Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 35 of 35

Thread: 23.7% chance to win the East, 10% to win it all

  1. #21
    Raptors Republic All-Star iblastoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    2,317
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    can we stop posting a new thread every time hollinger stats gets updated?

  2. #22
    Raptors Republic All-Star Craiger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,120
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote ezz_bee wrote: View Post
    For me this is the key statement from Hollinger. His predictions are good, but I'm fairly confident that predictions associated with the Heat and the raptors are deflated in the case of the former and inflated in the case of the latter. I imagine that by the end of the year these predictions will be more in line with what we imagine to be reasonable.
    First I was curious about why its tested "5000 times"

    Odds are just that - odds. Testing them doesn't change the odds.

    A fair coin flip is 50%. If I flip it 5000 times, the outcome of those 5000 flips doesn't change what the odds were.

    it makes a random adjustment up or down to allow for the possibility that a team will play better or worse
    well that explains why it would need to be tested - but now I question why one would need to make 'random' adjustments.

    At this point aren't we just admitting our initial 'odds' (ie. power ranking) aren't much better than a pure guess, so lets add a bunch of stuff to it 5000 times, average the results, and now call it a fair prediction?

    I get that the equation itself is unbias, but adding 'random' variables can just as easily create a bias that otherwise didn't exist.

  3. #23
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    481
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote joey_hesketh wrote: View Post
    I'm not sure where you read the bit of Hollinger making up injuries for players within the simulations, but I've not read that anywhere.

    ADD From the OP Link:


    Nothing about Assumed Injuries.
    The statistics which the simulations are based on factor in this year's performance by the team. Meaning, if dwade sat out 10 games this year, we don't have a sample of Miami if they played at full health for 35+ games.

    I guess I'm making this more complicated. Basically, if Miami was healthy the whole year, they would be better, so our percentage would go down because the simulation would have us playing a healthy Miami 1000 times instead of one who sits bosh and wade all the time.

    I didn't mean to say that it simulates injuries

  4. #24
    Raptors Republic Starter e_wheazhy_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    471
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Craiger wrote: View Post
    First I was curious about why its tested "5000 times"

    Odds are just that - odds. Testing them doesn't change the odds.

    A fair coin flip is 50%. If I flip it 5000 times, the outcome of those 5000 flips doesn't change what the odds were.

    well that explains why it would need to be tested - but now I question why one would need to make 'random' adjustments.

    At this point aren't we just admitting our initial 'odds' (ie. power ranking) aren't much better than a pure guess, so lets add a bunch of stuff to it 5000 times, average the results, and now call it a fair prediction?
    The "odds" that he's using are based on those 5000 simulations. I.e. if he runs his simulation 5000 times and the raptors win the championship 500 times, the "odds" of them winning are 500/5000 or 10%.

    The algorithm that simulates the season is bases the strength of teams off his power rankings. So taking that number of his power rankings into account, they simulate the season more efficiently- it's how he measures performance, etc.

    I agree though, that there are certain things missing from his algorithm and that the raptors chance of winning the championship should be (and in reality is) less than the heat's but the "odds" he's using are based on his simulations.

    Sure, the odds of getting heads is 50% when you flip a coin, but if you flip a coin 5000 times, you might get heads 4500 times. I think he's just using odds because it's better than saying "percentage of times my algorithm predicted these events would happen"
    A key that opens many locks is a master key, but a lock that gets open by many keys is just a shitty lock

  5. Like stooley liked this post
  6. #25
    Raptors Republic Rookie Fanchie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    163
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote e_wheazhy_ wrote: View Post
    The "odds" that he's using are based on those 5000 simulations. I.e. if he runs his simulation 5000 times and the raptors win the championship 500 times, the "odds" of them winning are 500/5000 or 10%.

    The algorithm that simulates the season is bases the strength of teams off his power rankings. So taking that number of his power rankings into account, they simulate the season more efficiently- it's how he measures performance, etc.

    I agree though, that there are certain things missing from his algorithm and that the raptors chance of winning the championship should be (and in reality is) less than the heat's but the "odds" he's using are based on his simulations.

    Sure, the odds of getting heads is 50% when you flip a coin, but if you flip a coin 5000 times, you might get heads 4500 times. I think he's just using odds because it's better than saying "percentage of times my algorithm predicted these events would happen"
    Well, there's something called LLN (Law of Large Numbers) that shows that even if it's theoretically possible to get heads 4500 times, it does not happen. You could get 8 heads out of 10 flips but never ever would you get 4000 heads out of 5000 flips.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

  7. #26
    Raptors Republic Starter e_wheazhy_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    471
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Fanchie wrote: View Post
    Well, there's something called LLN (Law of Large Numbers) that shows that even if it's theoretically possible to get heads 4500 times, it does not happen. You could get 8 heads out of 10 flips but never ever would you get 4000 heads out of 5000 flips.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers
    Well then my entire world is a lie. If you'll excuse me, I'm going to go ask my mother if I'm adopted.
    A key that opens many locks is a master key, but a lock that gets open by many keys is just a shitty lock

  8. Like Fanchie liked this post
  9. #27
    Raptors Republic All-Star Craiger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,120
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Fanchie wrote: View Post
    Well, there's something called LLN (Law of Large Numbers) that shows that even if it's theoretically possible to get heads 4500 times, it does not happen. You could get 8 heads out of 10 flips but never ever would you get 4000 heads out of 5000 flips.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers
    thats not what the theory of large numbers is saying.

