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

[ghostguy123]

My phone isn't letting me quote anything siomaybe i do that another time, but dude Adam, I have read more incorrect comments, ever, anywhere, about anything.

What are the odds the card is a king before you flip it over is the same as after you see it?? What??? The REAL odds are 1/13 before you flip it, and if you see it is a king then the odds are 1/1. If its not the odds are 0/1.

By your logic odds do not exist at all since everything is predetemined. Which is just, horrific logic which should lead you to never base a decision on anything since the outcome is already predetermined.

I suppose when I get a chance I can pick through some other things, but my god.

 

[ghostguy123]

Wow i just read more. Lol. In a pinocle (spelling) the odds change because the number of kings related to the total number of cards change.

I will venture to guess Vegas never hires you.

This thread went from horrible to horrible and full of insanely incorrect statements.

 

[ghostguy123]

I am guessing soon enough someone will say "much of science was considered to be magic before it was fully understood".

Can't wait for that one.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

My phone isn't letting me quote anything siomaybe i do that another time, but dude Adam, I have read more incorrect comments, ever, anywhere, about anything.

You have?

What are the odds the card is a king before you flip it over is the same as after you see it?? What???

Yes, what???

By your logic odds do not exist at all since everything is predetemined. Which is just, horrific logic

Well then it's probably a good thing that that's not his logic.

Wow i just read more. Lol. In a pinocle (spelling) the odds change because the number of kings related to the total number of cards change.

That was his point.

The hyperbole is funny, in a way I'm sure you didn't intend.

 

[Topes]

Much of magic was considered to be science before it was fully understood.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

much of considered WAS to be understood.............science before it was FULLY magic?!?!

 

[ghostguy123]

If you can not agree that if you have a randomly shuffled deck of cards, that the chances of picking out a king is 100% undeniably 1/13 then you are saying that one or some of those cards have a higher or lower probablity to be pulled than the king.

If so, what is the probality of each card being pulled, and why would some be different than others?

Because if you do agree that all of the 52 cards have an equal chance to be picked, then you HAVE to agree that since there are 4 kings, the odds are exactly 1/13 that a king is pulled.

In case anyone didn't realize, casinos base their payouts off the true/real/exact odds to give themselves a small house edge of about 1-5% or so, depending on the game and which bet you make on the game.

They don't base their multi-trillion dollar industy that uses games of chance on "hypothetical odds"

 

[ghostguy123]

Pretty simple concept that I honestly can not believe actual living and breathing adults do not understand.

True odds are true/actual odds because they are proven to be correct based on facts of the situation, such as with dice each number has the same chances of being rolled as each other number. For example, the chances of rolling snake eyes, the chances of the number 9 hitting on the roulette wheel. The chances of a card being black or red if randomly picked out of a deck of cards.

In fact, if you role the dice 100 times, with some fairly simple formulas, you can calculate the actual odds of how many times you will roll snake eyes zero times, once, twice, three times.........all the way up to 100 times. And what a coincidence, but if you add all those calculated odds together, the answer will equal exactly 100%, since it covers every outcome. Hoorayyyyyyy for math, amazing.

Theoretical odds are things that really shouldn't even be considered odds, since they are nothing more than best guesses based on the information available. For example predicting the weather, predicting who will win an NFL game or fantasy game, predicting your chances of getting into a car accident, and so on.

If the things we place theoretical odds on didn't have variables, we would likely be able to give them true odds.

 

[rick6668]

If you can not agree that if you have a randomly shuffled deck of cards, that the chances of picking out a king is 100% undeniably 1/13 then you are saying that one or some of those cards have a higher or lower probablity to be pulled than the king.

If so, what is the probality of each card being pulled, and why would some be different than others?

Because if you do agree that all of the 52 cards have an equal chance to be picked, then you HAVE to agree that since there are 4 kings, the odds are exactly 1/13 that a king is pulled.

In case anyone didn't realize, casinos base their payouts off the true/real/exact odds to give themselves a small house edge of about 1-5% or so, depending on the game and which bet you make on the game.

They don't base their multi-trillion dollar industy that uses games of chance on "hypothetical odds"

You do know there is no such thing as a randomly shuffled deck of cards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuffle_track

Relating to the roll of a dice, the result is not just based upon the die, but also the method in which it is rolled. If we 'know' enough about a given roll (the die's material composition, it's initial orientation, the forces applied to it, the environment it will land in, etc.) we can (theoretically) model all of the motion that occurs in that roll with arbitrary accuracy and instead of finding a 1/6 'probability' of landing on a given side, we will be near certain that it will land on some side.


Although you keep saying true/real/exact odds, there are small variations in shuffling, rolling of dice, etc which affect the outcome that are just as hard to predict as fantasy football.

 

[ghostguy123]

My point is that "the odds are there if you are given the time to calculate them" is irrelevant, since you aren't given the time to calculate them.

In the absence of having the time to calculate them, you have to make an estimate. Just like FF players do.

If this was your point, then you should not have started this point by asking me that one specific and simple blackjack example that has true odds already calculated on a chart you can probably find pretty easily by searching for blackjack strategy and what to do given your options of cards in front of you.

But yes, in the absence of time, you have to make estimates and guesses like FF players do. But your original question did not cover this concept at all.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I didn't follow the whole "odds" discussion so I'm sure it's buried in there somewhere, but let's pretend for a minute that we all agree that there is a difference between "real odds" and "theoretical odds" or whatever labels you want to attach to them. What is the relevance to the tanking discussion? Is it ok to tank if the odds are "theoretical," but not ok if they're "real?" Is some part of the debate contingent on whether or not fantasy football odds are analogous to blackjack odds? It seems like the discussion has gone far from where it was intended to go.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a lively discussion about the nature of probability and whatnot. I just think it might be useful to recap how this all ties back to the tanking debate.

 

[ghostguy123]

We both agree the distinction is irrelevant to the tanking discussion, so why do you keep harping on it?

You do realize you are also, right? I guess I am harping on it because you are blindly wrong. You may as well argue that water isn't made up of hydrogen and oxygen.

True odds are proven. Very, very simple. It does not mean that if you play a game where the odds are 50/50 that you will win 50% of the time, it means your odds of winning each game are 50/50, and proven to be 50/50 since each outcome has the exact same chances of occuring as the other, such as rolling dice and guessing if the total will be higher or lower than 7. There are no variables to change these odds.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

My point is that "the odds are there if you are given the time to calculate them" is irrelevant, since you aren't given the time to calculate them.

