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

[davearm]

I guess another way to look at it, added to the above, is this:

The main goal is to win. This can't happen if you miss the playoffs.

The secondary goal is to improve your chances of winning.

Those are the same goal. The main goal is to win, so you make decisions that improve your chances.Curious, did you read the article from post #724? Your position here illustrates perfectly the "System 1" thinking the author debunked.

Oh, but I did mention I see a HUGE difference when going from 0% odds up to any other number pertaining to this example of fantasy football in the context of tanking.

That article is a good article and makes a lot of sense. It just doesn't apply accurately to fantasy football specifically related to this example IMO.

I view this scenario as a completely different idea than any other purpose to tank a game. The numbers are only a small part of it, but the idea/fact that losing is the only way to make the playoffs is enough for me to be fine with tanking a game.

But I guess I will ask you also. Do you think tanking is acceptable in this example, or any other example? Is so, or if not, why?

The System 1/System 2 stuff applies perfectly to this example. The bolded is *exactly* what the article exposes as illogical. It's staring you right in the face and you refuse to see it.

I think tanking is acceptable wherever the rules don't specifically prohibit it.

 

[davearm]

Your distinction between "perceived" odds and "actual" odds is nonsense. Odds are odds. They don't come in different flavors.

Not even sure odds are necessary in this discussion. When the question to me is "why do you think tanking is allowed in this situation", my answer, and really all I think is necessary to answer that question, is the fact that a loss is the only way you can get into the playoffs. I have made attempts to add to that, but I don't thing it needs anything added. It is a very special circumstance, and for every reason imaginable I think tanking is fine in that one and only example. But really, it doesn't need any other explanation other than that.

Now, as for your comment, talk about nonsense. Actual odds are, well, actual odds. If you flip a coin, it has a 50-50 shot at heads, and a 50-50 shot at tails. 50% is a concrete and undeniable number.

When you tank to try and manipulate the playoffs seeds to improve your chances, there are no real/actual odds you can put on that. It's a guess. It's your own personal vision of your chances, as in, perceived.

There actually is a pretty distinct difference between legitimate odds and something like fantasy football that has no actual odds that are based on anything other than personal opinion.

The only ACTUAL odds that have been discussed in this is the fact that winning the game 100% knocks you out of the playoffs, while losing the game 100% gets you into the playoffs. Those are actual and undeniable numbers based on fact, not perception. Again, this is just a small part of why I think tanking is fine in this case while it's not in those other cases where people are trying to manipulate things when they are already in the playoffs.

And for whoever asked earlier if it is unfair that one person gets to tank to improve their chances while one person can not, no, I don't think it is unfair at all, not in this one super rare example/exception. I am in the camp that thinks tanking is bad in every case possible except one.

Let me ask you this.

Say I'm playing blackjack. I've got 14. The dealer is showing a 10.

The odds of me winning are X% if I stand.

The odds of me winning are Y% if I hit.

I have no idea what X and Y are, but my best guess is that Y > X, so I hit.

Are X and Y "real" odds, or "perceived" odds?

 

[ghostguy123]

The System 1/System 2 stuff applies perfectly to this example. The bolded is *exactly* what the article exposes as illogical. It's staring you right in the face and you refuse to see it.

I think tanking is acceptable wherever the rules don't specifically prohibit it.

No, I do not think it applies because this idea goes above and beyond just the numbers. The numbers are only a small part of my reasoning.

My main reasoning I think tanking is fine in this case is because it is your ONLY chance to win. I find that scenario to be far different than any other scenario as it relates to fantasy football and tanking.

As I said, that article is good, but it does not apply to the the way I think, or this particular situation. I agree it would be illogical if we were talking about most other situations involving numbers/odds.

But not this. This article does not factor in the situation at hand, at all.

 

[ghostguy123]

Let me ask you this.

Say I'm playing blackjack. I've got 14. The dealer is showing a 10.

The odds of me winning are X% if I stand.

The odds of me winning are Y% if I hit.

I have no idea what X and Y are, but my best guess is that Y > X, so I hit.

Are X and Y "real" odds, or "perceived" odds?

Umm, they are real/actual odds based on mathematical certainty. Why are you asking? You have me curious.

But again, as stated, this is only a small part of my reasoning. Even though I disagree with the way a couple of you are using that article to try and back up your argument, it doesn't matter anyway.

I don't think this situation calls for any more explanation other than "it is your only chance to win".

A nice example of perceived odds would be this. I ask you what your chances are of winning your league this year (assume I asked right before the playoffs started). Any answer you give me is perceived odds.

Sort of like tanking to change your playoff seed because you perceive your odds to be better that way. No, it is true your odds may very well be better if you manipulate it so that the next team you face is a horrible team, but the increase in your odds to win the title by doing that is completely perceived.

I guess another example of perceived odds would be anything in the Vegas Sportsbook.

 

[davearm]

The System 1/System 2 stuff applies perfectly to this example. The bolded is *exactly* what the article exposes as illogical. It's staring you right in the face and you refuse to see it.

I think tanking is acceptable wherever the rules don't specifically prohibit it.

No, I do not think it applies because this idea goes above and beyond just the numbers. The numbers are only a small part of my reasoning.

My main reasoning I think tanking is fine in this case is because it is your ONLY chance to win. I find that scenario to be far different than any other scenario as it relates to fantasy football and tanking.

As I said, that article is good, but it does not apply to the the way I think, or this particular situation. I agree it would be illogical if we were talking about most other situations involving numbers/odds.

But not this. This article does not factor in the situation at hand, at all.

The article describes precisely the way you think, and it applies to any situation involving odds.

 

[davearm]

Let me ask you this.

Say I'm playing blackjack. I've got 14. The dealer is showing a 10.

The odds of me winning are X% if I stand.

The odds of me winning are Y% if I hit.

I have no idea what X and Y are, but my best guess is that Y > X, so I hit.

Are X and Y "real" odds, or "perceived" odds?

Umm, they are real/actual odds based on mathematical certainty. Why are you asking? You have me curious.

But again, as stated, this is only a small part of my reasoning. Even though I disagree with the way a couple of you are using that article to try and back up your argument, it doesn't matter anyway.

I don't think this situation calls for any more explanation other than "it is your only chance to win".

A nice example of perceived odds would be this. I ask you what your chances are of winning your league this year (assume I asked right before the playoffs started). Any answer you give me is perceived odds.

Sort of like tanking to change your playoff seed because you perceive your odds to be better that way. No, it is true your odds may very well be better if you manipulate it so that the next team you face is a horrible team, but the increase in your odds to win the title by doing that is completely perceived.

I guess another example of perceived odds would be anything in the Vegas Sportsbook.

I ask because the situation is no different than what we face in fantasy football.

Say I'm rostering Peyton Manning and Joe Flacco.

The odds of me winning are X% if I start Flacco.

The odds of me winning are Y% if I start Manning.

I have no idea what X and Y are, but my best guess is that Y > X, so I start Manning.

