HFBoards RDS has Habs in at 100%
 User Name Remember Me? Password
 Register FAQ Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
 Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
 Notices Montreal Canadiens Prospects: Nathan Beaulieu, D» Jarred Tinordi, D» Nikita Scherbak, RW» All

# RDS has Habs in at 100%

04-07-2010, 09:17 PM
#51
Lucius
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Halifax, NS
Country:
Posts: 4,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by eliash Because in hockey the mentality alone of the teams can predict the winners. The team that is more prepared will win, it's as simple as that. Last I checked, you can't calculate that with an equation. There are 4 teams left, only 3 places. The 3 that want it more mentally and that physically play for it will make it. Yes there is some luck involved, but it's not as simple as 50/50, like you make it seem. If it was really mathematical, why did our % drop tonight? Why don't we take in account the NYR-Leafs game anymore, if it previously was part of our "chances" in making the playoffs? What I'm trying to say is that this way of calculating is false because the odds keep changing and they shouldn't. If Boston win their next 2, and NYR beats Philly in OT, and we lose our 2 games in regulation, our odds suddenly become 50/50, when less than a week ago they were 99.6/0.4? Doesn't make sense, because if we really have a 99.6% chance of making it, we should be pretty positive looking into that last game between Philly and NYR, but it wouldn't be the case. Considering this way of calculating, at the beginning of the season, every team has the same odds of making the playoffs, right? Now, each win raises their percentage of making the playoffs, so this means that the % depends on the wins, and not vice versa. So you can't say that a team has more chance of making it than another because they have a better %, but you can say that they will have better chances of making it if they win. edit: And just to make it clear, I still believe that we are well placed to make it, but I just want to show that it's not as simple as some may think. Even if we win tomorrow, I stand by anything I said over here because I don't believe in these odds.
Our odds, calculated from this exact moment are what they are.

If on Sunday morning, all but one of these things have occurred and we re-calculate, then obviously odds change. That's just basic logic.

Point is, yes, the games need to be played, but as of now there are 7 games with 4 possible outcomes in each and pretty much all of them need to turn out in one specific way for us to miss the playoffs.

Even if you say that there is a 90% chance that each individual event were to turn out in the worst possible way for Montreal (and that's absurdly over stating it), the odds still favor that once... just once... things will go other than how they are expected.

And in this scenario, once is all it takes.

That's why we have a 99.4% chance of making the playoffs.

The odds change over time because more facts are uncovered. It's basic logic.

04-07-2010, 09:28 PM
#52
Kriss E
HFB Partner

Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 25,817
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Sined Actually mathematically that isn't a mistake. Unless you're going to introduce us to a new branch of Statistics and Probabilities that you invented your standards are completely irrelevant. If YOU don't understand how the calculation is done, that doesn't make RDS incompetent. You should be embarrassed at your lackluster grasp of simple mathematics.
What a pathetic attempt at a free diss from your part.

Really, ''understanding mathematics'' has absolutely NOTHING to do with the fact I think RDS is incompetent.
Their incompetency comes from hiring poor workers or so-called ''analysts''. They are a fanatical station.
Proper standards come from TSN, their supposed sister station. If you don't notice a difference from both stations, then really, don't talk to me.

Also, Mathematically, 96 =/= 100. Furthermore, 9999999999996=10000000000000. So no matter how you want to ''mathematically'' look at it, it's wrong.

This is a computer script problem, not a mathematical one.

