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

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

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

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

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

It's the same card. If 1/13 was the "real" odds that that card was an ace, how did it change to 1/2? You didn't do anything to the card.

The probability that you drew an ace never changed. Drawing 45 cards never changed the the stated probability of potentially drawing an ace, it only changed your predictive confidence that you did in fact draw an ace.

Probability and "predictive confidence" are equivalent terms. 1/13 is the best prediction I can make about how likely it is that I'll draw an ace from a deck of cards. But the likelihood isn't really 1/13. There's only one card on the top, and that's the one I'm going to draw, and it's either an ace or it's not. So the likelihood is either 1 or 0, but I don't know which it is, so I take a guess based on the information I have available to me. If I get more information, my guess will change.

Do you agree Ignoratio?

I wouldn't have answered your question that way, no.I'd be happy to answer your questions but my wife and son just got home and I'm going to spend the afternoon with them. I'll be back on later tonight if you want to give me a probability quiz or something.

I would have thought you could have answered it in as quickly as it took you to write your comment.

Well I'm not sure what you expect - it's not like I'll say, "The answer is three!" and we'll all agree and it will be over. I figured this will involve a series of exchanged ideas, and wanted to let you know not to expect a response from me for a while.

But you are eluding that CalBear is in fact wrong?

*Alluding, and no.

At the outset of CalBear's scenario, the probability that the top card is an ace is 1/13 (if we make all the normal simplifying assumptions one makes in these types of problems, e.g. it's a normal deck of playing cards, every possible ordering of cards is equiprobable, etc.) After examining the next 44 cards and finding no aces, the probability that your chosen card is an ace has changed to 1/2, as he indicated.

If your point is that he's wrong, and that the probability is still 1/13 after you've looked at the next 44 cards, you're mistaken. Probabilities can change when we gain new information (depending on what the information is and, crucially, how we obtain the information); looking at the next 44 cards in the deck and finding no aces is giving us information we didn't have at the outset, which changes the probability that the card we chose is an ace.

To further address your point, I'd have to ask for a rigorous definition of your phrase "predictive confidence." A lot of people in this thread have been throwing around words ("variable," "odds," etc.) in ways that aren't entirely correct. When you say, "the probability didn't change, just your predictive confidence did," I wonder if you're doing the same kind of thing and just making up a concept that sounds convincing in your head. "Predictive confidence" isn't a totally meaningless phrase, but I'm not sure you're using it correctly here. I'm not ruling out the possibility that you have a point, though, so please feel free to expand on the distinction you're making between "prbability" and "predictive confidence" if you think it would help.

On CalBear's side, I don't necessarily agree with the part where he said, "But the likelihood isn't really 1/13. There's only one card on the top, and that's the one I'm going to draw, and it's either an ace or it's not. So the likelihood is either 1 or 0..." Again, he may be using "likelihood" here in a way that isn't clear to me. Obviously, the card is, in fact, either an ace or it isn't, which seems to be what he means, but I'm not sure how that contributes to the point he was making about probabilities changing. That's why I didn't say he was wrong, necessarily, just that I wouldn't have answered your question the way he did.

Since it involves related concepts, it might help to review a classic: You're on Let's Make A Deal and you facing three doors, one of which conceals a car (the other two have goats). You pick a door. Before opening it, the host of the show opens one of the doors you didn't choose and reveals a goat. He then offers you the opportunity to keep the door you originally chose, or switch to another door. What do you do, and more importantly, why?

 

[ghostguy123]

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

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

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

That is just warped. As are your comments about donations or helping the elderly. Being fair or honest about something isn't because someone "feels good" about being ethical. Apparently, you are very motivated by self interest and can't understand those who are not.

That's a whole philisophical discussion that doesn't belong here, but the self interests of people are based on their personalities, which in a sense makes them either a good ethical person, a monster, and anywhere in between.

A bit of it was sarcasm, also, but again, anything further than this doesn't belong here. I have already contributed enough that probably should't be in a fantasy football forum, so not adding to it with round and round in circles philosophy.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

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

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

Who says I'm disagreeing with you? I'm simply asking you questions.

then ask one.

I've asked you lots of questions throughout the thread. You've answered some of them.

