The Monty Hall problem is my favorite educational piece that I keep repeating when analogizing it to statistical significance and publication bias (i.e. something that appears so [the appearance of statistical significance] but is not).
The Monty Hall problem is my favorite educational piece that I keep repeating when analogizing it to statistical significance and publication bias (i.e. something that appears so [the appearance of statistical significance] but is not).
It's absolutely applicable in this case, although the math is tougher because there are some many outcomes.The Monty Hall problem is my favorite educational piece that I keep repeating when analogizing it to statistical significance and publication bias (i.e. something that appears so [the appearance of statistical significance] but is not).
Maybe. I'd have to think through it. In the Monty Hall problem, doors are revealed with purpose. Whereas with this, "doors" (so to speak) are revealed in a sequential order and without purpose, giving us some level of information that hasn't been filtered (only filtered in the sense of revealing draft order list), but otherwise nothing is being withheld (in that context and up until that point). Now, the other end is that what's being revealed is an outcome that's already happened and what we're seeing is the results of those odds, and it's being revealed in an opposite order from which the results were made, so it makes it a bit harder to reverse engineer. I'll give more thought to pass the time I guess.It's absolutely applicable in this case, although the math is tougher because there are some many outcomes.
This would have to be correct. Before getting to #5, this would only be unfolding one scenario. It changes the odds of eliminating other scenarios, but ultimately wouldn't tell us anything. Unless you play the odds of "this would have been a very odd scenario." Since the first drawing is the one that matters most, the only time the equation is altered is after a certain team is eliminated (by having already had their ball pulled), and since we (or at least me) are less interested in secondary outcomes (i.e. us getting something that's not 1), I guess it's irrelevant.It's absolutely applicable in this case, although the math is tougher because there are some many outcomes.
0%. They'll probably have 30 minutes of previewing the top 10/needs of the teams in the top 10How much hype and commercial are we going to have to watch? Let's talk about the real odds. What are the odds they start reading the order before 5:20 pm mst?
Zero.How much hype and commercial are we going to have to watch? Let's talk about the real odds. What are the odds they start reading the order before 5:20 pm mst?
5:15 with the top 4 being read at 5:20How much hype and commercial are we going to have to watch? Let's talk about the real odds. What are the odds they start reading the order before 5:20 pm mst?
Everybody is rightly focused on the Jazz - and so do I - but I also have other preferences. I really want SAS, Washington and Chicago to be in the top 4 and I really hope at least two teams leapfrog Philadelphia and they lose their pick.
Everybody is rightly focused on the Jazz - and so do I - but I also have other preferences. I really want SAS, Washington and Chicago to be in the top 4 and I really hope at least two teams leapfrog Philadelphia and they lose their pick.
Everybody is rightly focused on the Jazz - and so do I - but I also have other preferences. I really want SAS, Washington and Chicago to be in the top 4 and I really hope at least two teams leapfrog Philadelphia and they lose their pick.
They are a really solid organization who are doing everything right ( and even developed and gave us Hardy!)... and also I don't feel good about the long-term durability of Wemby.