded of someone else lecturing everyone on "statistics" earlier in the thread...
Click to expand...
So you have what you consider to be an extensive background on stats, yet you don't think there is a difference between true odds (such as in craps or roulette), as in odds that have a precise measurement......................and the odds a football team will win??

Then I guess I will just concede that you got me there. No real reason to discuss that further. If that isn't what you are disagreeing with me on, then I have no idea what you are diagreeing with me on.

If you want to discuss probality theory, that's for another forum, and also has nothing to do with what I am talking about.

I also appreciate the attempt at reverse phsychology to get me to go back through 20 pages of drivel to provide you with what you want (though I have no idea what you want at this point anyway), but that kinda childs play won't work with me, sorry. Just for kicks though, what exactly are you disagreeing with me on that you want me to go back and find posts that agree with me? I mean, a lot has been discussed. I am not going to do it, you just got me curious I guess.

As for your other post, I guess I missed that pinhole sized point. Did anyone else comment on it? Go back and site those posts for me and let me know. Or are ya CHICKEN?? Buck buck buckaaaaa.

This thread is toast anyway.

All about championship games from here on out. Enjoy blathering on.

Ernol, you shoulda tanked, then looked in the mirror and told yourself you did the right thing, patted yourself on the back, then bought your woman a necklace with your winings you would have earned by being very aware of your situation and doing whats right.

My own dynasty league I commish already has a new rule in place saying you are only allowed to tank if it keeps you from being eliminated. However, it isn't possible for that situation to occur in my league anyway, but it was a fun rule to write. Can't wait till someone happens to see it and asks about it.

I don't play in any other leagues where it is possible, so I suppose I don't have to say anything there. Total points only count for tiebreakers there.

Oh yeah, and ethics are nature's rubix cube.

 
ghostguy123 said:
So you have what you consider to be an extensive background on stats, yet you don't think there is a difference between true odds (such as in craps or roulette), as in odds that have a precise measurement......................and the odds a football team will win??

Then I guess I will just concede that you got me there. No real reason to discuss that further. If that isn't what you are disagreeing with me on, then I have no idea what you are diagreeing with me on.
Click to expand...
Who says I'm disagreeing with you? I'm simply asking you questions.

If you want to discuss probality theory, that's for another forum, and also has nothing to do with what I am talking about.
Click to expand...
Then why do you keep telling people to "open a stats book" and "take a class?" If you don't want to discuss the nature of the probabilities you keep talking about, then stop talking about probability, and stop pretending that everyone knows less about probability than you do. It's not everyone else's fault that you've been unable to discuss the probabilities on a level any more sophisticated than, "they're different lol."

I also appreciate the attempt at reverse phsychology to get me to go back through 20 pages of drivel to provide you with what you want (though I have no idea what you want at this point anyway), but that kinda childs play won't work with me, sorry. Just for kicks though, what exactly are you disagreeing with me on that you want me to go back and find posts that agree with me? I mean, a lot has been discussed.
Click to expand...
Reverse psychology? :confused:

I don't know how it's possible that you're already confused on a request that was made just a few posts ago, but since you are, here you go:

Ignoratio Elenchi said:
ghostguy123 said:
There have been like 2-3 people in this thread who have diagreed that actual odds exist and are different than projections based on non factual things with variable.

There have been about 10-15 people who have chimed in with 1 or 2 posts who pretty clearly agree with me, and completely disagreed with you and those 2-3 other people. They likely would not have chimed in but sometimes people can't just let someone be so blatantly wrong.
Click to expand...
Speaking of blatantly wrong, would you be so kind as to bump the 10-15 posts by different people who chimed in to agree with your stance on the mechanics of probability? Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
It's not especially complicated. You said 10-15 different people have chimed in to agree with your take on probability. If that's actually true, it should be easy for you to bump 10-15 posts where that happened.

I am not going to do it
Click to expand...
I know you're not. Not because you "don't want to," but because you can't. Those 10-15 posts don't exist.

