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

[TheStig]

No, you are wrong.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Probability is based on the totality of events. Odds are based on a condition in relation to the probability.

Can you link to the academic paper you quoted these definitions from?

It is a matter of tense. Odds are calculating that something has happened and that information is used to predict the likely outcome of the act. Probability simply states the chance that a particular outcome will happen.One measures the introduction of a variable or new information the other does not.

No, you are wrong. (See, I can do that too!) Can you link to the academic paper that told you that odds measures the introduction of a variable or new information, while probability doesn't?

Continuing to draw cards does not change the probability that you drew a King.

It doesn't change the probability that you drew (past tense) a King. I've pointed out at least twice that we all agree the probability used to be 1/13, and even after looking at other cards, it still used to be 1/13 (probability isn't a magic time machine). It also doesn't change the odds that you drew (past tense) a King, since the odds are a direct function of the probability.It does change the probability, and the odds, that the card you drew is (present tense) a King, because now we have more information with which to compute the probability (and the odds).

But again, I refer you to the authors of the articles to debate your point.

I haven't seen much to debate in any of the articles you posted. None of them appears to be saying what you wish they were saying.

Then you agree with me. That is all I ever said and that IS the difference between the two. If you drew 3 Kings in a row, your Odds would in fact change but the probability of 1/13 stays the same. Meaning Odds and Probability, when used correctly, mean slightly different things and can have different values.

 

[davearm]

No, you are wrong.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Probability is based on the totality of events. Odds are based on a condition in relation to the probability.

Can you link to the academic paper you quoted these definitions from?

It is a matter of tense. Odds are calculating that something has happened and that information is used to predict the likely outcome of the act. Probability simply states the chance that a particular outcome will happen.One measures the introduction of a variable or new information the other does not.

No, you are wrong. (See, I can do that too!) Can you link to the academic paper that told you that odds measures the introduction of a variable or new information, while probability doesn't?

Continuing to draw cards does not change the probability that you drew a King.

It doesn't change the probability that you drew (past tense) a King. I've pointed out at least twice that we all agree the probability used to be 1/13, and even after looking at other cards, it still used to be 1/13 (probability isn't a magic time machine). It also doesn't change the odds that you drew (past tense) a King, since the odds are a direct function of the probability.It does change the probability, and the odds, that the card you drew is (present tense) a King, because now we have more information with which to compute the probability (and the odds).

But again, I refer you to the authors of the articles to debate your point.

I haven't seen much to debate in any of the articles you posted. None of them appears to be saying what you wish they were saying.

Then you agree with me. That is all I ever said and that IS the difference between the two. If you drew 3 Kings in a row, your Odds would in fact change but the probability of 1/13 stays the same. Meaning Odds and Probability, when used correctly, mean slightly different things and can have different values.

Nope. Revealing new information changes both the odds and the probability.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Then you agree with me.

No I don't.

That is all I ever said and that IS the difference between the two.

No it isn't.

If you drew 3 Kings in a row, your Odds would in fact change but the probability of 1/13 stays the same.

That's the exact opposite of what I just explained to you.

 

[TheStig]

I never said the odds don't change. I said that the the original probability of selecting a king didn't change.

"It used to be 1/13. Now it's 1/2, but that doesn't change the fact that it used to be 1/13." That's some really insightful stuff there.

In regards to the Monty Hall Paradox, smarter mathematicians than you have analyzed and debated it so please spare us that you have the definitive answer to it.

There's not really any debate about how to resolve the paradox. As long as you're clear about the assumptions of the problem, the solution is easy. The trick is in clarifying the assumptions, which is the point - calculating probabilities is largely dependent on what we know (and don't know), and how we learned it, and related concepts.

But please, share with all of us your thesis on the Monty Hall Paradox.

Well, if I answered it the way you approached CalBear's scenario, I guess I'd have to say, "The probability that you'd win the car used to be 1/3. Then some stuff changed, but it still used to be 1/3. Just your 'predictive confidence' changed." Do I have that right?

The odds changed but the original probability did not. When you selected the card there were 52 possible outcomes. Flipping the cards did not change the fact that your original selection was made from 52 cards. Your probability only changes if you predict each card before you draw from the deck.

So will you give me 10:1 odds on the down card being an ace? Because the "original probability" was 13:1.

If you won't give me those odds, you might be starting to understand why the original probability is meaningless.

This is true only if you are placing a new bet based on the new odds but your "bet" or "declaration" was based on the probability of drawing a King from a 52 card deck. Drawing the cards after the fact is only serving to confirm your original selection. You could simply turn the original card over to prove it.

If the original probability is meaningless then Vegas would retroactively adjust your payouts according to current odds and not the odds of your original bet or declaration.

Probability is based on the total number of possible outcomes. In this case there are 52 possible outcomes. When you drew the original card you drew one of 52 possible outcomes. Proceeding to draw the other cards does not change the actual outcome of the drawn card, it only represents the odds that what you claim you drew from the deck is actually correct.

Odds are based on the number of positive or negative outcomes based on the remaining chances you are allotted. In this case The odds simply represents the chance that your decision is actually correct but it does not affect the probability of the original bet or decision for the simple fact that you are not making a new declaration or bet of what the drawn card is. If 3 kings get immediately drawn you may no longer like your remaining odds that you drew a King but it didn't change the probability that you did in fact draw a King.

Probability and Odds represent chance in slightly different ways, similar to the differences in how mean, median and mode represent averages slightly differently.

Probability and Odds represent the same chance in slightly different ways.

Mean median and mode represent different things, and no one of them can be derived from either of the other two.

That is, if you tell me the odds but I really want to know the probability, then I can compute what I need from what you've given me.

If you give me the mean but I want to know the median, I'm hosed.

True

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

So let's say you have the four Aces from a standard deck of playing cards. You shuffle them up thoroughly, such that every possible ordering of the four cards is equiprobable, and place the pile face down on the table.

• You take the top card off the pile and put it in your pocket. What is the probability that the card in your pocket is the Ace of Hearts? What are the odds in favor of it being the Ace of Hearts?
• You then flip over the next two cards and find that they're the Ace of Spades and the Ace of Clubs. What is the probability that the card in your pocket is the Ace of Hearts? What are the odds in favor of it being the Ace of Hearts?

Bump for Stig.

 

[ghostguy123]

Then you agree with me.

No I don't.

That is all I ever said and that IS the difference between the two.

