Match play final.. Was I hustled?

[kellygreen]

[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381363677' post='7978339']

Put your money where your mouth is. I'll bet you $10,000 and I'll take the 99.998% odds and you take the .002% odds.
[/quote]

[i]Predictive....still not getting it.[/i]

Here's a bet for you...and I'll even let the odds work in your favor.

The incidence of Ewing's sarcoma (a rare form of bone cancer that strikes mainly adolescents) is just under 3 cases per 1,000,000. IOW, the odds are about 300 000 to 1 against any kid having the disease.

Let's bet $10 000.

If I can't find someone with the disease, you win. If I can find someone with the disease, I win...and you pay me the money.

(Hint...it's a s*cker bet.)

[arnold palmtree]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381403940' post='7980117']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381363677' post='7978339']

Put your money where your mouth is. I'll bet you $10,000 and I'll take the 99.998% odds and you take the .002% odds.
[/quote]

[i]Predictive....still not getting it.[/i]

Here's a bet for you...and I'll even let the odds work in your favor.

The incidence of Ewing's sarcoma (a rare form of bone cancer that strikes mainly adolescents) is just under 3 cases per 1,000,000. IOW, the odds are about 300 000 to 1 against any kid having the disease.

Let's bet $10 000.

If I can't find someone with the disease, you win. If I can find someone with the disease, I win...and you pay me the money.

(Hint...it's a s*cker bet.)
[/quote]

Do you honestly believe you just made a logical analogy?

Your analogy in no way is representative of my comments in this thread or the comments of the op.

[arnold palmtree]

[quote name='jihunyu' timestamp='1381382362' post='7979627']
Hey Parker0065, I completely understand what you are saying in your post. As I've also said, we just dont have enough information to come to a verdict, YET. It would be too premature to label anyone as a cheater based on 13 holes.
I apologize because this is going to be long, but please bear with me.

I think what Eye2+ hasn't been able to grasp is that sometimes logic, odds, and experiences do not exactly fit. Yes the odds for a player going -10 are against him, but that doesn't mean we havent had experiences that goes against logic. No one is debating what the odds are Eye2+, I think people are just disagreeing with your [b]APPLICATION[/b] of how odds work. So before Eye2+ goes on about how this thread lacks logic, maybe he needs a lesson on logic itself.
Odds are calculated in 2 ways; statistics and mathematical probabilities. Odds based on statistics only refer to the general population as a whole, and not to an individual. The odds of you getting a royal flush is based on mathematical probabilities of an independent variable that has nothing to do what has happened in the past, nor will it ever change over time as a whole or per individual. The odds of you going -10 are based on statistics of what has already occurred. So what that means is, the odds of you getting a royal flush doesn't matter whether you're playing in Vegas, Atlantic City, or in the basement of your house. Doesn't matter how many royal flushes have come out in the past.

Now by principal, the odds of you going -10 is no different than the odds of you living past 80 years old, or the odds of you getting bitten by a shark. They are based on recorded stats. So lets just assume for demonstration purposes, 1 out of 10 people live past 80, or odds of 9:1. Has those odds changed over time? Im sure it did the past 100 years, due to medical advances, etc. Does that mean all of us face the same odds like we would in getting a royal flush? [b]NO[/b]. That would depend on multiple variables, such as lifestyle, economics, your job, diet, etc. So that means some of us may experience shooting -10 net 50 times in their life, and some may never be able to do it. No different than the odds of a hole-in-one. Some of us may achieve it multiple times, some may never get it. But as a WHOLE, it all evens out.

I think part of this debate has more to do with human nature than what the odds are or what are the problems in the handicapping system. I'm sure some of us had friends who shot exceptionally well, beyond the norms of what he does on average. And when they do, we might say "hey man, nice job. you were really on fire today." But when a person, whom we dont know, does it after playing a round against him, we call him a sandbagger because the odds say that it's highly unlikely. I play for money once a week with a group of friends that consists of 4, a 6 and a 28 guy who normally hits between 98-104. So pretty much a consistent bogey/double bogey player. We give this guy 1 stroke each for 14 holes. Usually in the long run, it all evens out, win some lose some. 3 weeks ago he comes flying out of the gates, and puts on a string of 5 pars. One was a chip-in from about 40 feet, and the 4 pars all coming from 20+ feet putts. In addition, this guy is one of those players who usually needs 2 tries to get out of green-side bunker. He was in the bunker 5 times that day, in which he got out of them in one try 4 times. The 3 of us are looking at each other like "WTF is going on here". Fast forward, he ends up shooting 91 and wins about 27 G's from the 3 of us. Bad feelings? Nope. Because we know it was just his day, chances are he won't be doing that in a while, if ever again, and we gave him credit for that round. Now if you were playing against that guy that day, not knowing his past performances and how he gets his scores, it would be natural to think you just got hustled by a 28 handicapper because he just shot -9. Is it really because of the odds? Or is it because you just don't have enough information to know how he plays.

