Posted by ettaexpress on 2/15/2014 12:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 2/15/2014 6:36:00 AM (view original):

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

Posted by fd343ny on 2/14/2014 10:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ettaexpress on 2/14/2014 1:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 2/14/2014 1:19:00 PM (view original):
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results."   

this quotation - which may or may not properly be attributed to Einstein - applies in many ways here.

relevant to posters commenting in this thread

relevant to etta failure to be satisfied with the SIM

less relevant to ability to find in a play by play a sequence in which there is a very bad 3 or 5 minute stretch - if one tossed a coin 1000 times one would almost surely be able to identify a shocking 50 toss segment of that sequence

Actually, I haven't been doing the same thing over and over, or anything close.

The implication is evidence of your ignorance with regard to my team and what's been done. 

So you're implying that my team has had an equal chance to win those games (a coin toss). OK, so why hasn't my team put on such runs to win more games? Just unlucky? 

1. not an implication - it is your inference and your inference is mistaken
2. I did not imply that any team has a 50-50 chance of winning games - you appear to be assuming mistakenly that I was saying something very simplistic - each game is composed of multiple events - like 1000 coin tosses - and no one said that each coin toss is 50-50 - again you are making mistakenly simplistic assumptions.  One might think of the game as consisting of a markov chain of a very large number of events.  The simple point of the coin analogy is that if one looks in events that have a meaningful random component for sets of coincidental data one will find them - but they will mean nothing or nearly nothing about causation or the operation of the system.
3. you ignored the application of the quotation to other posters - who make comments in which they offer analysis of results you report and appear to be surprised at the nature of your reactions - one should not be surprised.

It is disappointing to me that you would make such simplistic and superficial inferences and assumptions in reading posts that are clear..

Yay more infer vs. imply games! That's just what we need. My point is, and this is absolutely undeniable, that you clearly lack knowledge of my team if you think I'm doing the same things over and over again.

2. Exactly what do you think is the chance of a coin landing one side up vs. the other? There's no simplistic assumption there, only a simple fact. You're the one that brought in the coin toss analogy -- if you essentially say that everything that happens in the game is a coin flip, then you are saying that the result of the game is the combined result of many coin flips, which while the full data set would of course be much different, the probability of that combined result tending toward one direction or another (not being right on the mean) is 50%. So any deviation from that would be randomness, or "luck". The logical breakdown here, of course, is in saying that a bad 3-5 min stretch is caused by a series of 50-50 coin tosses. That leads to the obvious logical follow-up that other "stretches" of the game are governed by those same coin tosses which resolve themselves in a more statistically likely fashion, leading to the game's result being largely a function of that anomalous period. Of course, we know that's not how it works, but those are the logical extensions of your flawed analogy.

What was clear was that you made a bad analogy. What wasn't clear, at least to you until now, is why. It's disappointing to me that I have to break down something so simple to such an elementary level in order for you to have a chance to understand what you yourself said.

exactly - toss a coin 1000 times to simulate - roughly - 1000 events in a game (not game results) - and one will find stretches where there is a huge preponderance of heads.  One could find those coincidental events - like your 5 minute slumps - remarkable and attribute them to the SIM deciding to have lots of heads - or one could realize that it is how large numbers of events behave.


what has not changed is your analysis - never said your game plans didnt change....although YOU said at one point that you were giving up game planning - but you must have been misrepresenting your actions when you said that......but I digress - your analysis of SIM results is the same web of mistaken inferences - it is insulting to all posters that you fail to understand the basics

your persistent mischaracterization of simple comments and obvious fundamentals of probability behavior is insulting and frustrating. 

yet, it is exactly what all posters should expect - no reason to expect etta's comments or analysis to change

Yes, changing my mind after the fact clearly means I'm misrepresenting at the time. Fact is other than changing a few depth chart things and changing to fatigue for subs, I didn't game plan much for this game. I was trying to lose to B-W but apparently didn't try hard enough because we won and so then it didn't make sense to tank for the 6 seed anymore.

This is the probability of getting 50 heads in a row: 8.8817842e-16. So by this we can see that even less likely versions of your original proposed 50 toss anomaly carry far more remote probabilities than you represent them to have, else you wouldn't have even brought up the chance of it happening, so remote that chance is.

But I'm misrepresenting probability....riiiiiiiiight.

