Odds of Jays signing Tanaka

[Laika]

ban angrioter plz

[Angrioter]

I second this!^^^^^^

 

Why?

[GD]

THERE ARE KIDS IN THIS THREAD OK

cf

[Angrioter]

PeddoAng bro, you're outta here!

 

C'mon bro. I'm a cool guy.

My wife hate me and Alex has done nothing so far. I'm not going through a good time!!

[Ziggyy108]

too many threads going goofy!!

[Boxcar]

How does a stupid thread like this get 6 pages? Also, lol @ somehow failing to incorporate a poll.

[Olerud363]

You can't accurately measure a physical process without disrupting the system. You have to analyze how you;ve changed the system and adjust accordingly. The second you do that you are adding error bars and degrees of uncertainty.

 

I think the the question is slightly different. Whether it is ever possible to have 50/50 odds. So if there is something you can measure, that has a discrete number of states and over time the states will occur in a known ratio.

[Olerud363]

If i remember right.. Even the coin flip is not 50/50.. I think theres some weight diff or something that gives heads a slight edge

 

Yes exactly. So the question for any chemistry/physicist types is whether or not there exists anything that would be 50/50.

[connorp]

I think the the question is slightly different. Whether it is ever possible to have 50/50 odds. So if there is something you can measure, that has a discrete number of states and over time the states will occur in a known ratio.

 

I waw just playing with coin flip..but why cant you have 50/50 odds? Say a friend takes two playing cards and puts them face down on a table. The cards are exact same on back and in every way of course. One is a king and one is a queen. He calls you over and asks you which one is king.

 

Even if you exercise that 1000 times and you get it right 70% of the time, the odds never change if it stays in the original scenario

[Olerud363]

I waw just playing with coin flip..but why cant you have 50/50 odds? Say a friend takes two playing cards and puts them face down on a table. The cards are exact same on back and in every way of course. One is a king and one is a queen. He calls you over and asks you which one is king.

 

Even if you exercise that 1000 times and you get it right 70% of the time, the odds never change if it stays in the original scenario

 

I would say the argument is that even things like coin flips and choosing cards are very slightly biased.

 

For all intents and purposes those things are 50/50. But there is some slight variation in turbulence effects on heads vs. tails side of the coin, or how the neurons in your friends brain fire, and your brain fire and how you choose the card that would make these things slightly different then 50/50 odds.

 

To quantify the odds exactly you would need to measure the exact state of the system down to all the molecuels in the air surrounding the coin, or into all the neurons in the card players brains. But by measuring this you would change the system. So (from what I have been told) it is impossible to know what the odds are with exact precision.

 

It is a little silly. You might have to choose cards or flip coins for 1 million years to see the bias appear.

 

But I was curious though if there are things that physicist or chemists think are truly 50/50. Something to do with particle charges or chemical isomers?? Maybe nothing can be known to be truly 50/50.

[connorp]

Idk.. To me if the pysical environment presents a 50/50 chance, i dont see a reason to go beyond that without it being pure conjecture.

 

Regardless of whether someone may be prgrammed to guess a certain way.. The odds of the gane dont change,..just the odds of what he might guess do. To me, theyre two diffferent animals if such a human tendency did exist..

 

* i know i forgot an "h" up there. Sloppy on iphone

[connorp]

Some mental masturbation going on ITT.

 

Well, thats what it is. You dont even need a physical enviroment. Mathematics give an absolute value to these things.

 

If i write down a number 1-4 hidden from view and ask you what number it is, your chances of getting it right are .25.. End of story

 

Also someone mentioned lotto and while its not 50/50, it can be reduced to an exact percentage. Think Mega Millions is 1 in 268m or something crazy like that

 

Now if you want to do a human study on what people guess more often..its an impossible task with endless randomness

Edited January 14, 2014 by connorp

[z3r0s]

Well, thats what it is. You dont even need a physical enviroment. Mathematics give an absolute value to these things.

 

If i write down a number 1-4 hidden from view and ask you what number it is, your chances of getting it right are .25.. End of story

 

Also someone mentioned lotto and while its not 50/50, it can be reduced to an exact percentage. Think Mega Millions is 1 in 268m or something crazy like that

 

Now if you want to do a human study on what people guess more often..its an impossible task with endless randomness

 

Without any real way to back it up, I'm almost certain that doing the same 'hidden number' experiment with a range of 1-2 would less close to 50-50 than a coin. It may be an impossible task to determine what percentage of people would guess 1 vs 2, but I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if a trend emerged quickly that dismissed the idea that it would be 50-50.

[NorthOf49]

Well, thats what it is. You dont even need a physical enviroment. Mathematics give an absolute value to these things.

