Match play final.. Was I hustled?

[wobgon]

[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381421774' post='7981555']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1381419378' post='7981379']
[quote name='wobgon' timestamp='1381410320' post='7980527']
[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...
[/quote]
I'm astounded that he believes he's the only one in this thread who is right about.....everything. How can everyone else be so wrong? Yet here I am, agreeing with most of them......
[/quote]

I'm not the only one that is correct. Ty_webb has been spot on the entire discussion.
[/quote]
Sorry pal. If you had been on this forum a little longer you would realize that he doe's not agree with you, he just disagrees with Kellygreen pretty much no matter what he says.......

[arnold palmtree]

[quote name='wobgon' timestamp='1381422150' post='7981579']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381421774' post='7981555']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1381419378' post='7981379']
[quote name='wobgon' timestamp='1381410320' post='7980527']
[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...
[/quote]
I'm astounded that he believes he's the only one in this thread who is right about.....everything. How can everyone else be so wrong? Yet here I am, agreeing with most of them......
[/quote]

I'm not the only one that is correct. Ty_webb has been spot on the entire discussion.
[/quote]
Sorry pal. If you had been on this forum a little longer you would realize that he doe's not agree with you, he just disagrees with Kellygreen pretty much no matter what he says.......
[/quote]

It's impressive how you guys refuse to stay on topic.

[nbg352]

[quote name='wobgon' timestamp='1381422150' post='7981579']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381421774' post='7981555']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1381419378' post='7981379']
[quote name='wobgon' timestamp='1381410320' post='7980527']
[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...
[/quote]
I'm astounded that he believes he's the only one in this thread who is right about.....everything. How can everyone else be so wrong? Yet here I am, agreeing with most of them......
[/quote]

I'm not the only one that is correct. Ty_webb has been spot on the entire discussion.
[/quote]
Sorry pal. If you had been on this forum a little longer you would realize that he doe's not agree with you, he just disagrees with Kellygreen pretty much no matter what he says.......
[/quote]
True, dat......

[TripleSingle]

[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.
[/quote]

Hey Barry88, no one is faulting you, and you didn't do anything wrong. As I've said earlier, it is natural to feel hustled, but you did the right thing. You shook his hand and congratulated him.
It seems that Eye2+ has been so obsessed with numbers and percentages that he's either lost sight of the basic concept of what odds are, or he never knew what the definition is to begin with.
I'm sure you would agree that it would be quite irresponsible to accuse your opponent of cheating because of odds. All I was trying to do is explain that odds are used to predict what will happen, but not as basis to explain why/what just happened.
That's like saying a tornado just blew by New York City. Is a meteorologist going to analyze what just happened based on odds? No. He's going to look at the sequence of events that led to the result. So now, odds are nothing but additional information to give a picture to the general public of how difficult/rare such event happens.
What Eye2+ is suggesting that your opponent may have cheated because the chances of him shooting that well is only 0.002%. What I'm saying is if you really want to know if the person cheated or not, you cant apply the odds anymore, but you would have to look at the individual's sequence of events prior to your match against him.

Btw, congrats on making it to the finals, it still is a heck of an accomplishment.

[Hstead]

Man oh man are you dense jihunyu? As are all of those idiots on the other thread that are absolutely anecdotal exceptional morons. No one can get hot for 13 holes, PERIOD. You will never do it again if you have done it before either. You can take that to the bank. And if you have done it three times, forget it, you must quit playing, and if you have done it five times, then start planning your funeral. I hope you have a will in place.

[kellygreen]

[quote name='jihunyu' timestamp='1381424812' post='7981751']
[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.
[/quote]

Hey Barry88, no one is faulting you, and you didn't do anything wrong. As I've said earlier, it is natural to feel hustled, but you did the right thing. You shook his hand and congratulated him.
It seems that Eye2+ has been so obsessed with numbers and percentages that he's either lost sight of the basic concept of what odds are, or he never knew what the definition is to begin with.
I'm sure you would agree that it would be quite irresponsible to accuse your opponent of cheating because of odds. All I was trying to do is explain that odds are used to predict what will happen, but not as basis to explain why/what just happened.
That's like saying a tornado just blew by New York City. Is a meteorologist going to analyze what just happened based on odds? No. He's going to look at the sequence of events that led to the result. So now, odds are nothing but additional information to give a picture to the general public of how difficult/rare such event happens.
What Eye2+ is suggesting that your opponent may have cheated because the chances of him shooting that well is only 0.002%. What I'm saying is if you really want to know if the person cheated or not, you cant apply the odds anymore, but you would have to look at the individual's sequence of events prior to your match against him.