That would be the chance that fifty heads in a row occurs if you do only fifty tosses.  That is different from "What is the chance that a sequence of fifty straight heads will occur during a thousand tosses."

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

Posted by terps21234 on 2/14/2014 10:50:00 PM (view original):
Jesus ******* christ, will somebody shut this ************ up. At no point in this thread did anyone say u were stupid, didn't know anything, or u were ignorant. You're here to bash anyone who doesn't agree with u. REPORT ME *****!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Done.

Why U mad bro???

Posted by ettaexpress on 2/15/2014 1:00:00 PM (view original):
LOL this is help? Wow. I think about two posts on this thread so far would fit that description for me.

50 in a row is easy math with the google. So how does one define "huge preponderance" then? 48 out of 50? 45 out of 50? Surely has to be at least 45 right? At what number out of 50 do you think the probability increases to even 1%? Bottom line is he made a bad analogy. It also wasn't helpful in any way toward furthering knowledge of the game, only making excuses for the sim.

bad analogy? the sim is, in simplistic form, a series of 1000 or so weighted coin flips. most likely, less than 1000. its not even really an analogy, hes just straight up describing something for what it is. not exactly right on some of the parameters, but as far as things go, its pretty darn close to the real thing.

if you have any interest in actual statistical discussions, you don't just pick "50 in a row" - that is a complete joke. its still pretty simple math to pick something reasonable. you will never find anything remotely like 50 in a row in any simulation output here in HD - i challenge you to try - that would effectively be like "team A scores! team A steals the ball. team A scores! team B throws the ball out of bounds. team A scores!" and on and on in the PBP. you talk about bad analogies, and then come out with this 50 in a row nonsense? come on...

Posted by arssanguinus on 2/15/2014 1:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ettaexpress on 2/15/2014 12:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 2/15/2014 6:36:00 AM (view original):

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

Posted by fd343ny on 2/14/2014 10:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ettaexpress on 2/14/2014 1:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 2/14/2014 1:19:00 PM (view original):
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results."   

this quotation - which may or may not properly be attributed to Einstein - applies in many ways here.

relevant to posters commenting in this thread

relevant to etta failure to be satisfied with the SIM

less relevant to ability to find in a play by play a sequence in which there is a very bad 3 or 5 minute stretch - if one tossed a coin 1000 times one would almost surely be able to identify a shocking 50 toss segment of that sequence

Actually, I haven't been doing the same thing over and over, or anything close.

The implication is evidence of your ignorance with regard to my team and what's been done. 

So you're implying that my team has had an equal chance to win those games (a coin toss). OK, so why hasn't my team put on such runs to win more games? Just unlucky? 

1. not an implication - it is your inference and your inference is mistaken
2. I did not imply that any team has a 50-50 chance of winning games - you appear to be assuming mistakenly that I was saying something very simplistic - each game is composed of multiple events - like 1000 coin tosses - and no one said that each coin toss is 50-50 - again you are making mistakenly simplistic assumptions.  One might think of the game as consisting of a markov chain of a very large number of events.  The simple point of the coin analogy is that if one looks in events that have a meaningful random component for sets of coincidental data one will find them - but they will mean nothing or nearly nothing about causation or the operation of the system.
3. you ignored the application of the quotation to other posters - who make comments in which they offer analysis of results you report and appear to be surprised at the nature of your reactions - one should not be surprised.

It is disappointing to me that you would make such simplistic and superficial inferences and assumptions in reading posts that are clear..

Yay more infer vs. imply games! That's just what we need. My point is, and this is absolutely undeniable, that you clearly lack knowledge of my team if you think I'm doing the same things over and over again.

2. Exactly what do you think is the chance of a coin landing one side up vs. the other? There's no simplistic assumption there, only a simple fact. You're the one that brought in the coin toss analogy -- if you essentially say that everything that happens in the game is a coin flip, then you are saying that the result of the game is the combined result of many coin flips, which while the full data set would of course be much different, the probability of that combined result tending toward one direction or another (not being right on the mean) is 50%. So any deviation from that would be randomness, or "luck". The logical breakdown here, of course, is in saying that a bad 3-5 min stretch is caused by a series of 50-50 coin tosses. That leads to the obvious logical follow-up that other "stretches" of the game are governed by those same coin tosses which resolve themselves in a more statistically likely fashion, leading to the game's result being largely a function of that anomalous period. Of course, we know that's not how it works, but those are the logical extensions of your flawed analogy.