My point is, 1 round of golf is not indicative of a person's abilities for any level of golf, whether you're a pro or bogey player. Is it enough to raise a few eyebrows, sure why not, but enough to label a person a cheat? And odds have no significance AFTER an event has occurred, because then it would be called a statistic. Odds only matter when you're trying to predict the next event.
If you got [b]10 and Jack of spades[/b], the flop and turn is showing [b]Q-Spade[/b], [b]K-Spade[/b], [color=#ff0000][b]3-Diamond[/b][/color], [color=#ff0000][b]7-Heart[/b][/color][color=#000000], and your opponent raises you, which would put you all-in, this is where odds have significance. What are the odds of you getting any 9 for a straight, or an Ace-spade to get royal flush.[/color]
[color=#000000]Now lets say the flop and turn is showing [b]Q-Spade, King-Spade, Ace-Spade, [/b][/color][color=#ff0000][b]7-Heart[/b][/color][color=#000000]. Does it matter that the odds of you getting a royal flush is 600,000:1. Ofcourse not, because you already got it. [/color]If you knew nothing about golf and never seen golf, and went to watch a round of Jim Furyk, what would you think of him? Well that would depend whether you saw him get cut at the US Open after a 2nd round 79, or when he shot 59 at BMW. You either will think he sucks, or he's the best golfer in the world. But we all know he doesnt suck, and Tiger Woods is the #1 player in the world. Are there sandbaggers out there, ofcourse, but to accuse someone being a cheater after 1 round of golf because the odds as a whole say otherwise, means you are also discrediting those individuals who are honest.

Again, apologies for the long rant.
[/quote]

You are correct in that we have a serious disagreement on the application of the odds.

I know they should apply, and you believe the odds are irrelevant. Anyone can be right about anything if they ignore the facts.

[bmellisen]

[quote name='jihunyu' timestamp='1381382362' post='7979627']
Hey Parker0065, I completely understand what you are saying in your post. As I've also said, we just dont have enough information to come to a verdict, YET. It would be too premature to label anyone as a cheater based on 13 holes.
I apologize because this is going to be long, but please bear with me.

I think what Eye2+ hasn't been able to grasp is that sometimes logic, odds, and experiences do not exactly fit. Yes the odds for a player going -10 are against him, but that doesn't mean we havent had experiences that goes against logic. No one is debating what the odds are Eye2+, I think people are just disagreeing with your [b]APPLICATION[/b] of how odds work. So before Eye2+ goes on about how this thread lacks logic, maybe he needs a lesson on logic itself.
Odds are calculated in 2 ways; statistics and mathematical probabilities. Odds based on statistics only refer to the general population as a whole, and not to an individual. The odds of you getting a royal flush is based on mathematical probabilities of an independent variable that has nothing to do what has happened in the past, nor will it ever change over time as a whole or per individual. The odds of you going -10 are based on statistics of what has already occurred. So what that means is, the odds of you getting a royal flush doesn't matter whether you're playing in Vegas, Atlantic City, or in the basement of your house. Doesn't matter how many royal flushes have come out in the past.

Now by principal, the odds of you going -10 is no different than the odds of you living past 80 years old, or the odds of you getting bitten by a shark. They are based on recorded stats. So lets just assume for demonstration purposes, 1 out of 10 people live past 80, or odds of 9:1. Has those odds changed over time? Im sure it did the past 100 years, due to medical advances, etc. Does that mean all of us face the same odds like we would in getting a royal flush? [b]NO[/b]. That would depend on multiple variables, such as lifestyle, economics, your job, diet, etc. So that means some of us may experience shooting -10 net 50 times in their life, and some may never be able to do it. No different than the odds of a hole-in-one. Some of us may achieve it multiple times, some may never get it. But as a WHOLE, it all evens out.

I think part of this debate has more to do with human nature than what the odds are or what are the problems in the handicapping system. I'm sure some of us had friends who shot exceptionally well, beyond the norms of what he does on average. And when they do, we might say "hey man, nice job. you were really on fire today." But when a person, whom we dont know, does it after playing a round against him, we call him a sandbagger because the odds say that it's highly unlikely. I play for money once a week with a group of friends that consists of 4, a 6 and a 28 guy who normally hits between 98-104. So pretty much a consistent bogey/double bogey player. We give this guy 1 stroke each for 14 holes. Usually in the long run, it all evens out, win some lose some. 3 weeks ago he comes flying out of the gates, and puts on a string of 5 pars. One was a chip-in from about 40 feet, and the 4 pars all coming from 20+ feet putts. In addition, this guy is one of those players who usually needs 2 tries to get out of green-side bunker. He was in the bunker 5 times that day, in which he got out of them in one try 4 times. The 3 of us are looking at each other like "WTF is going on here". Fast forward, he ends up shooting 91 and wins about 27 G's from the 3 of us. Bad feelings? Nope. Because we know it was just his day, chances are he won't be doing that in a while, if ever again, and we gave him credit for that round. Now if you were playing against that guy that day, not knowing his past performances and how he gets his scores, it would be natural to think you just got hustled by a 28 handicapper because he just shot -9. Is it really because of the odds? Or is it because you just don't have enough information to know how he plays.