No it isn't.

If you drew 3 Kings in a row, your Odds would in fact change but the probability of 1/13 stays the same.

That's the exact opposite of what I just explained to you.

ok, forget what I said about people saying the same thing just in different ways. Yikes. One of these things is not like the other, lol.

I have more thoughts about the goat thing when I have more time. I still havent read the last 3 full pages of this craziness.

But I did win titles, woohoooooo. I am too hung over from celebrating last night at the casino. Amazing, apparently Baccarat is the most popular game known to man. I was there 4 hours on a ####### sunday night when seemingly the place was not crowded, yet at no point could I even come close to getting a seat at the Baccarat table. I couldn't even get a spot in the first row of people standing behind the people in the seats playing.

 

[ghostguy123]

Probability and Odds represent the same chance in slightly different ways.

Mean median and mode represent different things, and no one of them can be derived from either of the other two.

That is, if you tell me the odds but I really want to know the probability, then I can compute what I need from what you've given me.

If you give me the mean but I want to know the median, I'm hosed.

True

what???

 

[Adam Harstad]

Been away for a few days, but jumping back in. Apologies if I'm treading on ground that's already been thoroughly covered in the meantime.

Forgive me but I'd like to resurrect an earlier question.

In a dynasty league, it would be ok for me to trade away a couple of aging (but immediately valuable) studs for a couple of young (but currently injured) prospects, if I thought that would make my team better. But it wouldn't be ok for me to bench the studs for the injured guys, if I thought it was my best (or only) chance to make the playoffs/win a championship.

What's the distinction? Why is one ok and not the other? I'm sure it was answered but I don't remember.

I believe Greg and I both answered that when you initially posted it. The distinction is all a matter of intent. In the first case, the owner is still trying to win with the players he has available, which preserves the integrity of the competition. In the latter case, the owner is actively trying to lose with the players he has available, which violates the expectations of fair competition.

The litmus test I proposed at the time was, if draft picks were randomly assigned by drawing names out of a hat in a straight drawing (i.e. not weighted by order of finish), would the owner still make that move? If so, then the move is fine, as it helps the team entirely in and of itself. If not, then the move is not fine, because it hurts the team, but that hurt is offset by the improvement in draft position.

That's right, I knew we had this discussion already. I have a few thoughts:

1) The standard of "if draft picks were randomly assigned" seems arbitrary to me. Draft picks aren't randomly assigned and I don't see why anyone should be compelled to act as if they were.

2) In my scenario, I'm not "tanking" to improve my draft position. The trade helps my team entirely in and of itself. I'm unloading older players for younger players which is, in the long run, presumably inherently beneficial to my team.

3) I'd argue that you're "trying" just as hard to win right now by trading away studs for useless players, as you are by benching your studs for useless players (here I'm making the simplifying assumption that I'd end up having to start the injured guys I traded for, which in reality wouldn't necessarily be the case). If I roll out a starting lineup littered with injured players in week 13, why is it ok if I'm doing it to benefit my team next year, but not ok if I'm doing it to benefit my team next week?

Edit: And really, just in terms of impact, I think we all agree that the "tank to get into the playoffs" scenario is relatively rare. How often does that actually happen? I think I mentioned way back in the thread, but in my league if someone found themselves in that situation, I'd applaud them for actually doing the work to even realize they were in that spot to begin with (I'd rather play with people who are that astute than people who would just put their foot on the gas every week without even considering whether that was the best strategy). We'd probably change the rule in the offseason to prevent that kind of situation from occurring in the future, but I'd have no problem with someone tanking if the rules inadvertently forced them into that kind of position.

On the other hand, "tanking" in dynasty becomes an attractive option to multiple teams pretty much every single year. In the last weeks of the regular season, you're always going to have teams that are pretty much out of contention, who have talented players that other contending teams want, etc. It seems there would be a constant issue of some teams getting an "easy" schedule late in the year by facing teams that have mortgaged the present to improve their chances in the future.

So even if the people in the latter scenario aren't literally "trying" to lose, the impact is (almost) the same as if they were trying to lose, and it happens much more frequently than the "tank to get in the playoffs" situation. So, just from a practical standpoint, it seems odd to me to be perfectly ok with the latter but be strictly against the former.

1.) I imagine a hypothetical where draft picks were randomly assigned because it makes it easy to isolate motivations. Absent outside forces, no team wants to lose. Even if they have nothing to play for, all else being equal, a win is still going to be better than a loss. So if a team is making a move that makes them more likely to lose, it's important to ask why they're doing it. If they're doing it because they believe that it will make their team stronger even absent of any draft considerations, then that's fine- teams are supposed to try to make themselves stronger. If they're doing it even though they don't think it makes them any stronger in and of itself- if they're doing it solely for draft considerations- then that's not fine. They're not making their team stronger, they're making their team weaker and hoping that the improvement in draft position will be enough to offset the loss. That's tanking.

2.) In your scenario, I had no problem with the trade. As you said, it improves your team in and of itself. That's not tanking, that's improving. As you point out, the improvement to your draft position is an incidental bonus to the trade, rather than the primary motivator of the trade. That's why I use my rule of thumb- if draft position were randomly assigned, a reasonable team would still make that trade, which means that trade is not designed solely to improve draft position, which means that trade is not tanking.

3.) An owner that is not starting the players he thinks will score the most points is not trying as hard to win as an owner who is starting the players he thinks will score the most points. Full stop.

4.) I don't think it's at all odd to make distinctions based on owner intent. We do it all the time. If owner A trades Josh Gordon for Torrey Smith because he thinks Torrey Smith will score more fantasy points, or that Josh Gordon will get suspended, then more power to him. If owner A trades Josh Gordon for Torrey Smith because he's leaving the league and the Smith owner is his best friend, or because the Smith owner promised him a 10% cut of any future winnings, then that trade is a major violation. It's the same exact trade in both cases, but in one case it's a perfectly legitimate example of letting an owner manage his own team, and in the other it's a textbook case of collusion and should rightly be rejected. The only difference is one of intent. Why should owner intent matter for rules like collusion but not for rules like tanking?

 

[TheStig]

Then you agree with me.

No I don't.

That is all I ever said and that IS the difference between the two.

No it isn't.

If you drew 3 Kings in a row, your Odds would in fact change but the probability of 1/13 stays the same.

That's the exact opposite of what I just explained to you.

