HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

RDS has Habs in at 100%

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-08-2010, 09:47 AM
  #76
macavoy
Registered User
 
macavoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7,460
vCash: 243
We can lose both games and are still about 90+% to get into the playoffs. The Rangers aren't going to beat the Flyers twice.

macavoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2010, 09:51 AM
  #77
Ollie Williams
Registered User
 
Ollie Williams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,943
vCash: 167
Ah, yet another thread the Habs should look at as extra motivation to convincingly win tonight and cease the blatant dumbness of this thread (which has evolved to a topic that no longer relates to hockey whatsoever or to our beloved Habs).

Ollie Williams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2010, 10:15 AM
  #78
One Trick Pony
Registered User
 
One Trick Pony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,583
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucius View Post
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.
The problem was a langage one really. I saw my example as showing the odds that I PICKED the good box. These odds stay the same all the way, because I already picked it. I understand that at the moment there are 2 cases left, my odds actually become 50%, but to me you can't neglect the previous 33.3%. What I'm saying is that yes you eliminated a box containing nothing, but you are bound to not repeat yourself, no? If you are asked to spin a Head 100 times in a row and you get it the first 99 times, aren' you bound to get a tale? You always have to look at the ensemble of factors. Yes the odds at the moment change, but the odds in general stay the same in a sense. Like, you say that it is improbable that all the events that eliminate the habs happen because there are many, but it's not because they all happen except the last one that this one is now more probable. Alone, yes it's 50/50, but if you take it as a whole, this event isn't favored of hapenning, and in that sense the Rangers would be bound to lose.

Please don't see my post as me not understanding math, I do lol, I get what you are all saying, but am I really wrong in considering the whole set of events, even those which happened? The odds of the remaining ones would go up, yes, but only because there is one less event. If there is 10 things that absolutely need to happen for us to miss out, there are always ten things. If the first one happens, the nine that are left have a better odd of happening now, but you still know that out of those 10 ones, they almoat can't all happen. If they do, did you win in a 50/50 odd, or a 1/1024 odd?

One Trick Pony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2010, 10:15 AM
  #79
Lucius
Registered User
 
Lucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ollie Williams View Post
Ah, yet another thread the Habs should look at as extra motivation to convincingly win tonight and cease the blatant dumbness of this thread (which has evolved to a topic that no longer relates to hockey whatsoever or to our beloved Habs).
I will say for all my arguing on math here...

I am shocked how many Hab fans are taking "losses to Carolina and Toronto" as the likely outcome.

Bold prediction: 2-0-0 down the stretch.

=)

Lucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2010, 10:18 AM
  #80
One Trick Pony
Registered User
 
One Trick Pony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,583
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucius View Post
I will say for all my arguing on math here...

I am shocked how many Hab fans are taking "losses to Carolina and Toronto" as the likely outcome.

Bold prediction: 2-0-0 down the stretch.

=)
I hope we win tonight and end this debate lol

One Trick Pony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2010, 11:43 AM
  #81
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sined View Post
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.
Really...comparing the round up of PI to the chances of making the POs???..

Tell me something..can we miss the POs???...Let me answer that for you, Yes.
So, posting on their internet site that we're 100% in is a FALSE STATEMENT.

Never said this alone makes them incompetent, I just said it adds up to the rest. You seem to agree as well, so I really don't understand why you tried to argue over this with me.

Can you imagine if Loto 6/49's saying was ''You have ZERO chances of winning''??..If you rounded it up, you do have about 0 chance.

Now there's a difference between Loto and RDS, but it's just for you to understand that rounding up isn't right.

RDS made a mistake. You try to say I don't understand mathematics.. seriously..

I guess RUSHDP said it best:

Quote:
Originally Posted by RushDP View Post
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.
Didn't think it was so difficult to understand really..

Kriss E is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2010, 11:58 AM
  #82
Kjell Dahlin
Registered User
 
Kjell Dahlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Québec, Québec
Posts: 1,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Really...comparing the round up of PI to the chances of making the POs???..

Tell me something..can we miss the POs???...Let me answer that for you, Yes.
So, posting on their internet site that we're 100% in is a FALSE STATEMENT.

