Probability of the Warriors going scoreless for the last 4 minutes.

[midnightpulp]

Using the basic way to calculate the probability of something (i.e. the odds of a coin being tails twice in a row is 25%, which you get from multiplying 1/2 X 1/2), let's see what the odds were (in a vacuum of course) of a high powered offense like the Warriors being held scoreless over that span. Just like multiplying the odds of coinflip, I'm multiplying the playoff shooting percentages of the players who took shots over that span (not counting Speights' meaningless heave as time ran out).

The odds (again, in a vacuum) of that happening are 1/1500. :lol

I did the same for the Spurs Game 6 meltdown, and the odds of Miami coming back down from 5 with 28.2 seconds left were 1/400.

:toast The Warriors indeed pulled off the greatest chokejob in NBA history.

[baseline bum]

The random variables for each shot aren't independent

[midnightpulp]

The random variables for each shot aren't independent

Of course, that's why I made to sure to state this is just a vacuum analysis that doesn't consider context. For example, people have called Kawhi a choker for his missed freebie in game 6, but when you consider the circumstances of the situation, it was actually clutch as fuck to even split those two.

[Keepin' it real]

Speaking of probabilities:

http://brostrick-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/10percent.jpg

[spursistan]

And that dipshit Suns fan and other parrot are still claiming 6 isbigger choke? :lol

[Thread]

And that dipshit Suns fan and other parrot are still claiming 6 isbigger choke? :lol

Absolutely.

They were selling your shit on broadcast television.

But, aside from not winning the NBA Title you got away with it. You were never punished. "State Fan" did not get away it & will continue to be punished.

That is why my calling has been imperative. I, me, I knew instinctively that something was rotten in Denmark in '13. I'd been there at the start. I'd been thru that withering shit storm in '84. '84 was your '13. You were never wakened and frog marched to the gallows at dawn. I was. I didn't know what was happening. Didn't know shit from apple butter. So, I got up and I went along with it, took my medicine, as it were. "Beat me, string me up, whip my ass. I deserve it." Then when salvation came a year later and I wheeled the rock out of the way, well, I didn't wheel out of the way, Magic wheeled it, but, you get the idea. It was wheeled and he led us out of the caves and into the light. You know what? Nobody blamed the Celtics in '85 like nobody blamed the Celtics in '87, or, blamed the Spurs in '13. But, motherfucker, I did and I will continue to beat this drum, until there are no more tomorrows. Blame ain't for God and kindergartners. It's for US too and I'm gonna spearhead that blame protocol. And you ain't stoppin' me.

Now,

Let us proceed...

[ambchang]

Absolutely.

They were selling your shit on broadcast television.

But, aside from not winning the NBA Title you got away with it. You were never punished. "State Fan" did not get away it & will continue to be punished.

That is why my calling has been imperative. I, me, I knew instinctively that something was rotten in Denmark in '13. I'd been there at the start. I'd been thru that withering shit storm in '84. '84 was your '13. You were never wakened and frog marched to the gallows at dawn. I was. I didn't know what was happening. Didn't know shit from apple butter. So, I got up and I went along with it, took my medicine, as it were. "Beat me, string me up, whip my ass. I deserve it." Then when salvation came a year later and I wheeled the rock out of the way, well, I didn't wheel out of the way, Magic wheeled it, but, you get the idea. It was wheeled and he led us out of the caves and into the light. You know what? Nobody blamed the Celtics in '85 like nobody blamed the Celtics in '87, or, blamed the Spurs in '13. But, motherfucker, I did and I will continue to beat this drum, until there are no more tomorrows. Blame ain't for God and kindergartners. It's for US too and I'm gonna spearhead that blame protocol. And you ain't stoppin' me.

Now,

Let us proceed...

You are talking in circles again.

You never really defined what "punishment" is.

If the Spurs weren't punished, it's because the result was expected, because most people expected the Heat to win, and win they did in 13. So really, there was nothing to "punish".

Besides, what did 84 Lakers, or 16 Warriors got punished for?

[da_suns_fan]

I didnt know there was a separate thread for this.

As usual, Monospulps "crunching" was wrong.

Its a 1.9% chance of happening which wasnt nearly as bad (statistically) as the Spurs choke of 0.006% chance.

[midnightpulp]

I didnt know there was a separate thread for this.

As usual, Monospulps "crunching" was wrong.

Its a 1.9% chance of happening which wasnt nearly as bad (statistically) as the Spurs choke of 0.006% chance.

Being a massive dumbshit again?

Starting at 4:13

Curry miss from 3: 3/5

Thompson miss from 15 feet (shot .313 from mid range in the playoffs): 3/4 (being obviously generous):

9/20

Iggy miss from 3: 3/5

Green miss from 3: 3/5

81/500

Iggy missed (blocked) layup: 1/4

Curry miss: 3/5

Curry miss: 3/5

729/50000

Curry miss: 3/5

2187/250,000=.87

You still win, right!

Nope.

When calculating probabilities, you have to consider every event that works against you. Guess what you forgot to consider? The fact Golden State could not grab one offensive rebound over that span (7 straight shots. Speights did grab an offensive board on Curry's 8th shot, but if I factored in Speights' miss, it would make GS's choke look even worse). Golden State's offensive rebounding percentage for the game was 15.2 percent, roughly 6/7. And then you have to factor in Kyrie's offensive rebound that essentially sealed the game.

Add it all up, and comes out to roughly 1/1500 or .066 percent.

I did re-crunch the Spurs situation and I was off on my first calculation. The new odds of Manu miss + Kawhi miss + Offensive board + James 3 + Offensive board + Allen 3 are about 1/1280.

So in any event, the Warriors still outchoked the Spurs from an in-a-vacuum odds perspective. And in any event, you still lose the debate to me, per fuckin' per. You should be happy with 2nd place, though. You guys throw parades for it after all :lol

[Arcadian]

The random variables for each shot aren't independent

Ooooohhh! Rekt!

Haha jk (good point though)

[da_suns_fan]

Being a massive dumbshit again?

Starting at 4:13

Curry miss from 3: 3/5

Thompson miss from 15 feet (shot .313 from mid range in the playoffs): 3/4 (being obviously generous):

9/20

Iggy miss from 3: 3/5

Green miss from 3: 3/5

81/500

Iggy missed (blocked) layup: 1/4

Curry miss: 3/5

Curry miss: 3/5

729/50000

Curry miss: 3/5

2187/250,000=.87

You still win, right!

Nope.

When calculating probabilities, you have to consider every event that works against you. Guess what you forgot to consider? The fact Golden State could not grab one offensive rebound over that span (7 straight shots. Speights did grab an offensive board on Curry's 8th shot, but if I factored in Speights' miss, it would make GS's choke look even worse). Golden State's offensive rebounding percentage for the game was 15.2 percent, roughly 6/7. And then you have to factor in Kyrie's offensive rebound that essentially sealed the game.