Again contact the authors and partake your mental gymnastics against a Peer reviewed journal article if you wish but I fear you are falling prey to the " Dunning–Kruger effect" when you admit to not even reading the article or the other provided articles either at all or in their entirety.

 

[Adam Harstad]

It's an assumption based on the original hypothetical. In an anonymous (I should have specified anonymous) $$$$ league, I think it's reasonable to assume that the collective expectation is that it's OK to tank to try to improve your odds of winning the league.

With something that is widely considered unethical, I don't think it's ever reasonable to assume that in a particular instance it can be considered ethical. I would need that explicitly confirmed by the league.

I hate jumping back in here, and maybe I'm misunderstanding the context of the bolded, but where is it stated that tanking for immediate good of your team (win this year) is widely considered unethical? I have seen no proof that is the prevailing thought among the entirety of FFL. None. I've searched other boards and even presented proof that there is a large portion that DOES allow for it in some form (ESPN). Other sites I've searched either discuss tanking for teams giving up (bad) and the ones are about manipulating playoff teams are split much like this one.

Just because YOU deem all forms unethical doesn't make it the universal standard.

"I think it depends greatly on the league you're in. I've been in leagues where this would be considered an acceptable strategy and others where it would be considered a scumbag thing to do and owners would likely quit over it." - Aaron Rudnicki, post #262

My position summed up in two statements:

Statement #1: Tanking, as a vague and general concept, is widely considered unethical.

Statement #2: If you are doing something that is widely considered unethical in general, but which may or may not be considered unethical in that one particular instance, it is best to seek clarification from the league rather than making assumptions about how the other owners would feel.

Your quote from Rudnicki isn't particularly useful. If Rudnicki knows with such certainty that tanking would be considered an acceptable strategy, then he has already received his clarification. Similarly, if anyone is 100% confident that there leaguemates will be totally fine with them tanking to make the playoffs, then they can feel free to tank with no ethical concerns whatsoever.

Edit: Also, I've already pointed out the difference between "widely" and "universally". Saying that tanking is widely considered unethical (with evidence to support my claims) is not the same as claiming that tanking is universally considered unethical (despite all evidence to the contrary).

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

My car was dry, then it rained. But it was dry before it rained therefore rain doesn't make my car wet.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

So let's say you have the four Aces from a standard deck of playing cards. You shuffle them up thoroughly, such that every possible ordering of the four cards is equiprobable, and place the pile face down on the table.

• You take the top card off the pile and put it in your pocket. What is the probability that the card in your pocket is the Ace of Hearts? What are the odds in favor of it being the Ace of Hearts?
• You then flip over the next two cards and find that they're the Ace of Spades and the Ace of Clubs. What is the probability that the card in your pocket is the Ace of Hearts? What are the odds in favor of it being the Ace of Hearts?

Bump for Stig.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Forgive me but I'd like to resurrect an earlier question.

In a dynasty league, it would be ok for me to trade away a couple of aging (but immediately valuable) studs for a couple of young (but currently injured) prospects, if I thought that would make my team better. But it wouldn't be ok for me to bench the studs for the injured guys, if I thought it was my best (or only) chance to make the playoffs/win a championship.

What's the distinction? Why is one ok and not the other? I'm sure it was answered but I don't remember.

I think you have to start with the premise that, aside from the effect on the doormat's performance the rest of the year, allowing the doormat to trade present assets for future assets (and to trade future assets for present assets) is a positive for the league -- indeed, that's part of why we play dynasty. In order to allow these positive transactions, we have to accept the negative externality, namely the disrupting effect of doormat's team being worse for the rest of the season.That's why it's allowed, but not why it's ethical. If a doormat trades Tony G for a three-pick bump in the fifth round of next year's rookie draft, the trade may well be unethical (to the extent tanking is unethical) because his primary goal is to decrease his present production, and that has no positive impact on the league.

Here's the tricky part, to me. Can an owner ethically consider a decrease in this year's production a positive in a trade? For instance, earlier this year I moved Peyton for Brady+. Suppose it was close, but I wouldn't have made the deal except that I thought starting Brady instead of Peyton would decrease my production this year (and thus improve my draft position). Can't enforce anything, but is that tanking? Is it ethical?

This is why I use my rule of thumb. If you wouldn't make a trade if it weren't for the improvement in your draft position, then making the trade constitutes tanking. If you have a trade where you prefer the Brady side to a 50.00001% margin and the Peyton side to a 49.99999% margin, but the draft considerations push it so that the Brady side is a clear winner, then I don't think making that trade constitutes tanking. If you preferred the Peyton side by a 50.00001% margin and the draft considerations pushed you over to Brady, then I think that does constitute tanking. That's just my take on the issue.

Obviously, with margins that small, it'd be totally unenforceable (how would I know if the owner preferred Brady or Peyton by a 50.000001% to 49.999999% margin?), but ethics are not about enforceability. To me, that is the ethical dividing line.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I remember "TheStig" failed badly on an earlier argument, to the point where everyone could see he was wrong (I think even himself) yet he wouldn't acquiesce. I think it's happening again

True.

 

[Adam Harstad]

KInd of like tanking when it is your ony chance to make the playoffs. Far different intent than tanking for a better pick, to screw someone you fear out of the playoffs, or to make your playoff seed better.

The intent of tanking to make the playoffs has no ill intent towards anyone else, not even the team you end up knocking out because of it. Your intent is not towards them, it is fully focused on your own team.

The intent of tanking to improve your draft position has no ill intent towards anyone else, not even the team you end up knocking down the draft order because of it. Your intent is not towards them, it is fully focused on your own team.

When I say intent matters, I mean does an owner intend to comply with all reasonable expectations of fantasy leagues (including the expectations that everyone is trying to win), not whether he intends to improve his own chances. Everyone is just trying to improve their own chances, even the colluders and the player renters and the rulebreakers. Nobody colludes thinking about the other teams, nobody say "I'm going to collude to try to stop Team X from winning, and if I happen to improve my chances in the process, that's just a happy accident". No, they say "I'm going to collude to improve my chances, and if I happen to hurt Team X's odds in the process, that's just an unfortunate side effect".

 

[Adam Harstad]

Who defines which actions are unethical anyway, and tell them I am not being unethical when I shoot an intruder that is shooting at my baby with an AK-47.