In the absence of having the time to calculate them, you have to make an estimate. Just like FF players do.

If this was your point, then you should not have started this point by asking me that one specific and simple blackjack example that has true odds already calculated on a chart you can probably find pretty easily by searching for blackjack strategy and what to do given your options of cards in front of you.

But yes, in the absence of time, you have to make estimates and guesses like FF players do. But your original question did not cover this concept at all.

Yes it did, I think that was his point. A blackjack chart doesn't reflect your "true odds" in any specific situation, because the blackjack chart that you printed out at home doesn't know which cards have already been dealt from the shoe. Your "true odds" would depend on which cards have already been revealed, etc. The blackjack chart allows you to estimate your odds in any given situation and make a best guess at the correct play.

 

[ghostguy123]

It's not a discrete value, though.

Let's say I deal you a card face down from a freshly shuffled deck. What are the odds that that card is a King? Now let's say I flip the card over and it's a 3. What are the odds that that card is a King?

The card hasn't changed. It's the same now as it was before I flipped it over. The card was never a King, even when you estimated that there was a 1/13th chance there was. All the odds tell us is that if we played that game a billion times, you'd guess each time that you'd be right 1/13th of the time, and in the end you'd be right 1/13th of the time. The odds give us useful information about YOU- your level of knowledge and ignorance vis-a-vis the card- but they give us absolutely no useful information about the card itself.

This is just awful.

The odds give us the information that there is a 1/13 chance the card is a king. Once the card is flipped over the odds no longer apply because we now know what the card it.

And once that card is flipped and it is not a king we now KNOW the odds that the next card is a king are 4/51

 

[ghostguy123]

The probabilities are not made up nor a figment of your imagination when it comes to coin flips, rolls of the ice, or predicting cards. To infer otherwise is idiotic to say the least.

Odds are educated guesses about what will happen based on our knowledge of the makeup and history of the event we are predicting. They're made up, though. Again using the card example, if I deal you a card face down, you'll say there's a 1/13th chance it's a king. That's a made-up number based on your incomplete knowledge of the event. If I told you that the deck in my hands was a Pinochle deck, your estimate would change, despite the fact that it's the same card. If I flipped the card over, your estimate would change again (to 0% or 100%), but again, it's the same card. Odds are not a description of the card itself, they are a description of our own ignorance of the card itself. As that ignorance changes- as we get more or less information- the "odds" will change, despite the card remaining exactly the same. In that sense, "odds" tell us a whole lot about ourselves, and very little about the card.

This might be the worst of them all.

Made up????? It's actually a 100% REAL number based on the FACT that all 52 cards have the same chance as each other to be that one card, and the FACT that we know that 4 of the cards are kings.

Odds don't tell us jack about ourselves, they tell us the chances of the card being a king. This painfully dumb to think otherwise.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I have read more incorrect comments, ever, anywhere, about anything.

horrific logic

my god.

Wow i just read more. Lol.

This thread went from horrible to horrible and full of insanely incorrect statements.

Pretty simple concept that I honestly can not believe actual living and breathing adults do not understand.

you are blindly wrong. You may as well argue that water isn't made up of hydrogen and oxygen.

This is just awful.

This might be the worst of them all.

This painfully dumb to think otherwise.

You're embarrassing yourself.

 

[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.

It's not a discrete value, though.

Let's say I deal you a card face down from a freshly shuffled deck. What are the odds that that card is a King? Now let's say I flip the card over and it's a 3. What are the odds that that card is a King?

The card hasn't changed. It's the same now as it was before I flipped it over. The card was never a King, even when you estimated that there was a 1/13th chance there was. All the odds tell us is that if we played that game a billion times, you'd guess each time that you'd be right 1/13th of the time, and in the end you'd be right 1/13th of the time. The odds give us useful information about YOU- your level of knowledge and ignorance vis-a-vis the card- but they give us absolutely no useful information about the card itself.

It sounds like you don't understand the LMAD problem either.

It doesn't matter what the card is.

I'm assuming you're referring to the Monty Hall problem? I understand it very well. If Monty has no foreknowledge of what is behind the doors, and he happens to reveal a goat, then you should switch. If Monty has perfect foreknowledge of what is behind the doors and deliberately reveals a goat every time, then whether you switch or stay will have no impact on your odds. If Monty is a profit-maximizing entity with perfect foreknowledge, then the contestant should assume that he only reveals a goat when the contestant has already selected the car in an effort to trick them into switching, and the contestant should stay put.

The fact that Monty's foreknowledge of what's behind the doors actually has an impact on your odds of selecting the car by switching should provide the best illustration imaginable that odds are not an actual thing intrinsic to the event itself, but rather a human creation based on incomplete information.

as already stated, this event seems to have variables. Varibles change everything.

An example of a variable in the card scenario would be knowing if that card is a king or not beforehand.

But in that card example, no variables exist. It is a random card from a deck of cards. The odds of a kingh are EXACTLY the calculation of how many kings are in the deck related to how many cards are in the deck, assuming the backs of the cards all look exactly the same. If they do not, we just introduced another variable, unless the person guessing has no knowledge of the variable. It also must assume someone didn't stack the deck.

However, even if someone stacks the deck how they want it, if you let that person guess what card it is (2-A of any suit), the odds are 1/13.

 

[ghostguy123]

Another example. I deal a card face down into the middle of the table from a standard deck. I then show Bamac the next three cards in the deck. I then show Elenchi the five cards after that. I then show ghostguy the next 8 cards, and I show Short Corner the 10 cards after that. After that, I look at the rest of the deck, and davearm takes a peek at the card in the middle of the table. What are the odds that the card in the middle of the table is a king? Well, that's going to depend on who you ask, isn't it?

Right, these are called VARIABLES. Variables change the odds.

Odds are the result of calculating the known facts.

 

[ghostguy123]

I won't answer the question for him, but I'm curious about this line of questioning. What has Adam said that would indicate to you that he doesn't understand how basic conditional probabilities work?

Probably when he said odds aren't real they are just made up, while giving examples that have varibiables, while we keep telling him that we realize variables change the odds, which is why football is impossible to put a true/exact odds percentage on it.