Never said this alone makes them incompetent, I just said it adds up to the rest. You seem to agree as well, so I really don't understand why you tried to argue over this with me.

Can you imagine if Loto 6/49's saying was ''You have ZERO chances of winning''??..If you rounded it up, you do have about 0 chance.

Now there's a difference between Loto and RDS, but it's just for you to understand that rounding up isn't right.

RDS made a mistake. You try to say I don't understand mathematics.. seriously..

I guess RUSHDP said it best:



Didn't think it was so difficult to understand really..
"... So, posting on their internet site that we're 100% in is a FALSE STATEMENT..."

Yes Kriss E: due to a minor glitch in a script, there was an error (100% instead of 99,xx%) in the last column of a line in one table displayed on one of RDS’s stats (not on the front-page) pages.

No one is saying it was not an error: the consensus seems to be... who cares?


Edit:

Quote:
Originally Posted by RushDP View Post
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.
"... how do you then explain this to the misguided misinformed masses that were convinced the Habs were in at 100%? ..."

RDS's front-page (on the same day): "Habs still have not clinched".


Last edited by Kjell Dahlin: 04-08-2010 at 12:03 PM.
Kjell Dahlin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2010, 12:11 PM
  #83
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kjell Dahlin View Post
"... So, posting on their internet site that we're 100% in is a FALSE STATEMENT..."

Yes Kriss E: due to a minor glitch in a script, there was an error (100% instead of 99,xx%) in the last column of a line in one table displayed on one of RDS’s stats (not on the front-page) pages.

No one is saying it was not an error: the consensus seems to be... who cares?
I do. I'm tired of seeing mistakes after mistakes on their site. Also find it sad that the average fan will listen to a bunch of incompetent idiots arguing on l'Antichambre. Most local average fan gets his Habs/hockey info from RDS.
Would you want your kid to be thought by an idiotic teacher or a smart one?..
When you have idiots giving out info, it won't really make our fanbase much smarter. Need I say more than ''Darkest Day in Habs History''??..

I didn't expect to have to argue much over this. Just made a comment as to it beeing yet another mistake from the poor RDS site, and that it's embarrassing.

Maybe you don't care but I do. Ever since RDS has had exclusive rights over the Habs, mediocrity seems to be their standard.

The mistake itself is small, but it just adds up to a huge pile.

Kriss E is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2010, 12:13 PM
  #84
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kjell Dahlin View Post
RDS's front-page (on the same day): "Habs still have not clinched".
And yet they post a flawed ''statistical'' board.

What's the purpose of making such a board if it's flawed??..

My teachers always gave me points for having two contradicting statements in the same paper..

Kriss E is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2010, 12:23 PM
  #85
A Zen Master
 
A Zen Master's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 129
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kjell Dahlin View Post

Yes Kriss E: due to a minor glitch in a script, there was an error (100% instead of 99,xx%) in the last column of a line in one table displayed on one of RDS’s stats (not on the front-page) pages.

No one is saying it was not an error: the consensus seems to be... who cares?
I chuckled like I do all of RDS' mistakes and I'm glad someone pointed it out. I think that counts as caring.

A Zen Master is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2010, 12:25 PM
  #86
Kjell Dahlin
Registered User
 
Kjell Dahlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Québec, Québec
Posts: 1,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
I do. I'm tired of seeing mistakes after mistakes on their site. Also find it sad that the average fan will listen to a bunch of incompetent idiots arguing on l'Antichambre. Most local average fan gets his Habs/hockey info from RDS.
Would you want your kid to be thought by an idiotic teacher or a smart one?..
When you have idiots giving out info, it won't really make our fanbase much smarter. Need I say more than ''Darkest Day in Habs History''??..

I didn't expect to have to argue much over this. Just made a comment as to it beeing yet another mistake from the poor RDS site, and that it's embarrassing.

Maybe you don't care but I do. Ever since RDS has had exclusive rights over the Habs, mediocrity seems to be their standard.

The mistake itself is small, but it just adds up to a huge pile.
I'd be a very happy fan if they swap Brunet with Dany Dubé or Gérard Gagnon (to be fair: Brunet did show signs of improvement in the last months – I am still not a fan though!) so I fully agree with you: there is definitely room for improvement.

