= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Jack comments on Open Thread: March 2010 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (658)
For the "people say stupid things" file and a preliminary to a post I'm writing. There is a big college basketball tournament in New York this weekend. There are sixteen teams competing. This writer for the New York Post makes some predictions.
What is wrong with this article and how could you take advantage of the author?
Edit: Rot13 is a good idea here.
Gur cbfgrq bqqf qba'g tvir n gbgny cebonovyvgl bs bar, fb gurl'er Qhgpu-obbxnoyr.
Abg dhvgr. Uvf ceboyrz vf gung gur bqqf nqq hc gb yrff guna bar. Vs V tnir lbh 1-2 bqqf ba urnqf naq 1-2 bqqf ba gnvyf sbe na haovnfrq pbva, gung nqqf hc gb 1.3, naq lbh pna'g Qhgpu obbx zr ba gung.
Rot13: Hayrff gur bqqfznxre vf rabhtu bs na vqvbg gb yrg lbh gnxr gur bgure fvqr bs gur orgf, of course.
Rot13: Vs lbh'er tvivat bqqf nf n cerqvpgvba lbh fubhyq or jvyyvat gb gnxr rvgure fvqr.
Yes. That does seem to be the correct context for a critique of the article. I was thinking more along the lines of "giving odds" in terms of "offering bets" in order to make money (ie, a bookie).
Rot13: Gehr - fnir gung xabjvat fbzrbar jnagf gb gnxr gur bgure fvqr znl vasyhrapr lbhe bqqf.
Rot13: Pna lbh sbezhyngr n org be frevrf bs orgf gung jbhyq qb gur gevpx? Pna nalbar?
I thought this was already clear? Org K$ * vzcyvrq cebonovyvgl ba rirel grnz. Lbh ner thnenagrrq n arg jva bs K$ * (1 - fhz bs nyy vzcyvrq cebonovyvgvrf).
What you really should do though is look at the past history of the tournament and the form of the teams, figure out which of those teams with silly odds have a decent shot at winning, take a risk and bet on some combination of them. You should stand a fairly decent chance of winning really big (unless this huge spread is actually justified, which seems unlikely).
Va gur bevtvany Qhgpu obbx, bqqf unir gb or bssrerq ba nyy pbzcbhaq riragf naq nyy pbaqvgvbany riragf. Vs gur nhgube vf jvyyvat gb hfr C(N be O) = C(N) + C(O) gb frg gur bqqf sbe qvfwhapgvbaf, gur cebcbfvgvba "ng yrnfg bar grnz jvaf" unf n cebonovyvgl bs friragl-avar creprag. Ur bhtug gb or jvyyvat gb org ntnvafg gung cebcbfvgvba ng bar trgf uvz sbhe.
Props for the ROT13 - independently I got as far as the first half, but I didn't know how to do the latter. Wikipedia explained it quite well, though.
I don't understand how that's possible. Doesn't the answer to the first half imply the latter? How do you get sebz bqqf gb vzcyvrq cebonovyvgl otherwise?
Rot13: V unqa'g dhvgr qenja gur pbaarpgvba orgjrra gur bqqf naq gur pbafgehpgvba bs gur Qhgpu obbx - vg jnfa'g boivbhf gb zr gung orggvat n pbafgnag gvzrf gur vzcyvrq cebonovyvgvrf jbhyq pbfg zr gung pbafgnag gvzrf gur vzcyvrq gbgny cebonovyvgl naq cnl bss gung pbafgnag.
I would like to suggest that people using Rot13 note that in their comments, perhaps as the first few characters "Rot13:" - otherwise, comments taken out of context are indecipherable.
Good idea.
Is this supposed to be obvious to people unfamiliar with college basketball in general and that tournament in particular? Gur bqqf (vs V haqrefgnaq gurz pbeerpgyl RQVG: V qvq abg) vzcyl oernx rira cebonovyvgvrf gung nqq hc gb nobhg 0.94, juvpu vzcyvrf gung n obbxznxre bssrevat gubfr bqqf jbhyq ba nirentr ybfr zbarl, ohg gung'f pybfr rabhtu gb abg or erznexnoyl fghcvq sbe n wbheanyvfg.
If the tournament is single elimination knockout, and the figures in brackets are win-loss record against roughly comparable opponents the odds for the sleepers and long-shots seem insanely good. South Florida in particular.
Yes
Rot13: Gel gur zngu ntnva, guvf gvzr pbairegvat sebz bqqf gb senpgvbaf, svefg. Vg nqqf hc gb nobhg .8... V qba'g xabj ubj ybj gung lbhe fgnaqneqf ner sbe wbheanyvfgf gubhtu.
This is also true. But the mistake I was thinking of was the first one.
So betting 1$ at 3-1 means that winning means you get 4$ total, your original bet + your winnings? I had assumend you'd get 3$.
To which Robin Z replies, "Yes, you get $4."
This confused me, too, for a while, so let me share with you the fruits of my puzzling.
You do get 3$ over the course of the whole transaction since at the time of the bet, you gave the bookmaker what you would owe him if you lose the bet (namely $1).
In other words, your 1$ bought you both a wager (the expected value of which is 0$ if 3-1 reflects the probability of the bet-upon outcome) and an IOU (whose expected value is 1$ if the bookmaker is perfectly honest and nothing happens to prevent you from redeeming the IOU).
The reason it is traditional for you to pay the bookmaker money when making the bet (the reason, that is, for the IOU) is that you cannot be trusted to pay up if you lose the bet as much as the bookmaker can be trusted to pay up (and simultaneously to redeem the IOU) if you win. Well, also, that way there is no need for you and the bookmaker to get together after the bet-upon event if you lose, which reduces transaction costs.
Yes, you get $4.
You should Rot13 your second sentence.