My point is, 1 round of golf is not indicative of a person's abilities for any level of golf, whether you're a pro or bogey player. Is it enough to raise a few eyebrows, sure why not, but enough to label a person a cheat? And odds have no significance AFTER an event has occurred, because then it would be called a statistic. Odds only matter when you're trying to predict the next event.
If you got [b]10 and Jack of spades[/b], the flop and turn is showing [b]Q-Spade[/b], [b]K-Spade[/b], [color=#ff0000][b]3-Diamond[/b][/color], [color=#ff0000][b]7-Heart[/b][/color][color=#000000], and your opponent raises you, which would put you all-in, this is where odds have significance. What are the odds of you getting any 9 for a straight, or an Ace-spade to get royal flush.[/color]
[color=#000000]Now lets say the flop and turn is showing [b]Q-Spade, King-Spade, Ace-Spade, [/b][/color][color=#ff0000][b]7-Heart[/b][/color][color=#000000]. Does it matter that the odds of you getting a royal flush is 600,000:1. Ofcourse not, because you already got it. [/color]If you knew nothing about golf and never seen golf, and went to watch a round of Jim Furyk, what would you think of him? Well that would depend whether you saw him get cut at the US Open after a 2nd round 79, or when he shot 59 at BMW. You either will think he sucks, or he's the best golfer in the world. But we all know he doesnt suck, and Tiger Woods is the #1 player in the world. Are there sandbaggers out there, ofcourse, but to accuse someone being a cheater after 1 round of golf because the odds as a whole say otherwise, means you are also discrediting those individuals who are honest.

Again, apologies for the long rant.
[/quote]


Pretty smooth way to throw in that you play in a foursome with potential to win 27 grand.

[kellygreen]

[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381404674' post='7980143']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381403940' post='7980117']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381363677' post='7978339']
Put your money where your mouth is. I'll bet you $10,000 and I'll take the 99.998% odds and you take the .002% odds.
[/quote]

[i]Predictive....still not getting it.[/i]

Here's a bet for you...and I'll even let the odds work in your favor.

The incidence of Ewing's sarcoma (a rare form of bone cancer that strikes mainly adolescents) is just under 3 cases per 1,000,000. IOW, the odds are about 300 000 to 1 against any kid having the disease.

Let's bet $10 000.

If I can't find someone with the disease, you win. If I can find someone with the disease, I win...and you pay me the money.

(Hint...it's a s*cker bet.)
[/quote]

Do you honestly believe you just made a logical analogy?

Your analogy in no way is representative of my comments in this thread or the comments of the op.
[/quote]

Yes....I did.

Because what you keep STUBBORNLY refusing to see is that the way you keep trying to apply odds ratios here is not appropriate to the situation.

You are not trying to PREDICT whether or not someone will shoot ten strokes below their handicap in a given round.

You are trying to determine whether someone who HAS shot ten strokes below their STATED handicap, has done so legitimately.

The first instance is predictive.

The latter instance is FORENSIC.

The first case is trying to determine what WILL happen.

The latter is trying to explain WHY what happened occurred.

Betting against your scenario is a smart bet. Because the odds of any person on any day going that low, are pretty slim.

Betting against me is a s*cker bet. Because you have no idea how I went---will go about selecting that person. It's really a s*cker bet, because locating one would only require me to make a telephone call.

Similarly, you have NO idea how the person whom the OP faced in that match was "selected"...and to his credit...the more the OP talks about what was going on, the more it sounds like this MIGHT be one of those rare instances where someone with a legitimate handicap shot a really low round.

I'm harping on this, because you are respresenting a common-but-dangerous line of flawed thinking. One that can have lethal consequences in my line of work if it is over-indulged.

Rare does not mean impossible.

Rare does not mean it can't happen to you....or in front of you.

Because to everyone else, YOU are one of the "other people" such things "only happen to."

[deadsolid...shank]

[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381377350' post='7979411']
[quote name='ND2005' timestamp='1381376335' post='7979351']
I have nothing but further anecdote to add to this conversation. And as we know, the plural of anecdote is not data...

But not all 12 handicaps are created equal. My dad plays to a 11 or so. But he's also a former professional baseball player with pretty exceptional hand eye coordination even for his age. His golf skill is really only limited by the number of rounds he plays and that he doesn't practice much.

But on any given day if he gets ho the can play well. I've been out on the course with him for several 74-75 rounds.

He doesn't play anything more competitive than a regular weekend foursome with his buddies so he has minimal incentive to inflate his handicap.
[/quote]

That's understandable. It's the unavoidable problem with the handicap system. His 11 isn't really representative of his potential. So he has an advantage over someone who plays a lot of rounds and has a legitimate handicap.
[/quote]

So then you're saying his handicap isn't legitimate because he has more potential than the "steady Eddy" player who plays a lot of rounds and posts a very small scoring range? That just confirms what a lot of people are saying, that not all 12's are created equal. There is more than one way to arrive at that number.

If his dad is posting all his scores, then his handicap is legitimate, no matter his potential. Those low numbers could have come over the course of several years, and be swamped by many more big numbers. My guess is if he played the "steady Eddy" ten times, Eddy would probably win seven or eight of them, in stroke play, because he's going to put up much more consistent numbers. But match play is a different animal and crazy things can (and often do) happen. Much like the OP.

[arnold palmtree]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381407406' post='7980263']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381404674' post='7980143']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381403940' post='7980117']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381363677' post='7978339']
Put your money where your mouth is. I'll bet you $10,000 and I'll take the 99.998% odds and you take the .002% odds.
[/quote]

[i]Predictive....still not getting it.[/i]

Here's a bet for you...and I'll even let the odds work in your favor.