Add it all up, and comes out to roughly 1/1500 or .066 percent.

I did re-crunch the Spurs situation and I was off on my first calculation. The new odds of Manu miss + Kawhi miss + Offensive board + James 3 + Offensive board + Allen 3 are about 1/1280.

So in any event, the Warriors still outchoked the Spurs from an in-a-vacuum odds perspective. And in any event, you still lose the debate to me, per fuckin' per. You should be happy with 2nd place, though. You guys throw parades for it after all :lol

Im not even going to bother to fact-check this even though you're ALWAYS incorrect in your data (hence the name monospulp), but I got some bad news for ya:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xW5MJdDISpY/UgEucdvaboI/AAAAAAAAAHo/rDhklSPqV5c/s1600/Game+6+Math.jpg

The dude gave a percentage of 50/50 for an offensive rebound. If we give the same rebounds odds you gave, the percentage of a Spurs collapse drops to 0.0053440474815% which is far less than the .067% percent you "crunched".

Bummer dude.

Thats three now, isnt it (off the top of my head)? There was the Duncan "dominant games" challenge that you failed at, the "lost playoff series with home court advantage" argument that you just screwed up on (over and over) and now this.

The good news is its not your fault the Spurs are mathematically the biggest chokers of all time. The bad news is it is your fault for screwing yourself over in these debates.

[midnightpulp]

Im not even going to bother to fact-check this even though you're ALWAYS incorrect in your data (hence the name monospulp), but I got some bad news for ya:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xW5MJdDISpY/UgEucdvaboI/AAAAAAAAAHo/rDhklSPqV5c/s1600/Game+6+Math.jpg

The dude gave a percentage of 50/50 for an offensive rebound. If we give the same rebounds odds you gave, the percentage of a Spurs collapse drops to 0.0053440474815% which is far less than the .067% percent you "crunched".

Bummer dude.

Thats three now, isnt it (off the top of my head)? There was the Duncan "dominant games" challenge that you failed at, the "lost playoff series with home court advantage" argument that you just screwed up on (over and over) and now this.

The good news is its not your fault the Spurs are mathematically the biggest chokers of all time. The bad news is it is your fault for screwing yourself over in these debates.


0.0053440474815%

Are you retarded?

If you're going to calculate the probability of something using numbers instead fractions, you have to move decimal point over.

Example: 1/4 x 1/4 = 1/16 or 6.25 percent.

Guess what happens when you convert the fractions into numbers with decimals and then multiply them: .25 x .25 = .0625. The person who's responsible for that picture was at least smart enough to do that, unlike yourself.

But his math is wrong. I have no idea why he multiplies the two made/miss shooting percentages.

Like I said, when calculating probabilities, you only multiply the events that work against you (ex. a Lebron James made 3 works against the Spurs, and it has a .375 chance of happening).

So: .27 (Manu miss) x .375 (James made 3) x .37 (Kawhi miss) x .41 (Ray Allen made 3) x .26 (Miami's offensive rebounding percentage) x .26 (both Miami o-boards) = 0.00103831065. Move the decimal in its right place, and you get .10 percent or 1/1000. So my fractional way actually wound up being too generous :lol

You can apologize now.

[midnightpulp]

And for fun, we'll do the Warriors meltdown using percentages.

Curry playoff 3 pct: .404 (chance of missing or against: .596) x 4
Klay playoff mid-range pct: .313 (chance against .687) X 1
Iggy playoff 3 pct: .385 (chance against .615) X 1
Iggy playoff layup pct: .709 (chance against .291) X 1
Draymond playoff 3 pct: .365 (chance against .635) X 1
GS's offensive rebounding pct: 15.2 (chance against .84.8) X 7 (instances where they couldn't grab an o-board)
GS's defensive rebounding pct: .780 (chance against .220) x 1 (Kyrie's big o-board to seal the game)

=

0.00068340358 or .068, 1/1470

Just like I said in the OP, 1/1500.

[da_suns_fan]

And for fun, we'll do the Warriors meltdown using percentages.

Curry playoff 3 pct: .404 (chance of missing or against: .596) x 4
Klay playoff mid-range pct: .313 (chance against .687) X 1
Iggy playoff 3 pct: .385 (chance against .615) X 1
Iggy playoff layup pct: .709 (chance against .291) X 1
Draymond playoff 3 pct: .365 (chance against .635) X 1
GS's offensive rebounding pct: 15.2 (chance against .84.8) X 7 (instances where they couldn't grab an o-board)
GS's defensive rebounding pct: .780 (chance against .220) x 1 (Kyrie's big o-board to seal the game)

=

0.00068340358 or .068, 1/1470

Just like I said in the OP, 1/1500.

0.1977*0.234*0.23*0.25*0.14*0.14 = 0.0000534404748

You lose dude.

As if it couldnt get any worse, lets not forget Parker missed a shot at the end as well. If we give him even a 30% chance of making it the probability now drops to (drum roll please):

0.000037408332

Give up?

[da_suns_fan]

And for fun, we'll do the Warriors meltdown using percentages.

Curry playoff 3 pct: .404 (chance of missing or against: .596) x 4
Klay playoff mid-range pct: .313 (chance against .687) X 1
Iggy playoff 3 pct: .385 (chance against .615) X 1
Iggy playoff layup pct: .709 (chance against .291) X 1
Draymond playoff 3 pct: .365 (chance against .635) X 1
GS's offensive rebounding pct: 15.2 (chance against .84.8) X 7 (instances where they couldn't grab an o-board)
GS's defensive rebounding pct: .780 (chance against .220) x 1 (Kyrie's big o-board to seal the game)

=

0.00068340358 or .068, 1/1470

Just like I said in the OP, 1/1500.

btw - I just double checked your math and youre wrong (or maybe you were fudging...dont know).

Its ~.001

I am officially done double checking your shit. You are now and forever monospulp.

[Kawhitstorm]

You lose dude.

Even the Cavs have a championship banner:lmao

[da_suns_fan]

:lol Fucking Texas education system.

Do you guys have any idea how many times Ive corrected Monospulp now?

I seriously dont even remember but its a lot.

[da_suns_fan]

Even the Cavs have a championship banner:lmao

Yeah. I dont care.

[Kawhitstorm]

Yeah. I dont care.

Depression will do that to you.:depressed

[spurraider21]

Of course, that's why I made to sure to state this is just a vacuum analysis that doesn't consider context. For example, people have called Kawhi a choker for his missed freebie in game 6, but when you consider the circumstances of the situation, it was actually clutch as fuck to even split those two.
:lol... no

[midnightpulp]

0.1977*0.234*0.23*0.25*0.14*0.14 = 0.0000534404748

You lose dude.

