Lotto day countdown!
- Thread starter =LarryLegend=
- Start date
Seriously? OK.
We have a 78.5% chance of not getting the second pick, so if we get the second pick, we will also have defied the odds.
We have an 82.3% chance of not getting the third pick, so if we get the third pick, we will also have defied the odds.
We have a 64.2% chance of not getting the fourth pick, so if we get the fourth pick, we will also have defied the odds.
It would appear to the layman that no matter what happens, we will defy the odds. However, as a master of probability, I will point out that there is not an odds-on favorite (better than 50%) for any of the first 6 picks in the draft. Since this is the case, we have to default to the assumption that the team with the best odds will win each draft position. And that's where things start looking up for us. Not only do we have the highest probability of getting the first pick, we also have the highest probability of getting the second pick, and the highest probability of getting the third pick, AND the highest probability of getting the fourth pick. Thus, we do not even have to defy the odds to get FOUR CONSECUTIVE PICKS at the top of the draft! Odds are the fifth pick will belong to the Thunder, and the 6th-14th picks will not change hands. This of course means that the Wizards, Clippers, and Timberwolves will more than likely not get any lottery picks at all. Imagine having to break that news to a fan of those teams.
Yep, we are sitting pretty...
We have a 78.5% chance of not getting the second pick, so if we get the second pick, we will also have defied the odds.
We have an 82.3% chance of not getting the third pick, so if we get the third pick, we will also have defied the odds.
We have a 64.2% chance of not getting the fourth pick, so if we get the fourth pick, we will also have defied the odds.
It would appear to the layman that no matter what happens, we will defy the odds. However, as a master of probability, I will point out that there is not an odds-on favorite (better than 50%) for any of the first 6 picks in the draft. Since this is the case, we have to default to the assumption that the team with the best odds will win each draft position. And that's where things start looking up for us. Not only do we have the highest probability of getting the first pick, we also have the highest probability of getting the second pick, and the highest probability of getting the third pick, AND the highest probability of getting the fourth pick. Thus, we do not even have to defy the odds to get FOUR CONSECUTIVE PICKS at the top of the draft! Odds are the fifth pick will belong to the Thunder, and the 6th-14th picks will not change hands. This of course means that the Wizards, Clippers, and Timberwolves will more than likely not get any lottery picks at all. Imagine having to break that news to a fan of those teams.
Yep, we are sitting pretty...
You seem to have missed the points (though I was being quite sarcastic when I made it, so I can understand that). There really are two points.
1) There is no such thing as an accepted definition for "defying the odds". It's vernacular, not statistics. You appear to have adopted a fairly loose criterion, that is, that if something is less than 50% likely, that its occurrence qualifies as "defying the odds". I don't find 25% so particularly unlikely, but it's totally subjective.
2) In the scenario here (a lottery) exactly one outcome, no matter how unlikely, must occur. Look at it this way: flip a fair coin 100 times, and write down the results. Then ask yourself how likely that outcome was. Since we've assumed that the coin is fair, I don't even need to know what the outcome is to tell you what the likelihood of that particular outcome is: 1 in 2 raised to the 100 power, or in ratio terms (where 0 means impossible and 1 means must happen) 0.00000000000000000000000000000079. I hope I got the right number of zeros there, but you get the point -- that sequence of heads/tails was INCREDIBLY unlikely. But we shouldn't be shocked about it at all -- I mean SOME outcome had to occur. So that fact that out of a very long list of very unlikely outcomes (from an individual point of view) this particular sequence "defied the odds" shouldn't really mean much to us.
Anyway, by your definition, if we have to defy the odds to get the #1 overall, so does every other team in the lottery, and even more so. This would suggest that any outcome of the lottery defies the odds. But barring catastrophe, tomorrow they'll be pulling four balls out of that hopper and damn the odds, they will be defied somehow.
1) There is no such thing as an accepted definition for "defying the odds". It's vernacular, not statistics. You appear to have adopted a fairly loose criterion, that is, that if something is less than 50% likely, that its occurrence qualifies as "defying the odds". I don't find 25% so particularly unlikely, but it's totally subjective.
2) In the scenario here (a lottery) exactly one outcome, no matter how unlikely, must occur. Look at it this way: flip a fair coin 100 times, and write down the results. Then ask yourself how likely that outcome was. Since we've assumed that the coin is fair, I don't even need to know what the outcome is to tell you what the likelihood of that particular outcome is: 1 in 2 raised to the 100 power, or in ratio terms (where 0 means impossible and 1 means must happen) 0.00000000000000000000000000000079. I hope I got the right number of zeros there, but you get the point -- that sequence of heads/tails was INCREDIBLY unlikely. But we shouldn't be shocked about it at all -- I mean SOME outcome had to occur. So that fact that out of a very long list of very unlikely outcomes (from an individual point of view) this particular sequence "defied the odds" shouldn't really mean much to us.
Anyway, by your definition, if we have to defy the odds to get the #1 overall, so does every other team in the lottery, and even more so. This would suggest that any outcome of the lottery defies the odds. But barring catastrophe, tomorrow they'll be pulling four balls out of that hopper and damn the odds, they will be defied somehow.
Archibald played until '84. Mays got drafted in '90. My guess is that it took at least 6 years for the Kings to retire Tiny's number. Karl Malone, Tim Hardaway, lots of likely candidates still have unretired jerseys. Heck, the Clips still haven't retired Bob McAdoo's jersey, even though he's been out of the NBA for 20-some years and been in the HOF for 9. So I'm thinking that we were slow to get around to it.
If anybody has personal recollection of when #1 was retired (I don't), hopefully they'll speak up.
If anybody has personal recollection of when #1 was retired (I don't), hopefully they'll speak up.
I get where you are coming from, but no amount of preparation and/or prior knowledge is going to keep me from making a scene if we fall to #4.
I will probably throw my fries at friends who aren't Kings fans (cuz they will undoubtedly be taking trash), curse David Stern, and proceed to chug multiple beers.
I will probably throw my fries at friends who aren't Kings fans (cuz they will undoubtedly be taking trash), curse David Stern, and proceed to chug multiple beers.
what did that celtic fan do? and how pathetic elaborate please 
start at at 5:40