You told me X and Y were real in the blackjack scenario (and I agree). They're no less real in the FF scenario. More difficult to compute, possibly, but no less real.

Perhaps more to the point, in both situations the player is making a choice based upon a best guess of what those odds are... what you characterize as "perceived" odds. Now an MIT guy with a big brain and a big computer could compute the Xs and the Ys for us in both situations, but that degree of information is not available in real time to either the blackjack player or the fantasy football player.

Bottom line, to your way of thinking, they must both be actual, or both be perceived. There's no meaningful difference in how they're guiding players' decisions.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Had I tanked my game last week, I would have won this week. I still stand behind my decision to not tank, as just joking with my league mate about it was met with such anger.

 

[ghostguy123]

Let me ask you this.

Say I'm playing blackjack. I've got 14. The dealer is showing a 10.

The odds of me winning are X% if I stand.

The odds of me winning are Y% if I hit.

I have no idea what X and Y are, but my best guess is that Y > X, so I hit.

Are X and Y "real" odds, or "perceived" odds?

Umm, they are real/actual odds based on mathematical certainty. Why are you asking? You have me curious.

But again, as stated, this is only a small part of my reasoning. Even though I disagree with the way a couple of you are using that article to try and back up your argument, it doesn't matter anyway.

I don't think this situation calls for any more explanation other than "it is your only chance to win".

A nice example of perceived odds would be this. I ask you what your chances are of winning your league this year (assume I asked right before the playoffs started). Any answer you give me is perceived odds.

Sort of like tanking to change your playoff seed because you perceive your odds to be better that way. No, it is true your odds may very well be better if you manipulate it so that the next team you face is a horrible team, but the increase in your odds to win the title by doing that is completely perceived.

I guess another example of perceived odds would be anything in the Vegas Sportsbook.

I ask because the situation is no different than what we face in fantasy football.

Say I'm rostering Peyton Manning and Joe Flacco.

The odds of me winning are X% if I start Flacco.

The odds of me winning are Y% if I start Manning.

I have no idea what X and Y are, but my best guess is that Y > X, so I start Manning.

You told me X and Y were real in the blackjack scenario (and I agree). They're no less real in the FF scenario. More difficult to compute, possibly, but no less real.

Perhaps more to the point, in both situations the player is making a choice based upon a best guess of what those odds are... what you characterize as "perceived" odds. Now an MIT guy with a big brain and a big computer could compute the Xs and the Ys for us in both situations, but that degree of information is not available in real time to either the blackjack player or the fantasy football player.

Bottom line, to your way of thinking, they must both be actual, or both be perceived. There's no meaningful difference in how they're guiding players' decisions.

wow, you are very wrong here.

Real/actual are odds are mathematical certainties based on exact formulas.

Nothing in fantasy football is a mathematical certainty.

And the MAIN basis of me saying tanking is ok, which is the most important thing pertaining to this discussion, is that it the ONLY way your team can win. As in, zero chance to win the league if you win that game.

MOre diffucult to computer??? There is no actual way to compute the odds. There are people that are better at guessing them, sure, but they are anything but true odds.

 

[ghostguy123]

Had I tanked my game last week, I would have won this week. I still stand behind my decision to not tank, as just joking with my league mate about it was met with such anger.

And I would say the overwhelming majority would say you would be correct to not tank in your situation. You were already in the playoffs.

 

[ghostguy123]

The article describes precisely the way you think, and it applies to any situation involving odds.

No, lol, it doesn't. If we were only talking about odds sure, but for the 100th time, we are talking about fantasy football mainly, related to tanking in a specific scenario, and some of the odds that come along with it.

Let's put it this way................odds are such a small part of my reasoning for thinking it's fine to tank in this situation that I am done talking about them after this post.

Bottom line, I dont agree in the slightest that actual odds are the same as perceived odds.

Are true/actual odds proven to be exact based on mathematical formulas and mathematical certainty? Yes

Are perceived odds proven to be exact based on mathematica formulas and mathematica certainty? No

It really is as simple as that.

If you don't agree, then fine. I don't know why, but so be it. But since it really doesn't matter that much regarding this scenario anyway, who the F cares.

And as for tanking in this scenario, it just doesnt need anythign else for me to think it is ok other than losing your game is the only way you have a chance to win the title in that season.

 

[Short Corner]

Let me ask you this.

Say I'm playing blackjack. I've got 14. The dealer is showing a 10.

The odds of me winning are X% if I stand.

The odds of me winning are Y% if I hit.

I have no idea what X and Y are, but my best guess is that Y > X, so I hit.

Are X and Y "real" odds, or "perceived" odds?

Umm, they are real/actual odds based on mathematical certainty. Why are you asking? You have me curious.

But again, as stated, this is only a small part of my reasoning. Even though I disagree with the way a couple of you are using that article to try and back up your argument, it doesn't matter anyway.

I don't think this situation calls for any more explanation other than "it is your only chance to win".

A nice example of perceived odds would be this. I ask you what your chances are of winning your league this year (assume I asked right before the playoffs started). Any answer you give me is perceived odds.

Sort of like tanking to change your playoff seed because you perceive your odds to be better that way. No, it is true your odds may very well be better if you manipulate it so that the next team you face is a horrible team, but the increase in your odds to win the title by doing that is completely perceived.

I guess another example of perceived odds would be anything in the Vegas Sportsbook.

I ask because the situation is no different than what we face in fantasy football.

Say I'm rostering Peyton Manning and Joe Flacco.

The odds of me winning are X% if I start Flacco.

The odds of me winning are Y% if I start Manning.

I have no idea what X and Y are, but my best guess is that Y > X, so I start Manning.

You told me X and Y were real in the blackjack scenario (and I agree). They're no less real in the FF scenario. More difficult to compute, possibly, but no less real.

Perhaps more to the point, in both situations the player is making a choice based upon a best guess of what those odds are... what you characterize as "perceived" odds. Now an MIT guy with a big brain and a big computer could compute the Xs and the Ys for us in both situations, but that degree of information is not available in real time to either the blackjack player or the fantasy football player.

Bottom line, to your way of thinking, they must both be actual, or both be perceived. There's no meaningful difference in how they're guiding players' decisions.

It's a crappy analogy. X and Y will differ depending on what 'expert' you subscribe to. BJ odds are always the same to the point that people memorize strategy

 

[davearm]

People do memorize strategy, but the underlying odds are not always the same. The game is far too complex.

The rules of thumb were developed assuming a single player, and a single deck of cards. That's not how casino blackjack is played, at least not 99% of the time.

Adding additional players means more revealed cards. Revealed cards alter X and Y.

Adding additional decks of cards to the shoe changes X and Y.

Playing early in the shoe versus late in the shoe changes X and Y (again, more revealed cards).

Beyond that, most blackjack players aren't even counting cards anyway. They're tourists, not professionals, and they don't know what the values of X and Y are even in the controlled environment (one player, one deck).

