Spurs are nearly locked into having the best odds to land the number 1 pick. So I ran 10,000 draft simulations. Here are the results

[playblair]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FsasdhHXoAcXZE2?format=png&name=small

[Ariel]

No need to run simulations when you know the odds.

[The Truth #6]

Brilliant. Andy Kauffman-esque. Or not.

[offset formation]

Looks to be higher than 14% though if my eye is guesstimating this properly. Looks to be closer to 16% or 17%. Not sure I understand the statistics behind that.

[slick'81]

Yama is ours!!

[mudd]

don't matter where the pick lands the spurs will pick someone to shock everyone and we draft a clown!

[LeBowen]

Looks to be higher than 14% though if my eye is guesstimating this properly. Looks to be closer to 16% or 17%. Not sure I understand the statistics behind that.

10k simulations is still not big enough of a sample size.

I always wondered how do they actually do it.
Is it 15th to 1st pick or 1st to 15th?

[exstatic]

10k simulations is still not big enough of a sample size.

I always wondered how do they actually do it.
Is it 15th to 1st pick or 1st to 15th?

I think they reveal 4th to 1st, and then open the rest of the envelopes. They used to do 14th to 1st, and you KNEW when someone jumped into the (then) top three. I guess it took longer, and the analysts didn't have enough blab time.

[Ariel]

OK, to remove doubts, this simulation is a one liner on Matlab:
sum(rand(1, 1000000000) < 0.14) / 1000000000
That's one BILLION runs. Results a few seconds later:


0.139993920
0.140003561

Conclusions: 14% means 14 F'ING PERCENT!!!!

[exstatic]

Looks to be higher than 14% though if my eye is guesstimating this properly. Looks to be closer to 16% or 17%. Not sure I understand the statistics behind that.


OK, to remove doubts, this simulation is a one liner on Matlab:
sum(rand(1, 1000000000) < 0.14) / 1000000000
That's one BILLION runs. Results:


0.139993920
0.140003561

Conclusions: 14% means 14 F'ING PERCENT!!!!

I think offset formation meant the particular 10,000 run and bar graph that PB did, not that the ACTUAL odds aren't 14%.

[LeBowen]

I think they reveal 4th to 1st, and then open the rest of the envelopes. They used to do 14th to 1st, and you KNEW when someone jumped into the (then) top three. I guess it took longer, and the analysts didn't have enough blab time.

There's no way they use the envelopes, right?...right?
Envelopes are there just for the drama, a group of NBA people does the draft and puts corresponding team cards in envelopes when it's done.

Since odds have one decimal in them, that would mean there should be a thousand units of whatever they're using, assuming it's not just ran through an algorithm and done in physical form.
I can't imagine someone diving into a thousand envelopes to decide who gets the pick.

[Ariel]

https://www.nba.com/news/nba-draft-lottery-explainer

The 2023 NBA Draft Lottery will be held Tuesday, May 16. ESPN will air the results live at 8 p.m. ET. The 38th annual NBA Draft Lottery will determine the order of selection for the first 14 picks of the 2023 NBA Draft. Drawings will be conducted to determine the first four picks in the NBA Draft. The remainder of the “lottery teams” will select in positions five through 14 in inverse order of their 2022-23 regular-season records.

The actual lottery procedure will take place in a separate room just before ESPN’s national broadcast. Select media, NBA officials and representatives of the participating teams and the accounting firm Ernst & Young will be in attendance for the drawings.

Fourteen ping-pong balls numbered 1 through 14 will be placed in a lottery machine. There are 1,001 possible combinations when four balls are drawn out of 14, without regard to their order of selection. Before the lottery, 1,000 of those 1,001 combinations will be assigned to the 14 participating lottery teams. The lottery machine is manufactured by the Smart Play Company, a leading manufacturer of state lottery machines throughout the United States. Smart Play also weighs, measures and certifies the ping-pong balls before the drawing.

The drawing process occurs in the following manner: All 14 balls are placed in the lottery machine and they are mixed for 20 seconds, and then the first ball is removed. The remaining balls are mixed in the lottery machine for another 10 seconds, and then the second ball is drawn. There is a 10-second mix, and then the third ball is drawn. There is a 10-second mix, and then the fourth ball is drawn. The team that has been assigned that combination will receive the No. 1 pick. The same process is repeated with the same ping-pong balls and lottery machine for the second through fourth picks.