As if it couldnt get any worse, lets not forget Parker missed a shot at the end as well. If we give him even a 30% chance of making it the probability now drops to (drum roll please):

0.000037408332

Give up?

:lol His math is wrong, Massive Dumbshit. Quit using it. No one calculates odd the way he did.

You divide the occurrence of an outcome by total outcomes, i.e there's 6 possible outcomes when rolling a single die, so the odds of rolling any one number are 1/6 or 16.6 percent. If you want to know the odds of rolling a 6 twice in row you multiply .16 x .16.

In the case of a basketball event, there's two possible outcomes. Make or miss a shot, grab or don't grab a rebound. Since basketball players aren't dice and each have different odds of making a shot, we look at their percentages. Lebron James makes a 3 roughly 4 times out of every 10 ten shots. 4/10.

Again:


So: .27 (Manu miss) x .375 (James made 3) x .37 (Kawhi miss) x .41 (Ray Allen made 3) x .26 (Miami's offensive rebounding percentage) x .26 (both Miami o-boards) = 0.00103831065. Move the decimal in its right place, and you get .10 percent or 1/1000.

I'm not counting Parker's desperation shot. Was as meaningless as Speights' heave.

And you're still too retarded to move your decimal points. Here, this entry level graphic that's presented at a 4th grade level should help:

http://pad1.whstatic.com/images/thumb/0/07/Calculate-Probability-Step-4-Version-3.jpg/aid1345372-728px-Calculate-Probability-Step-4-Version-3.jpg

But guess what, even factoring in Parker's desperation shot, assuming a 30 percent success rate (which is being generous given the nature of the shot), we get DRUMROLL PLEASE:

0.00072681745 or .072, 1/1390

Tired of losing like your Suns, or do you want to keep going?

[da_suns_fan]

:lol His math is wrong, Massive Dumbshit. Quit using it. No one calculates odd the way he did.


No its not. Yours is (I checked...you really fucked up).

I took Discrete mathematics in college. Trust me, he's right. Youre wrong.

[midnightpulp]

btw - I just double checked your math and youre wrong (or maybe you were fudging...dont know).

Its ~.001

I am officially done double checking your shit. You are now and forever monospulp.

Nope. My math is correct.

http://oi67.tinypic.com/k4jhts.jpg

Show your work, Dumbshit.

[Mikeanaro]

When you win win win so many times at some point you are gonna run out of gas/luck like happened to Portland a couple seasons ago, funny thing is they just needed one stinky game...
Biggest chokejob ever? YES

[midnightpulp]

No its not. Yours is (I checked...you really fucked up).

I took Discrete mathematics in college. Trust me, he's right. Youre wrong.

Who gives a shit? All you need is a 3rd grade education (which it seems you don't have) to calculate probabilities. No one on planet earth would multiply occurrences to come up with a probability. Want to know what his retarded "formula" looks like when you apply it to dice roll odds?

.834 x .166 = 0.138444 or 13.8 percent.

Tell me with a straight face that the odds of rolling any one number with a die are 1/7?

His massively dumbshit way (which was why you're using it) essentially adds another face to a die :lol

[da_suns_fan]

Who gives a shit? All you need is an 3rd grade education (which it seems you don't have) to calculate probabilities. No one on planet earth would multiply occurrences to come up with a probability. Want to know what his retarded "formula" looks like when you apply it to dice roll odds?

.834 x .166 = 0.138444 or 13.8 percent.

Tell me with a straight face that the odds of rolling any one number with a die are 1/7?

His massively dumbshit way (which was why you're using it) essentially adds another face to a die :lol

You really have no clue what youre talking about. He's talking about continuous probability and youre cherry picking events.

This one is in the ol deep freeze.

[midnightpulp]

You really have no clue what youre talking about. He's talking about continuous probability and youre cherry picking events.

This one is in the ol deep freeze.

And the way you calculate that is multiplying the number of favorable/total outcomes continuously. Rolling a 6 with a die is our favorable outcome, so we assign it a value of 1. The number of total outcomes is 6, ergo 1/6. If you want to know the continuous probability of rolling five 6s in a row, you do it: 1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6.

Let's see how that dumbshit's formula calculates flipping heads twice in a row (which everyone on Earth knows is a .25 probability).

First we have to find the odds of flipping heads or tails, which this dumbshit calculates by multiplying the two outcomes against each other, so: .50 x .50=.25

Then we multiply .25 x .25=0.0625 or 6.25 percent.

His way produces a 1/16 probability of flipping heads twice in a row :lmao

His math is laughably wrong.

[da_suns_fan]

And the way you calculate that is multiplying the number of favorable/total outcomes continuously. Rolling a 6 with a die is our favorable outcome, so we assign it a value of 1. The number of total outcomes is 6, ergo 1/6. If you want to know the continuous probability of rolling five 6s in a row, you do it: 1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6.

Let's see how that dumbshit's formula calculates flipping heads twice in a row (which everyone on Earth knows is a .25 probability).

First we have to find the odds of flipping heads or tails, which this dumbshit calculates by multiplying the two outcomes against each other, so: .50 x .50=.25

Then we multiply .25 x .25=0.0625 or 6.25 percent.

His way produces a 1/16 probability of flipping heads twice in a row :lmao

His math is laughably wrong.

You just dont get it.

Hes not multiplying the odds of a make and a miss against each other.

Lebron had both a make and a miss in a single possession. So he's saying the odds of Lebron missing a three (.66), heat getting an offensive rebound (.167) and Lebron making a three (.33) is .012 which is 1.2% (which sounds about right...in 1.2% of their possessions the Heat probably shot a three, missed, got the offensive rebound and hit a three).

Youre stupid "double headed die" analogy was both painful and hilarious. Its not that "he" is dumb. Its just that you didnt understand.

[midnightpulp]

You just dont get it.

Hes not multiplying the odds of a make and a miss against each other.

Lebron had both a make and a miss in a single possession. So he's saying the odds of Lebron missing a three (.66), heat getting an offensive rebound (.167) and Lebron making a three (.33) is .012 which is 1.2% (which sounds about right...in 1.2% of their possessions the Heat probably shot a three, missed, got the offensive rebound and hit a three).

Youre stupid "double headed die" analogy was both painful and hilarious. Its not that "he" is dumb. Its just that you didnt understand.

:lmao That's impossible.

There can't be two different offensive events in a single possession for individual players because a shot, a miss, or a turnover counts as a "possession used" in the NBA. You have to consider the events independently of each other, just like a coinflip. He's applying a different form a probability theory that is commonly used to analyze events with a shitload of more random variables, like trying to figure out the probability of how many years a steel beam will last under a load in a climate that is humid in the Summer. No one uses it for sports or gambling, since it's assumed the prior event doesn't influence a future event (in our steel beam example, the weather can influence the steel beam in some fashion).