The incidence of Ewing's sarcoma (a rare form of bone cancer that strikes mainly adolescents) is just under 3 cases per 1,000,000. IOW, the odds are about 300 000 to 1 against any kid having the disease.

Let's bet $10 000.

If I can't find someone with the disease, you win. If I can find someone with the disease, I win...and you pay me the money.

(Hint...it's a s*cker bet.)
[/quote]

Do you honestly believe you just made a logical analogy?

Your analogy in no way is representative of my comments in this thread or the comments of the op.
[/quote]

Yes....I did.

Because what you keep STUBBORNLY refusing to see is that the way you keep trying to apply odds ratios here is not appropriate to the situation.

You are not trying to PREDICT whether or not someone will shoot ten strokes below their handicap in a given round.

You are trying to determine whether someone who HAS shot ten strokes below their STATED handicap, has done so legitimately.

The first instance is predictive.

The latter instance is FORENSIC.

The first case is trying to determine what WILL happen.

The latter is trying to explain WHY what happened occurred.

Betting against your scenario is a smart bet. Because the odds of any person on any day going that low, are pretty slim.

Betting against me is a s*cker bet. Because you have no idea how I went---will go about selecting that person. It's really a s*cker bet, because locating one would only require me to make a telephone call.

Similarly, you have NO idea how the person whom the OP faced in that match was "selected"...and to his credit...the more the OP talks about what was going on, the more it sounds like this MIGHT be one of those rare instances where someone with a legitimate handicap shot a really low round.

I'm harping on this, because you are respresenting a common-but-dangerous line of flawed thinking. One that can have lethal consequences in my line of work if it is over-indulged.

Rare does not mean impossible.

Rare does not mean it can't happen to you....or in front of you.

Because to everyone else, YOU are one of the "other people" such things "only happen to."
[/quote]

Once again your logic is extremely flawed.

For your example to follow this debate a random stranger would walk up to you asking for a donation. If he said he had Ewing's sarcoma, would you be able to correctly predict if this person had the disease or not?

[kellygreen]

[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381404857' post='7980155']
You are correct in that we have a serious disagreement on the application of the odds.

I know they should apply, and you believe the odds are irrelevant. Anyone can be right about anything if they ignore the facts.
[/quote]

No. (No disrespect) but he understands how odds ratios operate in the real world...and how they need to be looked at (including their limitations) and applied when dealing with it.

You, only understand them in the abstract...and grasp them only in a basic, predictive fashion.

He's trying to teach you something that you don't know...and you're either too stubborn or too proud to listen.

What he's trying to tell you is that any time you are using odds---at best---you are using what has happened in the PAST, in an effort to predict what will happen in the future. By looking at a large number of events, spread out over a POPULATION.

But---what he clearly grasps, and you don't seem to---is the relationship between the PAST and the FUTURE isn't that rigid. Especially when you are dealing with human beings (who are in a state of perpetual change) and not with machines or other things whose behavior is determined by straight physical laws.

...and if you try to apply odds ratios in the real world without that understanding, you open yourself to making some very catastrophic mistakes. If you are doctor...you run the risk of killing people. If you operate a casino, you run the risk of going broke.

For example. Over the time, the odds of every major gambling game favors the house. So if is sit down to a gaming table, and sit there and play long enough...I'm going to go broke. The casino will relieve me of my money. Looking at the entire popluation of people that a casino will see in a year, more people will lose money than will win...and the casino will take in a fairly predictable amount of money.

But any SMART casino operator also realizes that he has to contend with players who are on streaks. If he gets a wealthy patron who is having a run of bad luck (a rare string of unlikely negative events being put together)...the LAST thing he wants is that player getting up and leaving. Instead he encourages the player to keep playing. To think that he's just one more game away from turning things around and winning his money back. That way you maximize the amount of money you take from that guy while his luck is bad.

The opposite is also true. You get players who get "hot"...and they start stringing equally unlikely but POSITIVE (for them) events together....and they start taking the House for lots of money. If you don't do something to change the situation and break that streak....you leave the House vulnerable to taking a major hit to its bottom line. You ply the player with complimentary drinks...in an effort to impair his judgement. Or you try to keep him at the table so that his hot-streak plays itself, and he "regresses to the mean" (the population odds reassert themselves). Or you offer him complimentary entertainment to get him to leave the table and limit the damage.

Or---if he still won't get the hint, and he still won't stop clobbering the House----you shut down the table and force him to walk away.

He's trying to tell you that---once you step into the real world----the wise person uses the odds as a GUIDE to how he looks at a situation and responds to it. While understanding that there is no rigidly deterministic relationship between them, and what happens in an INDVIDUAL situation.

Its the difference between the practical understanding of this topic...and only understanding in the conceptual/abstract sense.

[kellygreen]

[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381408298' post='7980351']

Once again your logic is extremely flawed.

For your example to follow this debate a random stranger would walk up to you asking for a donation. If he said he had Ewing's sarcoma, would you be able to correctly predict if this person had the disease or not?
[/quote]

No, what I understand is that odds ratios are not deterministic when you are dealing with events that involve living systems and living beings.