 

[ghostguy123]

Edit to add: You select a door. Monty reveals a goat. You decide to switch. I ask Monty "did you know what was behind that door before you opened it?" If Monty says yes, your odds of winning a car are 67%. If Monty says no, your odds of winning a car are 33%. If this doesn't illustrate my point that there's no such thing as "real odds" or "actual odds", then I don't know what does- what Monty did or did not know changes the odds that a car is behind the door you wound up with. Odds are not a measurement of reality, they are a measurement of our ignorance of reality.

They were never intended to be a measure of reality. They were intended to quantify expectation.

You still don't have it right, btw, the odds in the bolded scenario are 50%

Cool. Because I believe that's what I've spent the last two pages saying. Odds are not a measure of reality, and there's no such thing as "real" odds vs. "perceived" odds. All odds are perceived odds, even the real ones.

Apologies on getting the specific calculations in the Monty Hall problem wrong, and I'll gladly blame it on faulty heuristics. I think my broader understanding of the problem and its implications are just fine, though.

Lol, jesus. Real odds are quantifiable based on known facts.

Perceived odds are just numbers made up by people using educated guess based on non-factual things with variables.

I am fully aware that you are capable of calculating odds of something given the known entities. You just apparently do not realze that what you are figureing out is a proven mathematical answer and you are using proven mathematical formulas to figure it out.

 

[ghostguy123]

If you can not agree that if you have a randomly shuffled deck of cards, that the chances of picking out a king is 100% undeniably 1/13 then you are saying that one or some of those cards have a higher or lower probablity to be pulled than the king.

If so, what is the probality of each card being pulled, and why would some be different than others?

Because if you do agree that all of the 52 cards have an equal chance to be picked, then you HAVE to agree that since there are 4 kings, the odds are exactly 1/13 that a king is pulled.

In case anyone didn't realize, casinos base their payouts off the true/real/exact odds to give themselves a small house edge of about 1-5% or so, depending on the game and which bet you make on the game.

They don't base their multi-trillion dollar industy that uses games of chance on "hypothetical odds"

You do know there is no such thing as a randomly shuffled deck of cards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuffle_track

Relating to the roll of a dice, the result is not just based upon the die, but also the method in which it is rolled. If we 'know' enough about a given roll (the die's material composition, it's initial orientation, the forces applied to it, the environment it will land in, etc.) we can (theoretically) model all of the motion that occurs in that roll with arbitrary accuracy and instead of finding a 1/6 'probability' of landing on a given side, we will be near certain that it will land on some side.


Although you keep saying true/real/exact odds, there are small variations in shuffling, rolling of dice, etc which affect the outcome that are just as hard to predict as fantasy football.

Again, you are talking about introducing variables. If some guy is super awesome at watching people shuffle cards and able to more accurately predict the cards, that is called a VARIABLE. FOr that some guy, how bout you turn around or go in a different room and play 52 card pickup. Then have him pick.

The dice example is also including variables.

If I go in the other room where you can not see me and I roll the dice in a way that you do not know, say I just throw them at the wall as hard as I can. Then I ask you the probaility that I rolled a 12.

Exact/true odds have the variables taken out.

 

[ghostguy123]

I didn't follow the whole "odds" discussion so I'm sure it's buried in there somewhere, but let's pretend for a minute that we all agree that there is a difference between "real odds" and "theoretical odds" or whatever labels you want to attach to them. What is the relevance to the tanking discussion? Is it ok to tank if the odds are "theoretical," but not ok if they're "real?" Is some part of the debate contingent on whether or not fantasy football odds are analogous to blackjack odds? It seems like the discussion has gone far from where it was intended to go.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a lively discussion about the nature of probability and whatnot. I just think it might be useful to recap how this all ties back to the tanking debate.

I only used it as a VERY small part of my reasoning, and then the whole odds discussion blew up cause it seems people thought using odds was the only reason I thought tanking was acceptable in this situation.

I just said when your odds of winning (making the playoffs) are zero if you win your game, and 100% if you lose your game, then tanking IMO is ok in that situation.

I don't think tanking is ok if you are just trying to improve your chances if you are already 100% assured of making the playoffs, and the the whole discussion of odds blew up because I said the amount you change your odds in that case are not true odds, they are made up odds (which is the case, you can not quantify your exact level of improving your chances doing this).

My reasoning for thinking tanking is fine is pretty simple, it is allowed if it is your ONLY chance to win, and not allowed in any other instances.

 

[ghostguy123]

My point is that "the odds are there if you are given the time to calculate them" is irrelevant, since you aren't given the time to calculate them.

In the absence of having the time to calculate them, you have to make an estimate. Just like FF players do.

If this was your point, then you should not have started this point by asking me that one specific and simple blackjack example that has true odds already calculated on a chart you can probably find pretty easily by searching for blackjack strategy and what to do given your options of cards in front of you.

But yes, in the absence of time, you have to make estimates and guesses like FF players do. But your original question did not cover this concept at all.

Yes it did, I think that was his point. A blackjack chart doesn't reflect your "true odds" in any specific situation, because the blackjack chart that you printed out at home doesn't know which cards have already been dealt from the shoe. Your "true odds" would depend on which cards have already been revealed, etc. The blackjack chart allows you to estimate your odds in any given situation and make a best guess at the correct play.

Good lord, I already said the true odds depend on what has already been revealed.

In his original question, he did not say any other cards were revealed.

And the blackjack chart tells you to hit or stay, and actually does tell you your true odds of winning if you stay, and winning if you hit. If you add anything else in to this like more cards having been played, that is more information that needs to be calculated.

But yes, that chart has the true odds, which in this case it provides you with your odds of winning the hand if you stand or hit, which then tells you which decision to make.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I only used it as a VERY small part of my reasoning, and then the whole odds discussion blew up cause it seems people thought using odds was the only reason I thought tanking was acceptable in this situation.

Well, why do you think tanking is acceptable in that situation? If people were mistaken about your reasons for believing the way you do, it seems like you could clear up that confusion pretty simply by just providing the other reasons.

I don't think tanking is ok if you are just trying to improve your chances if you are already 100% assured of making the playoffs, and the the whole discussion of odds blew up because I said the amount you change your odds in that case are not true odds, they are made up odds (which is the case, you can not quantify your exact level of improving your chances doing this).

You can't quantify your exact level of improving your chances when you tank to get into the playoffs, either, so that can't be the relevant distinction. You'll need to be more precise.

My reasoning for thinking tanking is fine is pretty simple, it is allowed if it is your ONLY chance to win, and not allowed in any other instances.