See how SABR does it for baseball:


In this article, it will always be assumed that each at-bat, game, etc., is an independent chance event; for instance, that a batter's chance of getting a hit is the same in every at-bat.

As far as we are concerned, therefore, each time at-bat must be treated as a chance event, as far as our ability to predict or analyze the outcome is concerned. Even if it is conceded that the outcome is really determined in advance by complicated factors such as the precise configuration of batter's and pitcher's muscles, etc., it would not change things as long as the analysis of these factors remains impractical. The outcome of a roulette spin is also presumably determined by the laws of mechanics, but in a way too complicated to be useful. "Chance" is just a word we use for any combination of factors too complicated for us to control or analyze. In this sense, any particular time at bat, or any particular game, is a chance event whose outcome can only be predicted statistically.

His math is WRONG for this particular context.

[midnightpulp]

And here's a video from the Khan Academy, a great educational organization that has helped plenty of massively dumbshit people like yourself, calculating the odds of Lebron making 10 FTs in a row (guess what, they do it the exact same way as I and SABR do, considering each event an independent "chance" event):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMqCSgqzmiQ

[Stalin]

:corn:

[midnightpulp]

You just dont get it.

Hes not multiplying the odds of a make and a miss against each other.

Lebron had both a make and a miss in a single possession. So he's saying the odds of Lebron missing a three (.66), heat getting an offensive rebound (.167) and Lebron making a three (.33) is .012 which is 1.2% (which sounds about right...in 1.2% of their possessions the Heat probably shot a three, missed, got the offensive rebound and hit a three).

Youre stupid "double headed die" analogy was both painful and hilarious. Its not that "he" is dumb. Its just that you didnt understand.

Furthermore, this should not be factored in. See the Khan Academy video. When figuring odds, you only count favorable outcomes (we're operating from the Heat's perspective, figuring out the odds they had of coming back). The odds of a Lebron make (.375) off a Heat o-board (.26) is about 10 percent, which is much more believable number than 1.2%. if the odds of scoring second chance points were that low, teams would only be scoring like 1 or 2 second chance points per game. The average amount of second chance points scored in the year's playoffs was about 12 per game.

Let's look at the math again, as well.

Lebron miss (.63), o-board (.26), Lebron made 3 (.37), Lebron miss (.63), o-board (.26), Ray Allen made 3 (.41)=0.00446704315 or 0.44%. Yeah, sounds about right. Despite another possession where the Heat missed a three, got the o-board, and then hit a 3, their percentage rate of that type of possession actually went down by more than 50%. :lol

:lol "I took discrete math in college."

[Kawhitstorm]

I failed Discrete mathematics in college.

FIFY

[midnightpulp]

FIFY

:lol

[midnightpulp]

And the Final nail:


But after a Spurs run, which culminated with a LeBron James turnover with 28 seconds remaining, the Heat trailed by five and had only a 1.5% chance of winning the game. In other words, with 28 seconds left, the Spurs had a 98.5% chance of winning the championship.

http://www.businessinsider.com/one-chart-that-shows-why-game-6-may-have-been-the-craziest-nba-finals-game-ever-2013-6

[140]

FIFY

:lmao

[SquawkinHawkBigCock]

Is Da the new forum punching bag? Haven't seen Luva around in a while

[da_suns_fan]

:lmao That's impossible.

There can't be two different offensive events in a single possession for individual players .

Yes there can. Its called an offensive rebound. Were not determining individual usage percentages, were determining continuous probability.

Youre baseball analogy was just sad. A baseball player cant strike out and hit a home run on a single at bat, but he can strike out and then hit a home run on his next at bat. You can easily determine the probability that a given player will do these two things in that particular order which is the same as the source I used determining the probability that Lebron would miss a three and then make his next three.

Its clear to me that you realize you fucked up. You actually claimed he was "multiplying the opposite probabilities against each other". He wasnt, you just didnt understand. You do this all the time.

[da_suns_fan]

And the Final nail:



http://www.businessinsider.com/one-chart-that-shows-why-game-6-may-have-been-the-craziest-nba-finals-game-ever-2013-6

Again, you dont understand.



But after a Spurs run, which culminated with a LeBron James turnover with 28 seconds remaining, the Heat trailed by five and had only a 1.5% chance of winning the game. In other words, with 28 seconds left, the Spurs had a 98.5% chance of winning the championship.

Thats the odds of Spurs winning using ANY sequence events. Youre confusing continuous probability with discrete probability.

You didnt determine the odds that Golden State would go four minutes without a point, you attempted to determine the odds of particular players missing particular shots and then giving up offensive rebounds in a given order.

All you do is expose your ignorance. Just remember I'll always be here to expose you when you "crunch some numbers". :lol

[ambchang]

There are four distinct outcomes for the last sequence.

1) Lebron makes the three on the first try (37%)
2) Lebron misses the three on the first try, did not get offensive rebound (0.63 x 0.74 = 46.62%)
3) Lebron misses the three on the first try, got offensive rebound, Allen misses the next shot (0.63 x 0.26 x 0.59 = 9.7%)
4) Lebron misses the three on the first try, got offensive rebound, Allen makes the next shot (0.63 x 0.26 x 0.41 = 6.7%)

The total probabilities of these four events should add up to 1, and it does using MDP's method (see above in parantheses)

It doesn't using dsf's method.

In fact, if you use http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xW5MJdDISpY/UgEucdvaboI/AAAAAAAAAHo/rDhklSPqV5c/s1600/Game+6+Math.jpg as the basis, just take the first scenario where Ginobili makes or misses the FT.

The probability of him missing the FT, as noted in the graphic, was 0.73 x 0.27 = 19.77%
Then what is the probability of Ginobili making the FT? It would be 0.27 x 0.73, which is also 19.77%

What are the other probabilities?

The person who came up with that graphic is clearly ignorant of how statistics work. let's break down all the possible scenarios using his method:
1) Ginobili makes FTs = 19.77%
2) Ginobili misses FTs, Lebron misses 3 = 0.73 x 0.27 x 0.375 x 0.625 = 4.6195%
3) Ginobili misses FTs, Lebron makes 3, Kawhi makes FT = 0.73 x 0.27 x 0.375 x 0.625 x 0.633 x 0.367 = 1.0732%
4) Ginobili misses FTs, Lebron makes 3, Kawhi misses FT, Allen misses 3 = 0.73 x 0.27 x 0.375 x 0.625 x 0.633 x 0.367 x 0.41 x 0.59 = 0.2596%
5) Ginobili misses FTs, Lebron makes 3, Kawhi misses FT, Allen makes 3 = 0.73 x 0.27 x 0.375 x 0.625 x 0.633 x 0.367 x 0.41 x 0.59 = 0.2596%

The total adds up to 25.9219%. What happens to the other 74% or so? What are the other possibilities?