A point that you stubbornly refuse to see.

As for your hypothetical. I would neither be able to predict that he does...nor predict that he does not.

If I GUESSED that he didn't....chances are that I would be right...If i were standing on a street corner.

If I were sitting in the office of an Orthopedic Oncologist (tumor surgeon) there would be a very good chance that I would be wrong.

[vtnerf]

Guys, take it off this thread....please!! That's why there are PM's.

[arnold palmtree]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381408807' post='7980387']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381408298' post='7980351']

Once again your logic is extremely flawed.

For your example to follow this debate a random stranger would walk up to you asking for a donation. If he said he had Ewing's sarcoma, would you be able to correctly predict if this person had the disease or not?
[/quote]

No, what I understand is that odds ratios are not deterministic when you are dealing with events that involve living systems and living beings.

A point that you stubbornly refuse to see.

As for your hypothetical. I would neither be able to predict that he does...nor predict that he does not.

If I GUESSED that he didn't....chances are that I would be right...If i were standing on a street corner.

If I were sitting in the office of an Orthopedic Oncologist (tumor surgeon) there would be a very good chance that I would be wrong.
[/quote]

No one is arguing that odds are deterministic, but you.

[TripleSingle]

[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381404857' post='7980155']

You are correct in that we have a serious disagreement on the application of the odds.

I know they should apply, and you believe the odds are irrelevant. Anyone can be right about anything if they ignore the facts.
[/quote]

When did i say odds are irrelevant? I said whether they are or not would depend on what you are trying to do.
For example, the charlotte bobcats are playing the LA clippers (no offense to charlotte fans). The odds for bobcats winning is 500:1. The cats win the game 107-98. Its an upset,and you are shocked and in disbelief. What do you do to check whether its true the cats won or not....the odds? You would go check out the box score and analyze what happened. Ok so turns out CP3 had a bad game going 2-15 fgs and 6 assists, and blake griffin left the game early because of injury. Now if you asked me to place money that the cats will beat the clippers, i wouldnt because of the odds.

So back to this 9-12 guy. What would you do to check to see if he is legit? The odds? I would want to know more details on all his previous matches that led him to the finals, and what made him go from a 9 to a 12 in a year. When is the odds relevant? If you asked me if i would bet that this guy would go +1 in 13 holes tomorrow. Hell no i wouldnt. I wouldnt even bet on the cats winning, so why would i bet on something thats 84,000:1.

So the difference between you and I is that you will go check whether it hailed yesterday by looking at the odds....i'm looking for the weather report.

[Ty_Webb]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381403940' post='7980117']That way you maximize the amount of money you take from that guy while his luck is bad.

The opposite is also true. You get players who get "hot"...and they start stringing equally unlikely but POSITIVE (for them) events together....and they start taking the House for lots of money. If you don't do something to change the situation and break that streak....you leave the House vulnerable to taking a major hit to its bottom line.
[/quote]

Now I know you don't know what you're talking about. The casino is vulnerable to some things, namely some random dude comes in and plonks $100 million on red at roulette. That's pretty close to a 50/50 shot and if that person wins that bet then the casino is going to take a blow. That's why casinos have maximum bet rules. But the roulette wheel doesn't know what happened the last few spins. If someone wins 5 spins in a row, the chances that they win the next one are exactly the same as they were the first spin, and the second, and the third, and the fourth, and the fifth and every other spin down the line. People get on hot streaks, because that's the way the odds work. A 50/50 gamble is going to come in 10 times in a row once every 1,024 times (on average). The casino wants a player to continue playing whether they are hot or not (unless they're counting cards).

[arnold palmtree]

[quote name='jihunyu' timestamp='1381409440' post='7980445']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381404857' post='7980155']
You are correct in that we have a serious disagreement on the application of the odds.

I know they should apply, and you believe the odds are irrelevant. Anyone can be right about anything if they ignore the facts.
[/quote]

When did i say odds are irrelevant? I said whether they are or not would depend on what you are trying to do.
For example, the charlotte bobcats are playing the LA clippers (no offense to charlotte fans). The odds for bobcats winning is 500:1. The cats win the game 107-98. Its an upset,and you are shocked and in disbelief. What do you do to check whether its true the cats won or not....the odds? You would go check out the box score and analyze what happened. Ok so turns out CP3 had a bad game going 2-15 fgs and 6 assists, and blake griffin left the game early because of injury. Now if you asked me to place money that the cats will beat the clippers, i wouldnt because of the odds.

So back to this 9-12 guy. What would you do to check to see if he is legit? The odds? I would want to know more details on all his previous matches that led him to the finals, and what made him go from a 9 to a 12 in a year. When is the odds relevant? If you asked me if i would bet that this guy would go +1 in 13 holes tomorrow. Hell no i wouldnt. I wouldnt even bet on the cats winning, so why would i bet on something thats 84,000:1.

So the difference between you and I is that you will go check whether it hailed yesterday by looking at the odds....i'm looking for the weather report.
[/quote]

Once again, you and several posters are unable to make a valid comparison.

In your example we know that the Bobcats beat the Clippers. In the OP we know the OP lost. That isn't up for debate. A valid analogy on your part would be the following:

The odds are 84,300:1 that the Clipper threw the game and intentionally lost. Do we assume that the Clipper threw the game, or do we go with the 99.998% probability that the clippers just didn't play well that night?