Btw, congrats on making it to the finals, it still is a heck of an accomplishment.
[/quote]

Well done.

Can't be stated any more clearly than that.

[arnold palmtree]

[quote name='jihunyu' timestamp='1381424812' post='7981751']
[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.
[/quote]

Hey Barry88, no one is faulting you, and you didn't do anything wrong. As I've said earlier, it is natural to feel hustled, but you did the right thing. You shook his hand and congratulated him.
It seems that Eye2+ has been so obsessed with numbers and percentages that he's either lost sight of the basic concept of what odds are, or he never knew what the definition is to begin with.
I'm sure you would agree that it would be quite irresponsible to accuse your opponent of cheating because of odds. All I was trying to do is explain that odds are used to predict what will happen, but not as basis to explain why/what just happened.
That's like saying a tornado just blew by New York City. Is a meteorologist going to analyze what just happened based on odds? No. He's going to look at the sequence of events that led to the result. So now, odds are nothing but additional information to give a picture to the general public of how difficult/rare such event happens.
What Eye2+ is suggesting that your opponent may have cheated because the chances of him shooting that well is only 0.002%. What I'm saying is if you really want to know if the person cheated or not, you cant apply the odds anymore, but you would have to look at the individual's sequence of events prior to your match against him.

Btw, congrats on making it to the finals, it still is a heck of an accomplishment.
[/quote]

Once again, you're not making a valid comparison.

If a tornado touches down and we see it happening we know a tornado took place. However, if someone comes up to you telling you they just survived a tornado.

Are you going to believe them if there is no damage and no one else saw it?

[vtnerf]

Ignore the troll! He's just trying to find a ride to the state line to buy lottery tickets.

[Ty_Webb]

[quote name='wobgon' timestamp='1381422150' post='7981579']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381421774' post='7981555']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1381419378' post='7981379']
[quote name='wobgon' timestamp='1381410320' post='7980527']
[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...
[/quote]
I'm astounded that he believes he's the only one in this thread who is right about.....everything. How can everyone else be so wrong? Yet here I am, agreeing with most of them......
[/quote]

I'm not the only one that is correct. Ty_webb has been spot on the entire discussion.
[/quote]
Sorry pal. If you had been on this forum a little longer you would realize that he doe's not agree with you, he just disagrees with Kellygreen pretty much no matter what he says.......
[/quote]

Actually I do agree with him and I don't always disagree with kg. Kg makes a lot of sense sometimes. I think he has some interesting ways of expressing it at times. I tend only to post when I disagree with him, because he does a pretty good job of carrying the argument when I think he's right.

[TripleSingle]

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

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:

[b]The odds [u]are[/u][/b] 84,300:1 that the Clipper[b] [u]threw[/u] the game and intentionally lost[/b]. 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]

This right here clearly shows you have a misunderstanding of the concept of what odds are. You don't use odds to refer to something in the past tense. Odds are used to predict what will happen. In this case, you are presenting an odd to something that has already happened. What has already happened is called a statistic/occurrence/absolute event. You don't use odds as a METHOD to prove or disprove the event that just happened.
So you can say "The odds of the Clippers [b][u]throwing[/u] away the game [u]are[/u][/b] 84,300:1" (BEFORE the game is played)
After the game, if it is proven that the Clippers did in fact throw the game away, then you can say "The Clippers threw the game away and lost 107-98. The odds of the Clippers throwing away the game [u][b]was[/b][/u] 84,300:1"

So in OP's situation, lets just say that the guy did cheat. Did the odds prove it? No. An investigation or analysis to the sequence of events would.

[arnold palmtree]

[quote name='jihunyu' timestamp='1381426582' post='7981873']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381404857' post='7980155']

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:

[b]The odds [u]are[/u][/b] 84,300:1 that the Clipper[b] [u]threw[/u] the game and intentionally lost[/b]. 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]

This right here clearly shows you have a misunderstanding of the concept of what odds are. You don't use odds to refer to something in the past tense. Odds are used to predict what will happen. In this case, you are presenting an odd to something that has already happened. What has already happened is called a statistic/occurrence/absolute event. You don't use odds as a METHOD to prove or disprove the event that just happened.
So you can say "The odds of the Clippers [b][u]throwing[/u] away the game [u]are[/u][/b] 84,300:1" (BEFORE the game is played)
After the game, if it is proven that the Clippers did in fact throw the game away, then you can say "The Clippers threw the game away and lost 107-98. The odds of the Clippers throwing away the game [u][b]was[/b][/u] 84,300:1"

So in OP's situation, lets just say that the guy did cheat. Did the odds prove it? No. An investigation or analysis to the sequence of events would.
[/quote]

I'll rephrase. The odds before the game were 84,300:1 the clippers will throw the game.