Bottom line, nobody playing blackjack knows the true, mathematical values of X and Y in real time; they make decisions based on estimates. Estimated odds are apparently something known as "perceived odds". Same situation as fantasy football.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

My main reasoning I think tanking is fine in this case is because it is your ONLY chance to win.

In other words, you are changing your probability of winning from 0% to something greater than 0%. That's what "only chance to win" means, isn't it?

 

[Short Corner]

People do memorize strategy, but the underlying odds are not always the same. The game is far too complex.

The rules of thumb were developed assuming a single player, and a single deck of cards. That's not how casino blackjack is played, at least not 99% of the time.

Adding additional players means more revealed cards. Revealed cards alter X and Y.

Adding additional decks of cards to the shoe changes X and Y.

Playing early in the shoe versus late in the shoe changes X and Y (again, more revealed cards).

Beyond that, most blackjack players aren't even counting cards anyway. They're tourists, not professionals, and they don't know what the values of X and Y are even in the controlled environment (one player, one deck).

Bottom line, nobody playing blackjack knows the true, mathematical values of X and Y in real time; they make decisions based on estimates. Estimated odds are apparently something known as "perceived odds". Same situation as fantasy football.

Which is why books are written on how to track said values relative to one another. You can know the true odds in real time, although it is easier to memorize the decisions than the odds.

Not sure why you bring up the tourists. The fact that they play badly doesn't mean that the discrete values don't exist.

 

[ghostguy123]

People do memorize strategy, but the underlying odds are not always the same. The game is far too complex.

The rules of thumb were developed assuming a single player, and a single deck of cards. That's not how casino blackjack is played, at least not 99% of the time.

Adding additional players means more revealed cards. Revealed cards alter X and Y.

Adding additional decks of cards to the shoe changes X and Y.

Playing early in the shoe versus late in the shoe changes X and Y (again, more revealed cards).

Beyond that, most blackjack players aren't even counting cards anyway. They're tourists, not professionals, and they don't know what the values of X and Y are even in the controlled environment (one player, one deck).

Bottom line, nobody playing blackjack knows the true, mathematical values of X and Y in real time; they make decisions based on estimates. Estimated odds are apparently something known as "perceived odds". Same situation as fantasy football.

you did not mention strategy. You asked what are your odds of winning if you either hit, or if you stand. Those are REAL odds with a concrete mathematical formula telling you what your EXACT odds are.

If you are going to put strategy into it, or someone who doesnt know what they are doing, that's different. But if the dealer has a 10 showing and you have 14, there are actual odds that are EXACT mathematical odds telling you what your chances of winning are if you stay, and also telling you what your chances are if you hit.

It doesn't matter if other players are there, or how many cards you have seen. If you see and have seen other cards out of the chute before the current hand you are playing, that would be factored into the actual mathematical odds for your current situation.

So in your original question, you did not say anything at all regarding strategy. You simply asked me about one specific hand related to the odds of winning if you stand, and the odds of winning if you hit. That example shows exact/true/actual odds.

But no matter what your strategy is, EVERY hand has exact mathematical odds based on what cards have been revealed and your current hand in front of you. If you made a decision to stand, there are exact odds for your chances of winning that hand. Same thing if you hit.

 

[ghostguy123]

My main reasoning I think tanking is fine in this case is because it is your ONLY chance to win.

In other words, you are changing your probability of winning from 0% to something greater than 0%. That's what "only chance to win" means, isn't it?

Yes. But I find that to be a completely different concept as it relates to fantasy football and tanking than any other scenario where tanking would be involved.

Again, if you do not see any difference at all between "tanking because it is your ONLY chance to make the playoffs" and "tanking to improve your chances to win when you are already a playoff team", then I guess we just flat out disagree. Those are two very different concepts for me related to fantasy football. Moving on.

This is more based on the concept of not just doing what is best for your team's chances, but doing the ONLY thing for your team to have a chance.

We are not just talking about straight up odds here. We are talking about fantasy football, with one very specific scenario, having to do with the very sore subject of tanking.

 

[Bamac]

People do memorize strategy, but the underlying odds are not always the same. The game is far too complex.

The rules of thumb were developed assuming a single player, and a single deck of cards. That's not how casino blackjack is played, at least not 99% of the time.

Adding additional players means more revealed cards. Revealed cards alter X and Y.

Adding additional decks of cards to the shoe changes X and Y.

Playing early in the shoe versus late in the shoe changes X and Y (again, more revealed cards).

Beyond that, most blackjack players aren't even counting cards anyway. They're tourists, not professionals, and they don't know what the values of X and Y are even in the controlled environment (one player, one deck).

Bottom line, nobody playing blackjack knows the true, mathematical values of X and Y in real time; they make decisions based on estimates. Estimated odds are apparently something known as "perceived odds". Same situation as fantasy football.

you did not mention strategy. You asked what are your odds of winning if you either hit, or if you stand. Those are REAL odds with a concrete mathematical formula telling you what your EXACT odds are.

If you are going to put strategy into it, or someone who doesnt know what they are doing, that's different. But if the dealer has a 10 showing and you have 14, there are actual odds that are EXACT mathematical odds telling you what your chances of winning are if you stay, and also telling you what your chances are if you hit.

It doesn't matter if other players are there, or how many cards you have seen. If you see and have seen other cards out of the chute before the current hand you are playing, that would be factored into the actual mathematical odds for your current situation.

So in your original question, you did not say anything at all regarding strategy. You simply asked me about one specific hand related to the odds of winning if you stand, and the odds of winning if you hit. That example shows exact/true/actual odds.

But no matter what your strategy is, EVERY hand has exact mathematical odds based on what cards have been revealed and your current hand in front of you. If you made a decision to stand, there are exact odds for your chances of winning that hand. Same thing if you hit.

What do you say about tanking to get a first round bye? Are the improved odds there "real" or hypothetical?

 

[davearm]

People do memorize strategy, but the underlying odds are not always the same. The game is far too complex.

The rules of thumb were developed assuming a single player, and a single deck of cards. That's not how casino blackjack is played, at least not 99% of the time.

Adding additional players means more revealed cards. Revealed cards alter X and Y.

Adding additional decks of cards to the shoe changes X and Y.

Playing early in the shoe versus late in the shoe changes X and Y (again, more revealed cards).

Beyond that, most blackjack players aren't even counting cards anyway. They're tourists, not professionals, and they don't know what the values of X and Y are even in the controlled environment (one player, one deck).

Bottom line, nobody playing blackjack knows the true, mathematical values of X and Y in real time; they make decisions based on estimates. Estimated odds are apparently something known as "perceived odds". Same situation as fantasy football.

you did not mention strategy. You asked what are your odds of winning if you either hit, or if you stand. Those are REAL odds with a concrete mathematical formula telling you what your EXACT odds are.

If you are going to put strategy into it, or someone who doesnt know what they are doing, that's different. But if the dealer has a 10 showing and you have 14, there are actual odds that are EXACT mathematical odds telling you what your chances of winning are if you stay, and also telling you what your chances are if you hit.