 

If i write down a number 1-4 hidden from view and ask you what number it is, your chances of getting it right are .25.. End of story

 

Also someone mentioned lotto and while its not 50/50, it can be reduced to an exact percentage. Think Mega Millions is 1 in 268m or something crazy like that

 

Now if you want to do a human study on what people guess more often..its an impossible task with endless randomness

It won't be perfectly exact though. The lottery ping-pong balls will contain very slight bias, as will the people both creating and guessing the numbers.

[connorp]

Maybe in case of lottery you could claim physical bias with balls and all..idk.. So i will agree there..

 

But what percentage of people would guess a number is completely irrelevant to the odds of the game. Its a whole different animal. It does not change the odds in any way. The odds are an absolute number.

[NorthOf49]

Maybe in case of lottery you could claim physical bias with balls and all..idk.. So i will agree there..

 

But what percentage of people would guess a number is completely irrelevant to the odds of the game. Its a whole different animal. It does not change the odds in any way. The odds are an absolute number.

The system that selected the number would be biased. The odds wouldn't be uniform because the system would slightly favour certain numbers.

[connorp]

Again, it matters not if im bias iN picking a certain number or if people pick a certain number.

 

1-4 is a 25% chance. End.

 

Even if you did a study with 700 billion answers and you found that 33% of people guessed "4" ..

 

That means absolutely nothing. You cant ever change the mathematics. Its an absolute

[NorthOf49]

Again, it matters not if im bias iN picking a certain number or if people pick a certain number.

 

1-4 is a 25% chance. End.

 

Even if you did a study with 700 billion answers and you found that 33% of people guessed "4" ..

 

That means absolutely nothing. You cant ever change the mathematics. Its an absolute

I'm talking about what produces the number 1-4, the 'answer' to each trial in this scenario. Let's take the people guessers out of this.

 

With Tanaka the chance of each team signing him is not 1/30 since it is skewed by teams like the Yankees and Cubs. The same thing will happen here. The system that picks the number between 1 and 4 will always skew slightly away from 25% each -- it's impossible to devise a system that perfectly distributes the numbers.

[z3r0s]

Again, it matters not if im bias iN picking a certain number or if people pick a certain number.

 

1-4 is a 25% chance. End.

 

Even if you did a study with 700 billion answers and you found that 33% of people guessed "4" ..

 

That means absolutely nothing. You cant ever change the mathematics. Its an absolute

 

You seem to be talking about math (division specifically), not statistics. 1 / 4 is 25%. That is number, not odds.

[connorp]

You seem to be talking about math (division specifically), not statistics. 1 / 4 is 25%. That is number, not odds.

 

This is nitpicking. Say its two numbers. You can either say .50 chance, 50%, or 1 in 2 chance

 

If the lotto was truly a 1-268m chance to win, this is mirrored by an actual fraction or percentage

Edited January 14, 2014 by connorp

[connorp]

Eliminate Tanaka scenario as its very clearly not 1/30.

 

Given my example, 1-4.. If 700 billion people guessed the number 4 before me at a 33% rate.. You think my odds of getting it right will be more than 25% if i guess 4 because the people are more right than the odds?

[NorthOf49]

Eliminate Tanaka scenario as its very clearly not 1/30.

 

Given my example, 1-4.. If 700 billion people guessed the number 4 before me at a 33% rate.. You think my odds of getting it right will be more than 25% if i guess 4 because the people are more right than the odds?

No. I am wondering how your system spits out what the correct number will be. For the chance of each to be equally likely (at 25%), each actually must be equally likely. I am saying that is not possible. You cannot construct such a number-spitting system.

 

You can even assume that the 700 billion people guess the numbers evenly, since as you note they don't change the odds.

[connorp]

There doesnt need to be a number spitting system. Imagine coming up with a number was a single event and the 700 billion people guessed on that.

[connorp]

s***.. When JFAS steps out of a statistical probability discussion, we've clearly crossed the line:(

[connorp]

K. I waive white flag in chicken and the egg debate:)

 

..unless we want to go there and bring up evolution theories and such..lol

[KingKat]

s***.. When JFAS steps out of a statistical probability discussion, we've clearly crossed the line:(

 

It's really a metaphysics discussion at this point and a rather dry one at that.

[NorthOf49]

There doesnt need to be a number spitting system. Imagine coming up with a number was a single event and the 700 billion people guessed on that.

It doesn't matter how many numbers are generated. Your brain will be filled with bias while you decide what that one number will be. We're an imperfect species... you'll always stray towards certain numbers (even if by only imperceptible amounts). They will not be equally likely to be picked by you.

 

But yeah, this discussion is pretty stupid and isn't progressing.

[connorp]

Nobody needs your literal monkey ass comments BTS:P

[connorp]

Lol.. Was just remembering all my 200 post count threads with Nox back in the day doing that s*** back and forth

 

Too much f'n time on my hands maybe:(

[connorp]

After witnessing the weird threads with King, im worried about what that "assault" might've entailed:(