    Its saying the larger the # of samples the more likely the result will trend towards the expected odds. As such the chances of getting 4500 heads out of 5000 is very slim BUT if one does get (possible, but not very probable), as the sample size increases (to 10k or 50k or 100k) the expected results will normalize closer to 50%, until infinity when it will be 50%.

    A simple but maybe poor explanation is: the odds matter, not the result of the test. If the test doesn't give us the expected odds, its because the test just isn't big enough yet.

    Which is ofcourse is a bit of a paradox.

    The "odds" that he's using are based on those 5000 simulations. I.e. if he runs his simulation 5000 times and the raptors win the championship 500 times, the "odds" of them winning are 500/5000 or 10%
    I get that, but that doesn't make sense under probabilities. The odds are X, the expected result should also be X, if its not X there is a problem with our odds to start with OR large # theory (see above )

    Ofcourse you throw additional variables into that (ie. a team plays better or worse in the future) that will change the expected odds, but if we don't know what those variables are or will be, then we are just guessing at them and their impact. And ofcourse random is random, we shouldn't plan for/expect random. If we know what they are or can reasonably expect them to be, why not just put them in the initial equation?
    Last edited by Craiger; Thu Jan 16th, 2014 at 07:18 PM.

  10. #28
    Raptors Republic All-Star wallz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    New Brunswick
    Posts
    2,146
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    It's like I'm taking advanced stats all over again... I'd rather not

  11. #29
    Raptors Republic All-Star Craiger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,120
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote wallz wrote: View Post
    It's like I'm taking advanced stats all over again... I'd rather not
    worse... theory of stats

  12. #30
    Super Moderator Joey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    6,775
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Craiger wrote: View Post
    I get that, but that doesn't make sense under probabilities. The odds are X, the expected result should also be X, if its not X there is a problem with our odds to start with OR large # theory (see above )
    Disagree. The expected result sure, but not necessarily the actual result.
    For arguments sake, definitions of Odds:
    1.A certain number of points given beforehand to a weaker side in a contest to equalize the chances of all participants.

    2.The ratio of the probability of an event's occurring to the probability of its not occurring.


    3.The likelihood of the occurrence of one thing rather than the occurrence of another thing, as in a contest.
    and Definition of Probability:
    1.The quality or condition of being probable; likelihood.


    2.A probable situation, condition, or event.


    3.The likelihood that a given event will occur.
    Probabilities don't say something WILL happen. They say something SHOULD, or COULD happen.
    "I have self-doubt. I have insecurity. I have fear of failure. We all have self-doubt. You don't deny it, but you also don't capitulate to it. You embrace it. You rise above it." -Kobe Bryant

  13. #31
    Raptors Republic All-Star Craiger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,120
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote joey_hesketh wrote: View Post
    Disagree. The expected result sure, but not necessarily the actual result.
    For arguments sake, definitions of Odds:


    and Definition of Probability:


    Probabilities don't say something WILL happen. They say something SHOULD happen.
    Big distinction in my books.
    Semantics.


    And yes they don't say something will happen, they are how likely something is occur. Which is the point.

    'Testing it' shouldn't change the probabilities (ignoring the complexities of the paradox here). It just gave you one of (or a seris of) the possible results.

  14. #32
    Raptors Republic Veteran MACK11's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    ANGERVILLE: Population 1
    Posts
    5,841
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I came here for basketball talk not another Stats class

  15. Like KeonClark liked this post
  16. #33
    Raptors Republic Starter KeonClark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    605
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote 4hunnit_degreez wrote: View Post
    I came here for basketball talk not another Stats class
    LOL! You're ignoring the complexities of the paradox didn't you read the other guy?
    Dwane Casey says: Pound the Gay!!

  17. #34
    Raptors Republic All-Star Craiger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,120
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote KeonClark wrote: View Post
    LOL! You're ignoring the complexities of the paradox didn't you read the other guy?
    sorry, my mistake. I didn't realize you guys were forced to read this thread.

    I'll account for that in the future.

  18. #35
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, ON
    Posts
    401
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Craiger wrote: View Post
    Semantics.


    And yes they don't say something will happen, they are how likely something is occur. Which is the point.

    'Testing it' shouldn't change the probabilities (ignoring the complexities of the paradox here). It just gave you one of (or a seris of) the possible results.
    What you are missing here, is he doesn't start with odds for each team to make the playoffs, win games, etc. He starts with a simple net rating projection. Then looks at each of the 1230 games determining the odds of one team beating the other for each game based on those net ratings. Then he runs a random number generator to determine if the better team wins. Most often it does. But there will be a great many games where the underdog wins. There appear to also be other random factors thrown in, but on the whole they should average out so long as they are applied equally to all the teams at some point.

    Anyway, he applies that strategy to each of the 1230 games, getting a win-loss record for each team. He does the same for the playoff matchups, and runs the lottery, but that's all an extension of the same thing. He then does all of that again. It yields different results due to the random decision of which team wins each game (not truly random, probabilistic). He does this 5000 times (he being the computer program I guess). Then at the end you have the best case, worst case, and average record for each team, the number of times they made the playoffs, the number of times they won the championship, the lotto, etc. That's where his odds come from.

    He has no "odds" to start with - only the odds a team with a particular net rating will beat a team with another net rating in one game. He has to run the simulation to be able to project that to the odds you are talking about, the odds a team makes the playoffs, etc.

  19. Like Joey, JawsGT liked this post

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •