Northclyde speaks onthe lottery and "the variable"

[Guest Walter]

...we have a 38.11% chance of a top 3 pick (and likely should have had a 48% chance)?

Anything else IS confusing the issue. If you can't argue against tanking with the odds AS THEY ARE NOW not in the middle of the draft , then you aren't making an argument at all but rather attempting to confuse the issue.

The fact is, I-F I were to use your method of argumentation I could make a wonderful claim that "our chances off a top 3 pick were 100%". Just think, if after the 4th draft place passes and our name has not been called, we have a 100% chance of getting a top pick. Similarly, you argue that:

Quote:

---

The odds of getting the #2 pick in the draft are DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY WHO GETS THE #1 PICK. This ish is not that hard to figure out.

---

First, we cannot know "WHO GETS THE #1 PICK" until all the other draft positions are revealed (in an inverse order). You know WHEN THE DRAFT IS OVER! So you can't begin to PREDICT anything based upon the conclusory draft pick and you can't argue that we shouldn't do what we can NOW based upon something we cannot even KNOW later.

Secondly, if you can indicate that our odds AS OF TODAY are anything less because our odds as of tomorrow may be different, I can simply agree but counter that they may be different BUT BETTER. At least with my scenario, knowing teams 14 through 4, we can actually predict something. We cannot even ever KNOW before we predict in your scenario, yet we are supposed to think only negatively how that might affect our chances. Hell, it might be us that wins the #1 pick, what are our chances NOW of us winning the #1 pick IF on May 22nd we win the #1 pick. That's what you seem to be arguing.

You're arguing that we shouldn't do what we can NOW based based upon what we know NOW, but rather should base our decision upon what we don't know now, cannot know before the draft is completed, and which could in actuality (though not as you describe it) be either equally either good or bad for our chances. It's certainly obfuscating. Most definitely confusing the issue.

W

[Guest Walter]

unlike with the red and white ball example, he wants to "predict" after the draft is fully revealed!

northcyde,

Quote:

---

The odds of getting the #2 pick in the draft are DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY WHO GETS THE #1 PICK. This ish is not that hard to figure out.

---

Actually, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO FIGURE OUT BEFOREHAND much less even now! The 1st pick is the last pick revealed (or it's revealed once the 2nd pick is announced). How do we compute the odds of anyone getting the 2nd pick unless we must first know the 1st pick given the 2nd pick's revelation preceeds the 1st?

Anyhow, amongst all this conditional probability scenarios are just as many that IMPROVE the Hawk's chances of winning a top 3 pick as losing it. Why northcyde thinks conditional probability only serves his side of the argument is beyond me. It equally serves both sides. What if I know the Hawks aren't picking 7th, 6th, or 5th? This conditional probability means our chances of picking 1, 2, or 3 just went up significantly! The ONLY purpose of these negative probability scenarios is to confuse. That's all. He cannot argue against the probabilites as they are now, so he must diminish and confuse.

Fact is we might win the 1st pick so I wonder how that impacts our odds of winning the 2nd pick (snicker) in this hind-sight prediction exercise in obfuscation.

W

[CBAreject]

Quote:

---

If you want to have total confidence in that 38% chance to get a top 3 pick, go right ahead.

---

That 38% figure is calculated through use of conditional probability. Most likely, an indidual who has devoted his career to prob/stats made such a calculation. He's likely a math PhD. It's not super difficult, and I could make an excel sheet and email it to you if you'd like to see how it's done. All this would be generously done for your education.

Anyway, how arrogant must you be to throw your hands up and say "aw, that 38% don't mean nuthin'"? Where is your math PhD? Have you ever taken a prob/stats course even?

Quote:

---

But let me ask you this, what is the chance that a team 5th - 14th will get a top 3 pick? Is it less than 38% or more than 38%?

---

This is completely irrelevant when discussing whether the 38% figure is accurate. Nonetheless, it can be calculated through conditional probability, but why would you care? If I spent 4 hours making the spreadsheet and getting a number for you, you'd just throw your hands up and say "aw, that don't mean nuthin' when y'all looks at the actual outcomes and odds."

Quote:

---

Our best shot to get into the top 3 comes if Memphis and Boston can get the #1 and #2 spot. Then, when that 3rd selection is chosen, we'll have a 21.6% chance at getting that 3rd pick ( 119 Hawk combinations divided by 551 total combinations that are valid ).

Simple mathematics people.

---

Nobody disputes this. Yes, it is simple mathematics to divide 119 into 551. These people to whom you condescend understand this. What you fail to understand is the slightly more involved mathematics that go into calculating the 38% figure.