As for your other post, I guess I missed that pinhole sized point. Did anyone else comment on it? Go back and site those posts for me and let me know.
Click to expand...
It was a fairly obvious point. Yes, other people commented on it, though I'm not sure how that's relevant. Why would I cite other people's posts? I didn't say everyone else missed my point. Just you did.

ghostguy123 said:
that kinda childs play won't work with me, sorry.
Click to expand...
Or are ya CHICKEN?? Buck buck buckaaaaa.
Click to expand...
:lmao:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Adam Harstad said:
ghostguy123 said:
Adam Harstad said:
ghostguy123 said:
Adam Harstad said:
ghostguy123 said:
Adam Harstad said:
ghostguy123 said:
Adam that does look right. And in dynsty leagues and leagues with all friends I say no tanking.

Some restart with strangers, and within the rules, go for it.
Click to expand...
That's another thing. If something is unethical when you do it to people you know and like, it is every bit as unethical when you do it to complete strangers you will never see again, even if it doesn't impose as many personal costs.

Anonymity, like money, is not some magical panacea that makes things more ethical. It's just a corrupting influence that makes us more likely to behave unethically.
Click to expand...
And sometimes unethical is just fine in my book I guess.
Click to expand...
Sometimes unethical is just fine in everyone's book. I've never before met anyone who acted 100% ethically in every situation. Just because they felt the tradeoffs were worth it, or the costs were small enough, doesn't mean they were acting ethically, though. Justifiable != ethical. Ethical is a much higher standard.

I've behaved unethically before. I've lied. I've cheated in games. Often when I did it, the stakes were low, and it was easy to justify to myself that I wasn't hurting anybody, but I hold no illusions that I was acting ethically.
Click to expand...
So then who says we can't be unethical in fantasy football as long as it is justifiable?
Click to expand...
No one. I never said that you physically could not tank. You absolutely can, and I can't stop you. It would simply be unethical to do so.

Similarly, who's to say you can't cheat on your wife? Who's to say you can't lie to your parents? Who's to say you can't gossip about your coworkers? Ethics aren't about can or can't, they're about ought or oughtn't.
Click to expand...
I think you missed the justifiable part of my quote.
Click to expand...
And you missed the bolded "justifiable != ethical" statement from earlier in the quote string.

Something that is unethical remains unethical even if you find a way to justify it. That doesn't mean you can't do it. Ethics aren't about can or can't, they're about ought or oughtn't.
Click to expand...
Ethics are fluid. They are based on universal truths that are socially understood or agreed upon based on many factors, among the factors are the use of logic. Ethics can change based on context/conditions.

The basic ethical principles in FF are "fair play" and "play to win". If these basics are followed and ad heard to a league will run smoothly. What is lost in translation is what "play to win" means.

In most scenarios "tanking" violates the principle of "play to win" and is universally considered unethical. But change the parameters of the scenario and tanking ceases to be unethical.

If conditions change the state of tanking from being a non competitive act into a competitive strategic decision then the ethical/logical rules have shifted thus changing tanking from unethical to ethical.

Change the environmental conditions and water can change its state yet it remains to be H2O.

Altering the conditions can change the ethical state of tanking even though it still remains to be considered tanking.

 
ghostguy123 said:
I definitely agree about unintend irony though.

I better burn this damn stats book. It is wrong. All these precise odds and stats are just made up???? Damn it. I was button hooked.
Click to expand...
Perfect. If you're a fan of irony, then you'll surely enjoy this.

You've told us that from a standard deck of cards, randomly shuffled, the probability of pulling a king is 1/13. You've also told us this is an example of "real" odds, since the math is simple, straightforward an indisputable.

A buddy of mine knows zero about football. Ask him in August what the probability is of the Broncos winning the Super Bowl, and he'll say 1/32. Ask him again after the regular season ends, and he'll either say 0% (if they miss the playoffs), 1/16 (if they have to win 4 games), or 1/8 ( if they earn a bye, and have to win just 3 games). According to your definition of "real" odds, those four probabilities my friend just gave us are every bit as "real" as the probability of drawing that king. The math he used is plain to see, right?

But if we teach him about the game a bit...improving the information he has available...he would probably tweak those odds, right? Anyone who knows a decent amount about football wouldn't have had both the Broncos and the Jaguars at 32:1 in August. So maybe with better info, he makes the Jags 100:1 and the Broncos 10:1. But now we've left the realm of "real" odds, and entered the realm of "fake" odds, correct?

So what just happened here? More complete information just reduced the "realness" of my friend's expectations, or converted "real" odds to "fake" odds, or whatever other goofy description you want to apply to it.

 
davearm said:
ghostguy123 said:
I definitely agree about unintend irony though.