[midnightpulp]

Yes there can. Its called an offensive rebound. Were not determining individual usage percentages, were determining continuous probability.

Youre baseball analogy was just sad. A baseball player cant strike out and hit a home run on a single at bat, but he can strike out and then hit a home run on his next at bat. You can easily determine the probability that a given player will do these two things in that particular order which is the same as the source I used determining the probability that Lebron would miss a three and then make his next three.

Its clear to me that you realize you fucked up. You actually claimed he was "multiplying the opposite probabilities against each other". He wasnt, you just didnt understand. You do this all the time.

Jesus, you are just a stubborn individual who can never admit you are wrong.

My baseball analogy was apt, since events in this context are INDEPENDENT CHANCE EVENTS, meaning Manu's made freethrow has NO INFLUENCE on his next shot, so it should not be factored in. His make is also IRRELEVANT to the problem we're analyzing (Heat's odds of coming back).

Let's use fuckin' dice as an example again. You're the Heat, I'm the Spurs. We're playing a dice game in which we each take turns rolling dice. Both of us get 5 rolls. We're using a special set of dice that has a "magic" side with a value of 20, but the odds of the die landing on this magic side are 1/100. All of my rolls are 6's, giving me total of 30. Your first 3 rolls give you a score of 3. So to beat me, you need to do the improbable and roll two consecutive 20's.

You do. I'm pissed and want to find out just how much a chance you had of doing that. I ONLY consider the odds of the magic side. Your rolls of 1 are irrelevant since it's a favorable outcome to me. I do this by obviously 1/100 x 1/100.

Now if I wanted to figure out the odds of your SPECIFIC 1, 1, 1, 20, 20 sequence, then I would factor in your previous rolls. But all I want to figure out is your comeback odds, so the 1,1,1 sequence is irrelevant. That's where you (the massive dumbshit) and the dumbshit who made the graphic erred. Him factoring in Manu's make, Lebron's miss only gave the odds for those events happening in a specific sequence and not the odds of the what the Heat needed to go right in the final 28 seconds to tie the game.

I honestly don't know how I can explain it any more clearly. His math was right, but he was citing the probability of something completely different, which was the odds of the ALL the events happening in that specific sequence. Basically, any event that was in favor of the Spurs should not be factored in. We treat those events like the 1,1,1 dice rolls.

[midnightpulp]

Again, you dont understand.



Thats the odds of Spurs winning using ANY sequence events. Youre confusing continuous probability with discrete probability.

You didnt determine the odds that Golden State would go four minutes without a point, you attempted to determine the odds of particular players missing particular shots and then giving up offensive rebounds in a given order.

All you do is expose your ignorance. Just remember I'll always be here to expose you when you "crunch some numbers". :lol

Discrete probability is what you use in this context.

Show me a white paper that examines continuous probability to calculate the odds of something like a player hitting 5 straight home runs or missing 8 straight jumpshots. So you're going to tell SABR they're wrong? :lol

They treat an event in sports (homerun, error, missed jumper, offensive rebound, etc, etc) as an INDEPENDENT CHANCE EVENT, just like a roll of the dice, where the previous event has no fuckin' influence over the next event. As I said, continuous probability is used in different applications.


Intuitively, a continuous random variable is the one which can take a continuous range of values—as opposed to a discrete distribution,

A jumpshot has a discrete, binomial (i.e. a yes/no event) distributions, just like a coinflip. There is only two outcomes (make/miss) and they can be statistically defined with percentages.

Applications of continuous probability:


The concept of the probability distribution and the random variables which they describe underlies the mathematical discipline of probability theory, and the science of statistics. There is spread or variability in almost any value that can be measured in a population (e.g. height of people, durability of a metal, sales growth, traffic flow, etc.); almost all measurements are made with some intrinsic error; in physics many processes are described probabilistically, from the kinetic properties of gases to the quantum mechanical description of fundamental particles. For these and many other reasons, simple numbers are often inadequate for describing a quantity, while probability distributions are often more appropriate.

Simple numbers aren't inadequate in our case. Now if you wanted to find the probability of Lebron's shooting percentage after he ate pizza on rainy day, then you probably use continuous probability.

Just stop digging.

[midnightpulp]

There are four distinct outcomes for the last sequence.

1) Lebron makes the three on the first try (37%)
2) Lebron misses the three on the first try, did not get offensive rebound (0.63 x 0.74 = 46.62%)
3) Lebron misses the three on the first try, got offensive rebound, Allen misses the next shot (0.63 x 0.26 x 0.59 = 9.7%)
4) Lebron misses the three on the first try, got offensive rebound, Allen makes the next shot (0.63 x 0.26 x 0.41 = 6.7%)

The total probabilities of these four events should add up to 1, and it does using MDP's method (see above in parantheses)

It doesn't using dsf's method.

In fact, if you use http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xW5MJdDISpY/UgEucdvaboI/AAAAAAAAAHo/rDhklSPqV5c/s1600/Game+6+Math.jpg as the basis, just take the first scenario where Ginobili makes or misses the FT.

The probability of him missing the FT, as noted in the graphic, was 0.73 x 0.27 = 19.77%
Then what is the probability of Ginobili making the FT? It would be 0.27 x 0.73, which is also 19.77%

What are the other probabilities?

The person who came up with that graphic is clearly ignorant of how statistics work. let's break down all the possible scenarios using his method:
1) Ginobili makes FTs = 19.77%
2) Ginobili misses FTs, Lebron misses 3 = 0.73 x 0.27 x 0.375 x 0.625 = 4.6195%
3) Ginobili misses FTs, Lebron makes 3, Kawhi makes FT = 0.73 x 0.27 x 0.375 x 0.625 x 0.633 x 0.367 = 1.0732%
4) Ginobili misses FTs, Lebron makes 3, Kawhi misses FT, Allen misses 3 = 0.73 x 0.27 x 0.375 x 0.625 x 0.633 x 0.367 x 0.41 x 0.59 = 0.2596%
5) Ginobili misses FTs, Lebron makes 3, Kawhi misses FT, Allen makes 3 = 0.73 x 0.27 x 0.375 x 0.625 x 0.633 x 0.367 x 0.41 x 0.59 = 0.2596%

The total adds up to 25.9219%. What happens to the other 74% or so? What are the other possibilities?

Thank you. I'm think I'm finally done here.

[da_suns_fan]

There are four distinct outcomes for the last sequence.