Again, moral philosophy is not my strong point, but one system of addressing this is an ethical hierarchy, whereby certain ethical imperatives are given priority over others. In this case, "protect your family" could be a higher-order imperative than "do not kill" and act as an overriding factor.

Right, so in one circumstance the act is unethical, and in another it is no longer unethical.

Protect your family so they dont die.

Tank to protect your team so it doesnt die. I will argue that "keeping your team alive" takes moral priority over "do not tank"

You can feel free to argue that, and I have no doubt that you believe it. I believe "comply with all expectations and maintain the integrity of the league" takes ethical priority over "try to win it all". In fact, I would argue that attempting to win it all is not an ethical imperative at all, any more than "make a lot of money" is an ethical imperative. It's something that we do because it's in our own best interests, but ethics are not merely a means of codifying our own self-interest.

 

[TheStig]

I remember "TheStig" failed badly on an earlier argument, to the point where everyone could see he was wrong (I think even himself) yet he wouldn't acquiesce. I think it's happening again

True.

Yes, "true" in that I am failing to make my point not that my point is wrong.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

So let's say you have the four Aces from a standard deck of playing cards. You shuffle them up thoroughly, such that every possible ordering of the four cards is equiprobable, and place the pile face down on the table.

• You take the top card off the pile and put it in your pocket. What is the probability that the card in your pocket is the Ace of Hearts? What are the odds in favor of it being the Ace of Hearts?
• You then flip over the next two cards and find that they're the Ace of Spades and the Ace of Clubs. What is the probability that the card in your pocket is the Ace of Hearts? What are the odds in favor of it being the Ace of Hearts?

Bump for Stig.

 

[Adam Harstad]

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

People pick up an item that some 95 year old lady drops because it makes them feel good to do it. That is a self interest.

Well this worldview is clearly false. Adam and others who have spoken up here to say they'd not tank even if it meant missing the playoffs are testament to this. One's self-interest is clearly to tank if confronted with that choice.

In fairness, I've said several times that my "no tanking, ever" policy absolutely *IS* motivated by self-interest. It's just motivated by ENLIGHTENED self-interest. In other words, there are some times when tanking would benefit me, and there are some times when tanking would hurt me, and I agree not to tank when it's in my benefit with the understanding that others will agree not to do so when it is to my detriment.

My "no tanking" policy is designed to leave me better off, it's just designed to do so in the long run rather than in the short run.

 

[Adam Harstad]

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

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

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

Again, in the prologue of his book, Daniel Kahneman explicitly says that his reason for writing the book is so that people can take his research and apply it to every single mundane aspect of their life, from water-cooler gossip to financial planning to choosing where to eat out. He does not explicitly mention fantasy football by name, but I see no reason why we should conclude that he didn't mean for his research to be used when discussing fantasy football.

Also, the "5% is 5% is 5%" concept isn't a Daniel Kahneman concept. Kahneman only wrote that people suffer a bias towards seeing 5% as something other than 5% when it occurs at the edges of the probability distribution rather than in the middle. Mathematics, not Daniel Kahneman, is what determines that 5% is 5% is 5%.

Finally, there is no PROVEN difference between "actual odds" and "other odds". Once again, I would reiterate my suggestion that you read up on Bayesian probabilities.

 

[davearm]

KInd of like tanking when it is your ony chance to make the playoffs. Far different intent than tanking for a better pick, to screw someone you fear out of the playoffs, or to make your playoff seed better.

The intent of tanking to make the playoffs has no ill intent towards anyone else, not even the team you end up knocking out because of it. Your intent is not towards them, it is fully focused on your own team.

The intent of tanking to improve your draft position has no ill intent towards anyone else, not even the team you end up knocking down the draft order because of it. Your intent is not towards them, it is fully focused on your own team.

When I say intent matters, I mean does an owner intend to comply with all reasonable expectations of fantasy leagues (including the expectations that everyone is trying to win), not whether he intends to improve his own chances. Everyone is just trying to improve their own chances, even the colluders and the player renters and the rulebreakers. Nobody colludes thinking about the other teams, nobody say "I'm going to collude to try to stop Team X from winning, and if I happen to improve my chances in the process, that's just a happy accident". No, they say "I'm going to collude to improve my chances, and if I happen to hurt Team X's odds in the process, that's just an unfortunate side effect".

I shouldn't even go here but...

By my definition of collusion, colluders are explicitly *not* trying to improve their own team's chances. They're willfully lowering their own chances by some external motivation (split the prize pot, help a buddy, or what have you).

Hijack over.

As to intent, I still don't quite understand why a commitment to try and win each week is a more noble expectation for all leaguemates to have of each other, versus the commitment to try and win the championship.

Use the rulebook to define the guidelines of what is and isn't acceptable in pursuit of the championship, and then have at it. If you don't want tanking to be amongst the viable strategies for folks to employ toward that ultimate objective, then make a rule against it.

 

[ghostguy123]

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

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

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

Again, in the prologue of his book, Daniel Kahneman explicitly says that his reason for writing the book is so that people can take his research and apply it to every single mundane aspect of their life, from water-cooler gossip to financial planning to choosing where to eat out. He does not explicitly mention fantasy football by name, but I see no reason why we should conclude that he didn't mean for his research to be used when discussing fantasy football.

Also, the "5% is 5% is 5%" concept isn't a Daniel Kahneman concept. Kahneman only wrote that people suffer a bias towards seeing 5% as something other than 5% when it occurs at the edges of the probability distribution rather than in the middle. Mathematics, not Daniel Kahneman, is what determines that 5% is 5% is 5%.

Finally, there is no PROVEN difference between "actual odds" and "other odds". Once again, I would reiterate my suggestion that you read up on Bayesian probabilities.

One has a mathematical formula and a correct answer. One doesn't.

 

[Adam Harstad]

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.

For what it's worth, I largely agree with ghostguy on this one. Much apparently altruistic behavior is ultimately motivated by self-interest. I suppose we could have a philosophical discussion about whether true and perfect altruism is even possible, but I think we're already covering enough controversial topics for one thread.

 

[ghostguy123]

I am thinking that doing everything you can to win is the way to go, unless there is a rule specifically against it, even if it is unethical. Screw it, why not.

I mean, so what if it is unethical? It's magic football.

I am partly joking, but partly not.

 

[davearm]

It's an assumption based on the original hypothetical. In an anonymous (I should have specified anonymous) $$$$ league, I think it's reasonable to assume that the collective expectation is that it's OK to tank to try to improve your odds of winning the league.

