DiscussMormonism.com

Kickoff is less than an hour away.

If BYU loses tonight, Utah will have won every game against BYU this decade.

10 years, folks. If BYU loses, it's clearly no longer a rivalry.

I hope BYU can pull it off, but I have to be realistic. Independence (and Utah going to the PAC 12) completely killed BYU sports, in my opinion.

Well. Subgenius down in the Paradise forum has been educating us on statistics. According to his advanced very best statistical analysis technique BYU has a 100% chance of winning if they win and a 100% chance of losing if they lose.

You’re welcome.

- Doc

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:Well. Subgenius down in the Paradise forum has been educating us on statistics. According to his advanced very best statistical analysis technique BYU has a 100% chance of winning if they win and a 100% chance of losing if they lose.

You’re welcome.

- Doc

Well, that sucked!


Congrats to the Utes!

I hate that I still like BYU football. Ugh

It's not too late to convert. GO UTES!

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:Well. Subgenius down in the Paradise forum has been educating us on statistics. According to his advanced very best statistical analysis technique BYU has a 100% chance of winning if they win and a 100% chance of losing if they lose.

You’re welcome.

- Doc

Listen to Mr Vegas, pretending that the same game will be played 1000 times.

subgenius wrote:Listen to Mr Vegas, pretending that the same game will be played 1000 times.

As is often the case with you, that comment makes no sense whatsoever!

Gunnar wrote:

subgenius wrote:Listen to Mr Vegas, pretending that the same game will be played 1000 times.

As is often the case with you, that comment makes no sense whatsoever!

What subbie unartfully attempted to say is Dr. Cam's comment only makes sense if one could play the same game over and over for the "odds" of a win or loss to be anything other than 100%. Which is dumb, to be clear.

What subbie is trying to argue is that post hoc one shouldn't talk about odds or chances because once something has happened it has happened. And prior to the event happening one is only guessing at the outcome because what happens is what happens and it could be the so-called most probable outcome, the least probable outcome, or a black swan unforeseen outcome.

Take his other "Vegas" claim that the odds of one winning are greatest with the first game one plays no matter what game that is. I believe what subbie is trying to say is that because the house has an edge, the "odds" are the longer one plays the more likely one is to lose money simply because the house edge means the house will win more often than the player. So if you play one hand of blackjack, the odds of winning a particular hand of blackjack against the house is something like 42%. And the odds of continuing to win go down with each hand based on simple statistics. But from hand to hand, the odds of winning any given hand is essentially 42% unless one uses card counting or the like which is illegal in casinos for a reason. The best I can tell is subbie is saying that if one plays enough games one will eventually arrive at something near the house edge such that the odds of winning any particular hand are irrelevant. But maybe not. Either way, it's missing something critical about how odds work. In this case, for the house edge to become evident in one's particular gambling outcome one would have to play thousands and thousands of games to the point it would be absurd to describe it as 100% inevitable the house will win X-amount of one's money so the house edge is actually the odds of winning.

Subgenius at science school:



- Doc