If you want another one, you can help TheStig:

You're on Let's Make A Deal and you facing three doors, one of which conceals a car (the other two have goats). You pick a door. Before opening it, the host of the show opens one of the doors you didn't choose and reveals a goat. He then offers you the opportunity to keep the door you originally chose, or switch to another door. What do you do, and more importantly, why?

 

[ghostguy123]

Ignor, when you asked the probality of the king, you are asking at that point in time. Normal deck, picking a random card. That is the scenario.

Nobody has ever said that the odds don't change as you see more cards. But when you see more cards, you create a new problem, as in, new odds the card you picked will be that king.

When that card is sitting there, the card itself has nothing to do with anything.

And if you do not think I am correct in my assessment of what a variable is, please enlighten me.

And as for your goat question you just asked.

If there are three doors, one has a car and two a goat, your odds of picking the car are 1/3.

If one door you didnt pick is opened up and it is a goat, what do you do?? It doesnt matter. Eitehr keep the one you had or change it, the odds of getting the car are 50-50 since there are two doors left and it is random.

If I am wrong here, don;t just be a ##### and say I am wrong and stupid. ENlighten me as to the correct answer.

 

[DropKick]

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

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

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

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

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

You're missing some fundamental concepts about probability.

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

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

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

It's the same card. If 1/13 was the "real" odds that that card was an ace, how did it change to 1/2? You didn't do anything to the card.

The probability that you drew an ace never changed. Drawing 45 cards never changed the the stated probability of potentially drawing an ace, it only changed your predictive confidence that you did in fact draw an ace.

I would say this is quite accurate other than I thought we were looking for kings.

The odds of the card being a king are now 4/7 if 45 cards, randomly drawn, did not include a king.

The odds of the card being a king are still 1/13, if the cards were not randomly drawn (for example, a person selected 45 "non-kings" from the deck.

 

[CalBear]

I would have thought you could have answered it in as quickly as it took you to write your comment. But I'll wait for your answer.

I'm still waiting on your answer on the probability of your poker opponent holding ao king.

Tell me exactly which cards you know, and I will tell you the exact probability.

I don't know he has a king. I suspect it because the flop was K83 and he bet more than he usually bets. What's the probability that he has a king?

 

[ghostguy123]

I would say this is quite accurate other than I thought we were looking for kings.

The odds of the card being a king are now 4/7 if 45 cards, randomly drawn, did not include a king.

The odds of the card being a king are still 1/13, if the cards were not randomly drawn (for example, a person selected 45 "non-kings" from the deck.

Yeah I noticed that earlier but didnt wanna be petty.

If you get rid of 45 cards and you know they are all non-kings, there are 7 cards left, so the odds the card on the table is a king would be 4/7. SOmeone said 1/2

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Ignor, when you asked the probality of the king, you are asking at that point in time. Normal deck, picking a random card. That is the scenario.

Nobody has ever said that the odds don't change as you see more cards.

TheStig just did, and that's who I was responding to.

If there are three doors, one has a car and two a goat, your odds of picking the car are 1/3.

If one door you didnt pick is opened up and it is a goat, what do you do?? It doesnt matter. Eitehr keep the one you had or change it, the odds of getting the car are 50-50 since there are two doors left and it is random.

If I am wrong here, don;t just be a ##### and say I am wrong and stupid.

So, don't act like you've acted for much of this thread? Got it.

For the record, you are wrong (in the normal interpretation of the problem). There's a way to interpret the problem that would make it a 50/50 proposition after seeing a goat, but if you want full credit you'll have to specify what that interpretation is.

ENlighten me as to the correct answer.

I will, but let's let TheStig have a crack at it first.

 

[DropKick]

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

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

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

It's the same card. If 1/13 was the "real" odds that that card was an ace, how did it change to 1/2? You didn't do anything to the card.

The probability that you drew an ace never changed. Drawing 45 cards never changed the the stated probability of potentially drawing an ace, it only changed your predictive confidence that you did in fact draw an ace.

Probability and "predictive confidence" are equivalent terms. 1/13 is the best prediction I can make about how likely it is that I'll draw an ace from a deck of cards. But the likelihood isn't really 1/13. There's only one card on the top, and that's the one I'm going to draw, and it's either an ace or it's not. So the likelihood is either 1 or 0, but I don't know which it is, so I take a guess based on the information I have available to me. If I get more information, my guess will change.

Do you agree Ignoratio?