It doesn't matter if other players are there, or how many cards you have seen. If you see and have seen other cards out of the chute before the current hand you are playing, that would be factored into the actual mathematical odds for your current situation.

So in your original question, you did not say anything at all regarding strategy. You simply asked me about one specific hand related to the odds of winning if you stand, and the odds of winning if you hit. That example shows exact/true/actual odds.

But no matter what your strategy is, EVERY hand has exact mathematical odds based on what cards have been revealed and your current hand in front of you. If you made a decision to stand, there are exact odds for your chances of winning that hand. Same thing if you hit.

I don't even know where to begin, so I'll just reiterate, for all practical purposes, the odds blackjack players use in their decisionmaking are the same as the odds fantasy football players use. They're both estimates.

My main reasoning I think tanking is fine in this case is because it is your ONLY chance to win.

In other words, you are changing your probability of winning from 0% to something greater than 0%. That's what "only chance to win" means, isn't it?

Yes. But I find that to be a completely different concept as it relates to fantasy football and tanking than any other scenario where tanking would be involved.

Again, if you do not see any difference at all between "tanking because it is your ONLY chance to make the playoffs" and "tanking to improve your chances to win when you are already a playoff team", then I guess we just flat out disagree. Moving on.

This is more based on the concept of not doing what is best for your team's chances, but doing the ONLY thing for your team to have a chance.

We are not just talking about straight up odds here. We are talking about fantasy football, with one very specific scenario, having to do with the very sore subject of tanking.

There exists for all players a continuum from 0% probability of winning the championship to 100% probability of winning the championship. Your position here is that it is OK to tank at one specific point along that continuum (0%), but not OK to tank at all other points.

That position is inconsistent and illogical. The reason why is best described @ post #724, where System 1 vs. System 2 thought processes are explained. I understand, since you've repeated it often, that you find that to be a completely different concept as it relates to fantasy football.

I, and others, are trying (and clearly failing) to help you understand why you're wrong, and that the theory presented @ #724 applies perfectly here, and that you are a prime demonstration of the System 1 vs. System 2 phenomenon in action.

 

[davearm]

What do you say about tanking to get a first round bye? Are the improved odds there "real" or hypothetical?

 

[ghostguy123]

Let me ask you this.

Say I'm playing blackjack. I've got 14. The dealer is showing a 10.

The odds of me winning are X% if I stand.

The odds of me winning are Y% if I hit.

I have no idea what X and Y are, but my best guess is that Y > X, so I hit.

Are X and Y "real" odds, or "perceived" odds?

Umm, they are real/actual odds based on mathematical certainty. Why are you asking? You have me curious.

But again, as stated, this is only a small part of my reasoning. Even though I disagree with the way a couple of you are using that article to try and back up your argument, it doesn't matter anyway.

I don't think this situation calls for any more explanation other than "it is your only chance to win".

A nice example of perceived odds would be this. I ask you what your chances are of winning your league this year (assume I asked right before the playoffs started). Any answer you give me is perceived odds.

Sort of like tanking to change your playoff seed because you perceive your odds to be better that way. No, it is true your odds may very well be better if you manipulate it so that the next team you face is a horrible team, but the increase in your odds to win the title by doing that is completely perceived.

I guess another example of perceived odds would be anything in the Vegas Sportsbook.

I ask because the situation is no different than what we face in fantasy football.

Say I'm rostering Peyton Manning and Joe Flacco.

The odds of me winning are X% if I start Flacco.

The odds of me winning are Y% if I start Manning.

I have no idea what X and Y are, but my best guess is that Y > X, so I start Manning.

You told me X and Y were real in the blackjack scenario (and I agree). They're no less real in the FF scenario. More difficult to compute, possibly, but no less real.

Perhaps more to the point, in both situations the player is making a choice based upon a best guess of what those odds are... what you characterize as "perceived" odds. Now an MIT guy with a big brain and a big computer could compute the Xs and the Ys for us in both situations, but that degree of information is not available in real time to either the blackjack player or the fantasy football player.

Bottom line, to your way of thinking, they must both be actual, or both be perceived. There's no meaningful difference in how they're guiding players' decisions.

It's a crappy analogy. X and Y will differ depending on what 'expert' you subscribe to. BJ odds are always the same to the point that people memorize strategy

Yeah, horrible analogy.

Those odds he mentioned in fantasy football are more difficult to compute because they are IMPOSSIBLE to compute with mathematical certainty. There are people who are excellent at projecting stats for fantasy, but those are absolutely 100% NOT true odds. There is no concrete mathematical formula to figure out the exact odds of winning a fantasy football game.

In blackjack, all the variables are known. They are undeniably exact. In fantasy football, there are a zillion variables that are impossible to all be known by anyone, and those variables are also constantly changing. True/exact odds are simply not possible.

 

[ghostguy123]

What do you say about tanking to get a first round bye? Are the improved odds there "real" or hypothetical?

I am not sure exactly what you are asking.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

My main reasoning I think tanking is fine in this case is because it is your ONLY chance to win.

In other words, you are changing your probability of winning from 0% to something greater than 0%. That's what "only chance to win" means, isn't it?

Yes. But I find that to be a completely different concept as it relates to fantasy football and tanking than any other scenario where tanking would be involved.

Right, in one case you are changing your probability of winning from 0% to something greater than 0% (i.e. from "impossible" to "possible"), and in the other case you're changing your probability of winning from something greater than 0% to something else greater than 0% (i.e. from "possible" to "possible"). You insisting that they're "completely different" is exactly what the previously linked article is talking about - people mistakenly believe that going from impossible to possible is "completely different" than going from possible to possible.

It's interesting that you seem to acknowledge that the cognitive bias described in the article exists, but it somehow doesn't apply to you in this situation.

 

[ghostguy123]

People do memorize strategy, but the underlying odds are not always the same. The game is far too complex.

The rules of thumb were developed assuming a single player, and a single deck of cards. That's not how casino blackjack is played, at least not 99% of the time.

Adding additional players means more revealed cards. Revealed cards alter X and Y.

Adding additional decks of cards to the shoe changes X and Y.

Playing early in the shoe versus late in the shoe changes X and Y (again, more revealed cards).

Beyond that, most blackjack players aren't even counting cards anyway. They're tourists, not professionals, and they don't know what the values of X and Y are even in the controlled environment (one player, one deck).

Bottom line, nobody playing blackjack knows the true, mathematical values of X and Y in real time; they make decisions based on estimates. Estimated odds are apparently something known as "perceived odds". Same situation as fantasy football.

you did not mention strategy. You asked what are your odds of winning if you either hit, or if you stand. Those are REAL odds with a concrete mathematical formula telling you what your EXACT odds are.

If you are going to put strategy into it, or someone who doesnt know what they are doing, that's different. But if the dealer has a 10 showing and you have 14, there are actual odds that are EXACT mathematical odds telling you what your chances of winning are if you stay, and also telling you what your chances are if you hit.