That's not your reasoning, that's your opinion. Reasoning would entail some progression of logical ideas that lead from some premises to a conclusion. You just keep stating the conclusion.

 

[ghostguy123]

You're embarrassing yourself.

I would much rather embarrass myself by being rude than by believing the odds and probalities I have discussed are not real, while constantly neglecting to acknowledge that I along with anyone else who knows statistics concede to the fact that variables change those odds, and also believing that you can place exact odds on a football game or on fantasy football and believe they are anything more than a "best guess" based on non-factual information with ever changing variables.

 

[ghostguy123]

I don't think tanking is ok if you are just trying to improve your chances if you are already 100% assured of making the playoffs, and the the whole discussion of odds blew up because I said the amount you change your odds in that case are not true odds, they are made up odds (which is the case, you can not quantify your exact level of improving your chances doing this).

You can't quantify your exact level of improving your chances when you tank to get into the playoffs, either, so that can't be the relevant distinction. You'll need to be more precise.

Yes, yes I can, and I did. Not for the championship, but for making the playoffs.

And at no point did I ever say you COULD quantify your level of improving by tanking. Not once, ever, at all. All you can do is assure you increase your chances from 0% to a number greater than zero.

But the scenario itself was this. If you win your game you have a 0% to make the playoffs. If you lose your game you have a 100% chance to make the playoffs. Those are the undeniable quantified probabilities of making the playoffs in this scenario. These are not numbers I created, they are numbers provided by someone else telling us what would happen for a team in that situation.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Good lord, I already said the true odds depend on what has already been revealed.

But you also said that the true odds are already calculated on a chart:

true odds already calculated on a chart you can probably find pretty easily by searching for blackjack strategy and what to do given your options of cards in front of you.

I mean, you even said it twice right here later in the same reply:

And the blackjack chart tells you to hit or stay, and actually does tell you your true odds of winning if you stay, and winning if you hit.

But yes, that chart has the true odds

So which is it? Do the "true odds" depend on knowing which other cards have been revealed or not? You should be more rigorous in your definitions if you want others to make sense of your argument.

 

[ghostguy123]

My reasoning for thinking tanking is fine is pretty simple, it is allowed if it is your ONLY chance to win, and not allowed in any other instances.

That's not your reasoning, that's your opinion. Reasoning would entail some progression of logical ideas that lead from some premises to a conclusion. You just keep stating the conclusion.

My opinion is that tanking is allowed in this situation.

My reasoning is that it is your ONLY chance to make the playoffs, hence your only chance to win a title, is by losing your game. That is the only idea I need to form my opinion.

 

[ghostguy123]

But yes, that chart has the true odds

So which is it? Do the "true odds" depend on knowing which other cards have been revealed or not? You should be more rigorous in your definitions if you want others to make sense of your argument.

Yes. The true odds depend on the known facts. Said this 500 times.

The CHART is based on you and the dealer playing the hand, and not knowing anything other than the cards in front of you.

There are other more complex cacluations to figure out the odds if more cards are inserted into the equation.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

The "true odds" thing is amusing and it might be fun to have you try to come up with some rigorous definitions, but I don't want to stray too far from the goal. It doesn't seem you've answered this question:

I didn't follow the whole "odds" discussion so I'm sure it's buried in there somewhere, but let's pretend for a minute that we all agree that there is a difference between "real odds" and "theoretical odds" or whatever labels you want to attach to them. What is the relevance to the tanking discussion? Is it ok to tank if the odds are "theoretical," but not ok if they're "real?" Is some part of the debate contingent on whether or not fantasy football odds are analogous to blackjack odds?

 

[ghostguy123]

The answer to the question above is that I don't have an answer to that question. I have an answer to whether or not tanking is ok in one specific example, and that answer is yes. Any other tanking scenario that I am aware if, my answer is no.

If you want the definition of what true odds are, look it up. It is a legitimate thing you will find.

The vast majority of things in life do not have true odds. In the tanking example, there are true odds. If you win you miss the playoffs 100% of the time, and if you lose you will make the playoffs 100% of the time. However, your odds of winning the game have no exact odd, even if you try and tank.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

The answer to the question above is that I don't have an answer to that question.

In the tanking example, there are true odds. If you win you miss the playoffs 100% of the time, and if you lose you will make the playoffs 100% of the time.

So, is it relevant that these are "true odds" as opposed to "fake odds?" If so, how? If not, why do you keep mentioning it?

 

[ghostguy123]

True odds and fake odds dont matter to me in a fantasy football scenario when you your only chance to advance is losing.

The whole odds discussion has spiraled out of control with people arguing different concepts, yet are unable and unwilling to realize it. In many of the statements some of you make, I agree with them in a vacuum, unfortunately many of the statements are arguing against points i was never making in the first place.

 

[davearm]

I don't think tanking is ok if you are just trying to improve your chances if you are already 100% assured of making the playoffs, and the the whole discussion of odds blew up because I said the amount you change your odds in that case are not true odds, they are made up odds (which is the case, you can not quantify your exact level of improving your chances doing this).

the whole discussion of odds blew up because your distinction between "real" odds and "made up" odds is simultaneously irrelevant to the tanking topic, and nonsensical. Probabilities are nothing more than a way to quantify our expectations.

My reasoning for thinking tanking is fine is pretty simple, it is allowed if it is your ONLY chance to win, and not allowed in any other instances.

This is precisely what Daniel Kahneman refers to as System 1 thought. You treat a change from impossible to possible as being inherently different from a change within the possible category.

System 1 achieves its speed by applying simple decision rules. Its view of probability, for instance, functions largely by classifying gambles into three categories—impossible, possible, or certain. One result is that an increase in probability within the middle category, say from 50% to 60%, appears less significant than an increase of the same size from 0% to 10% or from 90% to 100%.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

True odds and fake odds dont matter to me in a fantasy football scenario when you your only chance to advance is losing.

It appears that it does matter to you, because "only chance to advance" implies "true odds," while "increased chance to advance" would imply "fake odds," and you think tanking is ok in the former but not ok in the latter.

So you think it's ok to tank when "true odds" are involved, but it wouldn't be ok to tank if "fake odds" were involved?

 

[kutta]

I'm assuming you're referring to the Monty Hall problem? I understand it very well. If Monty has no foreknowledge of what is behind the doors, and he happens to reveal a goat, then you should switch. If Monty has perfect foreknowledge of what is behind the doors and deliberately reveals a goat every time, then whether you switch or stay will have no impact on your odds. If Monty is a profit-maximizing entity with perfect foreknowledge, then the contestant should assume that he only reveals a goat when the contestant has already selected the car in an effort to trick them into switching, and the contestant should stay put.