I better burn this damn stats book. It is wrong. All these precise odds and stats are just made up???? Damn it. I was button hooked.
Click to expand...
Perfect. If you're a fan of irony, then you'll surely enjoy this.

You've told us that from a standard deck of cards, randomly shuffled, the probability of pulling a king is 1/13. You've also told us this is an example of "real" odds, since the math is simple, straightforward an indisputable.

A buddy of mine knows zero about football. Ask him in August what the probability is of the Broncos winning the Super Bowl, and he'll say 1/32. Ask him again after the regular season ends, and he'll either say 0% (if they miss the playoffs), 1/16 (if they have to win 4 games), or 1/8 ( if they earn a bye, and have to win just 3 games). According to your definition of "real" odds, those four probabilities my friend just gave us are every bit as "real" as the probability of drawing that king. The math he used is plain to see, right?

But if we teach him about the game a bit...improving the information he has available...he would probably tweak those odds, right? Anyone who knows a decent amount about football wouldn't have had both the Broncos and the Jaguars at 32:1 in August. So maybe with better info, he makes the Jags 100:1 and the Broncos 10:1. But now we've left the realm of "real" odds, and entered the realm of "fake" odds, correct?

So what just happened here? More complete information just reduced the "realness" of my friend's expectations, or converted "real" odds to "fake" odds, or whatever other goofy description you want to apply to it.
Click to expand...
Is it your position that the probability of pulling a King is Not 1/13?

 
TheStig said:
CalBear said:
TheStig said:
Is it your position that the probability of pulling a King is Not 1/13?
Click to expand...
If you have no additional information, you should estimate the probability as 1/13. If you have additional information, it will be something other than 1/13.
Click to expand...
What are the odds of drawing a King?
Click to expand...
It depends on how many cards and kings are in the deck. You might know that those numbers are "52" and "4", but you might not. If you're playing hold-em and there's one king on the flop and you think that your opponent might be holding another one, what are the odds?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
CalBear said:
ghostguy123 said:
Don't tell me you understand something, and then have your next statement prove that you clearly do not understand it.

They are not JUST a quantified expectation. They are a PROVEN quantified expectations with EXACT probalities. Your Manning over Flacco example, saying it's whatever your personal expectations may be, is an F'ing joke if you are comparing that to proven odds calculations. For one, they are fake because you made them up based on NON-FACTUAL information.

So can I go into the casino and for whatever reason today I feel like Red is going to come up 60% of the time on the roulette wheel, so I must be right?? No, I am already proven to be wrong because the odds are for that are REAL (as in proven).

And for the 100th time, NONE of us that actually know anything about odds and probability are saying that just because something has 1/6 odds that it will come up exactly 1/6 times. The words "true/real" do not mean that will happen, it just means that is what the mathematically proven probability is, based on fact, with no unknown variables, because each side has the exact same chances of coming up as the other 5 sides..............which is pretty much the opposite of football, or any other activity with unknown variables.

As I said, take a class. Read a stats book. Do something other than constantly say stats and probaliity aren't "real". "Real" means "proven". I don't really care if you don't accept it because you don't like how I explain it. I am not a teacher. I haven't gone to school to figure out how to teach something that is factually proven to someone who just chooses to not believe it for who knows what ungodly reason.
Click to expand...
You're missing some fundamental concepts about probability.

So, you start with a normal deck of 52 well-shuffled cards. You take one and place it face down on the table. What are the "real/true/actual" odds that it's an ace? 1/13.

You leave the card there and look at the next card in the deck. It's not an ace. Then you look at the next. It's not an ace, either. You pull 45 cards, and none of them are aces.

The card you placed face down is still sitting there. What are the "real/true/actual" odds that it's an ace? 1/2.

It's the same card. If 1/13 was the "real" odds that that card was an ace, how did it change to 1/2? You didn't do anything to the card.
Click to expand...
The probability that you drew an ace never changed. Drawing 45 cards never changed the the stated probability of potentially drawing an ace, it only changed your predictive confidence that you did in fact draw an ace.

 
TheStig said:
CalBear said:
ghostguy123 said:
Don't tell me you understand something, and then have your next statement prove that you clearly do not understand it.

They are not JUST a quantified expectation. They are a PROVEN quantified expectations with EXACT probalities. Your Manning over Flacco example, saying it's whatever your personal expectations may be, is an F'ing joke if you are comparing that to proven odds calculations. For one, they are fake because you made them up based on NON-FACTUAL information.

So can I go into the casino and for whatever reason today I feel like Red is going to come up 60% of the time on the roulette wheel, so I must be right?? No, I am already proven to be wrong because the odds are for that are REAL (as in proven).

And for the 100th time, NONE of us that actually know anything about odds and probability are saying that just because something has 1/6 odds that it will come up exactly 1/6 times. The words "true/real" do not mean that will happen, it just means that is what the mathematically proven probability is, based on fact, with no unknown variables, because each side has the exact same chances of coming up as the other 5 sides..............which is pretty much the opposite of football, or any other activity with unknown variables.

As I said, take a class. Read a stats book. Do something other than constantly say stats and probaliity aren't "real". "Real" means "proven". I don't really care if you don't accept it because you don't like how I explain it. I am not a teacher. I haven't gone to school to figure out how to teach something that is factually proven to someone who just chooses to not believe it for who knows what ungodly reason.
Click to expand...
You're missing some fundamental concepts about probability.

So, you start with a normal deck of 52 well-shuffled cards. You take one and place it face down on the table. What are the "real/true/actual" odds that it's an ace? 1/13.

You leave the card there and look at the next card in the deck. It's not an ace. Then you look at the next. It's not an ace, either. You pull 45 cards, and none of them are aces.

The card you placed face down is still sitting there. What are the "real/true/actual" odds that it's an ace? 1/2.

It's the same card. If 1/13 was the "real" odds that that card was an ace, how did it change to 1/2? You didn't do anything to the card.
Click to expand...
The probability that you drew an ace never changed. Drawing 45 cards never changed the the stated probability of potentially drawing an ace, it only changed your predictive confidence that you did in fact draw an ace.
Click to expand...
Probability and "predictive confidence" are equivalent terms. 1/13 is the best prediction I can make about how likely it is that I'll draw an ace from a deck of cards. But the likelihood isn't really 1/13. There's only one card on the top, and that's the one I'm going to draw, and it's either an ace or it's not. So the likelihood is either 1 or 0, but I don't know which it is, so I take a guess based on the information I have available to me. If I get more information, my guess will change.

 
CalBear said:
TheStig said:
CalBear said:
ghostguy123 said:
Don't tell me you understand something, and then have your next statement prove that you clearly do not understand it.

They are not JUST a quantified expectation. They are a PROVEN quantified expectations with EXACT probalities. Your Manning over Flacco example, saying it's whatever your personal expectations may be, is an F'ing joke if you are comparing that to proven odds calculations. For one, they are fake because you made them up based on NON-FACTUAL information.

So can I go into the casino and for whatever reason today I feel like Red is going to come up 60% of the time on the roulette wheel, so I must be right?? No, I am already proven to be wrong because the odds are for that are REAL (as in proven).

And for the 100th time, NONE of us that actually know anything about odds and probability are saying that just because something has 1/6 odds that it will come up exactly 1/6 times. The words "true/real" do not mean that will happen, it just means that is what the mathematically proven probability is, based on fact, with no unknown variables, because each side has the exact same chances of coming up as the other 5 sides..............which is pretty much the opposite of football, or any other activity with unknown variables.

As I said, take a class. Read a stats book. Do something other than constantly say stats and probaliity aren't "real". "Real" means "proven". I don't really care if you don't accept it because you don't like how I explain it. I am not a teacher. I haven't gone to school to figure out how to teach something that is factually proven to someone who just chooses to not believe it for who knows what ungodly reason.
Click to expand...
You're missing some fundamental concepts about probability.

So, you start with a normal deck of 52 well-shuffled cards. You take one and place it face down on the table. What are the "real/true/actual" odds that it's an ace? 1/13.

You leave the card there and look at the next card in the deck. It's not an ace. Then you look at the next. It's not an ace, either. You pull 45 cards, and none of them are aces.

The card you placed face down is still sitting there. What are the "real/true/actual" odds that it's an ace? 1/2.