04-07-2010, 09:38 PM
#53
One Trick Pony
Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2006
Country:
Posts: 6,591
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Lucius Our odds, calculated from this exact moment are what they are. If on Sunday morning, all but one of these things have occurred and we re-calculate, then obviously odds change. It's basic logic. The odds of a coin turning up heads? 50/50 The odds of a coin turning up heads twice in a row? 25% The odds of a coin turning up heads after having previously turned up heads? 50/50 Point is, yes, the games need to be played, but as of now there are 7 games with 4 possible outcomes in each and pretty much all of them need to turn out in one specific way for us to miss the playoffs. Even if you say that there is a 90% chance that each individual event were to turn out in the worst possible way for Montreal (and that's absurdly over stating it), the odds still favor that once... just once... things will go other than how they are expected. And in this scenario, once is all it takes. That's why we have a 99.4% chance of making the playoffs. The odds change over time because more facts are uncovered. It's basic logic. Put ten cards face down on a table. Try to guess the content of each card as you draw them. Obviously, if you know what's there, your odds of being right get higher as each card is removed.
Odds should not change. Let's say I have 3 boxes, 2 of which are empty and one of which contains a million dollars. You ask me to chose one, so this gives me a 33.3% chance that I chose the million. Now you ask me to remove one of the other 2, and I remove and empty one. My odds of have the million are still 33.3%, not 50%.

This is the way we should see it. If you chose to start calculating our odds today, then they should stay at 99.4% until the end, because this % comes from the fact that you are taking into consideration many factors. In my example, if I pick the million dollars we don't make the playoffs and if I pick any of the empty ones, we do. Now when I eliminate an empty one, it's exactly as if the Rangers win, but the odds stay the same.

Now if you want to do it the other way and change the odds after each game, you are doing the wrong thing because like I said the odds depend on what happens. What happens doesn't depend on the odds. We have 99.4% chance to make it because we won more that they other teams. What makes you think that they won't win more than us now?

I see this way of calculating odds exactly like the way of projecting stats into a bigger number of games played. You know, when a player has 10pts in his first 5 games, and then we say that at this rate he should finish with 164, it tells us nothing and it's pretty useless because it too changes depending on what number of points the player gets later on. To me this is a perfect example of using math in the wrong domain, because clearly the player won't get 184pts or nowhere near it. many other factors related to his personality, health, skill, luck, etc are the real factors that determine the number of points he gets at the end of the season.

 04-07-2010, 09:51 PM #54 Ozymandias #firetherrien     Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Hockey Mecca Country: Posts: 13,438 vCash: 500 Habs only need either to get one point or the Rags to lose one point. Out of 4 games (2 each). ONE out of 8 points and the Habs are in, over whoever. The Philly versus Rags games will be very interesting. I have a feeling the Habs will come out pretty strong tomorrow night.
04-07-2010, 09:57 PM
#55
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable

Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country:
Posts: 51,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by eliash Odds should not change. Let's say I have 3 boxes, 2 of which are empty and one of which contains a million dollars. You ask me to chose one, so this gives me a 33.3% chance that I chose the million. Now you ask me to remove one of the other 2, and I remove and empty one. My odds of have the million are still 33.3%, not 50%. This is the way we should see it. If you chose to start calculating our odds today, then they should stay at 99.4% until the end, because this % comes from the fact that you are taking into consideration many factors. In my example, if I pick the million dollars we don't make the playoffs and if I pick any of the empty ones, we do. Now when I eliminate an empty one, it's exactly as if the Rangers win, but the odds stay the same. Now if you want to do it the other way and change the odds after each game, you are doing the wrong thing because like I said the odds depend on what happens. What happens doesn't depend on the odds. We have 99.4% chance to make it because we won more that they other teams. What makes you think that they won't win more than us now? I see this way of calculating odds exactly like the way of projecting stats into a bigger number of games played. You know, when a player has 10pts in his first 5 games, and then we say that at this rate he should finish with 164, it tells us nothing and it's pretty useless because it too changes depending on what number of points the player gets later on. To me this is a perfect example of using math in the wrong domain, because clearly the player won't get 184pts or nowhere near it. many other factors related to his personality, health, skill, luck, etc are the real factors that determine the number of points he gets at the end of the season.
you are totally wrong. Odds do change over time.

04-07-2010, 10:34 PM
#56
One Trick Pony
Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2006
Country:
Posts: 6,591
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Fish on The Sand you are totally wrong. Odds do change over time.