It doesn't matter if other players are there, or how many cards you have seen. If you see and have seen other cards out of the chute before the current hand you are playing, that would be factored into the actual mathematical odds for your current situation.

So in your original question, you did not say anything at all regarding strategy. You simply asked me about one specific hand related to the odds of winning if you stand, and the odds of winning if you hit. That example shows exact/true/actual odds.

But no matter what your strategy is, EVERY hand has exact mathematical odds based on what cards have been revealed and your current hand in front of you. If you made a decision to stand, there are exact odds for your chances of winning that hand. Same thing if you hit.

I don't even know where to begin, so I'll just reiterate, for all practical purposes, the odds blackjack players use in their decisionmaking are the same as the odds fantasy football players use. They're both estimates.

My main reasoning I think tanking is fine in this case is because it is your ONLY chance to win.

In other words, you are changing your probability of winning from 0% to something greater than 0%. That's what "only chance to win" means, isn't it?

Yes. But I find that to be a completely different concept as it relates to fantasy football and tanking than any other scenario where tanking would be involved.

Again, if you do not see any difference at all between "tanking because it is your ONLY chance to make the playoffs" and "tanking to improve your chances to win when you are already a playoff team", then I guess we just flat out disagree. Moving on.

This is more based on the concept of not doing what is best for your team's chances, but doing the ONLY thing for your team to have a chance.

We are not just talking about straight up odds here. We are talking about fantasy football, with one very specific scenario, having to do with the very sore subject of tanking.

There exists for all players a continuum from 0% probability of winning the championship to 100% probability of winning the championship. Your position here is that it is OK to tank at one specific point along that continuum (0%), but not OK to tank at all other points.

That position is inconsistent and illogical. The reason why is best described @ post #724, where System 1 vs. System 2 thought processes are explained. I understand, since you've repeated it often, that you find that to be a completely different concept as it relates to fantasy football.

I, and others, are trying (and clearly failing) to help you understand why you're wrong, and that the theory presented @ #724 applies perfectly here, and that you are a prime demonstration of the System 1 vs. System 2 phenomenon in action.

Now you are just flat out not making sense and are wrong on several levels. When you are talking about the decision making that blackjack players use, those decisions are BASED on the odds. They make their decision using those odds to create the best outcome. The card counters change their strategy every hand based on what has been played. If at any point they do not know the actual odds, it's simply because they are too difficult to compute while playing many hands.

You gave me one very specific example of one blackjack hand. That hand has exact odds of an outcome depending on what you do. And then you bring up the whole blackjack strategy of multple hands. Just because after many hands those guys playiing do not know the actual odds of the hand in front of them, guess what. If you give a mathematician the time and let him see every card played, he will give you the EXACT odds for the current hand in front of you.

This phenemenon just does not exist in fantasy football. People are very good at it, but they are not exact odds. Same with a real NFL game. Vegas sets odds for games, but there is absolutely no way that actual/true odds can be set for an NFL game. It is not remotely possible to prove like the odds are for a hand of blackjack.

And as for what you consider to be illogical, so be it. It is absolutely not illogical in the slightest, and just because 2-3 people on here think it is does not make it so. How bout this for some logic for you. In this FF scenario we are discussing, if you are trying to win the game then you are trying to NOT win a title.

Feel free too discuss that one.

 

[ghostguy123]

Right, in one case you are changing your probability of winning from 0% to something greater than 0% (i.e. from "impossible" to "possible"), and in the other case you're changing your probability of winning from something greater than 0% to something else greater than 0% (i.e. from "possible" to "possible"). You insisting that they're "completely different" is exactly what the previously linked article is talking about - people mistakenly believe that going from impossible to possible is "completely different" than going from possible to possible.

It's interesting that you seem to acknowledge that the cognitive bias described in the article exists, but it somehow doesn't apply to you in this situation.

It is different enough for me to be ok with tanking in that scenario. And no, I don't think it applies to tanking in fantasy football. Maybe you should get a hold of the guy who wrote the article and send him this thread, see what he says.

 

[ghostguy123]

What do you say about tanking to get a first round bye? Are the improved odds there "real" or hypothetical?

I am not sure exactly what you are asking.

Time for bed for me, but I will take a small stab at this I really have no idea what exactly you are asking but I will give it a shot anyway for fun.

If tanking your game would 100% get you a 1st round bye, then yes those are real/true/actual odds. The odds being that you have a 100% chance to get a bye if you tank your game.

Now, if you are asking me about your odds related to winning a championship, I think the vast majority of people would agree that getting a 1st round bye improves your chances of winning a title. However, the amount of that increase would not be true/actual odds. There is no way of figuring out the exact % you have increased your chances of winning. Clearly your odds improve. It's just not possible to quantify the exact amount they improve.

I dont even know how this scenario would even happen, but I would NOT be ok with tanking in this situation. I am only ok with tanking if it is your ONLY chance to make the playoffs.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Maybe you should get a hold of the guy who wrote the article and send him this thread, see what he says.

I suspect Daniel Kahneman has better things to do.

 

[ghostguy123]

Maybe you should get a hold of the guy who wrote the article and send him this thread, see what he says.

I suspect Daniel Kahneman has better things to do.

I suspect you shouldn't assume what he would think of this fantasy football scenario. I think there is an excellent chance he would not view my thoughts on this as being illogical.

 

[davearm]

People do memorize strategy, but the underlying odds are not always the same. The game is far too complex.

The rules of thumb were developed assuming a single player, and a single deck of cards. That's not how casino blackjack is played, at least not 99% of the time.

Adding additional players means more revealed cards. Revealed cards alter X and Y.

Adding additional decks of cards to the shoe changes X and Y.

Playing early in the shoe versus late in the shoe changes X and Y (again, more revealed cards).

Beyond that, most blackjack players aren't even counting cards anyway. They're tourists, not professionals, and they don't know what the values of X and Y are even in the controlled environment (one player, one deck).

Bottom line, nobody playing blackjack knows the true, mathematical values of X and Y in real time; they make decisions based on estimates. Estimated odds are apparently something known as "perceived odds". Same situation as fantasy football.

you did not mention strategy. You asked what are your odds of winning if you either hit, or if you stand. Those are REAL odds with a concrete mathematical formula telling you what your EXACT odds are.

If you are going to put strategy into it, or someone who doesnt know what they are doing, that's different. But if the dealer has a 10 showing and you have 14, there are actual odds that are EXACT mathematical odds telling you what your chances of winning are if you stay, and also telling you what your chances are if you hit.

It doesn't matter if other players are there, or how many cards you have seen. If you see and have seen other cards out of the chute before the current hand you are playing, that would be factored into the actual mathematical odds for your current situation.

So in your original question, you did not say anything at all regarding strategy. You simply asked me about one specific hand related to the odds of winning if you stand, and the odds of winning if you hit. That example shows exact/true/actual odds.