It's the same card. If 1/13 was the "real" odds that that card was an ace, how did it change to 1/2? You didn't do anything to the card.
Click to expand...
The probability that you drew an ace never changed. Drawing 45 cards never changed the the stated probability of potentially drawing an ace, it only changed your predictive confidence that you did in fact draw an ace.
Click to expand...
Probability and "predictive confidence" are equivalent terms. 1/13 is the best prediction I can make about how likely it is that I'll draw an ace from a deck of cards. But the likelihood isn't really 1/13. There's only one card on the top, and that's the one I'm going to draw, and it's either an ace or it's not. So the likelihood is either 1 or 0, but I don't know which it is, so I take a guess based on the information I have available to me. If I get more information, my guess will change.
Click to expand...
Do you agree Ignoratio?

 
TheStig said:
CalBear said:
TheStig said:
CalBear said:
ghostguy123 said:
Don't tell me you understand something, and then have your next statement prove that you clearly do not understand it.

They are not JUST a quantified expectation. They are a PROVEN quantified expectations with EXACT probalities. Your Manning over Flacco example, saying it's whatever your personal expectations may be, is an F'ing joke if you are comparing that to proven odds calculations. For one, they are fake because you made them up based on NON-FACTUAL information.

So can I go into the casino and for whatever reason today I feel like Red is going to come up 60% of the time on the roulette wheel, so I must be right?? No, I am already proven to be wrong because the odds are for that are REAL (as in proven).

And for the 100th time, NONE of us that actually know anything about odds and probability are saying that just because something has 1/6 odds that it will come up exactly 1/6 times. The words "true/real" do not mean that will happen, it just means that is what the mathematically proven probability is, based on fact, with no unknown variables, because each side has the exact same chances of coming up as the other 5 sides..............which is pretty much the opposite of football, or any other activity with unknown variables.

As I said, take a class. Read a stats book. Do something other than constantly say stats and probaliity aren't "real". "Real" means "proven". I don't really care if you don't accept it because you don't like how I explain it. I am not a teacher. I haven't gone to school to figure out how to teach something that is factually proven to someone who just chooses to not believe it for who knows what ungodly reason.
Click to expand...
You're missing some fundamental concepts about probability.

So, you start with a normal deck of 52 well-shuffled cards. You take one and place it face down on the table. What are the "real/true/actual" odds that it's an ace? 1/13.

You leave the card there and look at the next card in the deck. It's not an ace. Then you look at the next. It's not an ace, either. You pull 45 cards, and none of them are aces.

The card you placed face down is still sitting there. What are the "real/true/actual" odds that it's an ace? 1/2.

It's the same card. If 1/13 was the "real" odds that that card was an ace, how did it change to 1/2? You didn't do anything to the card.
Click to expand...
The probability that you drew an ace never changed. Drawing 45 cards never changed the the stated probability of potentially drawing an ace, it only changed your predictive confidence that you did in fact draw an ace.
Click to expand...
Probability and "predictive confidence" are equivalent terms. 1/13 is the best prediction I can make about how likely it is that I'll draw an ace from a deck of cards. But the likelihood isn't really 1/13. There's only one card on the top, and that's the one I'm going to draw, and it's either an ace or it's not. So the likelihood is either 1 or 0, but I don't know which it is, so I take a guess based on the information I have available to me. If I get more information, my guess will change.
Click to expand...
Do you agree Ignoratio?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't have answered your question that way, no.

I'd be happy to answer your questions but my wife and son just got home and I'm going to spend the afternoon with them. I'll be back on later tonight if you want to give me a probability quiz or something. :thumbup:

 
Ignoratio Elenchi said:
TheStig said:
CalBear said:
TheStig said:
CalBear said:
ghostguy123 said:
Don't tell me you understand something, and then have your next statement prove that you clearly do not understand it. They are not JUST a quantified expectation. They are a PROVEN quantified expectations with EXACT probalities. Your Manning over Flacco example, saying it's whatever your personal expectations may be, is an F'ing joke if you are comparing that to proven odds calculations. For one, they are fake because you made them up based on NON-FACTUAL information. So can I go into the casino and for whatever reason today I feel like Red is going to come up 60% of the time on the roulette wheel, so I must be right?? No, I am already proven to be wrong because the odds are for that are REAL (as in proven). And for the 100th time, NONE of us that actually know anything about odds and probability are saying that just because something has 1/6 odds that it will come up exactly 1/6 times. The words "true/real" do not mean that will happen, it just means that is what the mathematically proven probability is, based on fact, with no unknown variables, because each side has the exact same chances of coming up as the other 5 sides..............which is pretty much the opposite of football, or any other activity with unknown variables. As I said, take a class. Read a stats book. Do something other than constantly say stats and probaliity aren't "real". "Real" means "proven". I don't really care if you don't accept it because you don't like how I explain it. I am not a teacher. I haven't gone to school to figure out how to teach something that is factually proven to someone who just chooses to not believe it for who knows what ungodly reason.
Click to expand...
You're missing some fundamental concepts about probability. So, you start with a normal deck of 52 well-shuffled cards. You take one and place it face down on the table. What are the "real/true/actual" odds that it's an ace? 1/13. You leave the card there and look at the next card in the deck. It's not an ace. Then you look at the next. It's not an ace, either. You pull 45 cards, and none of them are aces. The card you placed face down is still sitting there. What are the "real/true/actual" odds that it's an ace? 1/2.It's the same card. If 1/13 was the "real" odds that that card was an ace, how did it change to 1/2? You didn't do anything to the card.
Click to expand...
The probability that you drew an ace never changed. Drawing 45 cards never changed the the stated probability of potentially drawing an ace, it only changed your predictive confidence that you did in fact draw an ace.
Click to expand...
Probability and "predictive confidence" are equivalent terms. 1/13 is the best prediction I can make about how likely it is that I'll draw an ace from a deck of cards. But the likelihood isn't really 1/13. There's only one card on the top, and that's the one I'm going to draw, and it's either an ace or it's not. So the likelihood is either 1 or 0, but I don't know which it is, so I take a guess based on the information I have available to me. If I get more information, my guess will change.
Click to expand...
Do you agree Ignoratio?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't have answered your question that way, no.I'd be happy to answer your questions but my wife and son just got home and I'm going to spend the afternoon with them. I'll be back on later tonight if you want to give me a probability quiz or something. :thumbup:
Click to expand...
I would have thought you could have answered it in as quickly as it took you to write your comment. But I'll wait for your answer.But you are eluding that CalBear is in fact wrong?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
CalBear said:
TheStig said:
I would have thought you could have answered it in as quickly as it took you to write your comment. But I'll wait for your answer.
Click to expand...
I'm still waiting on your answer on the probability of your poker opponent holding ao king.
Click to expand...
Tell me exactly which cards you know, and I will tell you the exact probability. And the king example is just silly. It DOES NOT MATTER what the card is. The odds are 1/13.

When you know what the card is, the odds don't exist anymore since you KNOW the answer.

And when you flip 10 cards over, you now know the exact probabilty based on new information. And this new information precise with no unknown variables.

When you talk about the card just being whatever it us, you are pretty much trying to change the definition of odds.

Odds don't tell you what the card is, they tell you the precise probability of what the card is, proven by mathematical fact.

As for the other post about the odds of a team winning the super bowl, no ,the odds are not 1/32 for each team.

However if someone has a hat with all 32 team names in it and tells you to randomly pick one, you have a 1/32 chance of picking the winner.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ghostguy123 said:
If you choose not to tank, that's a choice. Choices are motivated by self interest.

If Adam does not tank, that is motivated by his self interest to do what he views as ethical.

A self interest can be something that makes you feel good about doing it, and is not limited to something that adds to your bank account.
Click to expand...
That is just warped. As are your comments about donations or helping the elderly. Being fair or honest about something isn't because someone "feels good" about being ethical. Apparently, you are very motivated by self interest and can't understand those who are not.

 
Ignoratio Elenchi said:
ghostguy123 said:
So you have what you consider to be an extensive background on stats, yet you don't think there is a difference between true odds (such as in craps or roulette), as in odds that have a precise measurement......................and the odds a football team will win??

Then I guess I will just concede that you got me there. No real reason to discuss that further. If that isn't what you are disagreeing with me on, then I have no idea what you are diagreeing with me on.
Click to expand...
Who says I'm disagreeing with you? I'm simply asking you questions.
Click to expand...
then ask one.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

-OZ-
  • Poll Poll
2025 No team left behind OFFENSE DEFENSE contest - first year
Replies
23
Views
580
QuizGuy66
QuizGuy66
TheWinz
2025 OFFENSE/DEFENSE Contest - Week 1
2
Replies
83
Views
3K
TheWinz
TheWinz
GregR
NFL rules changes for 2025: touchback to 35, overtime change, replay and more
Replies
1
Views
505
rockaction
rockaction

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top