With something that is widely considered unethical, I don't think it's ever reasonable to assume that in a particular instance it can be considered ethical. I would need that explicitly confirmed by the league.

I hate jumping back in here, and maybe I'm misunderstanding the context of the bolded, but where is it stated that tanking for immediate good of your team (win this year) is widely considered unethical? I have seen no proof that is the prevailing thought among the entirety of FFL. None. I've searched other boards and even presented proof that there is a large portion that DOES allow for it in some form (ESPN). Other sites I've searched either discuss tanking for teams giving up (bad) and the ones are about manipulating playoff teams are split much like this one.

Just because YOU deem all forms unethical doesn't make it the universal standard.

"I think it depends greatly on the league you're in. I've been in leagues where this would be considered an acceptable strategy and others where it would be considered a scumbag thing to do and owners would likely quit over it." - Aaron Rudnicki, post #262

My position summed up in two statements:

Statement #1: Tanking, as a vague and general concept, is widely considered unethical.

Statement #2: If you are doing something that is widely considered unethical in general, but which may or may not be considered unethical in that one particular instance, it is best to seek clarification from the league rather than making assumptions about how the other owners would feel.

Your quote from Rudnicki isn't particularly useful. If Rudnicki knows with such certainty that tanking would be considered an acceptable strategy, then he has already received his clarification. Similarly, if anyone is 100% confident that there leaguemates will be totally fine with them tanking to make the playoffs, then they can feel free to tank with no ethical concerns whatsoever.

Edit: Also, I've already pointed out the difference between "widely" and "universally". Saying that tanking is widely considered unethical (with evidence to support my claims) is not the same as claiming that tanking is universally considered unethical (despite all evidence to the contrary).

"Widely" is clearly a nebulous term.

Is a majority sufficient to earn the term? A plurality? Not sure it even matters.

What matters (IMO) is that there is sufficient disagreement of opinion that the issue needs to governed by what the rules state, not by what anyone assumes.

 

[davearm]

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

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

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

Again, in the prologue of his book, Daniel Kahneman explicitly says that his reason for writing the book is so that people can take his research and apply it to every single mundane aspect of their life, from water-cooler gossip to financial planning to choosing where to eat out. He does not explicitly mention fantasy football by name, but I see no reason why we should conclude that he didn't mean for his research to be used when discussing fantasy football.

Also, the "5% is 5% is 5%" concept isn't a Daniel Kahneman concept. Kahneman only wrote that people suffer a bias towards seeing 5% as something other than 5% when it occurs at the edges of the probability distribution rather than in the middle. Mathematics, not Daniel Kahneman, is what determines that 5% is 5% is 5%.

Finally, there is no PROVEN difference between "actual odds" and "other odds". Once again, I would reiterate my suggestion that you read up on Bayesian probabilities.

One has a mathematical formula and a correct answer. One doesn't.

My Broncos question had a mathematical formula. It was 1/32.

Neither has a correct answer, at least inasmuch as neither one correctly predicts the actual outcome.

 

[Adam Harstad]

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.

For what it's worth, this problem always used to fry my wife's brain until "Deal or No Deal" aired and I was able to substitute "28 cases" for "3 doors". The bigger number makes the concept much easier to see.

Situation #1: You pick a case at random, then eliminate 26 other cases randomly. At the end, you're left with $1,000,000 and some other number left on the board (call it $1). Should you switch? In this case, since all eliminations were random, switching makes no difference. You were just as likely to start out with the $1,000,000 and eliminate your way down to $1 as you were to start with $1 and eliminate your way down to $1,000,000.

Situation #2: You pick a case at random, and then Howie Mandel says "oh geez, we're almost out of time, so I'm going to eliminate 26 cases for you and leave you with just the $1,000,000 and some other random number". Should you switch? In this case, since the eliminations were NONRANDOM (i.e. were specifically designed to leave the $1,000,000 on the board), switching dramatically improves your odds. The reason why is because there was a 1/28 chance you started on the $1,000,000, and a 27/28 chance that you started on something else and Howie left the $1,000,000 on the table to set up a dramatic television moment.

In both cases, the hidden variable in it all is how likely you were to reach that particular endpoint. In the first case, it is extremely improbable that you would find yourself with a choice between some random number and the $1,000,000. In the second case, it's 100% guaranteed that you would find yourself with a choice between some random number and the $1,000,000. The probability of reaching that endpoint impacts the probability of each outcome from that endpoint.

 

[Adam Harstad]

KInd of like tanking when it is your ony chance to make the playoffs. Far different intent than tanking for a better pick, to screw someone you fear out of the playoffs, or to make your playoff seed better.

The intent of tanking to make the playoffs has no ill intent towards anyone else, not even the team you end up knocking out because of it. Your intent is not towards them, it is fully focused on your own team.

The intent of tanking to improve your draft position has no ill intent towards anyone else, not even the team you end up knocking down the draft order because of it. Your intent is not towards them, it is fully focused on your own team.

When I say intent matters, I mean does an owner intend to comply with all reasonable expectations of fantasy leagues (including the expectations that everyone is trying to win), not whether he intends to improve his own chances. Everyone is just trying to improve their own chances, even the colluders and the player renters and the rulebreakers. Nobody colludes thinking about the other teams, nobody say "I'm going to collude to try to stop Team X from winning, and if I happen to improve my chances in the process, that's just a happy accident". No, they say "I'm going to collude to improve my chances, and if I happen to hurt Team X's odds in the process, that's just an unfortunate side effect".

I shouldn't even go here but...

By my definition of collusion, colluders are explicitly *not* trying to improve their own team's chances. They're willfully lowering their own chances by some external motivation (split the prize pot, help a buddy, or what have you).

Hijack over.

As to intent, I still don't quite understand why a commitment to try and win each week is a more noble expectation for all leaguemates to have of each other, versus the commitment to try and win the championship.

Use the rulebook to define the guidelines of what is and isn't acceptable in pursuit of the championship, and then have at it. If you don't want tanking to be amongst the viable strategies for folks to employ toward that ultimate objective, then make a rule against it.

One of the colluders is explicitly not trying to improve his own team's chances, but the other is.

