View Single Post
Old 10-22-2011, 04:47 PM   #110
Male30Dan
Diamond Member
 
Male30Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Waco, TX
Posts: 8,141
Male30Dan has a reputation beyond reputeMale30Dan has a reputation beyond reputeMale30Dan has a reputation beyond reputeMale30Dan has a reputation beyond reputeMale30Dan has a reputation beyond reputeMale30Dan has a reputation beyond reputeMale30Dan has a reputation beyond reputeMale30Dan has a reputation beyond reputeMale30Dan has a reputation beyond reputeMale30Dan has a reputation beyond reputeMale30Dan has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan View Post
No, you don't get it. I said that's the null hypothesis, and there is insufficient evidence to abandon it. That only means that, until there is sufficient evidence against it, it is the soundest approach...

Especially when it comes to predictive matters. It's easy to look back at Game Six of the 2011 NBA Finals and say "Wow, that momentum from the previous two games sure was effective in carrying the Mavs to victory." It's also easy to look at Game Six of the 2010 NBA Finals and say "Wow, those back-to-back wins in Boston sure made then due for a letdown."

But it's all revisionist history. When looking ahead, you simply can't tell. The only thing you have to go on is you know where the game is being played, and you know how successful teams typically are at home.

But perhaps looking at facts and weighing unknowns with historical percentages is too arrogant, while valuing your own opinion is more humble. I would have figured it would be the other way around, but who knows.



Well, I'm sure your well balanced approach is most reliable. Congratulations.



Yeah, that's about right. Basically, I use my knowledge of probability and statistics to become wealthy off of people who prefer to rely on gut instincts and hot streaks. So it would probably be best if I just lay low and let them continue.
I could say the same thing about the non-independent theory - "there is insufficient evidence to abandon it. That only means that, until there is sufficient evidence against it, it is the soundest approach..."

Why can I say that? Because both theories are NOT 100%. You can side with either theory and in your head consider IT the right choice, say what you said above, cross your arms, say HMPFF, and think you're right. So, yeah, I do get it, you arrogant prick.

And you just said all that you needed to for me to understand why you are so arrogant and cocky to people that knock your opinion on this matter. You think you and your "wealth-earning" methodology makes statistical-analysis right every time. You really are showing your true colors today and over the past couple of days really.

Hey, Mortimer, can you loan me a few dollars from your Ducktales-like palace of gold, frankincense and mir collected off of us simpletons such that I can afford to live as my gut-instinct approach and lucky rolls in life have recently come up dry. Damn I envy you.

Wait, no, that's pity.
__________________
Male30Dan is offline   Reply With Quote