What was clear was that you made a bad analogy. What wasn't clear, at least to you until now, is why. It's disappointing to me that I have to break down something so simple to such an elementary level in order for you to have a chance to understand what you yourself said.

exactly - toss a coin 1000 times to simulate - roughly - 1000 events in a game (not game results) - and one will find stretches where there is a huge preponderance of heads.  One could find those coincidental events - like your 5 minute slumps - remarkable and attribute them to the SIM deciding to have lots of heads - or one could realize that it is how large numbers of events behave.


what has not changed is your analysis - never said your game plans didnt change....although YOU said at one point that you were giving up game planning - but you must have been misrepresenting your actions when you said that......but I digress - your analysis of SIM results is the same web of mistaken inferences - it is insulting to all posters that you fail to understand the basics

your persistent mischaracterization of simple comments and obvious fundamentals of probability behavior is insulting and frustrating. 

yet, it is exactly what all posters should expect - no reason to expect etta's comments or analysis to change

Yes, changing my mind after the fact clearly means I'm misrepresenting at the time. Fact is other than changing a few depth chart things and changing to fatigue for subs, I didn't game plan much for this game. I was trying to lose to B-W but apparently didn't try hard enough because we won and so then it didn't make sense to tank for the 6 seed anymore.

This is the probability of getting 50 heads in a row: 8.8817842e-16. So by this we can see that even less likely versions of your original proposed 50 toss anomaly carry far more remote probabilities than you represent them to have, else you wouldn't have even brought up the chance of it happening, so remote that chance is.

But I'm misrepresenting probability....riiiiiiiiight.

That would be the chance that fifty heads in a row occurs if you do only fifty tosses.  That is different from "What is the chance that a sequence of fifty straight heads will occur during a thousand tosses."

Isn't this the definition of gambler's fallacy? That the outcome of the next trial has something to do with the outcome of previous ones?

The maximum number of tosses you can make to get 50 heads in a row is 50. What happened before or after that is irrelevant to that sequence.

No. Not even close. The chance that a run if fifty will occur sometime during a thousand trials is, factually, higher than the chance that a run of fifty will occur in only fifty trials. You are showing a form of statistical ignorance just as bad as the gambler's fallacy.

Posted by gillispie1 on 2/15/2014 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ettaexpress on 2/15/2014 1:00:00 PM (view original):
LOL this is help? Wow. I think about two posts on this thread so far would fit that description for me.

50 in a row is easy math with the google. So how does one define "huge preponderance" then? 48 out of 50? 45 out of 50? Surely has to be at least 45 right? At what number out of 50 do you think the probability increases to even 1%? Bottom line is he made a bad analogy. It also wasn't helpful in any way toward furthering knowledge of the game, only making excuses for the sim.

bad analogy? the sim is, in simplistic form, a series of 1000 or so weighted coin flips. most likely, less than 1000. its not even really an analogy, hes just straight up describing something for what it is. not exactly right on some of the parameters, but as far as things go, its pretty darn close to the real thing.

if you have any interest in actual statistical discussions, you don't just pick "50 in a row" - that is a complete joke. its still pretty simple math to pick something reasonable. you will never find anything remotely like 50 in a row in any simulation output here in HD - i challenge you to try - that would effectively be like "team A scores! team A steals the ball. team A scores! team B throws the ball out of bounds. team A scores!" and on and on in the PBP. you talk about bad analogies, and then come out with this 50 in a row nonsense? come on...

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. Not blaming you, you didn't make the flawed analogy, but just saying.

I agree with you that you'd never find anything remotely like 50 in a row (well technically you could, but the chances are practically 0) ...that was my point. If you prefer another definition of "huge preponderance"...it's still going to be the same story. My guess is that you don't get to a reasonable probability until the definition is weakened to less than 40 of 50. So yes, I'm talking about a bad analogy. It wasn't my analogy to start with. 

In other words, the previous events have no influence on the next one. Absolutely true. Yet given that, the chance that a run of fifty will occur somewhere in 1000 trials IS higher than the chance that a run of fifty will occur in fifty trials.

Posted by arssanguinus on 2/15/2014 3:17:00 PM (view original):
In other words, the previous events have no influence on the next one. Absolutely true. Yet given that, the chance that a run of fifty will occur somewhere in 1000 trials IS higher than the chance that a run of fifty will occur in fifty trials.