I wouldn't have answered your question that way, no.I'd be happy to answer your questions but my wife and son just got home and I'm going to spend the afternoon with them. I'll be back on later tonight if you want to give me a probability quiz or something.

I would have thought you could have answered it in as quickly as it took you to write your comment.

Well I'm not sure what you expect - it's not like I'll say, "The answer is three!" and we'll all agree and it will be over. I figured this will involve a series of exchanged ideas, and wanted to let you know not to expect a response from me for a while.

But you are eluding that CalBear is in fact wrong?

*Alluding, and no.

At the outset of CalBear's scenario, the probability that the top card is an ace is 1/13 (if we make all the normal simplifying assumptions one makes in these types of problems, e.g. it's a normal deck of playing cards, every possible ordering of cards is equiprobable, etc.) After examining the next 44 cards and finding no aces, the probability that your chosen card is an ace has changed to 1/2, as he indicated.

If your point is that he's wrong, and that the probability is still 1/13 after you've looked at the next 44 cards, you're mistaken. Probabilities can change when we gain new information (depending on what the information is and, crucially, how we obtain the information); looking at the next 44 cards in the deck and finding no aces is giving us information we didn't have at the outset, which changes the probability that the card we chose is an ace.

To further address your point, I'd have to ask for a rigorous definition of your phrase "predictive confidence." A lot of people in this thread have been throwing around words ("variable," "odds," etc.) in ways that aren't entirely correct. When you say, "the probability didn't change, just your predictive confidence did," I wonder if you're doing the same kind of thing and just making up a concept that sounds convincing in your head. "Predictive confidence" isn't a totally meaningless phrase, but I'm not sure you're using it correctly here. I'm not ruling out the possibility that you have a point, though, so please feel free to expand on the distinction you're making between "prbability" and "predictive confidence" if you think it would help.

On CalBear's side, I don't necessarily agree with the part where he said, "But the likelihood isn't really 1/13. There's only one card on the top, and that's the one I'm going to draw, and it's either an ace or it's not. So the likelihood is either 1 or 0..." Again, he may be using "likelihood" here in a way that isn't clear to me. Obviously, the card is, in fact, either an ace or it isn't, which seems to be what he means, but I'm not sure how that contributes to the point he was making about probabilities changing. That's why I didn't say he was wrong, necessarily, just that I wouldn't have answered your question the way he did.

Since it involves related concepts, it might help to review a classic: You're on Let's Make A Deal and you facing three doors, one of which conceals a car (the other two have goats). You pick a door. Before opening it, the host of the show opens one of the doors you didn't choose and reveals a goat. He then offers you the opportunity to keep the door you originally chose, or switch to another door. What do you do, and more importantly, why?

You're getting too hung up on semantics. I think he actually stated it clearly..

The odds of drawing an Ace from a full deck are 1 in 13. If you then pull a large number of cards from the deck, the odds (or confidence) that you pulled an ace do change. However, it doesn't change the original odds of pulling an Ace from a full deck.

Say you pulled 48 cards that weren't an Ace from the remaining deck, then you are quite confident that this is one of those "1 in 13" times an Ace was drawn.

 

[ghostguy123]

I would have thought you could have answered it in as quickly as it took you to write your comment. But I'll wait for your answer.

I'm still waiting on your answer on the probability of your poker opponent holding ao king.

Tell me exactly which cards you know, and I will tell you the exact probability.

I don't know he has a king. I suspect it because the flop was K83 and he bet more than he usually bets. What's the probability that he has a king?

after introducing a variable you want to give you precise odds?? Not possible. The odds are also different before the flop because he is still in the hand, that alone could increase his odds since he would be more likely to stay in the hand and see a flop if he has a king.

If you are just asking the odds of him having a king if things are all random, no problem.

This isn't a random question. It's full of variables.

POker is anything but exact odds.

Now, based on the cards you know and what you have in your hand, you can easily predict your chances of pulling cards you need to make a hand. Those odds are exact odds.

BUt you have to match that up with your opponent's actions, which are not exact at all.

 

[ghostguy123]

So, don't act like you've acted for much of this thread? Got it.For the record, you are wrong (in the normal interpretation of the problem). There's a way to interpret the problem that would make it a 50/50 proposition after seeing a goat, but if you want full credit you'll have to specify what that interpretation is.

ENlighten me as to the correct answer.