The fact that Monty's foreknowledge of what's behind the doors actually has an impact on your odds of selecting the car by switching should provide the best illustration imaginable that odds are not an actual thing intrinsic to the event itself, but rather a human creation based on incomplete information.

I'm just jumping in here, but I think you are wrong. Maybe it's been addressed, but I'm too lazy to read 18 pages to find out.

When you initially pick, you have a 1/3 chance of picking the prize, and a 2/3 chance of picking the goat. If you go into the game telling yourself that no matter what, when Monty reveals the goat (because he has knowledge of the situation and knows where the goat is), you will switch doors, there is now a 2/3 chance you will have the prize. Pretend there are 1000 doors and Monty knows which ones all have goats. If you pick one, you have a 1/1000 chance of picking the prize, and 999/1000 chance of picking the goat. If he reveals all 998 doors with goats, of course you should switch. There is 999/1000 chance there is a prize behind that door.

 

[ghostguy123]

True odds and fake odds dont matter to me in a fantasy football scenario when you your only chance to advance is losing.

It appears that it does matter to you, because "only chance to advance" implies "true odds," while "increased chance to advance" would imply "fake odds," and you think tanking is ok in the former but not ok in the latter.So you think it's ok to tank when "true odds" are involved, but it wouldn't be ok to tank if "fake odds" were involved?

If you want to manipulate all my comments to come to that conclusion for me, more power to ya. But really all I said were that the fake odds are fake because they don't have a true odds calculation. tanking is bad there because tanking is bad in general, not because it wouldn't provide an exact odds improvement.

And Dave, yes stats are all there to help us quantify expectations. However, true odds are exact probabilities based on known constants that do not change, with no unknown variables. Such as in dice.

Nobody is saying that just because you roll two die 36 times that snake eyes will always come up exactly once every time. But it is undeniable that the chances to roll snake eyes on any given roll is 1/36.

If you can't differentiate between that and the odds of things with everchanging variables, so be it.

 

[Gawain]

I'm assuming you're referring to the Monty Hall problem? I understand it very well. If Monty has no foreknowledge of what is behind the doors, and he happens to reveal a goat, then you should switch. If Monty has perfect foreknowledge of what is behind the doors and deliberately reveals a goat every time, then whether you switch or stay will have no impact on your odds. If Monty is a profit-maximizing entity with perfect foreknowledge, then the contestant should assume that he only reveals a goat when the contestant has already selected the car in an effort to trick them into switching, and the contestant should stay put.

The fact that Monty's foreknowledge of what's behind the doors actually has an impact on your odds of selecting the car by switching should provide the best illustration imaginable that odds are not an actual thing intrinsic to the event itself, but rather a human creation based on incomplete information.

I'm just jumping in here, but I think you are wrong. Maybe it's been addressed, but I'm too lazy to read 18 pages to find out.

When you initially pick, you have a 1/3 chance of picking the prize, and a 2/3 chance of picking the goat. If you go into the game telling yourself that no matter what, when Monty reveals the goat (because he has knowledge of the situation and knows where the goat is), you will switch doors, there is now a 2/3 chance you will have the prize. Pretend there are 1000 doors and Monty knows which ones all have goats. If you pick one, you have a 1/1000 chance of picking the prize, and 999/1000 chance of picking the goat. If he reveals all 998 doors with goats, of course you should switch. There is 999/1000 chance there is a prize behind that door.

I think SSOG gets the problem, but just got ahead of himself writing it all out.

My main problem is the assertion that Kahneman's thesis is valid in all operations.

Sadly, we humans don't have an infinite number of moments in our life to make always taking the higher expected outcome the viable choice.

The easiest way to illustrate this is with cash:

Someone gives you a billion dollars.

The same person then offers you a coin flip.

If you call the coin correctly you win three billion dollars, if you don't you lose your billion.

We all walk away, even though we are leaving five hundred million on the table.

Humans were raised through evolution to be risk-averse and it's generally held us in good stead.

We couldn't afford to risk not having enough to eat, even if that risk was small, to hunt surplus.

It took the agricultural revolution to solve that one.

Would we have been better off if we were still risk-averse and said we couldn't afford to not have money for the mortgage, even if there was only a small risk of loss by investing in the stock market?

In an infinite system with infinite attempts, sure maximizing value is great. In our world, sometimes we shouldn't.

It's the whole expected points argument to not punt writ large.

 

[ghostguy123]

I still haven't heard anyone comment on this. Not saying I agree or disagree with it, but its an interesting thought.

If you do try your best to win the game knowing it will eliminate you from the playoffs, then aren't you purposely tanking your season?

It is better or worse to tank one game on purpose or to throw away your season on purpose?

 

[ghostguy123]

Good post Gawain.

In some situation, the increase in numbers could be much more significant than in other situations.

If you eat zero food you die. If you eat a little you live.

This is incredibly more significant than someone eating a healthy diet and then increasing the amount they eat the exact amount more than the other person.

 

[Gawain]

I still haven't heard anyone comment on this. Not saying I agree or disagree with it, but its an interesting thought.

If you do try your best to win the game knowing it will eliminate you from the playoffs, then aren't you purposely tanking your season?

It is better or worse to tank one game on purpose or to throw away your season on purpose?

Think it depends on what your defined goal is for the season.

SSOG advocated his goal is to make his leagues the most competitive as possible and the playoffs as representative of the best teams as possible. (Of course defining best leads us down a whole nother rabbit hole.)

Others define the goal as making the playoffs.

Others define the goal as winning the championship.

For them, starting the worst lineup is the only consistent option.

 

[Adam Harstad]

I'm assuming you're referring to the Monty Hall problem? I understand it very well. If Monty has no foreknowledge of what is behind the doors, and he happens to reveal a goat, then you should switch. If Monty has perfect foreknowledge of what is behind the doors and deliberately reveals a goat every time, then whether you switch or stay will have no impact on your odds. If Monty is a profit-maximizing entity with perfect foreknowledge, then the contestant should assume that he only reveals a goat when the contestant has already selected the car in an effort to trick them into switching, and the contestant should stay put.

The fact that Monty's foreknowledge of what's behind the doors actually has an impact on your odds of selecting the car by switching should provide the best illustration imaginable that odds are not an actual thing intrinsic to the event itself, but rather a human creation based on incomplete information.