Either way you're reaching on this one. My intent is still valid.

[TripleSingle]

[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381425844' post='7981831']
[quote name='jihunyu' timestamp='1381424812' post='7981751']
[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.
[/quote]

Hey Barry88, no one is faulting you, and you didn't do anything wrong. As I've said earlier, it is natural to feel hustled, but you did the right thing. You shook his hand and congratulated him.
It seems that Eye2+ has been so obsessed with numbers and percentages that he's either lost sight of the basic concept of what odds are, or he never knew what the definition is to begin with.
I'm sure you would agree that it would be quite irresponsible to accuse your opponent of cheating because of odds. All I was trying to do is explain that odds are used to predict what will happen, but not as basis to explain why/what just happened.
That's like saying a tornado just blew by New York City. Is a meteorologist going to analyze what just happened based on odds? No. He's going to look at the sequence of events that led to the result. So now, odds are nothing but additional information to give a picture to the general public of how difficult/rare such event happens.
What Eye2+ is suggesting that your opponent may have cheated because the chances of him shooting that well is only 0.002%. What I'm saying is if you really want to know if the person cheated or not, you cant apply the odds anymore, but you would have to look at the individual's sequence of events prior to your match against him.

Btw, congrats on making it to the finals, it still is a heck of an accomplishment.
[/quote]

Once again, you're not making a valid comparison.

If a tornado touches down and we see it happening we know a tornado took place. However, if someone comes up to you telling you they just survived a tornado.

[b]Are you going to believe them if there is no damage and no one else saw it?[/b]
[/quote]

The difference between you and I is not whether we believe him or not. The difference is that you will either believe or not believe him based on the odds of a tornado blowing by central park. I will either believe or not believe him based on weather report, news, or any other factual evidence.

[Ty_Webb]

[quote name='jihunyu' timestamp='1381426582' post='7981873']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381404857' post='7980155']
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:

[b]The odds [u]are[/u][/b] 84,300:1 that the Clipper[b] [u]threw[/u] the game and intentionally lost[/b]. 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]

This right here clearly shows you have a misunderstanding of the concept of what odds are. You don't use odds to refer to something in the past tense. Odds are used to predict what will happen. In this case, you are presenting an odd to something that has already happened. What has already happened is called a statistic/occurrence/absolute event. You don't use odds as a METHOD to prove or disprove the event that just happened.
So you can say "The odds of the Clippers [b][u]throwing[/u] away the game [u]are[/u][/b] 84,300:1" (BEFORE the game is played)
After the game, if it is proven that the Clippers did in fact throw the game away, then you can say "The Clippers threw the game away and lost 107-98. The odds of the Clippers throwing away the game [u][b]was[/b][/u] 84,300:1"

So in OP's situation, lets just say that the guy did cheat. Did the odds prove it? No. An investigation or analysis to the sequence of events would.
[/quote]

So let's take this to an extreme shall we. Suppose that some guy enters a tournament at Bethpage Black. It's played from the very tips and he enters with a handicap index of 30. Slope rating is 146, so his course handicap for the day is 39. The course rating is about 76 I think, so that would mean he "should" shoot 115. He shoots 68. What investigation do you think we would need to do to determine that this person is in fact sandbagging? Do you think the odds prove it?