I will, but let's let TheStig have a crack at it first.

Great, I am wrong with no explanation. Love it.

If I am wrong it is because of some variable you didnt tell me about

 

[CalBear]

I would have thought you could have answered it in as quickly as it took you to write your comment. But I'll wait for your answer.

I'm still waiting on your answer on the probability of your poker opponent holding ao king.

Tell me exactly which cards you know, and I will tell you the exact probability.

I don't know he has a king. I suspect it because the flop was K83 and he bet more than he usually bets. What's the probability that he has a king?

after introducing a variable you want to give you precise odds?? Not possible. The odds are also different before the flop because he is still in the hand, that alone could increase his odds since he would be more likely to stay in the hand and see a flop if he has a king.

If you are just asking the odds of him having a king if things are all random, no problem.

This isn't a random question. It's full of variables.

There is a correct answer. You don't have the information you need to know it, but it's clear that there is an answer for the question of how likely the next card is to be a K.

The fact that you don't have all the information doesn't make the probability any less real.

 

[DropKick]

Ignor, when you asked the probality of the king, you are asking at that point in time. Normal deck, picking a random card. That is the scenario.

Nobody has ever said that the odds don't change as you see more cards. But when you see more cards, you create a new problem, as in, new odds the card you picked will be that king.

When that card is sitting there, the card itself has nothing to do with anything.

And if you do not think I am correct in my assessment of what a variable is, please enlighten me.

And as for your goat question you just asked.

If there are three doors, one has a car and two a goat, your odds of picking the car are 1/3.

If one door you didnt pick is opened up and it is a goat, what do you do?? It doesnt matter. Eitehr keep the one you had or change it, the odds of getting the car are 50-50 since there are two doors left and it is random.

If I am wrong here, don;t just be a ##### and say I am wrong and stupid. ENlighten me as to the correct answer.

Goats or cars... I have a one in 3 chance initially... Then, after picking, one door is eliminated - changing the odds to 1 in 2...

The "dealer" who has knowledge of the right door can always expose a goat no matter what I pick, so that really isn't useful information. I'll agree with the above post and call it 50/50.

 

[CalBear]

Ignor, when you asked the probality of the king, you are asking at that point in time. Normal deck, picking a random card. That is the scenario.

Nobody has ever said that the odds don't change as you see more cards. But when you see more cards, you create a new problem, as in, new odds the card you picked will be that king.

When that card is sitting there, the card itself has nothing to do with anything.

And if you do not think I am correct in my assessment of what a variable is, please enlighten me.

And as for your goat question you just asked.

If there are three doors, one has a car and two a goat, your odds of picking the car are 1/3.

If one door you didnt pick is opened up and it is a goat, what do you do?? It doesnt matter. Eitehr keep the one you had or change it, the odds of getting the car are 50-50 since there are two doors left and it is random.

If I am wrong here, don;t just be a ##### and say I am wrong and stupid. ENlighten me as to the correct answer.

Goats or cars... I have a one in 3 chance initially... Then, after picking, one door is eliminated - changing the odds to 1 in 2...

The "dealer" who has knowledge of the right door can always expose a goat no matter what I pick, so that really isn't useful information. I'll agree with the above post and call it 50/50.

What IE is showing here is that our intuition on probability is often wrong. This is a famous problem in probability, called the Monty Hall Problem, and 50/50 is the wrong answer, assuming Monty Hall knows what's behind the doors.

 

[ghostguy123]

There is a correct answer. You don't have the information you need to know it, but it's clear that there is an answer for the question of how likely the next card is to be a K.

The fact that you don't have all the information doesn't make the probability any less real.

The hand is no longer random anymore though.

As I said, the fact that he is still in the hand, theoretically raises the odds he has a king, and so does the bet.

 

[ghostguy123]

What IE is showing here is that our intuition on probability is often wrong. This is a famous problem in probability, called the Monty Hall Problem, and 50/50 is the wrong answer, assuming Monty Hall knows what's behind the doors.

WHo the hell is MOnty Hall, and why does he does what is behind the door? lol

 

[ghostguy123]

So the right answer is 50/50, but I also have to tell you WHY it is 50/50, but I have to tell you in some specific way you are looking to hear it?? SWeet

 

[ghostguy123]

Ok, nevermind. Duh. If you pick the wrong one (since you probably will with a 1/3 shot), the guy has to eliminate another wrong one, so yeah switch.