I'm just jumping in here, but I think you are wrong. Maybe it's been addressed, but I'm too lazy to read 18 pages to find out.

When you initially pick, you have a 1/3 chance of picking the prize, and a 2/3 chance of picking the goat. If you go into the game telling yourself that no matter what, when Monty reveals the goat (because he has knowledge of the situation and knows where the goat is), you will switch doors, there is now a 2/3 chance you will have the prize. Pretend there are 1000 doors and Monty knows which ones all have goats. If you pick one, you have a 1/1000 chance of picking the prize, and 999/1000 chance of picking the goat. If he reveals all 998 doors with goats, of course you should switch. There is 999/1000 chance there is a prize behind that door.

Yeah, we discussed it. It was faulty memory on my part- I know the mechanics of the problem, but I got it mixed up when explaining. If Monty knows ahead of time what's behind the doors, and he deliberately reveals a goat, then you want to switch. If Monty's just a drunken uncle opening doors at random and he just happens to reveal a goat, then switching makes no difference.

A good analogy is in "Deal or No Deal". If you get down to two cases, and you know that one has $1 and one has $1,000,000, would it make a difference if you switched? In this case, no it would not, because the other cases were not removed with full foreknowledge of what they contained to deliberately set up a situation where the $1,000,000 was left on the table. They were just taken off at random. As a result, whether you switch or not has no bearing whatsoever on your odds of walking away with the $1,000,000- it's a 50/50 shot either way.

Now, if Howie Mandel was picking your cases for you, and he deliberately picked all of the non-$1,000,000 cases to set up a dramatic TV moment, then you should absolutely, positively, 100% switch cases. Whether the cases are opened with foreknowledge or at random impacts the odds.

 

[Gawain]

I'm assuming you're referring to the Monty Hall problem? I understand it very well. If Monty has no foreknowledge of what is behind the doors, and he happens to reveal a goat, then you should switch. If Monty has perfect foreknowledge of what is behind the doors and deliberately reveals a goat every time, then whether you switch or stay will have no impact on your odds. If Monty is a profit-maximizing entity with perfect foreknowledge, then the contestant should assume that he only reveals a goat when the contestant has already selected the car in an effort to trick them into switching, and the contestant should stay put.

The fact that Monty's foreknowledge of what's behind the doors actually has an impact on your odds of selecting the car by switching should provide the best illustration imaginable that odds are not an actual thing intrinsic to the event itself, but rather a human creation based on incomplete information.

I'm just jumping in here, but I think you are wrong. Maybe it's been addressed, but I'm too lazy to read 18 pages to find out.

When you initially pick, you have a 1/3 chance of picking the prize, and a 2/3 chance of picking the goat. If you go into the game telling yourself that no matter what, when Monty reveals the goat (because he has knowledge of the situation and knows where the goat is), you will switch doors, there is now a 2/3 chance you will have the prize. Pretend there are 1000 doors and Monty knows which ones all have goats. If you pick one, you have a 1/1000 chance of picking the prize, and 999/1000 chance of picking the goat. If he reveals all 998 doors with goats, of course you should switch. There is 999/1000 chance there is a prize behind that door.

Yeah, we discussed it. It was faulty memory on my part- I know the mechanics of the problem, but I got it mixed up when explaining. If Monty knows ahead of time what's behind the doors, and he deliberately reveals a goat, then you want to switch. If Monty's just a drunken uncle opening doors at random and he just happens to reveal a goat, then switching makes no difference.

A good analogy is in "Deal or No Deal". If you get down to two cases, and you know that one has $1 and one has $1,000,000, would it make a difference if you switched? In this case, no it would not, because the other cases were not removed with full foreknowledge of what they contained to deliberately set up a situation where the $1,000,000 was left on the table. They were just taken off at random. As a result, whether you switch or not has no bearing whatsoever on your odds of walking away with the $1,000,000- it's a 50/50 shot either way.

Now, if Howie Mandel was picking your cases for you, and he deliberately picked all of the non-$1,000,000 cases to set up a dramatic TV moment, then you should absolutely, positively, 100% switch cases. Whether the cases are opened with foreknowledge or at random impacts the odds.

Another example of where I'd prefer System 1 thinking, but rational people could disagree.

Say the banker offered $450,000.

That's a life changing amount of money for many people. While an infinite number of trials would easily say to let it ride, you get to hang with Howie once in your life.

I'm taking the $450,000, paying off my loans and buying a house, even though the 50% shot at the million offers more utility.

 

[Adam Harstad]

I'm assuming you're referring to the Monty Hall problem? I understand it very well. If Monty has no foreknowledge of what is behind the doors, and he happens to reveal a goat, then you should switch. If Monty has perfect foreknowledge of what is behind the doors and deliberately reveals a goat every time, then whether you switch or stay will have no impact on your odds. If Monty is a profit-maximizing entity with perfect foreknowledge, then the contestant should assume that he only reveals a goat when the contestant has already selected the car in an effort to trick them into switching, and the contestant should stay put.

The fact that Monty's foreknowledge of what's behind the doors actually has an impact on your odds of selecting the car by switching should provide the best illustration imaginable that odds are not an actual thing intrinsic to the event itself, but rather a human creation based on incomplete information.

I'm just jumping in here, but I think you are wrong. Maybe it's been addressed, but I'm too lazy to read 18 pages to find out.

When you initially pick, you have a 1/3 chance of picking the prize, and a 2/3 chance of picking the goat. If you go into the game telling yourself that no matter what, when Monty reveals the goat (because he has knowledge of the situation and knows where the goat is), you will switch doors, there is now a 2/3 chance you will have the prize. Pretend there are 1000 doors and Monty knows which ones all have goats. If you pick one, you have a 1/1000 chance of picking the prize, and 999/1000 chance of picking the goat. If he reveals all 998 doors with goats, of course you should switch. There is 999/1000 chance there is a prize behind that door.

I think SSOG gets the problem, but just got ahead of himself writing it all out.

My main problem is the assertion that Kahneman's thesis is valid in all operations.

Sadly, we humans don't have an infinite number of moments in our life to make always taking the higher expected outcome the viable choice.

The easiest way to illustrate this is with cash:

Someone gives you a billion dollars.

The same person then offers you a coin flip.

If you call the coin correctly you win three billion dollars, if you don't you lose your billion.