[wobgon]

[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381409903' post='7980495']
[quote name='jihunyu' timestamp='1381409440' post='7980445']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381404857' post='7980155']
You are correct in that we have a serious disagreement on the application of the odds.

I know they should apply, and you believe the odds are irrelevant. Anyone can be right about anything if they ignore the facts.
[/quote]

When did i say odds are irrelevant? I said whether they are or not would depend on what you are trying to do.
For example, the charlotte bobcats are playing the LA clippers (no offense to charlotte fans). The odds for bobcats winning is 500:1. The cats win the game 107-98. Its an upset,and you are shocked and in disbelief. What do you do to check whether its true the cats won or not....the odds? You would go check out the box score and analyze what happened. Ok so turns out CP3 had a bad game going 2-15 fgs and 6 assists, and blake griffin left the game early because of injury. Now if you asked me to place money that the cats will beat the clippers, i wouldnt because of the odds.

So back to this 9-12 guy. What would you do to check to see if he is legit? The odds? I would want to know more details on all his previous matches that led him to the finals, and what made him go from a 9 to a 12 in a year. When is the odds relevant? If you asked me if i would bet that this guy would go +1 in 13 holes tomorrow. Hell no i wouldnt. I wouldnt even bet on the cats winning, so why would i bet on something thats 84,000:1.

So the difference between you and I is that you will go check whether it hailed yesterday by looking at the odds....i'm looking for the weather report.
[/quote]

Once again, you and several posters are unable to make a valid comparison.

In your example we know that the Bobcats beat the Clippers. In the OP we know the OP lost. That isn't up for debate. A valid analogy on your part would be the following:

The odds are 84,300:1 that the Clipper threw the game and intentionally lost. Do we assume that the Clipper threw the game, or do we go with the 99.998% probability that the clippers just didn't play well that night?
[/quote]
Have you taken your medication.....If not, please do so as soon as possible...

[Hstead]

Eye2+, why don't you wonder over to the other thread and tell all of the folks chiming in that have beat their handicap by 10 or more, not to mention the overwhelming amount of guys that have torn it up through 9 or 13, that they are either cheats, or will never do it again, even though several have stated how they have done it more than once. Same with a hole-in-one, let everyone know that if they have one, they will never have another because the odds are just way too staked against them. We will ignore that I have 3 and many others have double digits. Like we ignore the fact that the 12 handicap was a 9 at one time, and only played 13 holes and had 5 of the toughest holes on the course yet to play. Carry on.

[kellygreen]

[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381409335' post='7980437']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381408807' post='7980387']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381408298' post='7980351']
Once again your logic is extremely flawed.

For your example to follow this debate a random stranger would walk up to you asking for a donation. If he said he had Ewing's sarcoma, would you be able to correctly predict if this person had the disease or not?
[/quote]

No, what I understand is that odds ratios are not deterministic when you are dealing with events that involve living systems and living beings.

A point that you stubbornly refuse to see.

As for your hypothetical. I would neither be able to predict that he does...nor predict that he does not.

If I GUESSED that he didn't....chances are that I would be right...If i were standing on a street corner.

If I were sitting in the office of an Orthopedic Oncologist (tumor surgeon) there would be a very good chance that I would be wrong.
[/quote]

No one is arguing that odds are deterministic, but you.
[/quote]

Actually YOU are.

Perhaps you dont' realize that you are...but you most certainly are.

Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation, and it would not have gone on this long.

Because you would realize that---whenever you are looking at an individual event----you never know from WHICH PART of the distribution curve that individual is coming from.

...and if you ASSUME you do, you will eventually make a mistake.

Potentially a tragic one if you are dealing with a "low incidence, high consequence" event.

[Barry88]

I have created a monster!!!!! I regret starting this thread now after reading the farcical drivel that's being posted the last couple of days.. Casinos, odds, predicting future trends etc I think it's gone way off topic to an extent. There have been many great posts and I thank everyone for them they are appreciated and I have learned a lot from other players' experiences. Eye2+, while I mean no offence, there seems to be a gap in your knowledge. Juihunyu hit the nail on the head in his first post and I think you should re-evaluate your perception of the concept, but not on this thread or any thread on WRX. Can the argument be put to rest now PLEASE. Thanks everyone for your RELEVANT information.

[vtnerf]

[kellygreen]

[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381409903' post='7980495']
Once again, you and several posters are unable to make a valid comparison.

In your example we know that the Bobcats beat the Clippers. In the OP we know the OP lost. That isn't up for debate. A valid analogy on your part would be the following:

The odds are 84,300:1 that the Clipper threw the game and intentionally lost. Do we assume that the Clipper threw the game, or do we go with the 99.998% probability that the clippers just didn't play well that night?
[/quote]

You do neither...if you wish to act responsibly, with integrity and intellectual rigor.

You conduct an investigation, and collect proof to futher clarify WHICH it is that occurred.

Only if you don't care about the possibility of unfairly ruining people's reputations, do you "assume" that someone cheated. Just because what happened only happens rarely.