Got it, nice riddle.

Did this riddle have a point anyway? If it did, I missed that one, too.

 

[CalBear]

There is a correct answer. You don't have the information you need to know it, but it's clear that there is an answer for the question of how likely the next card is to be a K.

The fact that you don't have all the information doesn't make the probability any less real.

The hand is no longer random anymore though.

As I said, the fact that he is still in the hand, theoretically raises the odds he has a king, and so does the bet.

OK, so what's the probability? And is it imagined or "real"?

The point is, there's no difference. In real-world betting situations you rarely have full information (and if you do, the information is usually "you're going to lose"). You don't have full information in blackjack, or poker, or in fantasy football. There's more information you lack in fantasy football but that's a question of scale not of kind.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

This is a famous problem in probability, called the Monty Hall Problem, and 50/50 is the wrong answer, assuming Monty Hall knows what's behind the doors.

I'm not sure why I never realized that the first goat shown wasn't random before (since it's being picked), but this problem has messed me up for a decade because I didn't. The lightbulb just went on and I came to post this bit about it not being additional info.

 

[davearm]

The right answer is not 50/50. There's a hint.

 

[ghostguy123]

OK, so what's the probability? And is it imagined or "real"?

The point is, there's no difference. In real-world betting situations you rarely have full information (and if you do, the information is usually "you're going to lose"). You don't have full information in blackjack, or poker, or in fantasy football. There's more information you lack in fantasy football but that's a question of scale not of kind.

They are not true odds.

Right I know. Did I ever say otherwise?

In real world betting in roulette you sure do. I know the exact odds every spin.

I mean, I know true odds are rare. I never said otherwise.

 

[davearm]

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

Yes the odds are 1/32 for each team, absent additional information. And yes, by your definition, those are "real" odds.

 

[ghostguy123]

The goat thing appears to be a true odds problem, where your probaility of getting the car is 2/3 if you switch every time, and 1/3 if you do not.

 

[ghostguy123]

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

Yes the odds are 1/32 for each team, absent additional information. And yes, by your definition, those are "real" odds.

Umm, no.

The odds are only 1/32 if you pick a random team name out of a hat.

If someone who knows nothing about football, has never heard anything about football, and you ask them the odds the rams win the super bowl, they will say 1/32 and be wrong.

BUt none of that represents a random situation other than the guy knows nothing about football.

(this is key) Since each team does not have a truly equal chance of winning the super bowl, the answer 1/32 for any team is not correct. They are not equal randome entities.

 

[ghostguy123]

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

Yes the odds are 1/32 for each team, absent additional information. And yes, by your definition, those are "real" odds.

And what do you think my definition is anyway???? Whatever you think I said it is, you missed something somewhere.

The odds of all the teams combined will add up to 32/32, but each idividual team is not 1/32.

It only is if you pick a team at random.

 

[davearm]

I thought we agreed that probabilities are nothing more than a quantification of expectations.

If I know nothing about football except that there are 32 teams and one will win, then my only rational expectation is that each team has a 1/32 chance.

 

[ghostguy123]

I thought we agreed that probabilities are nothing more than a quantification of expectations.

If I know nothing about football except that there are 32 teams and one will win, then my only rational expectation is that each team has a 1/32 chance.

Some proabilities are. But some (like craps, roulette) are precise expectations that the actual event will happen using proven mathematical odds with exact answers.

If you pick a team at random, the odds are 1/32 you get it right. Once you pick that team, the odds changed because all the teams are different with different variables.

 

[DropKick]

Ignor, when you asked the probality of the king, you are asking at that point in time. Normal deck, picking a random card. That is the scenario.

Nobody has ever said that the odds don't change as you see more cards. But when you see more cards, you create a new problem, as in, new odds the card you picked will be that king.

When that card is sitting there, the card itself has nothing to do with anything.

And if you do not think I am correct in my assessment of what a variable is, please enlighten me.

And as for your goat question you just asked.

If there are three doors, one has a car and two a goat, your odds of picking the car are 1/3.

If one door you didnt pick is opened up and it is a goat, what do you do?? It doesnt matter. Eitehr keep the one you had or change it, the odds of getting the car are 50-50 since there are two doors left and it is random.