We all walk away, even though we are leaving five hundred million on the table.

Humans were raised through evolution to be risk-averse and it's generally held us in good stead.

We couldn't afford to risk not having enough to eat, even if that risk was small, to hunt surplus.

It took the agricultural revolution to solve that one.

Would we have been better off if we were still risk-averse and said we couldn't afford to not have money for the mortgage, even if there was only a small risk of loss by investing in the stock market?

In an infinite system with infinite attempts, sure maximizing value is great. In our world, sometimes we shouldn't.

It's the whole expected points argument to not punt writ large.

The problem with the $1 billion vs. a 50/50 shot at $3 billion analogy is that you're measuring the wrong thing. Sure, the expected value of the second is worth $500,000,000 more in money, but most humans don't want money for money's sake. We want money because we believe it is a means to a happier and more fulfilled life. Whether it is or not is an entirely different question (it's not, FWIW).

Let's say I'm sitting down and imagining how happy I would be with $1bn dollars. Now I'm imagining how happy I would be with $3bn. In my imagination, I'd be pretty comparably happy in both situations. Thanks to the law of diminishing marginal utility, the $3bn version of myself isn't simply three times as happy as the $1bn version of myself. So by taking that gamble, I'd be trading away a 100% sure chance at a very happy version of myself for a 50/50 shot at a version of myself that was just marginally happier. When you measure the +EV in terms of anticipated happiness instead of raw dollars, suddenly the gamble looks like a sucker's bet, and it has nothing to do with cognitive bias or risk aversion or any sort of irrationality at all.

 

[Adam Harstad]

I still haven't heard anyone comment on this. Not saying I agree or disagree with it, but its an interesting thought.

If you do try your best to win the game knowing it will eliminate you from the playoffs, then aren't you purposely tanking your season?

It is better or worse to tank one game on purpose or to throw away your season on purpose?

It's not tanking the season, it's staying true to the expectations of the competition. If I enter into a fantasy league with you, I do so under the assumption that I will spend 13 weeks playing teams that are trying to win, and you will spend 13 weeks playing teams that are trying to win, and at the end of that 13 weeks whichever of us better met the predetermined criteria will make the playoffs. If you only spend 11 or 12 weeks playing teams that are trying to win, that undermines my basic expectations of the competition entering the league.

If I submit a roster that wins the game and in the process knocks me out of the playoffs, I do it not because I'm tanking, but because I'm remaining true to the spirit of the competition, because I'm fulfilling my obligation to the teams that are depending on me trying to win.

Tanking is doing something outside of the norms of the game. Submitting your best lineup is just called "fantasy football".

 

[Adam Harstad]

I'm assuming you're referring to the Monty Hall problem? I understand it very well. If Monty has no foreknowledge of what is behind the doors, and he happens to reveal a goat, then you should switch. If Monty has perfect foreknowledge of what is behind the doors and deliberately reveals a goat every time, then whether you switch or stay will have no impact on your odds. If Monty is a profit-maximizing entity with perfect foreknowledge, then the contestant should assume that he only reveals a goat when the contestant has already selected the car in an effort to trick them into switching, and the contestant should stay put.

The fact that Monty's foreknowledge of what's behind the doors actually has an impact on your odds of selecting the car by switching should provide the best illustration imaginable that odds are not an actual thing intrinsic to the event itself, but rather a human creation based on incomplete information.

I'm just jumping in here, but I think you are wrong. Maybe it's been addressed, but I'm too lazy to read 18 pages to find out.

When you initially pick, you have a 1/3 chance of picking the prize, and a 2/3 chance of picking the goat. If you go into the game telling yourself that no matter what, when Monty reveals the goat (because he has knowledge of the situation and knows where the goat is), you will switch doors, there is now a 2/3 chance you will have the prize. Pretend there are 1000 doors and Monty knows which ones all have goats. If you pick one, you have a 1/1000 chance of picking the prize, and 999/1000 chance of picking the goat. If he reveals all 998 doors with goats, of course you should switch. There is 999/1000 chance there is a prize behind that door.

Yeah, we discussed it. It was faulty memory on my part- I know the mechanics of the problem, but I got it mixed up when explaining. If Monty knows ahead of time what's behind the doors, and he deliberately reveals a goat, then you want to switch. If Monty's just a drunken uncle opening doors at random and he just happens to reveal a goat, then switching makes no difference.

A good analogy is in "Deal or No Deal". If you get down to two cases, and you know that one has $1 and one has $1,000,000, would it make a difference if you switched? In this case, no it would not, because the other cases were not removed with full foreknowledge of what they contained to deliberately set up a situation where the $1,000,000 was left on the table. They were just taken off at random. As a result, whether you switch or not has no bearing whatsoever on your odds of walking away with the $1,000,000- it's a 50/50 shot either way.

Now, if Howie Mandel was picking your cases for you, and he deliberately picked all of the non-$1,000,000 cases to set up a dramatic TV moment, then you should absolutely, positively, 100% switch cases. Whether the cases are opened with foreknowledge or at random impacts the odds.

Another example of where I'd prefer System 1 thinking, but rational people could disagree.

Say the banker offered $450,000.

That's a life changing amount of money for many people. While an infinite number of trials would easily say to let it ride, you get to hang with Howie once in your life.

I'm taking the $450,000, paying off my loans and buying a house, even though the 50% shot at the million offers more utility.

No, the 50% shot at the million offers more expected money, but not more expected utility. Again, money suffers from the law of diminishing marginal utility. $1,000,000 is not twice as good as $500,000, so it is perfectly rational to say that a 100% guaranteed $500,000 is substantially better than a 50/50 shot at $1m.

 

[Gawain]

I'm assuming you're referring to the Monty Hall problem? I understand it very well. If Monty has no foreknowledge of what is behind the doors, and he happens to reveal a goat, then you should switch. If Monty has perfect foreknowledge of what is behind the doors and deliberately reveals a goat every time, then whether you switch or stay will have no impact on your odds. If Monty is a profit-maximizing entity with perfect foreknowledge, then the contestant should assume that he only reveals a goat when the contestant has already selected the car in an effort to trick them into switching, and the contestant should stay put.

The fact that Monty's foreknowledge of what's behind the doors actually has an impact on your odds of selecting the car by switching should provide the best illustration imaginable that odds are not an actual thing intrinsic to the event itself, but rather a human creation based on incomplete information.