1) Lebron makes the three on the first try (37%)
2) Lebron misses the three on the first try, did not get offensive rebound (0.63 x 0.74 = 46.62%)
3) Lebron misses the three on the first try, got offensive rebound, Allen misses the next shot (0.63 x 0.26 x 0.59 = 9.7%)
4) Lebron misses the three on the first try, got offensive rebound, Allen makes the next shot (0.63 x 0.26 x 0.41 = 6.7%)



:lol

No, there is an infinite number of outcomes.

Texas education system.

[midnightpulp]

A continuous variable is a variable whose value is obtained by measuring. A random variable is a variable whose value is a numerical outcome of a random phenomenon. A discrete random variable X has a countable number of possible values. Example: Let X represent the sum of two dice.


Another Khan Academy video to help our math illiterate friend here:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOr0NKyD31Q

Continuous variable: "Something that can take on a whole set of values, from 0-infinity."

How many values does a jumper have? 2. A make or a miss.

[da_suns_fan]

Discrete probability is what you use in this context.



No its not. Im glad youre starting to TRY to learn though.

Never take Monospulp to Vegas, thats for sure.

[da_suns_fan]

Another Khan Academy video to help our math illiterate friend here:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOr0NKyD31Q

Continuous variable: "Something that can take on a whole set of values, from 0-infinity."

How many values does a jumper have? 2. A make or a miss.

Now youre panicking huh? :lol

Glad I could educate you.

[midnightpulp]

Now youre panicking huh? :lol

No. Trying to educate you in the hope you'll stop being a Massive Dumbshit.

[ambchang]

:lol

No, there is an infinite number of outcomes.

Texas education system.

Yes there are, but the example you used is taking the assumption that each outcome is an either or, and I am taking that exact approach.

If you are using the infinite outcome approach, the onus is on you to come up with a way to calculate it rather than rely on a graphic that most definitely based on a FINITE set of outcomes.

[da_suns_fan]

No. Trying to educate you in the hope you'll stop being a Massive Dumbshit.

It burns, doesnt it?

You should be thanking me. Ive introduced you to some stuff, havent I?

You should go back to school if youre really interested.

[midnightpulp]

No its not. Im glad youre starting to TRY to learn though.

Never take Monospulp to Vegas, thats for sure.

And why not?

Until you define how exactly a make or a miss influences the next event, you can't conceivably use continuous probability.

[midnightpulp]

It burns, doesnt it?

You should be thanking me. Ive introduced you to some stuff, havent I?

You should go back to school if youre really interested.

Yeah, proving you wrong really burns.

[da_suns_fan]

And why not?

Until you define how exactly a make or a miss influences the next event, you can't conceivably use continuous probability.

Because these are people and not coins flipping. The anxiety caused by missing a shot with time running out can influence future shots.

Do you understand NOW?

[midnightpulp]

Final nail in the coffin (I hope you've gotten used to me doing this, just like the Spurs have drove the nail into the Suns' coffin countless times).

From an article that calculates the odds of a 35 point comeback:


The Sacramento Kings came back to win on Monday night (Dec 21), when down by 35 points against the Bulls in Chicago with 20 minutes and 50 seconds (20:50) left. When two even NBA teams play the chance that the trailing team would win from that situation is about one in 24,000. Let’s take an in-depth look at the calculation…

The theory used for this calculation is based on independence

https://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2009/12/25/what-is-the-chance-of-an-nba-comeback-when-down-by-35/

[midnightpulp]

Because these are people and not coins flipping. The anxiety caused by missing a shot with time running out can influence future shots.

Do you understand NOW?

But you can't define that. And your original graphic didn't even consider that.

The only way to define it would be too see what Manu Ginobili's shooting percentage is when he's at the line with an NBA championship on the line up 4 with 28 seconds left. There's no useful sample size to draw from, so we have to use his playoff FT percentage. These events have to considered in a "vacuum."

Do YOU understand NOW.

[da_suns_fan]

But you can't define that. And your original graphic didn't even consider that.



Neither did your "numbers crunching". Im glad youre starting to learn some stuff, but you really shouldnt be making statements about your "numbers crunching" when its clear to anyone whos taken this stuff you dont have the slightest clue what youre talking about.

[midnightpulp]

Neither did your "numbers crunching". Im glad youre starting to learn some stuff, but you really shouldnt be making statements about your "numbers crunching" when its clear to anyone whos taken this stuff you dont have the slightest clue what youre talking about.

I have every clue what I'm talking about. What did you think the phrase "I'm only considering events in a vacuum" meant in my OP?

You nor I have any idea how pressure affects those players, nor do we have any data to use to examine the probable outcome of a 22 year old 2nd year player making both FTs with an NBA title on the line, since it's a totally unique event. So we have to treat the players like coins.

You can apologize now for being a reactionary Massive Dumbshit.

[TDfan2007]

:lol this thread officially signals the off-season. WGAF? They were both horrible choke jobs on the biggest stage in basketball. Both chokes were a total team effort.

However, in defense of the spurs, I'll say that they acquitted themselves well enough in game 7 of that series. It took a fluke shooting performance by Battier and LeBron to win. Plus, they got their revenge the following year in emphatic fashion. Remains to be seen what the warriors do...

[Thread]

:lol this thread officially signals the off-season. WGAF? They were both horrible choke jobs on the biggest stage in basketball. Both chokes were a total team effort.

However, in defense of the spurs, I'll say that they acquitted themselves well enough in game 7 of that series. It took a fluke shooting performance by Battier and LeBron to win. Plus, they got their revenge the following year in emphatic fashion. Remains to be seen what the warriors do...

They were selling your shit.

[Stalin]

They were selling your shit.



You bought Jordan's shit wholesale and rushed the floor when he rung.

[Thread]

You bought Jordan's shit wholesale and rushed the floor when he rung.

They were selling your shit.

[TDfan2007]

They were selling your shit.

Nobody cares...well, except maybe some Miami fans in Africa

[sprrs]

No its not. Yours is (I checked...you really fucked up).

I took Discrete mathematics in college. Trust me, he's right. Youre wrong.

Since when does Discrete Math cover probabillity & statistics? That's like saying: "I took American Lit, trust my American History knowledge."

[Spurtacular]

I didnt know there was a separate thread for this.

As usual, Monospulps "crunching" was wrong.

Its a 1.9% chance of happening which wasnt nearly as bad (statistically) as the Spurs choke of 0.006% chance.

Nuh uh. It was 2.73869849621 percent.

[Thread]

Nobody cares...well, except maybe some Miami fans in Africa

Then you won't mind:::

They were selling your shit.

[DMC]

Then you won't mind:::

They were selling your shit.
You cannot be accused of selling any playoff gear in the past 4 years.

[Thread]

You cannot be accused of selling any playoff gear in the past 4 years.

Or, stringing our ropes.