If I am wrong here, don;t just be a ##### and say I am wrong and stupid. ENlighten me as to the correct answer.

Goats or cars... I have a one in 3 chance initially... Then, after picking, one door is eliminated - changing the odds to 1 in 2...

The "dealer" who has knowledge of the right door can always expose a goat no matter what I pick, so that really isn't useful information. I'll agree with the above post and call it 50/50.

I'll reneg... thought about this with bigger numbers and the odds of me picking the car were 1 in 3. Or 2 in 3 of being wrong. With all the doors eliminated, the chance of my initial pick being right is 1 in 3. The chance of the other door 2 in 3. I'll switch.

 

[davearm]

Haha so now we have expectations, and *precise* expectations?

What is imprecise about 1/32?

 

[ghostguy123]

How bout this Dave.

Lets say you have two teams that YOU consider one of them to have a 2/3 chance to win the game, and the other a 1/3 chance to win the game.

Before the game I let you pick both names out of a hat. Your odds of picking the winner are 1/2 right?

After you pick the odds are no longer 1/2 right? The odds changed because the problem changed.

That isnt a great example, but really, what on earth can I ever tell you to be able to get you to understand the difference between picking a team at random, and assigning a 1/32 odds for a team you are given just because you don't know anything.

All you need it to know enough that each team is different, with different human beings, so the odds of each team can not possibly be 1/32 due to so many variables,.

 

[ghostguy123]

Haha so now we have expectations, and *precise* expectations?

What is imprecise about 1/32?

Nothing if you draw a random team name out of a hat.

And yes, there is a difference between precise expectations and expectations. Jesus.

One has a proven equation to figure it out, one does not.

 

[ghostguy123]

WHat is so hard to understand that once you draw a team's name out of a hat, the odds are not 1/32 anymore.

At that point, there are no true odds.

 

[rick6668]

There are no true odds for anything.

No perfectly fair coin, no fair die, no perfectly random shuffle.

Things will be very close to the 1/2 odds for a coin toss, 1/6 rolling a 6 or 1/13 for pulling a K, but these are not exact. There are slight imperfections in everything that affect the odds. It is close enough to these values that the casinos make money, but they are not exact.

Odds for football teams etc are also not exact, but the more info we have the closer we can get to these "true" odds.

 

[davearm]

All you need it to know enough that each team is different, with different human beings, so the odds of each team can not possibly be 1/32 due to so many variables,.

But as I've said, you don't have information on *how* they're different. So you can't improve upon your 1/32 estimate.

Since I calculated it, and it is an undeniable certaintly that one team will win and the rest wont, it meets your criteria for "realness"

 

[ghostguy123]

All you need it to know enough that each team is different, with different human beings, so the odds of each team can not possibly be 1/32 due to so many variables,.

But as I've said, you don't have information on *how* they're different. So you can't improve upon your 1/32 estimate.

Since I calculated it, and it is an undeniable certaintly that one team will win and the rest wont, it meets your criteria for "realness"

No, it doesn't.

You are welcome to think it does.

 

[ghostguy123]

There are no true odds for anything.

No perfectly fair coin, no fair die, no perfectly random shuffle.

Things will be very close to the 1/2 odds for a coin toss, 1/6 rolling a 6 or 1/13 for pulling a K, but these are not exact. There are slight imperfections in everything that affect the odds. It is close enough to these values that the casinos make money, but they are not exact.

Odds for football teams etc are also not exact, but the more info we have the closer we can get to these "true" odds.

put 10 marbles in a bag and shake it up, 9 whites and one black, then have some random person off the street come in and pick one from the bag at random while not looking

The true odds of that person picking the black one aren't 1/10??

Got it.

 

[davearm]

Haha so now we have expectations, and *precise* expectations?

What is imprecise about 1/32?

Nothing if you draw a random team name out of a hat.

And yes, there is a difference between precise expectations and expectations. Jesus.

One has a proven equation to figure it out, one does not.

Try googling "precise expectations" and let us know what you get. If it is an actual thing, I'm sure you'll get lots of hits.

 

[ghostguy123]

:IBTL:

 

[ghostguy123]

Haha so now we have expectations, and *precise* expectations?

What is imprecise about 1/32?

Nothing if you draw a random team name out of a hat.

And yes, there is a difference between precise expectations and expectations. Jesus.