[arnold palmtree]

[quote name='jihunyu' timestamp='1381426938' post='7981905']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381425844' post='7981831']
[quote name='jihunyu' timestamp='1381424812' post='7981751']
[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.
[/quote]

Hey Barry88, no one is faulting you, and you didn't do anything wrong. As I've said earlier, it is natural to feel hustled, but you did the right thing. You shook his hand and congratulated him.
It seems that Eye2+ has been so obsessed with numbers and percentages that he's either lost sight of the basic concept of what odds are, or he never knew what the definition is to begin with.
I'm sure you would agree that it would be quite irresponsible to accuse your opponent of cheating because of odds. All I was trying to do is explain that odds are used to predict what will happen, but not as basis to explain why/what just happened.
That's like saying a tornado just blew by New York City. Is a meteorologist going to analyze what just happened based on odds? No. He's going to look at the sequence of events that led to the result. So now, odds are nothing but additional information to give a picture to the general public of how difficult/rare such event happens.
What Eye2+ is suggesting that your opponent may have cheated because the chances of him shooting that well is only 0.002%. What I'm saying is if you really want to know if the person cheated or not, you cant apply the odds anymore, but you would have to look at the individual's sequence of events prior to your match against him.

Btw, congrats on making it to the finals, it still is a heck of an accomplishment.
[/quote]

Once again, you're not making a valid comparison.

If a tornado touches down and we see it happening we know a tornado took place. However, if someone comes up to you telling you they just survived a tornado.

[b]Are you going to believe them if there is no damage and no one else saw it?[/b]
[/quote]

The difference between you and I is not whether we believe him or not. The difference is that you will either believe or not believe him based on the odds of a tornado blowing by central park. I will either believe or not believe him based on weather report, news, or any other factual evidence.
[/quote]

In this instance we do not have any factual evidence. Therefore, we can only use the odds to choose which one was most likely.

[TripleSingle]

[quote name='Ty_Webb' timestamp='1381426990' post='7981909']

So let's take this to an extreme shall we. Suppose that some guy enters a tournament at Bethpage Black. It's played from the very tips and he enters with a handicap index of 30. Slope rating is 146, so his course handicap for the day is 39. The course rating is about 76 I think, so that would mean he "should" shoot 115. He shoots 68. What investigation do you think we would need to do to determine that this person is in fact sandbagging? Do you think the odds prove it?
[/quote]

So for this extreme example, lets just assume the odds are 1 billion : 1. Odds don't prove anything. In order to prove whether this guy is sandbagging or not would be by looking at the sequence of events, which in this case, would be looking at everything he did from 1 to 18. Did he commit any rule violations, such as not counting OBs, not finishing the holes by lifting up 3 footers, etc. What was the luck factor; did his ball, which could have been OB, hit a tree which put the ball back into the fairway, etc.

Now lets say the guy did in fact cheat his way to the 68. Did the odds prove it? No. The review of sequence of events did.

Now lets say the guy did hit a legit 68. Then that means that he's the one in 1 billion: [u][b]1[/b][/u]

[TripleSingle]

[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381427643' post='7981961']
[quote name='jihunyu' timestamp='1381426938' post='7981905']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381425844' post='7981831']
[quote name='jihunyu' timestamp='1381424812' post='7981751']
[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.
[/quote]

Hey Barry88, no one is faulting you, and you didn't do anything wrong. As I've said earlier, it is natural to feel hustled, but you did the right thing. You shook his hand and congratulated him.
It seems that Eye2+ has been so obsessed with numbers and percentages that he's either lost sight of the basic concept of what odds are, or he never knew what the definition is to begin with.
I'm sure you would agree that it would be quite irresponsible to accuse your opponent of cheating because of odds. All I was trying to do is explain that odds are used to predict what will happen, but not as basis to explain why/what just happened.
That's like saying a tornado just blew by New York City. Is a meteorologist going to analyze what just happened based on odds? No. He's going to look at the sequence of events that led to the result. So now, odds are nothing but additional information to give a picture to the general public of how difficult/rare such event happens.
What Eye2+ is suggesting that your opponent may have cheated because the chances of him shooting that well is only 0.002%. What I'm saying is if you really want to know if the person cheated or not, you cant apply the odds anymore, but you would have to look at the individual's sequence of events prior to your match against him.

Btw, congrats on making it to the finals, it still is a heck of an accomplishment.
[/quote]

Once again, you're not making a valid comparison.

If a tornado touches down and we see it happening we know a tornado took place. However, if someone comes up to you telling you they just survived a tornado.