That being mentioned, I think that creating a thread with...

"Hey guys... can you believe this: there was a minor glitch in a script that caused an error (100% instead of 99,xx%) in the last column of a line in one table displayed on one of RDS’s stats (not on the front-page) pages!?"

... as the "topic", was somewhat... weird!

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Zen Master View Post
I chuckled like I do all of RDS' mistakes and I'm glad someone pointed it out. I think that counts as caring.
Well... if it made you chuckle, it changes everything: it was definitely thread worthy!

Kjell Dahlin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2010, 12:38 PM
  #87
Rugger14
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Laval
Country: Canada
Posts: 24
vCash: 500
don't know if you guys knew about this site...calculates every teams chances to make or miss playoffs.

Habs are 99.4% sure to make playoffs

http://www.sportsclubstats.com/NHL/E...Canadiens.html

Rugger14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2010, 12:43 PM
  #88
Lucius
Registered User
 
Lucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eliash View Post
The problem was a langage one really. I saw my example as showing the odds that I PICKED the good box. These odds stay the same all the way, because I already picked it. I understand that at the moment there are 2 cases left, my odds actually become 50%, but to me you can't neglect the previous 33.3%. What I'm saying is that yes you eliminated a box containing nothing, but you are bound to not repeat yourself, no? If you are asked to spin a Head 100 times in a row and you get it the first 99 times, aren' you bound to get a tale? You always have to look at the ensemble of factors. Yes the odds at the moment change, but the odds in general stay the same in a sense. Like, you say that it is improbable that all the events that eliminate the habs happen because there are many, but it's not because they all happen except the last one that this one is now more probable. Alone, yes it's 50/50, but if you take it as a whole, this event isn't favored of hapenning, and in that sense the Rangers would be bound to lose.

Please don't see my post as me not understanding math, I do lol, I get what you are all saying, but am I really wrong in considering the whole set of events, even those which happened? The odds of the remaining ones would go up, yes, but only because there is one less event. If there is 10 things that absolutely need to happen for us to miss out, there are always ten things. If the first one happens, the nine that are left have a better odd of happening now, but you still know that out of those 10 ones, they almoat can't all happen. If they do, did you win in a 50/50 odd, or a 1/1024 odd?
OK, yes, if you calculate from this moment their odds remain the same...

But that's illogical. As each event unfolds, why not re-calculate?

The only reason Montreal has such a good shot right now is because of the narrow series of events. The shorter the series of events, the faster our odds drop.

Lucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2010, 12:48 PM
  #89
Kjell Dahlin
Registered User
 
Kjell Dahlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Québec, Québec
Posts: 1,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rugger14 View Post
don't know if you guys knew about this site...calculates every teams chances to make or miss playoffs.

Habs are 99.4% sure to make playoffs

http://www.sportsclubstats.com/NHL/E...Canadiens.html
6th place is just there... within a few footsteps... they better bring their "A" game tonight. This team is so Jekyll & Hyde!

Kjell Dahlin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2010, 12:50 PM
  #90
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kjell Dahlin View Post
I'd be a very happy fan if they swap Brunet with Dany Dubé or Gérard Gagnon (to be fair: Brunet did show signs of improvement in the last months – I am still not a fan though!) so I fully agree with you: there is definitely room for improvement.

That being mentioned, I think that creating a thread with...

"Hey guys... can you believe this: there was a minor glitch in a script that caused an error (100% instead of 99,xx%) in the last column of a line in one table displayed on one of RDS’s stats (not on the front-page) pages!?"

... as the "topic", was somewhat... weird!
Yea, creating a thread about it wasn't necessary. Then again, many threads aren't really. I'm not the one that created it though, but I agree.

I think they should do a sticky for RDS bashing.

Kriss E is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2010, 01:22 PM
  #91
One Trick Pony
Registered User
 
One Trick Pony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,583
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucius View Post
OK, yes, if you calculate from this moment their odds remain the same...

But that's illogical. As each event unfolds, why not re-calculate?

The only reason Montreal has such a good shot right now is because of the narrow series of events. The shorter the series of events, the faster our odds drop.
Maybe illogical, but more rationnal!