If you ask me to flip 2 Heads in a row, I have a 25% chance of doing it, the possibilities being:
Tale Tale

If I flip a Head on my first flip, my odd of flipping 2 Heads in a row doesn't suddenly become 50%.. 50% would just be the chance I have of getting Head (no pun intended)

A certain odd is always related to a specific event or set of events. Just because I flipped a Head the first time doesn't mean I now have more chances of getting the 2nd one. Just because the Rangers won tonight doesn't mean we have less chances to make it now, but that is if this game was part of our set of events.

And when I think of it, this argument of mine makes Lucious' point even better, because now I'm saying that we will stay at 99,6% till the end. Where I disagree, is that if we started calculating these odds at the beginning of the season, we would still have a 8/15 chance to make the playoffs till the end, and yes even if some of the teams are eliminated.

04-07-2010, 10:42 PM
#57
markov`
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Top 2 in the world
Posts: 3,647
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by eliash Because in hockey the mentality alone of the teams can predict the winners. The team that is more prepared will win, it's as simple as that. Last I checked, you can't calculate that with an equation. There are 4 teams left, only 3 places. The 3 that want it more mentally and that physically play for it will make it. Yes there is some luck involved, but it's not as simple as 50/50, like you make it seem. If it was really mathematical, why did our % drop tonight? Why don't we take in account the NYR-Leafs game anymore, if it previously was part of our "chances" in making the playoffs? What I'm trying to say is that this way of calculating is false because the odds keep changing and they shouldn't. If Boston win their next 2, and NYR beats Philly in OT, and we lose our 2 games in regulation, our odds suddenly become 50/50, when less than a week ago they were 99.6/0.4? Doesn't make sense, because if we really have a 99.6% chance of making it, we should be pretty positive looking into that last game between Philly and NYR, but it wouldn't be the case. Considering this way of calculating, at the beginning of the season, every team has the same odds of making the playoffs, right? Now, each win raises their percentage of making the playoffs, so this means that the % depends on the wins, and not vice versa. So you can't say that a team has more chance of making it than another because they have a better %, but you can say that they will have better chances of making it if they win. edit: And just to make it clear, I still believe that we are well placed to make it, but I just want to show that it's not as simple as some may think. Even if we win tomorrow, I stand by anything I said over here because I don't believe in these odds.
Everything in this post is wrong.

04-07-2010, 10:44 PM
#58
One Trick Pony
Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2006
Country:
Posts: 6,591
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by markov` Everything in this post is wrong.
Well that is constructive

Why is it all wrong?

04-07-2010, 10:49 PM
#59
Sined
The AndroidBugler!

Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 6,645
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Kriss E What a pathetic attempt at a free diss from your part. Really, ''understanding mathematics'' has absolutely NOTHING to do with the fact I think RDS is incompetent. Their incompetency comes from hiring poor workers or so-called ''analysts''. They are a fanatical station. Proper standards come from TSN, their supposed sister station. If you don't notice a difference from both stations, then really, don't talk to me. Also, Mathematically, 96 =/= 100. Furthermore, 9999999999996=10000000000000. So no matter how you want to ''mathematically'' look at it, it's wrong. This is a computer script problem, not a mathematical one.
Pathetic attempt eh?
I never doubted for a second that their analysts are sub par to the rest of North America's media. And they have made publishing mistakes in the past for which is much better evidence of their incompetence.

But to use your poor grasp in mathematics as an attack on the station is both misguided and pitiful.

For the sake of presentation they round up two thirds of a percent. And that folks makes them incompetent.

FIRE ALL TEACHERS THEY'VE BEEN TEACHING KIDS THAT PI = 3.1416 BLASPHEMY! FIRE THEM ALL THEY ARE INCOMPETENT.

Give me a ****ing break.

04-07-2010, 10:50 PM
#60
markov`
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Top 2 in the world
Posts: 3,647
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by eliash Well that is constructive Why is it all wrong?
You can't understand basic math.

Obviously odds change if New York wins against Toronto. How can't you understand that? How does that make it "fake" odds?