I'm just jumping in here, but I think you are wrong. Maybe it's been addressed, but I'm too lazy to read 18 pages to find out.

When you initially pick, you have a 1/3 chance of picking the prize, and a 2/3 chance of picking the goat. If you go into the game telling yourself that no matter what, when Monty reveals the goat (because he has knowledge of the situation and knows where the goat is), you will switch doors, there is now a 2/3 chance you will have the prize. Pretend there are 1000 doors and Monty knows which ones all have goats. If you pick one, you have a 1/1000 chance of picking the prize, and 999/1000 chance of picking the goat. If he reveals all 998 doors with goats, of course you should switch. There is 999/1000 chance there is a prize behind that door.

I think SSOG gets the problem, but just got ahead of himself writing it all out.

My main problem is the assertion that Kahneman's thesis is valid in all operations.

Sadly, we humans don't have an infinite number of moments in our life to make always taking the higher expected outcome the viable choice.

The easiest way to illustrate this is with cash:

Someone gives you a billion dollars.

The same person then offers you a coin flip.

If you call the coin correctly you win three billion dollars, if you don't you lose your billion.

We all walk away, even though we are leaving five hundred million on the table.

Humans were raised through evolution to be risk-averse and it's generally held us in good stead.

We couldn't afford to risk not having enough to eat, even if that risk was small, to hunt surplus.

It took the agricultural revolution to solve that one.

Would we have been better off if we were still risk-averse and said we couldn't afford to not have money for the mortgage, even if there was only a small risk of loss by investing in the stock market?

In an infinite system with infinite attempts, sure maximizing value is great. In our world, sometimes we shouldn't.

It's the whole expected points argument to not punt writ large.

The problem with the $1 billion vs. a 50/50 shot at $3 billion analogy is that you're measuring the wrong thing. Sure, the expected value of the second is worth $500,000,000 more in money, but most humans don't want money for money's sake. We want money because we believe it is a means to a happier and more fulfilled life. Whether it is or not is an entirely different question (it's not, FWIW).

Let's say I'm sitting down and imagining how happy I would be with $1bn dollars. Now I'm imagining how happy I would be with $3bn. In my imagination, I'd be pretty comparably happy in both situations. Thanks to the law of diminishing marginal utility, the $3bn version of myself isn't simply three times as happy as the $1bn version of myself. So by taking that gamble, I'd be trading away a 100% sure chance at a very happy version of myself for a 50/50 shot at a version of myself that was just marginally happier. When you measure the +EV in terms of anticipated happiness instead of raw dollars, suddenly the gamble looks like a sucker's bet, and it has nothing to do with cognitive bias or risk aversion or any sort of irrationality at all.

You'd think that, but you'd have to look no further to look at tonight's Mega Millions drawing to see where the problem of applying marginal utility to money comes in.

I agree with you that if I was going to spend all my money on Apple Pie or Limp Bizkit cd's, then $1 billion would be more than enough.

However, there are twice as many "things" that would provide just as much utility between $1 billion and $3 billion as between 0 and 1. (An island and the NY Yankees spring to mind for me). However I would gladly forego a 50% chance at these for Sealand and the Knicks.

To Bill Gates, the coin flip would not only be a +EV situation, it would be rational. For all the rest of us, take the money and run.

 

[Gawain]

Just want to add that I'm no economist and I do understand the diminishing utility of cash. I'm just not sure that the curve is as concave as SSOG suggests. It's tough to independently measure "happiness" for lack of a better word.

 

[kutta]

I'm assuming you're referring to the Monty Hall problem? I understand it very well. If Monty has no foreknowledge of what is behind the doors, and he happens to reveal a goat, then you should switch. If Monty has perfect foreknowledge of what is behind the doors and deliberately reveals a goat every time, then whether you switch or stay will have no impact on your odds. If Monty is a profit-maximizing entity with perfect foreknowledge, then the contestant should assume that he only reveals a goat when the contestant has already selected the car in an effort to trick them into switching, and the contestant should stay put.

The fact that Monty's foreknowledge of what's behind the doors actually has an impact on your odds of selecting the car by switching should provide the best illustration imaginable that odds are not an actual thing intrinsic to the event itself, but rather a human creation based on incomplete information.

I'm just jumping in here, but I think you are wrong. Maybe it's been addressed, but I'm too lazy to read 18 pages to find out.

When you initially pick, you have a 1/3 chance of picking the prize, and a 2/3 chance of picking the goat. If you go into the game telling yourself that no matter what, when Monty reveals the goat (because he has knowledge of the situation and knows where the goat is), you will switch doors, there is now a 2/3 chance you will have the prize. Pretend there are 1000 doors and Monty knows which ones all have goats. If you pick one, you have a 1/1000 chance of picking the prize, and 999/1000 chance of picking the goat. If he reveals all 998 doors with goats, of course you should switch. There is 999/1000 chance there is a prize behind that door.

Yeah, we discussed it. It was faulty memory on my part- I know the mechanics of the problem, but I got it mixed up when explaining. If Monty knows ahead of time what's behind the doors, and he deliberately reveals a goat, then you want to switch. If Monty's just a drunken uncle opening doors at random and he just happens to reveal a goat, then switching makes no difference.

A good analogy is in "Deal or No Deal". If you get down to two cases, and you know that one has $1 and one has $1,000,000, would it make a difference if you switched? In this case, no it would not, because the other cases were not removed with full foreknowledge of what they contained to deliberately set up a situation where the $1,000,000 was left on the table. They were just taken off at random. As a result, whether you switch or not has no bearing whatsoever on your odds of walking away with the $1,000,000- it's a 50/50 shot either way.

Now, if Howie Mandel was picking your cases for you, and he deliberately picked all of the non-$1,000,000 cases to set up a dramatic TV moment, then you should absolutely, positively, 100% switch cases. Whether the cases are opened with foreknowledge or at random impacts the odds.

I figured as much. It just so happens that's the post I read in the thread.

Carry on.

 

[Short Corner]

I have read more incorrect comments, ever, anywhere, about anything.

horrific logic

my god.

Wow i just read more. Lol.

This thread went from horrible to horrible and full of insanely incorrect statements.

Pretty simple concept that I honestly can not believe actual living and breathing adults do not understand.

you are blindly wrong. You may as well argue that water isn't made up of hydrogen and oxygen.

This is just awful.

This might be the worst of them all.

This painfully dumb to think otherwise.

You're embarrassing yourself.

He is actually pretty spot on.