[b]Are you going to believe them if there is no damage and no one else saw it?[/b]
[/quote]

The difference between you and I is not whether we believe him or not. The difference is that you will either believe or not believe him based on the odds of a tornado blowing by central park. I will either believe or not believe him based on weather report, news, or any other factual evidence.
[/quote]

In this instance we do not have any factual evidence. Therefore, we can only use the odds to choose which one was most likely.
[/quote]

If there is no factual evidence, then I will not believe it, because there is no factual evidence, not because the odds are against it. As I've already mentioned earlier, the difference is not whether we believe him or not. You will not believe him because of the odds, I will not believe him because there is no factual evidence.
We dont even need to go to the extreme odds. For example. You and I have a bet going on. I tell you I'll bet you $100 on a coin flip. You get to make the call, and if you get it right, you take my $100. I flip the coin, and you call "tails". I keep the coin hidden from you as I take a peak. The result is tail. I tell you oops sorry dude, its head, and I drop the coin to the ground to prevent you from ever knowing. Are you going to ask for my $100 because the odds are 1:1.

[J_Tizzle]

How in tarnation did this get into a discussion of odds? Was it the odds of a 12 handicapper playing 14 good holes of golf (to win the match)???

[arnold palmtree]

[quote name='jihunyu' timestamp='1381428428' post='7982019']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381427643' post='7981961']
[quote name='jihunyu' timestamp='1381426938' post='7981905']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381425844' post='7981831']
[quote name='jihunyu' timestamp='1381424812' post='7981751']
[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.
[/quote]

Hey Barry88, no one is faulting you, and you didn't do anything wrong. As I've said earlier, it is natural to feel hustled, but you did the right thing. You shook his hand and congratulated him.
It seems that Eye2+ has been so obsessed with numbers and percentages that he's either lost sight of the basic concept of what odds are, or he never knew what the definition is to begin with.
I'm sure you would agree that it would be quite irresponsible to accuse your opponent of cheating because of odds. All I was trying to do is explain that odds are used to predict what will happen, but not as basis to explain why/what just happened.
That's like saying a tornado just blew by New York City. Is a meteorologist going to analyze what just happened based on odds? No. He's going to look at the sequence of events that led to the result. So now, odds are nothing but additional information to give a picture to the general public of how difficult/rare such event happens.
What Eye2+ is suggesting that your opponent may have cheated because the chances of him shooting that well is only 0.002%. What I'm saying is if you really want to know if the person cheated or not, you cant apply the odds anymore, but you would have to look at the individual's sequence of events prior to your match against him.

Btw, congrats on making it to the finals, it still is a heck of an accomplishment.
[/quote]


Once again, you're not making a valid comparison.

If a tornado touches down and we see it happening we know a tornado took place. However, if someone comes up to you telling you they just survived a tornado.

[b]Are you going to believe them if there is no damage and no one else saw it?[/b]
[/quote]

The difference between you and I is not whether we believe him or not. The difference is that you will either believe or not believe him based on the odds of a tornado blowing by central park. I will either believe or not believe him based on weather report, news, or any other factual evidence.
[/quote]

In this instance we do not have any factual evidence. Therefore, we can only use the odds to choose which one was most likely.
[/quote]

If there is no factual evidence, then I will not believe it, because there is no factual evidence, not because the odds are against it. As I've already mentioned earlier, the difference is not whether we believe him or not. You will not believe him because of the odds, I will not believe him because there is no factual evidence.
We dont even need to go to the extreme odds. For example. You and I have a bet going on. I tell you I'll bet you $100 on a coin flip. You get to make the call, and if you get it right, you take my $100. I flip the coin, and you call "tails". I keep the coin hidden from you as I take a peak. The result is tail. I tell you oops sorry dude, its head, and I drop the coin to the ground to prevent you from ever knowing. Are you going to ask for my $100 because the odds are 1:1.
[/quote]

Interesting. You don't believe the OP's opponent had a legitimate handicap.

[eagle1997]

[quote name='J-Tizzle' timestamp='1381429487' post='7982113']
How in tarnation did this get into a discussion of odds? Was it the odds of a 12 handicapper playing 14 good holes of golf (to win the match)???
[/quote]

apparently, people like to bring up rare children's diseases, fixing an nba game, casinos, atoms in a chair aligning, tornadoes and coin flips to make an analogy of the situation.

truth is, the odds of calculating how a 12 handicap in ireland (congu system) shot a +1 over 13 holes of his club championship match play event while holes 14-18 were 5 of the toughest holes on the course, are virtually impossible to calculate. it certainly isn't 84,300 to 1 as he did not complete the round and did not shoot (-10) net.

fun fact: match play events are not entered into the congu system for handicap purposes. i learned that 5 pages ago in this abortion of a thread.

