Feeling Nos_sturt_damus-like

[thesheedera]

Quote:

---

I like your analogy, but in it, there is no expected outcome in walking across the street unless you want to suggest that the expected outcome is getting to the other side. In which case, you were lucky!

---

I'd say the expected outcome is that nothing significant happens. Which falls in the no man's land that is neither luck nore unluck.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

American Heritage Dictionary states Unlucky is:

#

# Not producing the desired outcome; disappointing.

---

By that definition every team in the lottery that doesn't win is unlucky.

[AtLaS]

Quote:

---

American Heritage Dictionary states Unlucky is:

#

# Not producing the desired outcome; disappointing.

---

I guess unlucky could have two definitions.

In your definition, Unlucky is defined as the lack of having luck.

In ours, it's losing something that you were favored to win.

Those are different meanings, and both are accurate IMO.

[thesheedera]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

American Heritage Dictionary states Unlucky is:

#

# Not producing the desired outcome; disappointing.

---

But that definition every team in the lottery that doesn't win is unlucky.

---

Also by that definition, every team that would like to win the lottery but that isn't even in the lottery and doesn't win the lottery is unlucky.

Even though a great deal of luck probably went into their good record which kept them out of the lottery to begin with.

[AtLaS]

Quote:

---

Actually, with probability the prior outcomes in a series of lotteries have no impact on future probability. Each is an independent event. Thus, if we won 10 lotteries in a row or lost 10 in a row it would not affect our probability of winning the 2006 lottery - 25%.

---

Yeah I know, that's what Vegas does with the (Roulette?) wheel. Players choose red or black and they have a screen showing what the last colors landed on. Even if it landed on black 20 times in a row, there's still only a 50% chance that it lands on red the next time.But there is another way to look at it. By the law of averages, if you flip a coin twice, there is a 75% chance that at least ONE lands on heads. That's talking about multiple chances though, you're talking about each individual one.

[exodus]

looking back at the thread this quote from sturt is what got things started.

Quote:

---

BK's "luck" has been good and bad... mostly bad until this past off-season. Yet, when the guy finally has something fall his way, you would disparage the whole enchilada as if he were just lucky.

---

So he was arguing not that BK didn't have good luck but that he had bad luck.

[exodus]

Another sturt quote

Quote:

---

Is it, or is it not "unlucky" to have to move down from the slot where, otherwise you would have drafted?

---

*bites tongue painfully*I sure picked a bad time to make this bet.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

But there is another way to look at it. By the law of averages, if you flip a coin twice, there is a 75% chance that at least ONE lands on heads. That's talking about multiple chances though, you're talking about each individual one.

---

I don't think that is technically the law of averages, but I totally agree with this point. If you had a situation where you were looking at multiple flips or lotteries happening in the future you could work out probabilities and say that a team with a 50% chance to win (each time) that doesn't win at least once in two tries is unlucky.However, just because the odds of not winning at least once in 3 tries are 12.5% doesn't mean that the odds of winning the next flip are anything but 50% after the first two produced no wins. The original quote here suggested that the Hawks' odds of winning were better because of the law of averages.

[Lascar78]

Quote:

---

If I'm in a raffle that has 100 tickets and I have 25 of those tickets and I lose... Yes, I'm am unlucky. It's no different if I'm in the raffle that has 100 tickets and I have 95 of those and I lose... I'm still unlucky (If that is a word).

---

Wow. Just wow. You don't see the difference between a case where you were expected to lose (75% chance of losing, which is well over 50%, which means you were expected to lose) and a case where you were expected to win (5% chance of losing

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If I'm in a raffle that has 100 tickets and I have 25 of those tickets and I lose... Yes, I'm am unlucky. It's no different if I'm in the raffle that has 100 tickets and I have 95 of those and I lose... I'm still unlucky (If that is a word).

---

Wow. Just wow. You don't see the difference between a case where you were expected to lose (75% chance of losing, which is well over 50%, which means you were expected to lose) and a case where you were expected to win (5% chance of losing

Wow.

---

This may be D baiting exodus.

[AtLaS]

Quote:

---

However, just because the odds of not winning at least once in 3 tries are 12.5% doesn't mean that the odds of winning the next flip are anything but 50% after the first two produced no wins.

---

Yeah I agree with that completely.

Quote:

---

The original quote here suggested that the Hawks' odds of winning were better because of the law of averages.

---

lol yeah, the scenario I stated probably isn't called the "law of averages", I just went with that because it was already stated. There is actually a name for it though, just can't remember exactly.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If I'm in a raffle that has 100 tickets and I have 25 of those tickets and I lose... Yes, I'm am unlucky. It's no different if I'm in the raffle that has 100 tickets and I have 95 of those and I lose... I'm still unlucky (If that is a word).

---

Wow. Just wow. You don't see the difference between a case where you were expected to lose (75% chance of losing, which is well over 50%, which means you were expected to lose) and a case where you were expected to win (5% chance of losing

Wow.

---

This may be D baiting exodus.

---

I didn't bite but i actually think he really believes what he wrote.

I also think sturt believes it is bad luck whenever you move down on lottery day regardless of what the odds are.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If I'm in a raffle that has 100 tickets and I have 25 of those tickets and I lose... Yes, I'm am unlucky.

---

So you have a 75% chance of losing, you lose, and you think you're unlucky?All that means is that you didn't get lucky. There's middle ground between lucky and unlucky.

Quote:

---

It's no different if I'm in the raffle that has 100 tickets and I have 95 of those and I lose... I'm still unlucky (If that is a word).

---

In this case you have a 5% chance of losing, which is much lower than 75% chance of losing, wich IS VERY DIFFERENT.95% chance of winning and you lose - that's bad luck.25% chance of winning and you lose - that's normal.The line you draw is somehere around 50%.If you have a 51% chance of winning and you lose you're slightly unlucky.

Quote:

---

The point that you miss is that Lucky has the line drawn between winning and not winning.

---

Not true at all. First of all sports are not games of chance. You have a direct influence on the outcome. You can be very unlucky and win a game. You can be very lucky and lose a game. If you're supposed to win and something unlucky occurs that cause you to lose, you are unlucky. If you play bad and lose, that's not unluck.If you're supposed to win statistically speaking in a game of chance and you lose, you're unlucky, and you're unlucky to the degree with which you were supposed to win.95% and 25% are VERY different odds of winning, therefore you are more unlucky to lose with a 95% chance of winning than with a 25% chance of winning.

---

---

This is exactly why a team should never concern themselves with tanking. Excellent explanation. And this was the main problem that I was trying to explain with the draft lottery last spring, but kinda got ripped for by that tank crowd that thought that increasing our "luck" by 3%, would be significant. People think a 25% chance of winning that top slot, gives them a great chance at winning. No it doesn't. It only gives you a better chance than any other team, to win. But you have to realize that the 25% that the worst team owns, has to go up against the 75% chance that one of the other 13 teams has to win that top spot. You're still likely to lose 3 out of 4 times. Losing is the expected outcome. Winning it would be luck.What screwed Boston last year, is that not only did they not win that top slot, Portland, a team that only had a 5% chance to win, got the #3 slot.So when it came time for the 2nd spot lottery selection, Boston's chance of winning that 2nd spot, didn't increase much at all. LOL, Seattle gets the 2nd spot. And to Boston's disdain, they also only had a 5% chance.That pretty much left the total of lottery combinations left on the board at around 900 out of the orignal 1,000, once it was time to select for the 3rd spot.Boston had one last chance to get in the top 3 by obtaining that 3rd spot, and I think their chance to win at that point, was still under 30%. Yes, they had a better shot than any other particular team in the lottery. But if this was Vegas, and you had to place a bet between Boston getting the final slot, or the rest of the field getting the slot, you'd obviousy bet on the field. Good thing the Hawks were part of "the field".The entire process is nothing but luck because the odds are always aganst you losing, even when your team's individual chances are better than another team's individual chances. And Boston got extremely unlucky, as well as Memphis and Milwaukee. If you're one of the top 3 teams in the lottery, you know it's pretty much the kiss of death when you see a team move up well before they even announce the top 3 selections. The team that moves up almost always has moved up to that #1 or #2 slot.In the actual process before the results are announced, a team like Boston would always prefer the #2 and #3 teams to get the top 2 picks, if they couldn't get one of the top 2. At least then, Boston would have over a 40% chance to get that 3rd spot. While Boston would still have the odds against them, their chance to get "lucky" would be better, with all of the combinations that #2 and #3 had, out of the way.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

The entire process is nothing but luck because the odds are always aganst you losing

---

That should be winning.

BTW Memphis had the worst record last year not Boston. I agree with your post though.

As many times as we have been high in the lottery you would think everyone would understand it by now.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Quote:

---

What screwed Boston last year, is that not only did they not win that top slot, Portland, a team that only had a 5% chance to win, got the #3 slot.

---

obvious typo. I know Portland got the #1 spot.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The entire process is nothing but luck because the odds are always aganst you losing

---

That should be winning.

BTW Memphis had the worst record last year not Boston. I agree with your post though.

As many times as we have been high in the lottery you would think everyone would understand it by now.

---

I had Boston on the brain for some reason.

(( blaming the cold weather ))

Here's something to support what you're talking about though Ex. Say if the Hawks DID win the lottery. Are we lucky to win that top slot, then select a Greg Oden who couldn't play in his rookie year?

People would think the exact opposite about the Oden pick now, and hope and pray that he doesn't become the next Sam Bowie. This fan base would not only be scared to death of that, but this season might be in shambles, with Speedy not beilng able to play, and Sheden and Zaza playing even worse than last year. And good lord, imagine Horford in Memphis aongside Gasol.

Even if we got lucky and got the 2nd pick, would we still be lucky to get Durant, and possiby be forced to trade Marvin, just to make room for Durant? God forbid me if I say that I'd rather have Marvin than Durant right now.

We got lucky to pick #3. But we may have gotten more lucky picking there, than 1 or 2 spots higher.

Because Horford doesn't have many glaring weaknesses, and because he's not prone to injury, he may turn out to be the best pick for the Hawks.

That's not luck, that is God blessing us.

blessing > luck

Being "blessed" in that situation, is gettng lucky in a situation tat you really didn't feel all that lucky about.

Good lord @ this team with Durant shooting 40% FG, and not being strong enough to even handle the average 3 in this league. We'd be dead.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Are we lucky to win that top slot, then select a Greg Oden who couldn't play in his rookie year?

---

I can see your point on Durant but not Oden. I would bet my car that BK would trade Horford for Oden right now in a heartbeat.

Quote:

---

God forbid me if I say that I'd rather have Marvin than Durant right now.

---

LOL well timed baiting of Diesel. That will really put him to the test.

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

American Heritage Dictionary states Unlucky is:

#

# Not producing the desired outcome; disappointing.

---

But that definition every team in the lottery that doesn't win is unlucky.

---

Also by that definition, every team that would like to win the lottery but that isn't even in the lottery and doesn't win the lottery is unlucky.

Even though a great deal of luck probably went into their good record which kept them out of the lottery to begin with.

---

Let me ask you...

Was our getting Horford and Law Luck or expected?

Moreover, in the circumstance, do you think Indiana Pacers fans feel like they were unlucky or it was expected?

[kelston827]

This thread, in all its crapiness, should be buried alive.

[Diesel]

I guess it depends on what you call BAD Luck...

The Dictionary Defines Bad Luck as:

an unpredictable outcome that is unfortunate

I guess where you and Sturt part ways is that you're trying to suggest that the statistics is the end all and be all of the situation ( WHo would have guessed) and Sturt therefore must believe that the outcome is unpredictable. Sadly Ex, Statistics means little to nothing and the results are closer to unpredictable than they are to statistically predictable.

Therefore Sturt's original use of Bad Luck... has merit.