But no matter what your strategy is, EVERY hand has exact mathematical odds based on what cards have been revealed and your current hand in front of you. If you made a decision to stand, there are exact odds for your chances of winning that hand. Same thing if you hit.

I don't even know where to begin, so I'll just reiterate, for all practical purposes, the odds blackjack players use in their decisionmaking are the same as the odds fantasy football players use. They're both estimates.

My main reasoning I think tanking is fine in this case is because it is your ONLY chance to win.

In other words, you are changing your probability of winning from 0% to something greater than 0%. That's what "only chance to win" means, isn't it?

Yes. But I find that to be a completely different concept as it relates to fantasy football and tanking than any other scenario where tanking would be involved.

Again, if you do not see any difference at all between "tanking because it is your ONLY chance to make the playoffs" and "tanking to improve your chances to win when you are already a playoff team", then I guess we just flat out disagree. Moving on.

This is more based on the concept of not doing what is best for your team's chances, but doing the ONLY thing for your team to have a chance.

We are not just talking about straight up odds here. We are talking about fantasy football, with one very specific scenario, having to do with the very sore subject of tanking.

There exists for all players a continuum from 0% probability of winning the championship to 100% probability of winning the championship. Your position here is that it is OK to tank at one specific point along that continuum (0%), but not OK to tank at all other points.

That position is inconsistent and illogical. The reason why is best described @ post #724, where System 1 vs. System 2 thought processes are explained. I understand, since you've repeated it often, that you find that to be a completely different concept as it relates to fantasy football.

I, and others, are trying (and clearly failing) to help you understand why you're wrong, and that the theory presented @ #724 applies perfectly here, and that you are a prime demonstration of the System 1 vs. System 2 phenomenon in action.

Now you are just flat out not making sense and are wrong on several levels. When you are talking about the decision making that blackjack players use, those decisions are BASED on the odds. They make their decision using those odds to create the best outcome. The card counters change their strategy every hand based on what has been played. If at any point they do not know the actual odds, it's simply because they are too difficult to compute while playing many hands.

You gave me one very specific example of one blackjack hand. That hand has exact odds of an outcome depending on what you do. And then you bring up the whole blackjack strategy of multple hands. Just because after many hands those guys playiing do not know the actual odds of the hand in front of them, guess what. If you give a mathematician the time and let him see every card played, he will give you the EXACT odds for the current hand in front of you.

This phenemenon just does not exist in fantasy football. People are very good at it, but they are not exact odds. Same with a real NFL game. Vegas sets odds for games, but there is absolutely no way that actual/true odds can be set for an NFL game. It is not remotely possible to prove like the odds are for a hand of blackjack.

And as for what you consider to be illogical, so be it. It is absolutely not illogical in the slightest, and just because 2-3 people on here think it is does not make it so. How bout this for some logic for you. In this FF scenario we are discussing, if you are trying to win the game then you are trying to NOT win a title.

Feel free too discuss that one.

The point I was making with the blackjack example is that both blackjack players and FF players are making decisions based upon their best-guess at how their decisions impact their odds of success. That renders moot this "actual odds" / "perceived odds" nonsense. There's no meaningful distinction between the two.

 

[davearm]

What do you say about tanking to get a first round bye? Are the improved odds there "real" or hypothetical?

I am not sure exactly what you are asking.

Time for bed for me, but I will take a small stab at this I really have no idea what exactly you are asking but I will give it a shot anyway for fun.

If tanking your game would 100% get you a 1st round bye, then yes those are real/true/actual odds. The odds being that you have a 100% chance to get a bye if you tank your game.

Now, if you are asking me about your odds related to winning a championship, I think the vast majority of people would agree that getting a 1st round bye improves your chances of winning a title. However, the amount of that increase would not be true/actual odds. There is no way of figuring out the exact % you have increased your chances of winning. Clearly your odds improve. It's just not possible to quantify the exact amount they improve.

I dont even know how this scenario would even happen, but I would NOT be ok with tanking in this situation. I am only ok with tanking if it is your ONLY chance to make the playoffs.

Here again you prove that "real odds" vs. "perceived odds" is a nonsequitur. You've been given two scenarios in which everyone agrees "real" odds are in play. You have said tanking is OK in one case, but not in the other. Therefore the "realness" of the odds is meaningless.

 

[ghostguy123]

The point I was making with the blackjack example is that both blackjack players and FF players are making decisions based upon their best-guess at how their decisions impact their odds of success. That renders moot this "actual odds" / "perceived odds" nonsense. There's no meaningful distinction between the two.

I have no idea why you are making that point, when the original quesiton you asked had absolutely nothing to do with that.

You asked me about the odds for one specific hand of black, which was your odds of winning if you hit, or your odds of winning if you stand. That has true/actual odds that are proven with mathematical certainty. That is why are are called true or actual odds.

Perceived odds are things you can not quantify with a proven mathematical formula, such as...................wait for it....................a fantasy football matchup.

 

[davearm]

The point I was making with the blackjack example is that both blackjack players and FF players are making decisions based upon their best-guess at how their decisions impact their odds of success. That renders moot this "actual odds" / "perceived odds" nonsense. There's no meaningful distinction between the two.

I have no idea why you are making that point, when the original quesiton you asked had absolutely nothing to do with that.

You asked me about the odds for one specific hand of black, which was your odds of winning if you hit, or your odds of winning if you stand. That has true/actual odds that are proven with mathematical certainty. That is why are are called true or actual odds.

Perceived odds are things you can not quantify with a proven mathematical formula, such as...................wait for it....................a fantasy football matchup.

You've just established that the difference between "perceived" and "real" is irrelevant. See above.

 

[ghostguy123]

Here again you prove that "real odds" vs. "perceived odds" is a nonsequitur. You've been given two scenarios in which everyone agrees "real" odds are in play. You have said tanking is OK in one case, but not in the other. Therefore the "realness" of the odds is meaningless.

I think tanking is ok in that one case because it is your only chance to make the playoffs. The ONLY "real" numbers of any of this are zero, which would be your chances of making the playoffs if you win your matchup, and 100%, which would be your chances of making the playoffs if you lose your matchup.

So really, looking at this from the standpoing of making the playoffs, you improve your odds of making the playoffs from 0% to 100% by losing.

All the odds after that are not true/actual odds. If your team is in the playoffs, you have no way of knowing what your exact odds of winning the title are. Sure, you can improve your odds by manipulating the seeds, but as stated 50 times, the actual amount you have improved your odds is impossible to figure out.

So if we use that awesome article again, how does the guy view the jump from 0% to 100%?

 

[davearm]

Maybe you should get a hold of the guy who wrote the article and send him this thread, see what he says.

I suspect Daniel Kahneman has better things to do.

I suspect you shouldn't assume what he would think of this fantasy football scenario. I think there is an excellent chance he would not view my thoughts on this as being illogical.

The probability is 0%.

Seriously, the article is very, very clear.