[TripleSingle]

[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381429757' post='7982137']

Interesting. You don't believe the OP's opponent had a legitimate handicap.
[/quote]

is that a question?

I've been taking a neutral stance the whole time. I never accused the opponent being cheater, nor did I defend the opponent as being legit. The point I've been trying to get across the entire time is that if you want to know whether this guy is a cheater or not, you will need to look at his performance as an individual, and not by the odds pertaining to the population as whole.

[arnold palmtree]

[quote name='jihunyu' timestamp='1381430299' post='7982181']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381429757' post='7982137']

Interesting. You don't believe the OP's opponent had a legitimate handicap.
[/quote]

is that a question?

I've been taking a neutral stance the whole time. I never accused the opponent being cheater, nor did I defend the opponent as being legit. The point I've been trying to get across the entire time is that if you want to know whether this guy is a cheater or not, you will need to look at his performance as an individual, and not by the odds pertaining to the population as whole.
[/quote]

No, it's a statement of fact. You stated you not believe anything without facts. You have no facts on his handicap. Therefore you do not believe he even has a handicap.

[kellygreen]

[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381427643' post='7981961']
In this instance we do not have any factual evidence. Therefore, we can only use the odds to choose which one was most likely.
[/quote]

There is factual evidence because they guy had to submit an official handicap before he could play in the tournament.

So one can easily look into whether this guy's scoring history looked legit....or suspect.

So the only thing "we" have here, is a [i]pronoun problem. [/i]

YOU have chosen to be rather lazy---intellectually speaking---and jump to conclusions based upon only circumstantial evidence (the odds.)

Whereas I and my counterpart have chosen to withold judgement until more information is available (or give the benefit of the doubt if it proves not to be available) rather than risk falsely accusing someone of cheating.

Like I said---if you don't care about the possibility of that occuring and the unwarranted damage you might do to someone elese' reputation---then fine.

Just own up to it...and we're done here. But stop acting as if your way of looking at the sittuation is the only reasonable way.

It isn't...and it isn't even the most responsible way of looking at it.

[TripleSingle]

[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381430405' post='7982195']
[quote name='jihunyu' timestamp='1381430299' post='7982181']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381429757' post='7982137']
Interesting. You don't believe the OP's opponent had a legitimate handicap.
[/quote]

is that a question?

I've been taking a neutral stance the whole time. I never accused the opponent being cheater, nor did I defend the opponent as being legit. The point I've been trying to get across the entire time is that if you want to know whether this guy is a cheater or not, you will need to look at his performance as an individual, and not by the odds pertaining to the population as whole.
[/quote]

No, it's a statement of fact. You stated you not believe anything without facts. You have no facts on his handicap. Therefore you do not believe he even has a handicap.
[/quote]

uhh no. the only facts that I know, which was given by the OP, is that this guy used to be a 9 last year, and is a 12 this year, went 13 holes with 1 birdie, 2 bogeys, and 10 pars. So based on these facts, is it possible that a former 9 handicapper can go on a 13-hole hot streak...yeah. based on these facts, is he a cheater? dont have enough info to determine that yet.

[arnold palmtree]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381430671' post='7982219']

There is factual evidence because they guy had to submit an official handicap before he could play in the tournament.
[/quote]

Where are these facts?

Or are you making an assumption he has a handicap because he was playing in a net tournament?

[arnold palmtree]

[quote name='jihunyu' timestamp='1381430759' post='7982243']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381430405' post='7982195']
[quote name='jihunyu' timestamp='1381430299' post='7982181']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381429757' post='7982137']
Interesting. You don't believe the OP's opponent had a legitimate handicap.
[/quote]

is that a question?

I've been taking a neutral stance the whole time. I never accused the opponent being cheater, nor did I defend the opponent as being legit. The point I've been trying to get across the entire time is that if you want to know whether this guy is a cheater or not, you will need to look at his performance as an individual, and not by the odds pertaining to the population as whole.
[/quote]

No, it's a statement of fact. You stated you not believe anything without facts. You have no facts on his handicap. Therefore you do not believe he even has a handicap.
[/quote]


uhh no. the only facts that I know, which was given by the OP, is that this guy used to be a 9 last year, and is a 12 this year, went 13 holes with 1 birdie, 2 bogeys, and 10 pars. So based on these facts, is it possible that a former 9 handicapper can go on a 13-hole hot streak...yeah. based on these facts, is he a cheater? dont have enough info to determine that yet.
[/quote]

So the OP's statement is a fact?