The reason a commitment to win each week is important is because of the way it impacts the rest of the league. If Team A is playing 13 teams trying to win, and Team B is playing 12 teams trying to win and 1 team trying to lose, and those two teams are competing for a playoff spot, then they are not competing on equal footing. As with the Monty Hall problem, it's easier to see when you take it out to a bigger extreme. Imagine each of a team's final 7 opponents were tanking. That team could finish 7-6 through no merit of his own team. Each of those 7 opponents all helped themselves, that team was helped, and every other team in the league was thoroughly screwed by the very nature of the competition.

"Everyone try to win every week" provides a relatively level competitive framework. "Everyone do what you think will result in the best chances of winning a title" does not.

 

[Adam Harstad]

It's an assumption based on the original hypothetical. In an anonymous (I should have specified anonymous) $$$$ league, I think it's reasonable to assume that the collective expectation is that it's OK to tank to try to improve your odds of winning the league.

With something that is widely considered unethical, I don't think it's ever reasonable to assume that in a particular instance it can be considered ethical. I would need that explicitly confirmed by the league.

I hate jumping back in here, and maybe I'm misunderstanding the context of the bolded, but where is it stated that tanking for immediate good of your team (win this year) is widely considered unethical? I have seen no proof that is the prevailing thought among the entirety of FFL. None. I've searched other boards and even presented proof that there is a large portion that DOES allow for it in some form (ESPN). Other sites I've searched either discuss tanking for teams giving up (bad) and the ones are about manipulating playoff teams are split much like this one.

Just because YOU deem all forms unethical doesn't make it the universal standard.

"I think it depends greatly on the league you're in. I've been in leagues where this would be considered an acceptable strategy and others where it would be considered a scumbag thing to do and owners would likely quit over it." - Aaron Rudnicki, post #262

My position summed up in two statements:

Statement #1: Tanking, as a vague and general concept, is widely considered unethical.

Statement #2: If you are doing something that is widely considered unethical in general, but which may or may not be considered unethical in that one particular instance, it is best to seek clarification from the league rather than making assumptions about how the other owners would feel.

Your quote from Rudnicki isn't particularly useful. If Rudnicki knows with such certainty that tanking would be considered an acceptable strategy, then he has already received his clarification. Similarly, if anyone is 100% confident that there leaguemates will be totally fine with them tanking to make the playoffs, then they can feel free to tank with no ethical concerns whatsoever.

Edit: Also, I've already pointed out the difference between "widely" and "universally". Saying that tanking is widely considered unethical (with evidence to support my claims) is not the same as claiming that tanking is universally considered unethical (despite all evidence to the contrary).

"Widely" is clearly a nebulous term.

Is a majority sufficient to earn the term? A plurality? Not sure it even matters.

What matters (IMO) is that there is sufficient disagreement of opinion that the issue needs to governed by what the rules state, not by what anyone assumes.

Yes, widely is a nebulous term. My point was not to define "widely", but simply to say that regardless of your feelings on tanking, there is a very good chance you're playing in a league with at least one owner who considers it unethical, so seek clarification first.

I have never opposed putting rules in place regarding tanking. Clearly that is the optimal solution, and I don't think anyone has disagreed on that point. We're discussing what to do in leagues that DO NOT have a rule on the books, and simply saying "well, you should have a rule on the books" doesn't do much good. That horse is already out of the barn.

 

[TheStig]

It's an assumption based on the original hypothetical. In an anonymous (I should have specified anonymous) $$$$ league, I think it's reasonable to assume that the collective expectation is that it's OK to tank to try to improve your odds of winning the league.

With something that is widely considered unethical, I don't think it's ever reasonable to assume that in a particular instance it can be considered ethical. I would need that explicitly confirmed by the league.

I hate jumping back in here, and maybe I'm misunderstanding the context of the bolded, but where is it stated that tanking for immediate good of your team (win this year) is widely considered unethical? I have seen no proof that is the prevailing thought among the entirety of FFL. None. I've searched other boards and even presented proof that there is a large portion that DOES allow for it in some form (ESPN). Other sites I've searched either discuss tanking for teams giving up (bad) and the ones are about manipulating playoff teams are split much like this one.Just because YOU deem all forms unethical doesn't make it the universal standard.

"I think it depends greatly on the league you're in. I've been in leagues where this would be considered an acceptable strategy and others where it would be considered a scumbag thing to do and owners would likely quit over it." - Aaron Rudnicki, post #262

My position summed up in two statements:

Statement #1: Tanking, as a vague and general concept, is widely considered unethical.

Statement #2: If you are doing something that is widely considered unethical in general, but which may or may not be considered unethical in that one particular instance, it is best to seek clarification from the league rather than making assumptions about how the other owners would feel.

Your quote from Rudnicki isn't particularly useful. If Rudnicki knows with such certainty that tanking would be considered an acceptable strategy, then he has already received his clarification. Similarly, if anyone is 100% confident that there leaguemates will be totally fine with them tanking to make the playoffs, then they can feel free to tank with no ethical concerns whatsoever.

Edit: Also, I've already pointed out the difference between "widely" and "universally". Saying that tanking is widely considered unethical (with evidence to support my claims) is not the same as claiming that tanking is universally considered unethical (despite all evidence to the contrary).

"Widely" is clearly a nebulous term.

Is a majority sufficient to earn the term? A plurality? Not sure it even matters.

What matters (IMO) is that there is sufficient disagreement of opinion that the issue needs to governed by what the rules state, not by what anyone assumes.

Yes, widely is a nebulous term. My point was not to define "widely", but simply to say that regardless of your feelings on tanking, there is a very good chance you're playing in a league with at least one owner who considers it unethical, so seek clarification first.

I have never opposed putting rules in place regarding tanking. Clearly that is the optimal solution, and I don't think anyone has disagreed on that point. We're discussing what to do in leagues that DO NOT have a rule on the books, and simply saying "well, you should have a rule on the books" doesn't do much good. That horse is already out of the barn.

Exploring ways to structure playoff and tie breaker scenarios to limit the necessity of tanking should also be considered.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

So let's say you have the four Aces from a standard deck of playing cards. You shuffle them up thoroughly, such that every possible ordering of the four cards is equiprobable, and place the pile face down on the table.

• You take the top card off the pile and put it in your pocket. What is the probability that the card in your pocket is the Ace of Hearts? What are the odds in favor of it being the Ace of Hearts?
• You then flip over the next two cards and find that they're the Ace of Spades and the Ace of Clubs. What is the probability that the card in your pocket is the Ace of Hearts? What are the odds in favor of it being the Ace of Hearts?