04-07-2010, 10:53 PM
#61
One Trick Pony
Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2006
Country:
Posts: 6,591
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by markov` You can't understand basic math. Obviously odds change if New York wins against Toronto. How can't you understand that? How does that make it "fake" odds?
Because one second you talk about the odds of Rangers losing against Toront, Rangers loising against Philly, Rangers losing against Philly, Boston not going 1-1-1, Habs losing both games in regulation, and then you take those same factors but without the Rangers-Toronto one.. Of course the odds will change, your not even considering the same things anymore. I'm not stupid, you just didn't understand what I was trying to say. And if you don't understand because I didn't explain well enough, don't jump into conclusions next time lol..

04-07-2010, 10:58 PM
#62
Ozymandias
#firetherrien

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country:
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by eliash Well that is constructive Why is it all wrong?
Because losses count against your total amount of points you can attain, hence the number of wins available afterwards for the tally. Habs only need 1 out of 8 points to occur (either 1 point attainded by the Habs on 2 games / 4 points or 1 point lossed by NY on 2 games / 4 points.

Then you need to correlate this with the Rag's own situation. To take over the Habs, they need the Habs to get 4 points lossed in the 2 games, and they need to win their two games, 4 points out of 4. They need a full 8 out of 8 points won (4 by them) and loss (4 by the Habs).

Habs need 1 point to occur out of 8, Rags need 8 out of 8 to pass the Habs. A simple multiplication of odds would then put the Habs at 1 chance out 16 of not making the playoffs. That's a basic 93,75% odd.

Then you have to look into Philly's situation and the matchups both teams (MTL and NYR) will have and the likelyhood of an overtime point by the habs in their two games and then voilà, you're already pretty close to the simulation number.

Odds are an ever changing number because they are about predicting future events, it's quintessential that its related to present results and it keeps changing the value of the variables, and I don't see why you,re arguing this.

04-07-2010, 11:05 PM
#63
One Trick Pony
Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2006
Country:
Posts: 6,591
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Ozymandias Because losses count against your total amount of points you can attain, hence the number of wins available afterwards for the tally. Habs only need 1 out of 8 points to occur (either 1 point attainded by the Habs on 2 games / 4 points or 1 point lossed by NY on 2 games / 4 points. Then you need to correlate this with the Rag's own situation. To take over the Habs, they need the Habs to get 4 points lossed in the 2 games, and they need to win their two games, 4 points out of 4. They need a full 8 out of 8 points won (4 by them) and loss (4 by the Habs). Habs need 1 point to occur out of 8, Rags need 8 out of 8 to pass the Habs. A simple multiplication of odds would then put the Habs at 1 chance out 16 of not making the playoffs. That's a basic 93,75% odd. Then you have to look into Philly's situation and the matchups both teams (MTL and NYR) will have and the likelyhood of an overtime point by the habs in their two games and then voilà, you're already pretty close to the simulation number.
This I understand, it's just when I started saying that odds don't change for a particular situation that I think people say I'm wrong.

I don't have any problem with your post, it's all mathematically correct, but it brings back the debate that maths can't be used in hockey.. But whatever since I don't understand the basics of math like the poster before said I guess I'll stop trying to make a point.

 04-08-2010, 12:12 AM #64 McNuts Registered User     Join Date: Jul 2009 Country: Posts: 3,827 vCash: 500 Let's just win the next 2 games and finish 6th.
 04-08-2010, 02:38 AM #65 habtastic Registered User     Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Mumbai via MTL Country: Posts: 9,315 vCash: 500 anyone feeling like our avatar theme is somewhat poignant right now?
 04-08-2010, 03:13 AM #66 HarlemsFinest teh gallys!!1     Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Montreal Country: Posts: 2,488 vCash: 500 i've already seen a 30 page thread on "is it 33.3% or 50%" for that riddle.
 04-08-2010, 03:22 AM #67 HH GO HABS GO!     Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Montreal Country: Posts: 17,330 vCash: 500 What's with people and their stupid math. Just get a point vs the 13th place team or the last place team in the East. Jeez. ****ING SIMPLE.
04-08-2010, 03:41 AM
#68
habtastic
Registered User