I ask again, if it all comes down to sunday and a rangers win in OT or regulation eliminate us, will you look at the situation in disbelief that we actually blown a 99% chance of making the playoffs, or you would say whatever, it was a 50/50 anyway?! I'm pretty sure anybody would be of the first mindset, and thats all I was trying to say all along.

One Trick Pony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2010, 01:31 PM
  #92
Lucius
Registered User
 
Lucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eliash View Post
Maybe illogical, but more rationnal!

I ask again, if it all comes down to sunday and a rangers win in OT or regulation eliminate us, will you look at the situation in disbelief that we actually blown a 99% chance of making the playoffs, or you would say whatever, it was a 50/50 anyway?! I'm pretty sure anybody would be of the first mindset, and thats all I was trying to say all along.
Yes, if we miss, I will be in complete disbelief.

Of course...

But that won't change the fact that we have a 25% chance of missing going into the game (assuming it requires a Rangers OTW). Maybe even less, since I doubt 25% of games are settled in OT.

But it's not like it suddenly goes from 99% to 25%.

We'll more than see it coming.

Frankly, if they lose to Carolina and Toronto, they don't deserve it anyway.

So, basically, you agree with us then, you realize? If we actually manage to squander our current position, it's amazing and we'll all be in disbelief.

Lucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2010, 01:49 PM
  #93
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 15,213
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eliash View Post
Maybe illogical, but more rationnal!

I ask again, if it all comes down to sunday and a rangers win in OT or regulation eliminate us, will you look at the situation in disbelief that we actually blown a 99% chance of making the playoffs, or you would say whatever, it was a 50/50 anyway?! I'm pretty sure anybody would be of the first mindset, and thats all I was trying to say all along.
rational ?

there's about 8 things that needs to happen for us not to make it... it is NOT rational to think we're likely to miss like you said a few times already...

if only 7 of thoses 8 things happen, we're in...

ECWHSWI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2010, 01:49 PM
  #94
One Trick Pony
Registered User
 
One Trick Pony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,583
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucius View Post
Yes, if we miss, I will be in complete disbelief.

Of course...

But that won't change the fact that we have a 25% chance of missing going into the game (assuming it requires a Rangers OTW). Maybe even less, since I doubt 25% of games are settled in OT.

But it's not like it suddenly goes from 99% to 25%.

We'll more than see it coming.

Frankly, if they lose to Carolina and Toronto, they don't deserve it anyway.

So, basically, you agree with us then, you realize? If we actually manage to squander our current position, it's amazing and we'll all be in disbelief.
I agree that if the odds are really 99.4% then yes theres almoat no way we don't make it. But if these odds come from the fact that each is 50/50 then I don't agree. But then again your argument that even if each game was 90/10 we would have good odds makes me understand the way you are seein all this and you are right in some way, like how can all these things happen? But because they are hockey games I don't believe in the odds at all! I could continue arguing but I think we've come to a point of understanding where it ia useless to argue because we both have our opinions. You believe in the laws of probabilities, I think they don't apply to hockey as much as skill, momentum, passion, practice, good/bad bounces, etc. Let's just leave it at that and hope the Habs win tonight

One Trick Pony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2010, 01:57 PM
  #95
One Trick Pony
Registered User
 
One Trick Pony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,583
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
rational ?

there's about 8 things that needs to happen for us not to make it... it is NOT rational to think we're likely to miss like you said a few times already...

if only 7 of thoses 8 things happen, we're in...
Well if you read, I meant that its more rationnal to think that our odds stay good up until the end. I was actually defending the fact that all 8 things have to happen for us to miss. If the odds drop, it makes it seem as less games depend on our chances now, which is logical, but not rationnal. You can't just forget about the previous games. You can for your calculations, but not when you consider the whole situation.

One Trick Pony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2010, 02:02 PM
  #96
Lucius
Registered User
 
Lucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eliash View Post
I agree that if the odds are really 99.4% then yes theres almoat no way we don't make it. But if these odds come from the fact that each is 50/50 then I don't agree. But then again your argument that even if each game was 90/10 we would have good odds makes me understand the way you are seein all this and you are right in some way, like how can all these things happen? But because they are hockey games I don't believe in the odds at all! I could continue arguing but I think we've come to a point of understanding where it ia useless to argue because we both have our opinions. You believe in the laws of probabilities, I think they don't apply to hockey as much as skill, momentum, passion, practice, good/bad bounces, etc. Let's just leave it at that and hope the Habs win tonight
I believe the SportsClubStats guys (where 99.4% comes from) factor in strength of opposition (records relative to each other) and season series.