Bump for Stig.

 

[Adam Harstad]

It's an assumption based on the original hypothetical. In an anonymous (I should have specified anonymous) $$$$ league, I think it's reasonable to assume that the collective expectation is that it's OK to tank to try to improve your odds of winning the league.

With something that is widely considered unethical, I don't think it's ever reasonable to assume that in a particular instance it can be considered ethical. I would need that explicitly confirmed by the league.

I hate jumping back in here, and maybe I'm misunderstanding the context of the bolded, but where is it stated that tanking for immediate good of your team (win this year) is widely considered unethical? I have seen no proof that is the prevailing thought among the entirety of FFL. None. I've searched other boards and even presented proof that there is a large portion that DOES allow for it in some form (ESPN). Other sites I've searched either discuss tanking for teams giving up (bad) and the ones are about manipulating playoff teams are split much like this one.Just because YOU deem all forms unethical doesn't make it the universal standard.

"I think it depends greatly on the league you're in. I've been in leagues where this would be considered an acceptable strategy and others where it would be considered a scumbag thing to do and owners would likely quit over it." - Aaron Rudnicki, post #262

My position summed up in two statements:

Statement #1: Tanking, as a vague and general concept, is widely considered unethical.

Statement #2: If you are doing something that is widely considered unethical in general, but which may or may not be considered unethical in that one particular instance, it is best to seek clarification from the league rather than making assumptions about how the other owners would feel.

Your quote from Rudnicki isn't particularly useful. If Rudnicki knows with such certainty that tanking would be considered an acceptable strategy, then he has already received his clarification. Similarly, if anyone is 100% confident that there leaguemates will be totally fine with them tanking to make the playoffs, then they can feel free to tank with no ethical concerns whatsoever.

Edit: Also, I've already pointed out the difference between "widely" and "universally". Saying that tanking is widely considered unethical (with evidence to support my claims) is not the same as claiming that tanking is universally considered unethical (despite all evidence to the contrary).

"Widely" is clearly a nebulous term.

Is a majority sufficient to earn the term? A plurality? Not sure it even matters.

What matters (IMO) is that there is sufficient disagreement of opinion that the issue needs to governed by what the rules state, not by what anyone assumes.

Yes, widely is a nebulous term. My point was not to define "widely", but simply to say that regardless of your feelings on tanking, there is a very good chance you're playing in a league with at least one owner who considers it unethical, so seek clarification first.

I have never opposed putting rules in place regarding tanking. Clearly that is the optimal solution, and I don't think anyone has disagreed on that point. We're discussing what to do in leagues that DO NOT have a rule on the books, and simply saying "well, you should have a rule on the books" doesn't do much good. That horse is already out of the barn.

Exploring ways to structure playoff and tie breaker scenarios to limit the necessity of tanking should also be considered.

Sure, but I have no problem with tiebreaker scenarios that sometimes create "lose and you're in" situations. Inherently, any time there are two different paths to the playoffs, there's a possibility for just such a scenario. At the same time, having two different paths to the playoffs frequently makes the league better and more interesting.

 

[TheStig]

So let's say you have the four Aces from a standard deck of playing cards. You shuffle them up thoroughly, such that every possible ordering of the four cards is equiprobable, and place the pile face down on the table.

• You take the top card off the pile and put it in your pocket. What is the probability that the card in your pocket is the Ace of Hearts? What are the odds in favor of it being the Ace of Hearts?
• You then flip over the next two cards and find that they're the Ace of Spades and the Ace of Clubs. What is the probability that the card in your pocket is the Ace of Hearts? What are the odds in favor of it being the Ace of Hearts?

Bump for Stig.

Read the links I provided or not , I don't care. You're mistaken if you think your argument is with me anymore. You are capable of researching it yourself and drawing your own conclusions. That is now on you. I will leave it at this, Merry Christmas to you.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

So let's say you have the four Aces from a standard deck of playing cards. You shuffle them up thoroughly, such that every possible ordering of the four cards is equiprobable, and place the pile face down on the table.

• You take the top card off the pile and put it in your pocket. What is the probability that the card in your pocket is the Ace of Hearts? What are the odds in favor of it being the Ace of Hearts?
• You then flip over the next two cards and find that they're the Ace of Spades and the Ace of Clubs. What is the probability that the card in your pocket is the Ace of Hearts? What are the odds in favor of it being the Ace of Hearts?

Bump for Stig.

Read the links I provided or not , I don't care. You're mistaken if you think your argument is with me anymore. You are capable of researching it yourself and drawing your own conclusions. That is now on you. I will leave it at this, Merry Christmas to you.

I think everyone can draw their own conclusions now.

 

[TheStig]

So let's say you have the four Aces from a standard deck of playing cards. You shuffle them up thoroughly, such that every possible ordering of the four cards is equiprobable, and place the pile face down on the table.

• You take the top card off the pile and put it in your pocket. What is the probability that the card in your pocket is the Ace of Hearts? What are the odds in favor of it being the Ace of Hearts?
• You then flip over the next two cards and find that they're the Ace of Spades and the Ace of Clubs. What is the probability that the card in your pocket is the Ace of Hearts? What are the odds in favor of it being the Ace of Hearts?

Bump for Stig.

Read the links I provided or not , I don't care. You're mistaken if you think your argument is with me anymore. You are capable of researching it yourself and drawing your own conclusions. That is now on you. I will leave it at this, Merry Christmas to you.

I think everyone can draw their own conclusions now.

The conclusion I drew is I should not have bothered to wish you well.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

So let's say you have the four Aces from a standard deck of playing cards. You shuffle them up thoroughly, such that every possible ordering of the four cards is equiprobable, and place the pile face down on the table.

• You take the top card off the pile and put it in your pocket. What is the probability that the card in your pocket is the Ace of Hearts? What are the odds in favor of it being the Ace of Hearts?
• You then flip over the next two cards and find that they're the Ace of Spades and the Ace of Clubs. What is the probability that the card in your pocket is the Ace of Hearts? What are the odds in favor of it being the Ace of Hearts?

Bump for Stig.

Read the links I provided or not , I don't care. You're mistaken if you think your argument is with me anymore. You are capable of researching it yourself and drawing your own conclusions. That is now on you. I will leave it at this, Merry Christmas to you.

I think everyone can draw their own conclusions now.