Yes, that scenario you suggest is our best chance to get the 3rd spot. What you fail to realize is that the given scenario has a probability associated with it. You must sum the probabilities of all such scenarios that have the Hawks picking top 3 to get a total probability.

Diesel has had some epic and comical difficulties understanding how such a number is calculated.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Our best shot to get into the top 3 comes if Memphis and Boston can get the #1 and #2 spot. Then, when that 3rd selection is chosen, we'll have a

21.6%

chance at getting that 3rd pick ( 119 Hawk combinations divided by 551 total combinations that are valid ).

Simple mathematics people.

---

So you cannot "predict" anything. The 1 and 2 spots are the last two revealed. We'll already KNOW if we're top 3 by then. Once the 4th pick is called, we'll know whether we're in the top 3. Once the 5th pick is called, if our name hasn't been called, our chances of being in the top 3 skyrocket. What doesn't matter in terms of prediction, is who wins 1 or 2. We can't predict based upon those revelations what will already be known.

Simple mathematics? Yikes.

W

[exodus]

Last year's pre-lottery math discussion was much more fun than this. My cheeks were sore from laughing.

[CBAreject]

Quote:

---

Our best shot to get into the top 3 comes if Memphis and Boston can get the #1 and #2 spot. Then, when that 3rd selection is chosen, we'll have a 21.6% chance at getting that 3rd pick ( 119 Hawk combinations divided by 551 total combinations that are valid ).

---

I prematurely gave you credit for this. It's actually just as asinine as everything else you've said.

If we know that Memphis and Boston get #1 and #2, our probability is only 21.6%. That is lower than our 38% shot. On the other hand, if we know Memphis and Boston DO NOT get either of the top 2 picks, our chances to get a top 3 pick are MUCH HIGHER than 38%.

Our best chance of getting in the top 3 is if Memphis and Boston DO NOT get into the top 3. That would mean that at least 2 teams in the 4-14 group need to jump. Given that we are the most likely of said teams to jump, our odds would be maximized in such a scenario.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Didn't I say that I completely understood where you guys were coming from with how you calculated the probability? I've never disputed those numbers. I just dispute the significance of them before the lottery begins.

LOL @ your urn example. That's exactly how I would do it as well. That's an easy example.

The lottery is a "little" different than that though, and you know it.

The example you used sees "5" as the number of balls that will always be available in the 2nd selection. In the NBA lottery, the number of possible combinations left to select from can be anywhere from "750" to "999" when that 2nd selection comes down. You'll still use the same formula to calculate the probabilty, but the percentage you come up with, may not be indicitive of the actual scenario that comes down, depending on who gets that 1st pick. Why? Because we're talking about such a wide range that could go down, depending on who gets that #1 pick.

My standing the entire time, is that the percentage change from one spot, really isn't that significant, because a team is competing against the rest of the 13 teams in the lottery . . not just against one or two other teams. People have been crying about not being 3rd, instead of 4th . . which is silly to me.

All it takes is for your combination to pop up one time in the top 3. So I don't view the probability from a standpoint of our chances to get a top 3 pick. I view it from an individual standpoint, and see what our actual chances could be, as the lottery process develops position by position.

So where am I wrong in how I calculated the different scenarios that I came up with? I'm clearly stating what happens when we KNOW what the outcome of the 1st or 2nd picks are, and how many possible combinations are left.

I'm not the one that were trying to prove you guys wrong. What I definitely did, was try to give actual scenarios of what could happen, and how moving up or down a position in the draft, was really insignificant in the process.

If you don't believe that, then that's on you. But I'm just as comfortable at #4, as I would've been at #5 or even at #3. The "odds" are against us, no matter how you slice.

So I pose the same question to you, that I posed to Walter.

What are the chances of one of the teams 5th - 14th getting a top 3 pick? Is is lower or greater than 38%? And explain why.

[Lascar78]

Quote:

---

Last year's pre-lottery math discussion was much more fun than this. My cheeks were sore from laughing.

---

I was thinking about this also. Actually it was the post lottery discussion about pre-lottery odds. The best was Diesel making post after post making fun of me, thinking I had bailed when I was really busy trying to lay it all out in simple enough terms for him. That was funny stuff.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Didn't I say that I completely understood where you guys were coming from with how you calculated the probability? I've never disputed those numbers. I just dispute the significance of them before the lottery begins.

---

Actually, you dispute their importance at every point until the lottery ENDS.

Quote:

---

We can do a statistical average of our probabilites to get the #2 or #3 picks, and write down a percentage. But we truly won't know what our odds to get the #2 pick will be, UNTIL the #1 pick is determined

---

Until the #1 pick is determined (meaning revealed to us which means THE END OF THE DRAFT!) the significance of the lottery odds are disputable. I don't know what all that means. But either that's captain obvious, captain trivial or both to suggest that conditional odds are disputable until all picks have been decided and revealed.