One has a proven equation to figure it out, one does not.

Try googling "precise expectations" and let us know what you get. If it is an actual thing, I'm sure you'll get lots of hits.

I cencede. No odds in the world can be calculated with mathematical certainty (odds, not outcomes, odds)

 

[davearm]

There are no true odds for anything.

No perfectly fair coin, no fair die, no perfectly random shuffle.

Things will be very close to the 1/2 odds for a coin toss, 1/6 rolling a 6 or 1/13 for pulling a K, but these are not exact. There are slight imperfections in everything that affect the odds. It is close enough to these values that the casinos make money, but they are not exact.

Odds for football teams etc are also not exact, but the more info we have the closer we can get to these "true" odds.

put 10 marbles in a bag and shake it up, 9 whites and one black, then have some random person off the street come in and pick one from the bag at random while not looking

The true odds of that person picking the black one aren't 1/10??

Got it.

The odds are 1/10. There's nothing "true" or "false" about them, though.

 

[ghostguy123]

The odds are 1/10. There's nothing "true" or "false" about them, though.

Other than the answer of 1/10 being either exactly right..........or wrong, then I guess you are right.

When 10 things can occur, and all 10 have the same chances off occuring, that would be.....................true odds.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

There are three coins in a bag. One of them is blue on both sides. One of them is red on both sides. One of them is blue on one side and red on the other side. Without looking, you randomly pull out one of the coins and lay it on the table. You see that the side facing up is blue. What is the probability that the side facing down is also blue?

 

[ghostguy123]

Funny quote I came by

"Profiting in gambling involves predicting the relationship of the true probabilities to the payout odds"

 

[ghostguy123]

There are three coins in a bag. One of them is blue on both sides. One of them is red on both sides. One of them is blue on one side and red on the other side. Without looking, you randomly pull out one of the coins and lay it on the table. You see that the side facing up is blue. What is the probability that the side facing down is also blue?

i guess 50-50

but why do i have this strange feeling you are gonna tell me 2/3

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Funny quote I cam by

"Profiting in gambling involves predicting the relationship of the true probabilities to the payout odds"

Why didn't you quote the sentence that came right after that one, too?

"Profiting in gambling involves predicting the relationship of the true probabilities to the payout odds. Sports information services are often used by professional and semi-professional sports bettors to help achieve this goal."

I thought there were no "true probabilities" in sports, because there were too many varibiables?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

There are three coins in a bag. One of them is blue on both sides. One of them is red on both sides. One of them is blue on one side and red on the other side. Without looking, you randomly pull out one of the coins and lay it on the table. You see that the side facing up is blue. What is the probability that the side facing down is also blue?

i guess 50-50

Guess again.

 

[ghostguy123]

Funny quote I cam by

"Profiting in gambling involves predicting the relationship of the true probabilities to the payout odds"

Why didn't you quote the sentence that came right after that one, too?

"Profiting in gambling involves predicting the relationship of the true probabilities to the payout odds. Sports information services are often used by professional and semi-professional sports bettors to help achieve this goal."

I thought there were no "true probabilities" in sports, because there were too many varibiables?

It says to "help". And those guys are full of BS anyway

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Funny quote I cam by

"Profiting in gambling involves predicting the relationship of the true probabilities to the payout odds"

Why didn't you quote the sentence that came right after that one, too?

"Profiting in gambling involves predicting the relationship of the true probabilities to the payout odds. Sports information services are often used by professional and semi-professional sports bettors to help achieve this goal."

I thought there were no "true probabilities" in sports, because there were too many varibiables?

It says to "help". And those guys are full of BS anyway

Here's another one, from the preceding paragraph:

"In a 3-horse race, for example, the true probabilities of each of the horses winning based on their relative abilities may be 50%, 40% and 10%."

Do you believe that horses in a race have "true probabilities?"

 

[ghostguy123]

There are three coins in a bag. One of them is blue on both sides. One of them is red on both sides. One of them is blue on one side and red on the other side. Without looking, you randomly pull out one of the coins and lay it on the table. You see that the side facing up is blue. What is the probability that the side facing down is also blue?

i guess 50-50

Guess again.

what up with all the riddles anyway? Keep em comin though.

I only thought about that for like 4 seconds.

So you can have up the blue the two sided blue coin, and the other side, then the othe coin.

1/3?