oh, one other note - did etta only say that a weighted coin flip wasnt a thing - as in a real thing?  and the eggheads think about it in hypothecial scenarios - lets go to what was said scant posts ago by etta

'The coin flip analogy just doesn't work. This is shown by you making the qualifier "weighted coin flip" as if that's really a thing. All coin flip scenarios assume a fair coin, just like dice throw scenarios assume the dice aren't loaded.'

yes, thats right.  After saying it isnt a "thing" etta said that all coin flip scenarios assume a fair coin.  What could that mean?  Scenarios.  This was etta in "I know statistics" mode.  Almost as if he fancied himself an egghead.

Posted by fd343ny on 2/15/2014 9:13:00 PM (view original):
So the cited source says that weighted coin doesnt effect toss results in real life but remains an excellent way to learn probability lessons as a hypo

This would seem to be what we have seen in this thread.  One lesson learned is that with a sufficient number of die rolls or coin tosses, one expects to see one or more segments in which the results do not conform to the expected overall probability distribution.  And, we learn that attributing causation to those coincidental events is a mistake.  Surely, we now recognize, the SIM no more "decides" that a team should have an awful five minutes than does the coin decide that amongst 1000 tosses it should over some set of say 50 happen to be heads 40 times - no more than a die decides or is caused to roll a six 8 of 10 times at some point in 100 rolls.

now there may be real phenomena going on - bad mix of players - tiredness - adjustment - other -  but the mere fact that one can find a bad period tells one very little. 

Bottom line, and my only real point from the start, is that I'm surprised someone here would give my team that much credit.

I do think that outside of teams like Carroll, Ursinus, and maybe a couple of other games, we probably could as easily win as lose a lot of our games, and so given average luck would be a few games below .500. But I'm surprised that the people here that mostly think my team is terrible would take that position as well.

Whatever...some of you wouldn't be happy if you weren't finding some way to hate on me.

Posted by ettaexpress on 2/15/2014 10:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by arssanguinus on 2/15/2014 9:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 2/15/2014 9:13:00 PM (view original):
So the cited source says that weighted coin doesnt effect toss results in real life but remains an excellent way to learn probability lessons as a hypo

This would seem to be what we have seen in this thread.  One lesson learned is that with a sufficient number of die rolls or coin tosses, one expects to see one or more segments in which the results do not conform to the expected overall probability distribution.  And, we learn that attributing causation to those coincidental events is a mistake.  Surely, we now recognize, the SIM no more "decides" that a team should have an awful five minutes than does the coin decide that amongst 1000 tosses it should over some set of say 50 happen to be heads 40 times - no more than a die decides or is caused to roll a six 8 of 10 times at some point in 100 rolls.

now there may be real phenomena going on - bad mix of players - tiredness - adjustment - other -  but the mere fact that one can find a bad period tells one very little. 

No, no. The statistical test isn't valid unless you physically flip every single coin yourself. Roll every single dice by hand. All by himself Etta has overturned 215 years worth of statistics.

"single dice"....yeah you definitely know what you're talking about. LOL.

When you have no valid point on the topic being discussed, try to nitpick grammar instead.

Always the first choice of someone hitting above their weight class in a discussion.

Posted by ettaexpress on 2/15/2014 10:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 2/15/2014 9:13:00 PM (view original):
So the cited source says that weighted coin doesnt effect toss results in real life but remains an excellent way to learn probability lessons as a hypo

This would seem to be what we have seen in this thread.  One lesson learned is that with a sufficient number of die rolls or coin tosses, one expects to see one or more segments in which the results do not conform to the expected overall probability distribution.  And, we learn that attributing causation to those coincidental events is a mistake.  Surely, we now recognize, the SIM no more "decides" that a team should have an awful five minutes than does the coin decide that amongst 1000 tosses it should over some set of say 50 happen to be heads 40 times - no more than a die decides or is caused to roll a six 8 of 10 times at some point in 100 rolls.

now there may be real phenomena going on - bad mix of players - tiredness - adjustment - other -  but the mere fact that one can find a bad period tells one very little. 

Bottom line, and my only real point from the start, is that I'm surprised someone here would give my team that much credit.

I do think that outside of teams like Carroll, Ursinus, and maybe a couple of other games, we probably could as easily win as lose a lot of our games, and so given average luck would be a few games below .500. But I'm surprised that the people here that mostly think my team is terrible would take that position as well.

Whatever...some of you wouldn't be happy if you weren't finding some way to hate on me.

You're funny.

Posted by ettaexpress on 2/15/2014 10:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 2/15/2014 9:13:00 PM (view original):
So the cited source says that weighted coin doesnt effect toss results in real life but remains an excellent way to learn probability lessons as a hypo

This would seem to be what we have seen in this thread.  One lesson learned is that with a sufficient number of die rolls or coin tosses, one expects to see one or more segments in which the results do not conform to the expected overall probability distribution.  And, we learn that attributing causation to those coincidental events is a mistake.  Surely, we now recognize, the SIM no more "decides" that a team should have an awful five minutes than does the coin decide that amongst 1000 tosses it should over some set of say 50 happen to be heads 40 times - no more than a die decides or is caused to roll a six 8 of 10 times at some point in 100 rolls.

now there may be real phenomena going on - bad mix of players - tiredness - adjustment - other -  but the mere fact that one can find a bad period tells one very little. 

Bottom line, and my only real point from the start, is that I'm surprised someone here would give my team that much credit.