None of this takes away from the fact that no team was considering such conditional probability when they were tanking, just good ol' fashioned "what are my odds RIGHT NOW" common sense. & regardless, just as much can improve our technical odds within the context of an lottery in progress as diminish them. This is just as much an argument FOR tanking as against it.

W

[CBAreject]

NC, this is just comedic. I appreciate your "LOL @" my urn example and "that's exactly how I would've done it". That's easy for you to say now, isn't it?

I ask again. Have you ever taken a prob/stats course? I have asked at least 3 times, but you can't seem to respond.

Quote:

---

That's an easy example.

The lottery is a "little" different than that though, and you know it.

---

I said as much. Didn't you see where I said it was an easy example? I used an easy, intuitive example (as I said) because it would be EASY FOR YOU TO SEE. You aren't good at understanding stuff, so I wanted to start with an easy example. I told you that I could do more complicated examples, but you failed to read where I said that.

So...you asked for it.

You have an urn filled with 3 types of balls: 3 red, 2 white, 1 blue. Here's your experiment:

1) You draw 1 ball.

2) After this drawing, you remove all balls matching the ball drawn first.

3) You draw a 2nd ball.

Here's your question: What is the probability of drawing a blue ball 2nd?

Here are your possibilities:

RB, WB (note if you draw the blue ball first, you can't draw it 2nd)

Here is your calculation:

RB = 3/6*1/3 = 3/18 = 2/12

*Note 3 reds out of 6 total; 3 reds removed, so 1 blue out of 3 remaining

WB = 2/6*1/4 = 2/24 = 1/12

*Note 2 whites out of 6 total; 2 whites removed, so 1 blue out of 4 remaining

RB + WB = 2/12 + 1/12 = 3/12 = 1/4

Notice that the number of balls changes for the 2nd drawing depending on what is drawn 1st. You would probably say that blue's "best chance of getting picked 2nd" would be if Red is picked 1st. This is because blue has a 1/3 chance of being picked 2nd if red is picked 1st but only a 1/4 chance of being picked 2nd if white is picked 1st. Notice that saying such a thing is a waste of breath and communicates a lack of understanding in conditional probability.

Quote:

---

My standing the entire time, is that the percentage change from one spot, really isn't that significant,

---

The 3rd team is 25% more likely to land a top 3 pick than the 4th team. Is 25% an insignificant increase?

If you had the bases loaded with 2 out in the bottom of the 9th of game 7 in the world series, would you rather have a .260 hitter up there or a .325 hitter? All it takes is one time to get the hit in that one at bat, so who cares which one is up there? The difference (25%) is "insignificant" according to you.

Quote:

---

So I pose the same question to you, that I posed to Walter.

What are the chances of one of the teams 5th - 14th getting a top 3 pick? Is is lower or greater than 38%? And explain why.

---

This is so stupid. The dumbest part is that you think it's profound. Why does it matter if it's greater or less than 38%? It's greater, of course, but what does that matter?

Explain why it's greater than 38%? For what reason?

[AtLaS]

Quote:

---

Oh, now I see. Only you can decide when it is appropriate to call someone "dumb". When you do it, it is just and righteous. When I do it, it's ego-stroking. Yes, now I follow. I'm glad you write the moral code for the rest of us. Now I know where to go when I need to settle a dilemma.

---

Either you have horrible reading comprehension, or you didn't read my post. I only namecall when some1 else namecalls. I don't initiate it. If someone calls me an "idiot" or "dumb" than I will respond the same..

Quote:

---

I'd be glad to know how exactly you know that I am the one "initiating the action".

---

First of all, I've seen your one sided and shifted (in your favor) arguments. You ALWAYS belittle people when they don't agree with your opinion, and call them "not true fans" or such, especially when pertaining to tanking. And with frequent regularity, you refer to people as "thoughtless," "wrong," "wasted their time," and other snide remarks that provoke confrontations.

You even said this yourself, IN THIS THREAD..

Quote:

---

Yeah, I can be a jerk...and I actually don't want to be. Will never deny that I'm not condescending, but man do people ask for it sometimes.

---

What does that mean to you? Unless you don't understand, it means that I'm right. I'm not saying you initiate the action everytime, but you certainly do it often.

[CBAreject]

Quote:

---

Either you have horrible reading comprehension, or you didn't read my post. I only namecall when some1 else namecalls. I don't initiate it. If someone calls me an "idiot" or "dumb" than I will respond the same..

---

Notice how you immediately resort to attacking my intellect. It's all silliness anyway. I'm pretty sure I have you lapped in every single academic area.