[Stalin]

Or, stringing our ropes.


You bought Jordan's shit wholesale and rushed the floor when he rung.

[Thread]

You bought Jordan's shit wholesale and rushed the floor when he rung.

They were selling your shit.

[Silver&Black]

You bought Jordan's shit wholesale and rushed the floor when he rung.

True dat.

My Comrade...

[Silver&Black]

True dat.

My Comrade...

They were selling your shit.

[DMC]

Or, stringing our ropes.

Or putting one in the case.

[Clipper Nation]

Or, stringing our ropes.
They should have strung the ropes in LA, then all the Laker fans would have tripped over them while rushing the court for Jordan's championship.

[Thread]

They should have strung the ropes in LA, then all the Laker fans would have tripped over them while rushing the court for Jordan's championship.

Same thing in Florida in '13. You still ain't explained that.

[Thread]

Or putting one in the case.

Unlike you fellows we've never had to surrender one.

[da_suns_fan]

Since when does Discrete Math cover probabillity & statistics? That's like saying: "I took American Lit, trust my American History knowledge."

Probably about 400 years years ago.

http://www.tutorialspoint.com/discrete_mathematics/discrete_mathematics_probability.htm

[DMC]

Unlike you fellows we've never had to surrender one.

You surrendered 9 just to Boston.



Year
Winner
Series


1959 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1959_NBA_Finals)
Boston Celtics
4–0


1962 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1962_NBA_Finals)
Boston Celtics
4–3


1963 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1963_NBA_Finals)
Boston Celtics
4–2


1965 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1965_NBA_Finals)
Boston Celtics
4–1


1966 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_NBA_Finals)
Boston Celtics
4–3


1968 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_NBA_Finals)
Boston Celtics
4–2


1969 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_NBA_Finals)
Boston Celtics
4–3


1984 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_NBA_Finals)
Boston Celtics
4–3


1985 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_NBA_Finals)
Los Angeles Lakers
4–2


1987 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_NBA_Finals)
Los Angeles Lakers
4–2


2008 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_NBA_Finals)
Boston Celtics
4–2


2010 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_NBA_Finals)
Los Angeles Lakers
4–3

[Thread]

You surrendered 9 just to Boston.



Year
Winner
Series


1959 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1959_NBA_Finals)
Boston Celtics
4–0


1962 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1962_NBA_Finals)
Boston Celtics
4–3


1963 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1963_NBA_Finals)
Boston Celtics
4–2


1965 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1965_NBA_Finals)
Boston Celtics
4–1


1966 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_NBA_Finals)
Boston Celtics
4–3


1968 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_NBA_Finals)
Boston Celtics
4–2


1969 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_NBA_Finals)
Boston Celtics
4–3


1984 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_NBA_Finals)
Boston Celtics
4–3


1985 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_NBA_Finals)
Los Angeles Lakers
4–2


1987 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_NBA_Finals)
Los Angeles Lakers
4–2


2008 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_NBA_Finals)
Boston Celtics
4–2


2010 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_NBA_Finals)
Los Angeles Lakers
4–3




D, gettin' his purposely obtuse on.

You look adorable.

[benefactor]

dsf getting posterized on every possession in this thread tbh

[Thread]

dsf getting posterized on every possession in this thread tbh

I'll just bet he is.

[DMC]

D, gettin' his purposely obtuse on.

You look adorable.
That one in 2008 has to be stuck in your craw. You could have put them behind you but no, you had to show your ass.

[Thread]

That one in 2008 has to be stuck in your craw. You could have put them behind you but no, you had to show your ass.

Of course it is. Unlike the rest of the fellows I never hide my shit.

[sprrs]

Probably about 400 years years ago.

http://www.tutorialspoint.com/discrete_mathematics/discrete_mathematics_probability.htm

You took Discrete Math 400 years ago? Impressive.

As for me, I took it about 6 years ago in A&M.

Course description pulled from their website:

MATH 302 - Discrete Mathematics - Summer 2016

Formal structures for describing data, algorithms and computing devices; theory and applications of sets, graphs and algebraic structures. Prerequisite: MATH 152 or equivalen

To be sure, I pulled up course descriptions from select other universities as well.

University of Texas:

Prerequisite: One of M408D, M408L, or M408S, with a grade of at least C-, or consent of instructor. This is a first course that emphasizes understanding and creating proofs. Therefore, it provides a transition from the problem-solving approach of calculus to the entirely rigorous approach of advanced courses such as M365C or M373K. The number of topics required for coverage has been kept modest so as to allow adequate time for students to develop theorem-proving skills.


Notre Dame:

CSE 20110: Discrete Mathematics (Fall 2015, Fall 2014, Fall 2013, Fall 2012, and Fall 2011)

Course description: Introduction to mathematical techniques fundamental to computer engineering and computer science. Topics: mathematical logic, induction, set theory, relations, functions, recursion, recurrence relations, introduction to asymptotic analysis, algebraic structures, graphs, and machine computation.

John Hopkins:

605.203 - Discrete Mathematics

This course emphasizes the relationships between certain mathematical structures and various topics in computer science. Topics include set theory, graphs and trees, algorithms, propositional calculus, logic and induction, functions, relational algebra, and matrix algebra.
Course prerequisites: Calculus is recommended. A mathematics course beyond one year of calculus is needed for admission to the Computer Science Program. Students who lack this prerequisite can fulfill admission requirements by completing this course with a grade of A or B.

But I guess 400 years ago Discrete math focused on probability. What do I know, I only graduated with a math degree.

[da_suns_fan]

You took Discrete Math 400 years ago? Impressive.

As for me, I took it about 6 years ago in A&M.

Course description pulled from their website:


To be sure, I pulled up course descriptions from select other universities as well.

University of Texas:


Notre Dame:


John Hopkins:


But I guess 400 years ago Discrete math focused on probability. What do I know, I only graduated with a math degree.

And I have a masters in engineering. And when we were taught discrete mathematics using THIS text, it included Discrete PROBABILITY Distribution:

https://www.amazon.com/Discrete-Mathematics-Its-Applications-Seventh/dp/0073383090/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1466785480&sr=1-2&keywords=discrete+mathematics

Texas education system, I tell ya.

[da_suns_fan]

LOl...page 445 (look inside):

Chapter 7: Discrete Probability.

https://www.amazon.com/Discrete-Mathematics-Its-Applications-Seventh/dp/0073383090/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1466785480&sr=1-2&keywords=discrete+mathematics

[K...]

And I have a masters in engineering. And when we were taught discrete mathematics using THIS text, it included Discrete PROBABILITY Distribution:

https://www.amazon.com/Discrete-Mathematics-Its-Applications-Seventh/dp/0073383090/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1466785480&sr=1-2&keywords=discrete+mathematics

Texas education system, I tell ya.