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Mumbai via MTL
Country:
Posts: 9,315
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by HarryI What's with people and their stupid math. Just get a point vs the 13th place team or the last place team in the East. Jeez. ****ING SIMPLE.
if only it was that simple...you know like holding on to two 1-goal leads vs the isles....2 minutes....2 f'in minutes

04-08-2010, 03:49 AM
#69
Kikizaz
Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Victoria BC
Country:
Posts: 1,975
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by eliash Odds should not change. Let's say I have 3 boxes, 2 of which are empty and one of which contains a million dollars. You ask me to chose one, so this gives me a 33.3% chance that I chose the million. Now you ask me to remove one of the other 2, and I remove and empty one. My odds of have the million are still 33.3%, not 50%.
This is not true. You have 2 different "tests", one in which your have 33% and one in which you have 50%.

04-08-2010, 04:56 AM
#70
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable

Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country:
Posts: 51,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by habtastic if only it was that simple...you know like holding on to two 1-goal leads vs the isles....2 minutes....2 f'in minutes
to be fair, its not like we sat back and they had chance after chance. They got a fluke goal that Halak stop 99 times out of 100.

04-08-2010, 05:00 AM
#71
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable

Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country:
Posts: 51,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by eliash If you ask me to flip 2 Heads in a row, I have a 25% chance of doing it, the possibilities being: Head Head Head Tale Tale Tale Tale Head If I flip a Head on my first flip, my odd of flipping 2 Heads in a row doesn't suddenly become 50%.. 50% would just be the chance I have of getting Head (no pun intended) A certain odd is always related to a specific event or set of events. Just because I flipped a Head the first time doesn't mean I now have more chances of getting the 2nd one. Just because the Rangers won tonight doesn't mean we have less chances to make it now, but that is if this game was part of our set of events. And when I think of it, this argument of mine makes Lucious' point even better, because now I'm saying that we will stay at 99,6% till the end. Where I disagree, is that if we started calculating these odds at the beginning of the season, we would still have a 8/15 chance to make the playoffs till the end, and yes even if some of the teams are eliminated.
You see, if you have a limit of 2 coin flips and you want to know what the oddsa re of flipping heads twice, yes, it is 25%.

Once you have already flipped heads once, the odds of getting another head are 50% because the situation has changed. Instead of hoping for 2 out of 2, you are hoping for one out of one. You really are misunderstanding this math thing.

04-08-2010, 06:04 AM
#72
RushDP
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 825
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Sined Pathetic attempt eh? I never doubted for a second that their analysts are sub par to the rest of North America's media. And they have made publishing mistakes in the past for which is much better evidence of their incompetence. But to use your poor grasp in mathematics as an attack on the station is both misguided and pitiful. For the sake of presentation they round up two thirds of a percent. And that folks makes them incompetent. FIRE ALL TEACHERS THEY'VE BEEN TEACHING KIDS THAT PI = 3.1416 BLASPHEMY! FIRE THEM ALL THEY ARE INCOMPETENT. Give me a ****ing break.
He's right for God's sake. 100% means there is no chance AT ALL of the Habs missing the playoffs and mathematically that is not true. It is nothing at all like the rounding of PI to the closest four decimal point. You agree that RDS is a joke of a station and does not display the same professionalism as other sports stations so leave it at that.

If rounding up is OK and if the unlikely happens and the Habs miss the playoffs how do you then explain this to the misguided misinformed masses that were convinced the Habs were in at 100%? Saying they rounded up to present it to the public is akin to saying the population is incapable of understanding that there is a small chance of failure.