The conclusion I drew is I should not have bothered to wish you well.

Why not? Because I tried to help you understand a topic you were clearly struggling with? My bad, I guess.

 

[TheStig]

So let's say you have the four Aces from a standard deck of playing cards. You shuffle them up thoroughly, such that every possible ordering of the four cards is equiprobable, and place the pile face down on the table.

• You take the top card off the pile and put it in your pocket. What is the probability that the card in your pocket is the Ace of Hearts? What are the odds in favor of it being the Ace of Hearts?
• You then flip over the next two cards and find that they're the Ace of Spades and the Ace of Clubs. What is the probability that the card in your pocket is the Ace of Hearts? What are the odds in favor of it being the Ace of Hearts?

Bump for Stig.

Read the links I provided or not , I don't care. You're mistaken if you think your argument is with me anymore. You are capable of researching it yourself and drawing your own conclusions. That is now on you. I will leave it at this, Merry Christmas to you.

I think everyone can draw their own conclusions now.

The conclusion I drew is I should not have bothered to wish you well.

Why not? Because I tried to help you understand a topic you were clearly struggling with? My bad, I guess.

Yes, it is your bad because you lack even the simplest of civil manors. When someone wishes you well, you generally return in kind. Another subtlety that has escaped your arrogance.

 

[Jello_Biafra]

So let's say you have the four Aces from a standard deck of playing cards. You shuffle them up thoroughly, such that every possible ordering of the four cards is equiprobable, and place the pile face down on the table.

• You take the top card off the pile and put it in your pocket. What is the probability that the card in your pocket is the Ace of Hearts? What are the odds in favor of it being the Ace of Hearts?
• You then flip over the next two cards and find that they're the Ace of Spades and the Ace of Clubs. What is the probability that the card in your pocket is the Ace of Hearts? What are the odds in favor of it being the Ace of Hearts?

Bump for Stig.

Read the links I provided or not , I don't care. You're mistaken if you think your argument is with me anymore. You are capable of researching it yourself and drawing your own conclusions. That is now on you. I will leave it at this, Merry Christmas to you.

I think everyone can draw their own conclusions now.

My conclusion is that you are a gigantic a hole. Even if you are 100% correct with your arguments, you are still an a hole.

 

[rick6668]

So let's say you have the four Aces from a standard deck of playing cards. You shuffle them up thoroughly, such that every possible ordering of the four cards is equiprobable, and place the pile face down on the table.

• You take the top card off the pile and put it in your pocket. What is the probability that the card in your pocket is the Ace of Hearts? What are the odds in favor of it being the Ace of Hearts?
• You then flip over the next two cards and find that they're the Ace of Spades and the Ace of Clubs. What is the probability that the card in your pocket is the Ace of Hearts? What are the odds in favor of it being the Ace of Hearts?

Bump for Stig.

Read the links I provided or not , I don't care. You're mistaken if you think your argument is with me anymore. You are capable of researching it yourself and drawing your own conclusions. That is now on you. I will leave it at this, Merry Christmas to you.

I think everyone can draw their own conclusions now.

My conclusion is that you are a gigantic a hole. Even if you are 100% correct with your arguments, you are still an a hole.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

My conclusion is that you are a gigantic a hole. Even if you are 100% correct with your arguments, you are still an a hole.

Et tu, Jello_Biafra?

 

[Mario Kart]

So let's say you have the four Aces from a standard deck of playing cards. You shuffle them up thoroughly, such that every possible ordering of the four cards is equiprobable, and place the pile face down on the table.

• You take the top card off the pile and put it in your pocket. What is the probability that the card in your pocket is the Ace of Hearts? What are the odds in favor of it being the Ace of Hearts?
• You then flip over the next two cards and find that they're the Ace of Spades and the Ace of Clubs. What is the probability that the card in your pocket is the Ace of Hearts? What are the odds in favor of it being the Ace of Hearts?

My remedial knowledge of this will hopefully provide you an answer since no one else have given one. Plus, I want to make sure I am right.

1. The probability is 1/52. There are a possible 52 outcomes of that one card and you are looking for one specific card versus a number or suit. The odds are not in your favor since it is roughly ~2% to happen.

2. The probability is still 1/52 because the new information did not affect the previous pick of the card and the outcome was still with 52 cards. The only effect the two cards now have is that we have reduced the number of unknowns. The probability is still 1/52 however the odds of your card being the ace of hearts is now 1/50. Your odds increased but the probability stayed the same.

How'd I do?

 

[CalBear]

So let's say you have the four Aces from a standard deck of playing cards. You shuffle them up thoroughly, such that every possible ordering of the four cards is equiprobable, and place the pile face down on the table.

• You take the top card off the pile and put it in your pocket. What is the probability that the card in your pocket is the Ace of Hearts? What are the odds in favor of it being the Ace of Hearts?
• You then flip over the next two cards and find that they're the Ace of Spades and the Ace of Clubs. What is the probability that the card in your pocket is the Ace of Hearts? What are the odds in favor of it being the Ace of Hearts?

My remedial knowledge of this will hopefully provide you an answer since no one else have given one. Plus, I want to make sure I am right.

1. The probability is 1/52. There are a possible 52 outcomes of that one card and you are looking for one specific card versus a number or suit. The odds are not in your favor since it is roughly ~2% to happen.

2. The probability is still 1/52 because the new information did not affect the previous pick of the card and the outcome was still with 52 cards. The only effect the two cards now have is that we have reduced the number of unknowns. The probability is still 1/52 however the odds of your card being the ace of hearts is now 1/50. Your odds increased but the probability stayed the same.

How'd I do?

You misunderstood the question. You have just four cards, all aces, not 52.

 

[ghostguy123]

I still haven't read through all this, just a couple sporatic posts, but I have one quick question.

Why on earth do some of you think the odds change but the probability doesn't??????

If the probability of the card in your pocket being an ace is 1/13, that is the probability before you see any cards.

Once the two cards are flipped and you see an ace and another ace, the probability that the card in your pocket is an ace changes (yes, changes) to 2/50.

I suppose I can toss out another quick question. You have a deck of cards. You are told that two of the aces are already removed, then told to pick a card and put one in your pocket. What is the probability that you have an ace in your pocket. 2/50 right?? This is the exact same proability of the even happpening once you knew two aces were gone in the previous question.

Yeah, sorry, the probability changes right along with the odds.