I do think that outside of teams like Carroll, Ursinus, and maybe a couple of other games, we probably could as easily win as lose a lot of our games, and so given average luck would be a few games below .500. But I'm surprised that the people here that mostly think my team is terrible would take that position as well.

Whatever...some of you wouldn't be happy if you weren't finding some way to hate on me.

Given your statistical profile and game results, I'd actually be expecting about 6-18 at this point. So congratulations. You are batting slightly above your talent, actually.

Posted by arssanguinus on 2/15/2014 10:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ettaexpress on 2/15/2014 10:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by arssanguinus on 2/15/2014 9:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 2/15/2014 9:13:00 PM (view original):
So the cited source says that weighted coin doesnt effect toss results in real life but remains an excellent way to learn probability lessons as a hypo

This would seem to be what we have seen in this thread.  One lesson learned is that with a sufficient number of die rolls or coin tosses, one expects to see one or more segments in which the results do not conform to the expected overall probability distribution.  And, we learn that attributing causation to those coincidental events is a mistake.  Surely, we now recognize, the SIM no more "decides" that a team should have an awful five minutes than does the coin decide that amongst 1000 tosses it should over some set of say 50 happen to be heads 40 times - no more than a die decides or is caused to roll a six 8 of 10 times at some point in 100 rolls.

now there may be real phenomena going on - bad mix of players - tiredness - adjustment - other -  but the mere fact that one can find a bad period tells one very little. 

No, no. The statistical test isn't valid unless you physically flip every single coin yourself. Roll every single dice by hand. All by himself Etta has overturned 215 years worth of statistics.

"single dice"....yeah you definitely know what you're talking about. LOL.

When you have no valid point on the topic being discussed, try to nitpick grammar instead.

Always the first choice of someone hitting above their weight class in a discussion.

LOL when you're trying to act like you're the authority on a matter, credibility counts.

When you make elementary mistakes, it erodes that credibility.

Posted by arssanguinus on 2/15/2014 10:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ettaexpress on 2/15/2014 10:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 2/15/2014 9:13:00 PM (view original):
So the cited source says that weighted coin doesnt effect toss results in real life but remains an excellent way to learn probability lessons as a hypo

This would seem to be what we have seen in this thread.  One lesson learned is that with a sufficient number of die rolls or coin tosses, one expects to see one or more segments in which the results do not conform to the expected overall probability distribution.  And, we learn that attributing causation to those coincidental events is a mistake.  Surely, we now recognize, the SIM no more "decides" that a team should have an awful five minutes than does the coin decide that amongst 1000 tosses it should over some set of say 50 happen to be heads 40 times - no more than a die decides or is caused to roll a six 8 of 10 times at some point in 100 rolls.

now there may be real phenomena going on - bad mix of players - tiredness - adjustment - other -  but the mere fact that one can find a bad period tells one very little. 

Bottom line, and my only real point from the start, is that I'm surprised someone here would give my team that much credit.

I do think that outside of teams like Carroll, Ursinus, and maybe a couple of other games, we probably could as easily win as lose a lot of our games, and so given average luck would be a few games below .500. But I'm surprised that the people here that mostly think my team is terrible would take that position as well.

Whatever...some of you wouldn't be happy if you weren't finding some way to hate on me.

Given your statistical profile and game results, I'd actually be expecting about 6-18 at this point. So congratulations. You are batting slightly above your talent, actually.

Doesn't feel like that. We were 8-12 and one of those was a thrown game (had I known we were going to beat B-W despite my best efforts, I would have tried to win the other one too). Now we just can't seem to catch a break and keep running into these bad stretches almost every game. It's not like we're being just overmatched, really.

Maybe next year we'll be winning those games. Certainly should.

I said from the start I was going to be reporting people for any insults or ad hominem attacks on me. I'm not going to be drawn into a situation to give the admins opportunity to give preferential treatment to veterans and exact asymmetric punishment on me like they did before.

Posted by kypride on 2/15/2014 11:41:00 AM (view original):
etta, noone has time to review all your games and decipher what you're learned about this game...geez. To assume that we'd even WANT to do that is the epitomy of arrogance.  Yet, if we post helpful tidbits about the game, and they just happens to fall within your realm of knowledge, you feel insulted that we didn't already know it. 

So, what you want is: 1) for us to read your play-by-plays
                                        2) make notes of what you've learned
                                        3) answer your questions, being careful not to tread on your sensitivites by mentioning something you already know.

Is that about it?

etta, you have a tendency to ignore some interesting observations. 

Posted by ettaexpress on 2/16/2014 5:02:00 AM (view original):
I said from the start I was going to be reporting people for any insults or ad hominem attacks on me. I'm not going to be drawn into a situation to give the admins opportunity to give preferential treatment to veterans and exact asymmetric punishment on me like they did before.

And yet you haven't reported yourself? How curious.

dice typo noted

also note lack of substantive rebuttal

and take special note that source cited by etta contradicted etta position - no answer

curious - what was the asymmetric punishment to which etta referred?

everyone...don't talk anymore...I want to see how many pages he types to himself.

Posted by arssanguinus on 2/16/2014 6:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by ettaexpress on 2/16/2014 5:02:00 AM (view original):
I said from the start I was going to be reporting people for any insults or ad hominem attacks on me. I'm not going to be drawn into a situation to give the admins opportunity to give preferential treatment to veterans and exact asymmetric punishment on me like they did before.

And yet you haven't reported yourself? How curious.

Hey etta, do you remember when you threatened two other users with violence in personal messages and then offered an open invitation to fight anybody at the airport in Minneapolis???