It's not perfect, I'd imagine the odds are actually a bit less given it doesn't factor streaks and injuries, but generally speaking, the odds of 8 events no matter the odds coming out in a specific sequence make this daunting.

Lucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2010, 02:05 PM
  #97
ScopeHockey
Registered User
 
ScopeHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 542
vCash: 500
My 2 cents on the Rangers chances of passing and eliminating the Habs:

Assume that in all games remaining for the Rangers and Habs, each team has a 40% chance of winning in regulation and a 10% chance of winning in overtime.

Then the odds of the EXACT following situation occuring:

Habs vs Canes: Habs regular time loss (40%)
Habs vs Leafs: Habs regular time loss (40%)
Rangers vs Philly: Rangers OT win (10%)
Rangers vs Philly: Rangers regular time or OT win (40% + 10%)

Are:

0.4 * 0.4 * 0.1 * 0.5 = 0.008

In other words, slightly less 1%.

When you extend this scenario to factor in that Boston needs 3 points in 3 games and acknowledge that the probability of this happening is not 100%, the 0.008 probability is further reduced.

I'm not a betting man but I like those odds.

ScopeHockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2010, 02:10 PM
  #98
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,441
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScopeHockey View Post
You are correct. This is referred to as the Bayes theorem of prior versus posterior probability.
I just call it simple determinism.

It's the Bayes theorem, but it's even simpler than that and has to do with a lot more than just determining probabilities.

Everyone who has dabbled in maths, science and probabilities (chaos theory, Quantuum physics) knows that if only one single variable's value changes, it changes the outcome/result. It's pretty simple and straight-forward and has to do with about anything that can be studied.

That's why scientists say that you can't study an environment while being in it, as your presence becomes an added variable in itself, changing the outcome of the experiment.

All this talk of maths and probabilities makes me wanna go back into chaos theory / determinism books I haven't dusted off in years.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2010, 02:10 PM
  #99
One Trick Pony
Registered User
 
One Trick Pony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,583
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucius View Post
I believe the SportsClubStats guys (where 99.4% comes from) factor in strength of opposition (records relative to each other) and season series.

It's not perfect, I'd imagine the odds are actually a bit less given it doesn't factor streaks and injuries, but generally speaking, the odds of 8 events no matter the odds coming out in a specific sequence make this daunting.
Yeah I know it is hard to imagine all those events not happening in our favor and there is clearly an advantage for us, but thats as far as I would go to qualiy it.

Also, I just found an example that would prove you right lol. I play Mise O Jeu a lot and I never got 6 out of 6 right.. only 3/3. So it's pretty similar to this situation except that now the stakes are bigger for the teams, or maybe I suck at MOJ lol, but let's say I accept what you are saying for now. If we dont make the playoffs you shall be punished.

One Trick Pony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2010, 02:11 PM
  #100
Lucius
Registered User
 
Lucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScopeHockey View Post
My 2 cents on the Rangers chances of passing and eliminating the Habs:

Assume that in all games remaining for the Rangers and Habs, each team has a 40% chance of winning in regulation and a 10% chance of winning in overtime.

Then the odds of the EXACT following situation occuring:

Habs vs Canes: Habs regular time loss (40%)
Habs vs Leafs: Habs regular time loss (40%)
Rangers vs Philly: Rangers OT win (10%)
Rangers vs Philly: Rangers regular time or OT win (40% + 10%)

Are:

0.4 * 0.4 * 0.1 * 0.5 = 0.008

In other words, slightly less 1%.

When you extend this scenario to factor in that Boston needs 3 points in 3 games and acknowledge that the probability of this happening is not 100%, the 0.008 probability is further reduced.

I'm not a betting man but I like those odds.
Right. Even if you give it a 90% chance for every single one of the eight scenarios to unfold the way that is worst for Montreal, the total odds are still only 39%

Lucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:45 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.