[vtnerf]

[quote name='eagle1997' timestamp='1381430161' post='7982167']
[quote name='J-Tizzle' timestamp='1381429487' post='7982113']
How in tarnation did this get into a discussion of odds? Was it the odds of a 12 handicapper playing 14 good holes of golf (to win the match)???
[/quote]

apparently, people like to bring up rare children's diseases, fixing an nba game, casinos, atoms in a chair aligning, tornadoes and coin flips to make an analogy of the situation.

truth is, the odds of calculating how a 12 handicap in ireland (congu system) shot a +1 over 13 holes of his club championship match play event while holes 14-18 were 5 of the toughest holes on the course, are virtually impossible to calculate. it certainly isn't 84,300 to 1 as he did not complete the round and did not shoot (-10) net.

fun fact: match play events are not entered into the congu system for handicap purposes. i learned that 5 pages ago in this abortion of a thread.
[/quote]

Wow. I guess now it's going to turn into an existentialistic debate. Depends on what your definition of is is.

[Hstead]

[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381431000' post='7982273']
[quote name='jihunyu' timestamp='1381430759' post='7982243']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381430405' post='7982195']
[quote name='jihunyu' timestamp='1381430299' post='7982181']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381429757' post='7982137']
Interesting. You don't believe the OP's opponent had a legitimate handicap.
[/quote]

is that a question?

I've been taking a neutral stance the whole time. I never accused the opponent being cheater, nor did I defend the opponent as being legit. The point I've been trying to get across the entire time is that if you want to know whether this guy is a cheater or not, you will need to look at his performance as an individual, and not by the odds pertaining to the population as whole.
[/quote]

No, it's a statement of fact. You stated you not believe anything without facts. You have no facts on his handicap. Therefore you do not believe he even has a handicap.
[/quote]


uhh no. the only facts that I know, which was given by the OP, is that this guy used to be a 9 last year, and is a 12 this year, went 13 holes with 1 birdie, 2 bogeys, and 10 pars. So based on these facts, is it possible that a former 9 handicapper can go on a 13-hole hot streak...yeah. based on these facts, is he a cheater? dont have enough info to determine that yet.
[/quote]

So the OP's statement is a fact?
[/quote]

And you called me dense?

[eagle1997]

got something else for ya, vtnerf: we're all living in a dreamworld. so, 'facts' and the definition therein, don't really matter.
http://www.simulation-argument.com/

[kellygreen]

[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381430906' post='7982261']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381430671' post='7982219']
There is factual evidence because they guy had to submit an official handicap before he could play in the tournament.
[/quote]

Where are these facts?

Or are you making an assumption he has a handicap because he was playing in a net tournament?
[/quote]

He should...or the tournament committee did a really lousy job.

But I also held out for that possibility when I mentioned how I would deal with the situation if that information did not prove to be available.

I would give the guy the benefit of the doubt. Because I'd rather let a cheater get away with it, than ruin a truly magical day for an honest golfer by acting like an @sshole.

Again, YMMV.

[arnold palmtree]

[quote name='Hstead' timestamp='1381431416' post='7982321']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381431000' post='7982273']
[quote name='jihunyu' timestamp='1381430759' post='7982243']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381430405' post='7982195']
[quote name='jihunyu' timestamp='1381430299' post='7982181']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381429757' post='7982137']
Interesting. You don't believe the OP's opponent had a legitimate handicap.
[/quote]

is that a question?

I've been taking a neutral stance the whole time. I never accused the opponent being cheater, nor did I defend the opponent as being legit. The point I've been trying to get across the entire time is that if you want to know whether this guy is a cheater or not, you will need to look at his performance as an individual, and not by the odds pertaining to the population as whole.
[/quote]

No, it's a statement of fact. You stated you not believe anything without facts. You have no facts on his handicap. Therefore you do not believe he even has a handicap.
[/quote]


uhh no. the only facts that I know, which was given by the OP, is that this guy used to be a 9 last year, and is a 12 this year, went 13 holes with 1 birdie, 2 bogeys, and 10 pars. So based on these facts, is it possible that a former 9 handicapper can go on a 13-hole hot streak...yeah. based on these facts, is he a cheater? dont have enough info to determine that yet.
[/quote]

So the OP's statement is a fact?
[/quote]

And you called me dense?
[/quote]

You continue to prove it with each post.