System 1 thinkers view a change in probability from 0% to something greater than 0% (or from 100% to something less than 100%) as being fundamentally different from a change within the range 0%-100%.

System 2 thinkers do not see a fundamental difference.

You see a fundamental difference, which puts you squarely in the System 1 category.

It's that simple, despite your repeated protestations that somehow this scenario is immune from the basic laws of cognitive process that the article touches on.

 

[ghostguy123]

The point I was making with the blackjack example is that both blackjack players and FF players are making decisions based upon their best-guess at how their decisions impact their odds of success. That renders moot this "actual odds" / "perceived odds" nonsense. There's no meaningful distinction between the two.

I have no idea why you are making that point, when the original quesiton you asked had absolutely nothing to do with that.

You asked me about the odds for one specific hand of black, which was your odds of winning if you hit, or your odds of winning if you stand. That has true/actual odds that are proven with mathematical certainty. That is why are are called true or actual odds.

Perceived odds are things you can not quantify with a proven mathematical formula, such as...................wait for it....................a fantasy football matchup.

You've just established that the difference between "perceived" and "real" is irrelevant. See above.

0% by winning is a REAL number. 100% by losing is a REAL number. Those are your odds of making the playoffs based on your outcome of the game.

Now if you are teling me that the difference between the real and perceived odds is irrelevant, that is fine. If you are telling me there is no difference, that is just wrong.

If you think tanking is bad in both scenarios whether there are true odds or made up odds, that is fine. That just means you are saying that tanking is bad in all cases.

 

[ghostguy123]

Maybe you should get a hold of the guy who wrote the article and send him this thread, see what he says.

I suspect Daniel Kahneman has better things to do.

I suspect you shouldn't assume what he would think of this fantasy football scenario. I think there is an excellent chance he would not view my thoughts on this as being illogical.

The probability is 0%.

Seriously, the article is very, very clear.

System 1 thinkers view a change in probability from 0% to something greater than 0% (or from 100% to something less than 100%) as being fundamentally different from a change within the range 0%-100%.

System 2 thinkers do not see a fundamental difference.

You see a fundamental difference, which puts you squarely in the System 1 category.

It's that simple, despite your repeated protestations that somehow this scenario is immune from the basic laws of cognitive process that the article touches on.

Then answer this.

My goal is to make the playoffs. I have a 0% chance to make them if I win, and 100% chance if I lose.

How does that fit in?

There is more to this than the view of 0 to 10, or 50 to 60, or 90 to 100 like the guy mentions.

 

[davearm]

The point I was making with the blackjack example is that both blackjack players and FF players are making decisions based upon their best-guess at how their decisions impact their odds of success. That renders moot this "actual odds" / "perceived odds" nonsense. There's no meaningful distinction between the two.

I have no idea why you are making that point, when the original quesiton you asked had absolutely nothing to do with that.

You asked me about the odds for one specific hand of black, which was your odds of winning if you hit, or your odds of winning if you stand. That has true/actual odds that are proven with mathematical certainty. That is why are are called true or actual odds.

Perceived odds are things you can not quantify with a proven mathematical formula, such as...................wait for it....................a fantasy football matchup.

You've just established that the difference between "perceived" and "real" is irrelevant. See above.

0% by winning is a REAL number. 100% by losing is a REAL number. Those are your odds of making the playoffs based on your outcome of the game.

Now if you are teling me that the difference between the real and perceived odds is irrelevant, that is fine. If you are telling me there is no difference, that is just wrong.

If you think tanking is bad in both scenarios whether there are true odds or made up odds, that is fine. That just means you are saying that tanking is bad in all cases.

Your argument originally hinged on this notion that above zero, everything is "perceived". The argument you've made is that you shouldn't tank to increase "perceived" odds associated with manipulating seeds, etc.

Well now you've told us that you shouldn't tank to increase "real" odds either... UNLESS the starting point is zero.

IOW, you can tank to increase your "real" odds from 0% to something >0%, but you can't tank your "real" odds from something >0% to something even higher.

Shedding light on this was the whole point of the "can you tank to gain a bye" hypothetical. And what we've learned from it is that "real" versus "perceived" isn't the issue at all.

 

[davearm]

Then answer this.

My goal is to make the playoffs. I have a 0% chance to make them if I win, and 100% chance if I lose.

How does that fit in?

There is more to this than the view of 0 to 10, or 50 to 60, or 90 to 100 like the guy mentions.

Setting aside the obvious question of, "why is your goal to make the playoffs rather than to win the championship?", if you're asking me if you should tank, then the answer is yes (assuming your rulebook doesn't expressly prohibit it).

As to your last sentence: "there is more to this" is true for System 1 thinkers. It is not true for System 2 thinkers. And the article explains why quite well (IMO).

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

As to your last sentence: "there is more to this" is true for System 1 thinkers. It is not true for System 2 thinkers. And the article explains why quite well (IMO).

I haven't followed much of the discussion between you guys, but I wanted to point out that there aren't really "System 1 thinkers" and "System 2 thinkers." Systems 1 and 2 are different modes of thought - "fast" vs. "slow", or automatic/intuitive (which can be both good and bad) vs. more deliberate thought. We all employ both modes of thought all the time.

 

[davearm]

As to your last sentence: "there is more to this" is true for System 1 thinkers. It is not true for System 2 thinkers. And the article explains why quite well (IMO).

I haven't followed much of the discussion between you guys, but I wanted to point out that there aren't really "System 1 thinkers" and "System 2 thinkers." Systems 1 and 2 are different modes of thought - "fast" vs. "slow", or automatic/intuitive (which can be both good and bad) vs. more deliberate thought. We all employ both modes of thought all the time.

You are correct of course. I was using "System 1 thinkers" as shorthand for "folks that are applying System 1 thinking to the situation under discussion".

 

[davearm]

Thought this was timely in light of all the probability talk in here.

http://www.baltimoreravens.com/news/article-1/If-Ravens-Vikings-Was-A-Poker-Game/fb1e4a21-0485-4ae0-ae15-c4a5408849c8

In that crazy Vikings / Ravens game from week ago:

Take notice of the wild probability shifts over the final two minutes, five seconds that included an NFL-record six lead changes.

According to Advanced NFL Stats, below are the probabilities of the winning after each touchdown and more key plays:

• When tight end Dennis Pitta caught his 1-yard touchdown pass from Joe Flacco with 2:05 left, the Ravens had an 80 percent chance of winning.
• When Gerhart scored with 1:27 left, the Vikings had a 78 percent chance of winning.
• When Jones ran back the resulting kickoff 77 yards to give the Ravens a 22-19 lead with 1:16 left, Baltimore had an 84 percent chance.
• When the Vikings faced third-and-10 on the next drive following a Chris Canty deflected pass with 1:05 left, the Ravens had a 90 percent chance of winning.
• When, on the next play, Vikings receiver Cordarrelle Patterson took a bubble screen 79 yards to the end zone with 45 seconds left, Minnesota’s percent chances of winning jumped to 91 percent.
• When Flacco found Pitta over the middle to put Baltimore at the 9-yard line with two shots at the end zone, it was basically anybody’s game. The Ravens had a 48 percent chance with 10 seconds left.
• When Flacco found Marlon Brown in the end zone on the next play, the Ravens had a 96 percent chance of winning with four seconds remaining.