The fact that you keep trying to advance this argument, is what makes it clear that you lack a fundamental understanding of how these sorts of probabilities operate in the real world.,

Because---if the Bobcats play the Clippers enough times---there WILL be a night where the Clippers come out flat, and the Bobcats kick their @ss. Just like there was a day when Mark O'Meara came out and whalloped Vijay Singh 13&11.

If enough golfers play..there ARE going to be players who legitimately shoot ten below their handicap...and it will happen in a tournament.

[deadsolid...shank]

[quote name='Barry88' timestamp='1381411474' post='7980639']
I have created a monster!!!!! I regret starting this thread now after reading the farcical drivel that's being posted the last couple of days.. Casinos, odds, predicting future trends etc I think it's gone way off topic to an extent. There have been many great posts and I thank everyone for them they are appreciated and I have learned a lot from other players' experiences. Eye2+, while I mean no offence, there seems to be a gap in your knowledge. Juihunyu hit the nail on the head in his first post and I think you should re-evaluate your perception of the concept, but not on this thread or any thread on WRX. Can the argument be put to rest now PLEASE. Thanks everyone for your RELEVANT information.
[/quote]

No Barry, don't regret it. It's been a very entertaining thread to follow. And there have been a lot of good posts in there too.

Please don't ask for it to be closed, I'm sure there's much more to come! Business is slow, so this could well be the highlight of my day.

[arnold palmtree]

[quote name='Barry88' timestamp='1381411474' post='7980639']
I have created a monster!!!!! I regret starting this thread now after reading the farcical drivel that's being posted the last couple of days.. Casinos, odds, predicting future trends etc I think it's gone way off topic to an extent. There have been many great posts and I thank everyone for them they are appreciated and I have learned a lot from other players' experiences. Eye2+, while I mean no offence, there seems to be a gap in your knowledge. Juihunyu hit the nail on the head in his first post and I think you should re-evaluate your perception of the concept, but not on this thread or any thread on WRX. Can the argument be put to rest now PLEASE. Thanks everyone for your RELEVANT information.
[/quote]

No offence, but if you believe I'm wrong then it shows a lack of understanding on your part.

The lack of logic in this thread is maddening.

[arnold palmtree]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381411793' post='7980661']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381409903' post='7980495']
Once again, you and several posters are unable to make a valid comparison.

In your example we know that the Bobcats beat the Clippers. In the OP we know the OP lost. That isn't up for debate. A valid analogy on your part would be the following:

The odds are 84,300:1 that the Clipper threw the game and intentionally lost. Do we assume that the Clipper threw the game, or do we go with the 99.998% probability that the clippers just didn't play well that night?
[/quote]

You do neither...if you wish to act responsibly, with integrity and intellectual rigor.

You conduct an investigation, and collect proof to futher clarify WHICH it is that occurred.

Only if you don't care about the possibility of unfairly ruining people's reputations, do you "assume" that someone cheated. Just because what happened only happens rarely.

The fact that you keep trying to advance this argument, is what makes it clear that you lack a fundamental understanding of how these sorts of probabilities operate in the real world.,

Because---if the Bobcats play the Clippers enough times---there WILL be a night where the Clippers come out flat, and the Bobcats kick their @ss. Just like there was a day when Mark O'Meara came out and whalloped Vijay Singh 13&11.

If enough golfers play..there ARE going to be players who legitimately shoot ten below their handicap...and it will happen in a tournament.
[/quote]

It's amazing how many words you can type that are irrelevant to the discussion.

No one has argued it is impossible for someone to ten under. You continue to disagree that it was 99.998% unlikely.

[arnold palmtree]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381411453' post='7980627']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381409335' post='7980437']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381408807' post='7980387']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381408298' post='7980351']
Once again your logic is extremely flawed.

For your example to follow this debate a random stranger would walk up to you asking for a donation. If he said he had Ewing's sarcoma, would you be able to correctly predict if this person had the disease or not?
[/quote]

No, what I understand is that odds ratios are not deterministic when you are dealing with events that involve living systems and living beings.

A point that you stubbornly refuse to see.

As for your hypothetical. I would neither be able to predict that he does...nor predict that he does not.

If I GUESSED that he didn't....chances are that I would be right...If i were standing on a street corner.

If I were sitting in the office of an Orthopedic Oncologist (tumor surgeon) there would be a very good chance that I would be wrong.
[/quote]

No one is arguing that odds are deterministic, but you.
[/quote]

Actually YOU are.

Perhaps you dont' realize that you are...but you most certainly are.

Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation, and it would not have gone on this long.

Because you would realize that---whenever you are looking at an individual event----you never know from WHICH PART of the distribution curve that individual is coming from.

...and if you ASSUME you do, you will eventually make a mistake.

Potentially a tragic one if you are dealing with a "low incidence, high consequence" event.
[/quote]

My argument has been simple and factual. There is a .002% chance he shot that score legitimately.

Do you disagree?

[arnold palmtree]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381411453' post='7980627']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381409335' post='7980437']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381408807' post='7980387']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381408298' post='7980351']
Once again your logic is extremely flawed.

For your example to follow this debate a random stranger would walk up to you asking for a donation. If he said he had Ewing's sarcoma, would you be able to correctly predict if this person had the disease or not?
[/quote]

No, what I understand is that odds ratios are not deterministic when you are dealing with events that involve living systems and living beings.