04-08-2010, 06:50 AM
#73
One Trick Pony
Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2006
Country:
Posts: 6,591
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Fish on The Sand You see, if you have a limit of 2 coin flips and you want to know what the oddsa re of flipping heads twice, yes, it is 25%. Once you have already flipped heads once, the odds of getting another head are 50% because the situation has changed. Instead of hoping for 2 out of 2, you are hoping for one out of one. You really are misunderstanding this math thing.
I think it's you guys misunderstanding me because I'm not explaining well enough lol because that's what exactly what I said! I was just wrong because it doesn't apply in hockey because the situation is always: "will the Habs make the playoffs?" even if the events in which it depends change. In the coin thing the odds of getting 2 in a row will always be 25%, the odds of getting 1 always 50%, but in hockey the playoff odds change because the factors change, but not the question. The question in the example would now be: Can I get at least a Head? and the odd would be 75%. If I don't get it, it would drop to 50%.

04-08-2010, 09:23 AM
#74
Lucius
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Halifax, NS
Country:
Posts: 4,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by eliash Odds should not change. Let's say I have 3 boxes, 2 of which are empty and one of which contains a million dollars. You ask me to chose one, so this gives me a 33.3% chance that I chose the million. Now you ask me to remove one of the other 2, and I remove and empty one. My odds of have the million are still 33.3%, not 50%. This is the way we should see it. If you chose to start calculating our odds today, then they should stay at 99.4% until the end, because this % comes from the fact that you are taking into consideration many factors. In my example, if I pick the million dollars we don't make the playoffs and if I pick any of the empty ones, we do. Now when I eliminate an empty one, it's exactly as if the Rangers win, but the odds stay the same. Now if you want to do it the other way and change the odds after each game, you are doing the wrong thing because like I said the odds depend on what happens. What happens doesn't depend on the odds. We have 99.4% chance to make it because we won more that they other teams. What makes you think that they won't win more than us now? I see this way of calculating odds exactly like the way of projecting stats into a bigger number of games played. You know, when a player has 10pts in his first 5 games, and then we say that at this rate he should finish with 164, it tells us nothing and it's pretty useless because it too changes depending on what number of points the player gets later on. To me this is a perfect example of using math in the wrong domain, because clearly the player won't get 184pts or nowhere near it. many other factors related to his personality, health, skill, luck, etc are the real factors that determine the number of points he gets at the end of the season.
Like others said, your understanding of statistics is incorrect.

Using your scenario, yes, from the top you have a 33% chance of winning. If we delete one of the two wrong choices though (and are aware it was a wrong choice), your odds re-calculated from that moment are 50%.

If you are unaware whether that was the right or wrong box, your odds remain 33%.

However, for that scenario to be applicable to hockey, all the other games would need to be played in secret and no one told the results until after all the games had been played.

So I see your logical point: Your odds as of the moment the scenario is presented are still 33%. IE: There is a 33% chance from the start that you win the money. However, once one false choice is eliminated, your odds do go up. To refuse to re-calculate based on additional information is just being stubborn. As more facts are revealed, the odds change.

As of this moment, Montreal has its 99.4% chance. If everything that can go wrong does until Sunday, our odds drop significantly. It doesn't change the fact that on Thursday morning we had a 99.4% chance.

04-08-2010, 09:31 AM
#75
ScopeHockey
Registered User

Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 542
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Lucius Like others said, your understanding of statistics is incorrect. Using your scenario, yes, from the top you have a 33% chance of winning. If we delete one of the two wrong choices though (and are aware it was a wrong choice), your odds re-calculated from that moment are 50%. If you are unaware whether that was the right or wrong box, your odds remain 33%. However, for that scenario to be applicable to hockey, all the other games would need to be played in secret and no one told the results until after all the games had been played. So I see your logical point: Your odds as of the moment the scenario is presented are still 33%. IE: There is a 33% chance from the start that you win the money. However, once one false choice is eliminated, your odds do go up. To refuse to re-calculate based on additional information is just being stubborn. As more facts are revealed, the odds change. As of this moment, Montreal has its 99.4% chance. If everything that can go wrong does until Sunday, our odds drop significantly. It doesn't change the fact that on Thursday morning we had a 99.4% chance.
You are correct. This is referred to as the Bayes theorem of prior versus posterior probability.

Forum Jump