Besides which, horrible reading comprehension? What I've said is that you appear to believe that when you call someone dumb, it is justified. What do you use to justify it? Well, if they've insulted someone else, it's open season.

So, in your case it's justified, but in mine, it's not. You set yourself up as the moral authority here. I guess "do unto others as they have done unto you" is the AtLaSsholean rule by which all should live.

You see, retaliation is not more moral, my friend...at least not by anyone's standards but your own. And your own made up moral standards mean JACK SQUAT.

So, what was that again about my reading comprehension? You failed to understand my point. And they wonder why the SAT scores have dropped over the last 3 decades.

[CBAreject]

OK, so notice that you are the first one to reply to this thread. What did you call me? Had I even spoken to you or anyone else? Who did the initiating????? WHO DID THE INITIATING???? YOU. Self-righteous hypocrite, AtLaS, was the initiator.

AtLaS hot-headed reply

I guess you may justify this by saying I had said something to you prior to this offense. I guess the fact that we'd had disagreements before meant that you had a standing "gloves off" rule where you could immediately reply to any of my posts with "you are an idiot".

What a self-righteous hypocrite.

Notice that I calmly replied to you in this thread, but you responded with "Again, you are an idiot." WOW. WHAT A SELF-RIGHTEOUS HYPOCRITE.

YOU ARE A JOKE.

[AHF]

The urn example is a simplistic example of the math you need to do to calculate our current probability of being in the top 3. The math is not the exact same but the premise underlying that math is exactly the same. The followup example about the blue ball more closely mirrors the math to be done (but of course is simpler again) and is based on the exact same premise as both the original urn example and the actual nba lottery.

I don't endorse personal attacks on this or any other thread but cbareject's math is perfectly correct on the examples he has given and on the nba draft lottery.

The pre-drawing math on the 50% probability in the urn example is correct and the pre-drawing math on the 38% probability on our draft odds is also correct.

[AtLaS]

Quote:

---

You see, retaliation is not more moral, my friend...at least not by anyone's standards but your own.

---

So if someone hits you in the face, you'll just walk away?

[AtLaS]

First of all, it's funny that you didn't reply to any of my other quotes in my other post.

Quote:

---

Notice that I calmly replied to you in this thread, but you responded with "Again, you are an idiot." WOW. WHAT A SELF-RIGHTEOUS HYPOCRITE.

---

No, you have COMPLETELY skewed this in your favor, as I mentioned you always do, and knew you would. You had already BASHED everyone EARLIER in THAT WEEK (INCLUDING ME)!!

CBA's Original peronal attack thread, 5 days BEFORE my quote

This is with 50 games left in the season. You referred to SmooveTheFuture as a "numbskull" and when I replied to you with a REASONED post (NO PERSONAL ATTACKS), you replied with "Almost everything you say is wrong."

HYPOCRITE!!

[gsuteke]

Quote:

---

Yeah, I can be a jerk...and I actually don't want to be. Will never deny that I'm not condescending, but man do people ask for it sometimes. It's all the "LOL @ u" and "simple-minded" barbs. I'm not just trying to make a mockery of northclyde here. Trust me, if he phrased his post like "The way I see it...etc," I would patiently explain why I disagree.

---

let me give you a visual aid here. you are starting to sound like Walter.

[AtLaS]

Here's another CBA outlashing that was uncalled for

In this thread, you refer to us as "A bunch of sad Johnny come lately's." Then you say " All you sad folks who say "he's not proven" are kidding yourselves," as if everyone is completely wrong and you are right, when in fact you are just attacking for no reason..

Again, CBA you are a much bigger hypocrite than I am..

[gsuteke]

Quote:

---

Here's another CBA outlashing that was uncalled for

In this thread, you refer to us as "A bunch of sad Johnny come lately's." Then you say " All you sad folks who say "he's not proven" are kidding yourselves," as if everyone is completely wrong and you are right, when in fact you are just attacking for no reason..

Again, CBA you are a much bigger hypocrite than I am..

---

here's a good one

[AtLaS]

CBA, this is the original one, and it was on 1/14/07. Read this thread starting with post #188193. You tell me that "I am full of crap," you say "Great reading comprehension." You also say "I bet you got reamed on the SAT." That's attacking in it's purest form. I NEVER ATTACKED you before that, nor after, yet you continue to attack me throughout that thread, as if I was a complete delinquent. Hmm.. I wonder why I called you an idiot. In that thread, you also go on to say "This type of 'black-and-white', false dichotomy, fallacious thinking is typical of people with poor reading comprehension." YOU are the only true hypocrite..

If you fail to respond, I'll understand that you're a little short on words.. Have a nice day.