Having to self dox like this is a huge loss. You should quit and go back to your og laker fan handle or your upstairs dabom handle

[sprrs]

LOl...page 445 (look inside):

Chapter 7: Discrete Probability.

https://www.amazon.com/Discrete-Mathematics-Its-Applications-Seventh/dp/0073383090/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1466785480&sr=1-2&keywords=discrete+mathematics

I absolutely love that you actually found a Discrete Math book that talks about probability. Not surprised you did. Some universities do include probability theory in their courses. Thing is, Discrete Math (and really anything above Cal 3) rarely focuses on actual application of math. It's main focus is THEORY. You claiming you took Discrete Math doesn't add any credibility to your ability to calculate and apply probability. It was just thrown in there to make yourself sound credible. The book you included reiterates this point. It has one absolutely basic applied example, then goes into a detailed explanation on theory.

It would have been much more effective to say you took Statistical Analysis (I'm sure you took some form of statistics if you've received a Master's in engineering). Even College Algebra has more actual application of probability.

[baseline bum]

Since when does Discrete Math cover probabillity & statistics? That's like saying: "I took American Lit, trust my American History knowledge."

Discrete math typically has a pretty short introduction to combinatorics and probability before you get into things like induction, recurrences, and graph theory.

[sprrs]

Discrete math typically has a pretty short introduction to combinatorics and probability before you get into things like induction, recurrences, and graph theory.

The one I took didn't include probability, that was covered in Number Theory at A&M. However I will acquiesce that what you say is true, in the most basic sense.

[Clipper Nation]

Same thing in Florida in '13. You still ain't explained that.
SF didn't rush the court for James. You rushed the court for Jordan.

[baseline bum]

The one I took didn't include probability, that was covered in Number Theory at A&M. However I will acquiesce that what you say is true, in the most basic sense.

The course I took had it, but it was about a 3 inch deep delve into probability (and that part was boring as shit since I had taken two quarters of probability already :lol). School made me take that shit though for a CS degree. I thought about taking number theory, but there was so much overlap with algebra that I felt like I knew half the material already. Maybe should have just jumped into algebraic number theory or analytic number theory.

[Thread]

SF didn't rush the court for James. You rushed the court for Jordan.

But, they strung the ropes in Florida in anticipation of the Heat losing. Why? Heat Fan would not have rushed the floor at loss, just like Laker Fan would not have. And Spur Fan, supposedly was back in Texas like supposedly Bulls Fan was back in Illinois. Explain it.

[Clipper Nation]

Heat Fan would not have rushed the floor at loss, just like Laker Fan would not have.
LF rushedPERIOD

[baseline bum]

But, they strung the ropes in Florida in anticipation of the Heat losing. Why? Heat Fan would not have rushed the floor at loss, just like Laker Fan would not have. And Spur Fan, supposedly was back in Texas like supposedly Bulls Fan was back in Illinois. Explain it.

LOL Laker fan rushing the floor for Jordan. Why did you do it cubby?

[Thread]

LOL Laker fan rushing the floor for Jordan. Why did you do it cubby?

They were selling your shit.

[baseline bum]

They were selling your shit.

You rushed the floor for Jordan when he rang in your building. I spit on you.

http://i.imgur.com/J0Z5dcN.jpg

[Stalin]

LOL Laker fan rushing the floor for Jordan. Why did you do it cubby?


I, too would like to know..:lol

[da_suns_fan]

I absolutely love that you actually found a Discrete Math book that talks about probability.

Look for "discrete mathematics" books on amazon. The the one we used is the second one listed. Youre suggesting it just HAPPENED to have a chapter on probability.

The FIRST one listed also has a chapter on probability:

https://www.amazon.com/Discrete-Mathematics-Applications-Susanna-Epp/dp/0495391328/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1466795123&sr=1-1&keywords=discrete+mathematics

The THIRD one listed also has a chapter on probability:

https://www.amazon.com/Discrete-Mathematics-Elementary-Beyond-Undergraduate/dp/0387955852/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1466795123&sr=1-3&keywords=discrete+mathematics

The FOURTH one listed also has a chapter on probability:

https://www.amazon.com/Discrete-Mathematics-Gary-Chartrand/dp/1577667301/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1466795123&sr=1-5&keywords=discrete+mathematics

So how the hell can you not just admit that you fucked up?

[da_suns_fan]

The course I took had it, but it was about a 3 inch deep delve into probability (and that part was boring as shit since I had taken two quarters of probability already :lol). School made me take that shit though for a CS degree. I thought about taking number theory, but there was so much overlap with algebra that I felt like I knew half the material already. Maybe should have just jumped into algebraic number theory or analytic number theory.

Same.

[Thread]

I, too would like to know..:lol

Explain why they strung ropes in Florida for the Spurs 1st 5th.

[Thread]

You rushed the floor for Jordan when he rang in your building. I spit on you.

http://i.imgur.com/J0Z5dcN.jpg

They were selling your shit.

[baseline bum]

They were selling your shit.


You rushed the floor for Jordan when he rang in your building. I spit on you.

http://i.imgur.com/J0Z5dcN.jpg

[da_suns_fan]

Since when does Discrete Math cover probabillity & statistics? That's like saying: "I took American Lit, trust my American History knowledge."


But I guess 400 years ago Discrete math focused on probability. What do I know, I only graduated with a math degree.


I absolutely love that you actually found a Discrete Math book that talks about probability.


The one I took didn't include probability, that was covered in Number Theory at A&M. However I will acquiesce that what you say is true, in the most basic sense.

Every single one of the top five "discrete mathematics" text books listed on amazon has a chapter on probability. Yet this clown would NEVER say "I guess I was wrong". The condescending Texas A&M math major believed since HIS SCHOOL covered that in a different class then me associating probability with with discrete is like saying "I took American Lit, trust my American History knowledge."

What a jackass.

[sprrs]

Every single one of the top five "discrete mathematics" text books listed on amazon has a chapter on probability. Yet this clown would NEVER say "I guess I was wrong". The condescending Texas A&M math major believed since HIS SCHOOL covered that in a different class then me associating probability with with discrete is like saying "I took American Lit, trust my American History knowledge."

What a jackass.

If you actually read my later posts, you'll see I did admit that some classes do touch -very briefly- on probability. I guess that makes you an expert then. My bad, expert.

Oh my goodness. You found books on Amazon? Do you know how impressed I am by that? Damn bro, you really showed me. Let me walk away with my tail between my legs. Go ahead and ignore the courses descriptions I listed from several universities. You found a couple of books on Amazon. AMAZON. Go ahead and shut me down again with your reliable sources.

https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/52506004.jpg

In case you couldn't tell, this post is heavy with sarcasm.