A point that you stubbornly refuse to see.

As for your hypothetical. I would neither be able to predict that he does...nor predict that he does not.

If I GUESSED that he didn't....chances are that I would be right...If i were standing on a street corner.

If I were sitting in the office of an Orthopedic Oncologist (tumor surgeon) there would be a very good chance that I would be wrong.
[/quote]

No one is arguing that odds are deterministic, but you.
[/quote]

Actually YOU are.

Perhaps you dont' realize that you are...but you most certainly are.

Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation, and it would not have gone on this long.

Because you would realize that---whenever you are looking at an individual event----you never know from WHICH PART of the distribution curve that individual is coming from.

...and if you ASSUME you do, you will eventually make a mistake.

Potentially a tragic one if you are dealing with a "low incidence, high consequence" event.
[/quote]

My argument has been simple and factual. There is a .002% chance he shot that score legitimately.

Do you disagree?

[arnold palmtree]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381411453' post='7980627']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381409335' post='7980437']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381408807' post='7980387']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381408298' post='7980351']
Once again your logic is extremely flawed.

For your example to follow this debate a random stranger would walk up to you asking for a donation. If he said he had Ewing's sarcoma, would you be able to correctly predict if this person had the disease or not?
[/quote]

No, what I understand is that odds ratios are not deterministic when you are dealing with events that involve living systems and living beings.

A point that you stubbornly refuse to see.

As for your hypothetical. I would neither be able to predict that he does...nor predict that he does not.

If I GUESSED that he didn't....chances are that I would be right...If i were standing on a street corner.

If I were sitting in the office of an Orthopedic Oncologist (tumor surgeon) there would be a very good chance that I would be wrong.
[/quote]

No one is arguing that odds are deterministic, but you.
[/quote]

Actually YOU are.

Perhaps you dont' realize that you are...but you most certainly are.

Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation, and it would not have gone on this long.

Because you would realize that---whenever you are looking at an individual event----you never know from WHICH PART of the distribution curve that individual is coming from.

...and if you ASSUME you do, you will eventually make a mistake.

Potentially a tragic one if you are dealing with a "low incidence, high consequence" event.
[/quote]

My argument has been simple and factual. There is a .002% chance he shot that score legitimately.

Do you disagree?

[wobgon]

[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381412366' post='7980717']
[quote name='Barry88' timestamp='1381411474' post='7980639']
I have created a monster!!!!! I regret starting this thread now after reading the farcical drivel that's being posted the last couple of days.. Casinos, odds, predicting future trends etc I think it's gone way off topic to an extent. There have been many great posts and I thank everyone for them they are appreciated and I have learned a lot from other players' experiences. Eye2+, while I mean no offence, there seems to be a gap in your knowledge. Juihunyu hit the nail on the head in his first post and I think you should re-evaluate your perception of the concept, but not on this thread or any thread on WRX. Can the argument be put to rest now PLEASE. Thanks everyone for your RELEVANT information.
[/quote]

No offence, but if you believe I'm wrong then it shows a lack of understanding on your part.

The lack of logic in this thread is maddening.
[/quote]

[vtnerf]

AGAIN, he did NOT shoot 10 strokes better than his handicap. He was on PACE to shoot that, but did NOT finish the round. They only played 13 holes.

[Hstead]

The chance are much higher than .002%. He was a 9. It has been explained that how a CONGU 12 is more like a 9-10 in the States, and he once was a CONGU 9, which would make him similar in ability to a 6-7 in the states. He played 13 holes, of which they were the easier holes on the course. It was MATCH play, which you seem to not understand the difference in strategy as proved earlier.

So no, his "odds" were not .002%.

But let's keep the blinders on for arguments sake. I noticed you haven't gone to the other thread now that has 5 pages of people that disagree with you either. Way to go.

[wobgon]

[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381412707' post='7980761']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381411453' post='7980627']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381409335' post='7980437']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381408807' post='7980387']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381408298' post='7980351']
Once again your logic is extremely flawed.

For your example to follow this debate a random stranger would walk up to you asking for a donation. If he said he had Ewing's sarcoma, would you be able to correctly predict if this person had the disease or not?
[/quote]

No, what I understand is that odds ratios are not deterministic when you are dealing with events that involve living systems and living beings.

A point that you stubbornly refuse to see.

As for your hypothetical. I would neither be able to predict that he does...nor predict that he does not.

If I GUESSED that he didn't....chances are that I would be right...If i were standing on a street corner.

If I were sitting in the office of an Orthopedic Oncologist (tumor surgeon) there would be a very good chance that I would be wrong.
[/quote]

No one is arguing that odds are deterministic, but you.
[/quote]

Actually YOU are.

Perhaps you dont' realize that you are...but you most certainly are.

Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation, and it would not have gone on this long.

Because you would realize that---whenever you are looking at an individual event----you never know from WHICH PART of the distribution curve that individual is coming from.

...and if you ASSUME you do, you will eventually make a mistake.

Potentially a tragic one if you are dealing with a "low incidence, high consequence" event.
[/quote]

My argument has been simple and factual. There is a .002% chance he shot that score legitimately.

Do you disagree?
[/quote]What are the odds of a guy posting the same thing three times in a row????????????????