 

[ghostguy123]

No, my original argument is that tanking is fine when it is your only chance to make the playoffs

Odds don't need to be a part of this to support my argument. The argument doesnt need any support IMO other than that statement above.

 

[ghostguy123]

Good stuff above. All those percentsges are examples of perceived odds.

If you ask 100 experts what the odds are of those teams scoring in those situations, you will get a lot of different answers.

If you ask 100 experts what the odds are of rolling snake eyes if you randomly roll dice, they will all say 1 in 36.

 

[Short Corner]

I don't even know where to begin, so I'll just reiterate, for all practical purposes, the odds blackjack players use in their decisionmaking are the same as the odds fantasy football players use. They're both estimates.

Wrong. One is an estimate. The other is a discrete value that can be calculated.

 

[ghostguy123]

I don't even know where to begin, so I'll just reiterate, for all practical purposes, the odds blackjack players use in their decisionmaking are the same as the odds fantasy football players use. They're both estimates.

Wrong. One is an estimate. The other is a discrete value that can be calculated.

Yeah, this is pretty obvious.

Unless you are talking about some drunken blackjack player who has no idea what the odds are and is just guessing. Then maybe it has some correlation. But even that drunken idiot blackjack player can just use the blackjack hand guide that is proven based on statisitcal fact, and play his hands according to that chart to give hiimself the best chance to win, given that he obviously isn't using a strategy based on cards that have already been played.

 

[Bamac]

OK, it's pretty clear that ghostguy is calling "real" those odds that are (at least relatively) easy to measure. That's fine. I don't care how we define "real" odds.

As to the thread subject, another way to think about it is this: imagine you're going to join one of two fantasy leagues. Neither league has an express rule against tanking, but you know through inside info that one has a strong anti-tanking culture, while the other has an "anything goes" culture. Which would you prefer to join and why?

I can imagine three answers to this question:

1. Purists -- these folks would prefer the anti-tanking culture because they think such a culture is most likely to reward the "best" fantasy owners. This group tends to advocate victory point standings, or at least all-play or total points as a tiebreaker. I'm in this group.

2. Lombardis -- these folks prefer the "anything goes" culture because "winning isn't everything. It's the only thing." This group tends to favor H2H as a tiebreaker. I admit I don't understand this group's reasoning, and I prefer not to be in leagues with them, but I respect their worldview and don't view my own as objectively superior.

3. Sleazeballs. These folks would join the anti-tanking league in order to take advantage of the culture. They will win at all costs, even in direct defiance of the league culture, because "it's not in the rules." I have no use for these people.

 

[ghostguy123]

They are not "real" odds because they are easy to measure. They are real odds because they are exact proven by math.

The odds of winning 1000 dollars at roulette starting with 500 dollars using the martingale system betting on black is not easy to figure out, but if you know how to do it, it does have en exact percentage chance to happen.

As for the scumbag distiction, if your league specifically says you can not tank under any curcumstsnce, then you can't tank. If it doesn't, then I think its fine in this super rare scenario.

If this situation is even possible in your league, it should be addressed in the rules as being allowed or not.

 

[Bamac]

They are not "real" odds because they are easy to measure. They are real odds because they are exact proven by math.

The odds of winning 1000 dollars at roulette starting with 500 dollars using the martingale system betting on black is not easy to figure out, but if you know how to do it, it does have en exact percentage chance to happen.

As for the scumbag distiction, if your league specifically says you can not tank under any curcumstsnce, then you can't tank. If it doesn't, then I think its fine in this super rare scenario.

If this situation is even possible in your league, it should be addressed in the rules as being allowed or not.

The odds of winning a fantasy football game can be proven by math if you know all the variables. The physical world is governed by the same math as blackjack (except maybe at a subatomic level that is very unlikely to affect a fantasy football game). It's just that the variables are harder to observe, and thus the odds are tougher to measure. As for the sleazeball thing (not scumbag -- please, let's keep our definitions straight ): I'm fine with tinkering with the leagues ex ante. You could create dozens. I think your exception is arbitrary, but I admit it has intuitive appeal. What I'm not OK with is taking advantage of others' expectations.

As for accounting for this situation in rules, that's easier said than done. There will always be weird situations. I'd rather have good owners and a good commissioner than good rules.

 

[CalBear]

They are not "real" odds because they are easy to measure. They are real odds because they are exact proven by math.

The odds of winning 1000 dollars at roulette starting with 500 dollars using the martingale system betting on black is not easy to figure out, but if you know how to do it, it does have en exact percentage chance to happen.

As for the scumbag distiction, if your league specifically says you can not tank under any curcumstsnce, then you can't tank. If it doesn't, then I think its fine in this super rare scenario.

If this situation is even possible in your league, it should be addressed in the rules as being allowed or not.

The odds of winning a fantasy football game can be proven by math if you know all the variables. The physical world is governed by the same math as blackjack (except maybe at a subatomic level that is very unlikely to affect a fantasy football game). It's just that the variables are harder to observe, and thus the odds are tougher to measure.

That's not true. A week of NFL football is a chaotic system; it's no more possible to predict what will happen next week than to predict whether it will rain next July 4. And one of the factors providing input to that chaotic system is the workings of the brains of about 1500 humans, which are governed by quantum-level effects which are known to be unpredictable.

It's more than difficult to know all the variables; it is scientifically impossible.

 

[TheCommish]

Did the OP ever say what he ended up doing, and how it worked out for him?

 

[Bamac]

They are not "real" odds because they are easy to measure. They are real odds because they are exact proven by math.

The odds of winning 1000 dollars at roulette starting with 500 dollars using the martingale system betting on black is not easy to figure out, but if you know how to do it, it does have en exact percentage chance to happen.

As for the scumbag distiction, if your league specifically says you can not tank under any curcumstsnce, then you can't tank. If it doesn't, then I think its fine in this super rare scenario.

If this situation is even possible in your league, it should be addressed in the rules as being allowed or not.

The odds of winning a fantasy football game can be proven by math if you know all the variables. The physical world is governed by the same math as blackjack (except maybe at a subatomic level that is very unlikely to affect a fantasy football game). It's just that the variables are harder to observe, and thus the odds are tougher to measure.

That's not true. A week of NFL football is a chaotic system; it's no more possible to predict what will happen next week than to predict whether it will rain next July 4. And one of the factors providing input to that chaotic system is the workings of the brains of about 1500 humans, which are governed by quantum-level effects which are known to be unpredictable.

It's more than difficult to know all the variables; it is scientifically impossible.

And yet handicappers are remarkably good at predicting outcomes of NFL games. And they'd be equally good at predicting fantasy games if the incentives were there.