Both are so near zero as to make the difference negligible, but yes, technically that's also correct.

No. Not technically, absolutely. And you would be surprised how much higher the chances can be in many cases. Especially if you aren't requiring fifty in a row - like he wasn't.

Even at 40 of 50, I think the chances would be very small, though I didn't bother to calculate it.

Bottom line is not even I think the sim is so terrible as to make such a coin flip analogy useful. You can say that in a game between evenly matched teams, just 1 or 2 coin flip plays could make the difference, but then that would require allowing that my team had done something right in the contest to get to the position where the game became a coin flip.

Given the narrative that my team is fit for circular filing and nothing else, that would be hard for some people to do.

Ages ago, one could find in the back of intro stat books tables of random numbers.  This discussion reminds me of my high school classmate who was bored in class, found several consecutive lines that ended in a zero and declared that they cant really be random if that is happening. 

Riveting tale, chap. Shall we enjoy a round of lime rickeys before we retire at half past five? The early bird catches the worm, you know.

Posted by ettaexpress on 2/15/2014 3:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 2/15/2014 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ettaexpress on 2/15/2014 1:00:00 PM (view original):
LOL this is help? Wow. I think about two posts on this thread so far would fit that description for me.

50 in a row is easy math with the google. So how does one define "huge preponderance" then? 48 out of 50? 45 out of 50? Surely has to be at least 45 right? At what number out of 50 do you think the probability increases to even 1%? Bottom line is he made a bad analogy. It also wasn't helpful in any way toward furthering knowledge of the game, only making excuses for the sim.

bad analogy? the sim is, in simplistic form, a series of 1000 or so weighted coin flips. most likely, less than 1000. its not even really an analogy, hes just straight up describing something for what it is. not exactly right on some of the parameters, but as far as things go, its pretty darn close to the real thing.

if you have any interest in actual statistical discussions, you don't just pick "50 in a row" - that is a complete joke. its still pretty simple math to pick something reasonable. you will never find anything remotely like 50 in a row in any simulation output here in HD - i challenge you to try - that would effectively be like "team A scores! team A steals the ball. team A scores! team B throws the ball out of bounds. team A scores!" and on and on in the PBP. you talk about bad analogies, and then come out with this 50 in a row nonsense? come on...

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. Not blaming you, you didn't make the flawed analogy, but just saying.

I agree with you that you'd never find anything remotely like 50 in a row (well technically you could, but the chances are practically 0) ...that was my point. If you prefer another definition of "huge preponderance"...it's still going to be the same story. My guess is that you don't get to a reasonable probability until the definition is weakened to less than 40 of 50. So yes, I'm talking about a bad analogy. It wasn't my analogy to start with. 

as if thats really a thing? seriously? weighted coin flips are discussed all the time, even in the most elementary statistics classes. maybe you assume a fair coin, fair and weighted coins are both used all the time in very basic statistical analysis.

ill take fd's approach... i am reminded of a time when prior (and more interesting) version of a certain person claimed that because there were two outcomes - the sun could come up tomorrow - or it could not - that there must be a 50% chance of either. its sad we are back there :(

let's review

fd - "less relevant to ability to find in a play by play a sequence in which there is a very bad 3 or 5 minute stretch - if one tossed a coin 1000 times one would almost surely be able to identify a shocking 50 toss segment of that sequence"

etta - "So you're implying that my team has had an equal chance to win those games (a coin toss). OK, so why hasn't my team put on such runs to win more games? Just unlucky? "

how you went from that to it must be 50/50 is beyond me. even if they are fair coin flips, the chance you would see something more reasonable, like 40/50, is way less than the stuff you are posting about being outside of the statistical norm. i'm not sure why you are even arguing this point, the bottom line is a 5 minute bad stretch is perfectly reasonable and it happens all the time. as a basketball fan, you must know that. why get into statistical arguments if thats not your thing, AND its not even necessary?

for what its worth, coin flip analogies have been used to represent the sim here hundreds of times, and you are the first to really object to that model. maybe its because you are unfamiliar with weighted coin flips or whatever. the point is its a series of random evens with some probability, and in that sense, its a great analogy. its why so many people go to it to describe the simulation.

Maybe he'd prefer it's a roll of the dice?