If the same team comes up more than once, the result is discarded and another four-ball combination is selected. Also, if the one unassigned combination is drawn, the result is discarded and the balls are drawn again. The length of time the balls are mixed is monitored by a timekeeper who faces away from the machine and signals the machine operator after the appropriate amount of time has elapsed.

A representative from Ernst & Young oversees the entire lottery process and stuffs and seals the envelopes before bringing them to the studio for the broadcast. The announcement of the lottery results will be made by NBA Deputy Commissioner and Chief Operating Officer Mark Tatum. A second representative from each participating team will be seated on stage. Neither the Deputy Commissioner nor the team representatives on stage will be informed of the lottery results before the envelopes are opened. The team whose logo is in the last envelope opened will have the No. 1 pick in the 2023 NBA Draft, which will be held on Thursday, June 22 at Barclays Center in Brooklyn, N.Y.

[exstatic]

There's no way they use the envelopes, right?...right?
Envelopes are there just for the drama, a group of NBA people does the draft and puts corresponding team cards in envelopes when it's done.

Since odds have one decimal in them, that would mean there should be a thousand units of whatever they're using, assuming it's not just ran through an algorithm and done in physical form.
I can't imagine someone diving into a thousand envelopes to decide who gets the pick.
Exactly.

It's done with random groups of numbers assigned proportionally to each team within the draw system. Once they draw the first four draft pick number groups, offstage with representatives of all 30 teams witnessing, they stuff all 14 envelopes, and bring them to the stage.

[R. DeMurre]

If that guy who runs tankathon got one cent for each time someone pressed the SIM LOTTERY button on the site, he'd be able to retire. Hell, i'd probably owe him $75 myself.

[LeBowen]

Thanks for clarification, assigning combinations to draft balls is the best thing to do, didn't think about that possibility.

[Ariel]

One time I was bored I wrote a small program to calculate the exact odds, to double check on Tankathon. Their odds check out, here with a little extra precision (per row, red -hot- to blue -cold- for most likely to least likely positions per record):
https://i.postimg.cc/GtWqHdM6/draft-odds.png
also did a small program to generate a large number of batches, because Tankathon was not giving me accurate results. Simulating this is pretty fast and cheap, Tankathon adds a lot of effects and delay for dramatic purposes.

[John B]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FsasdhHXoAcXZE2?format=png&name=small

Or about 14% :lol

[JPB]

https://www.nba.com/news/nba-draft-lottery-explainer

Maybe I missed something but that doesn't explain how they guarantee bottom 3 teams to be no lower than 5,6 or 7. I suppose if spurs finish 3rd worst and their lower possible pick is 7, then if no spurs combination has been drawn yet and it's time to attribute the 7th pick, they automatically get it...

[playblair]

Or about 14% :lol
i ran it again
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FsbSENJXgAAM1vE?format=png&name=small

[playblair]

Looks to be higher than 14% though if my eye is guesstimating this properly. Looks to be closer to 16% or 17%. Not sure I understand the statistics behind that.
do u approve of my new sig :toast

[JPB]

i ran it again
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FsbSENJXgAAM1vE?format=png&name=small


OK, to remove doubts, this simulation is a one liner on Matlab:
sum(rand(1, 1000000000) < 0.14) / 1000000000
That's one BILLION runs. Results a few seconds later:


0.139993920
0.140003561

Conclusions: 14% means 14 F'ING PERCENT!!!!

[Vince Carter's ankle]

i ran it again
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FsbSENJXgAAM1vE?format=png&name=small
is it u?
1641188764268544000

1641230098257829888

[JPB]

lol

[Dverde]

I have Madam Silver arranging the #1 pick to land in Portland.

[Ariel]

Maybe I missed something but that doesn't explain how they guarantee bottom 3 teams to be no lower than 5,6 or 7. I suppose if spurs finish 3rd worst and their lower possible pick is 7, then if no spurs combination has been drawn yet and it's time to attribute the 7th pick, they automatically get it...
Only 1 through 4 are assigned randomly, then 5-14 are assigned according to record, worst to best.
That means a given lottery team can land 1-4, keep their current slot, or go back one slot for each team with a better record that leapfrogs them.
Say you have the best record and you don't get top 4, you're the worst of the remaining teams thus you land no. 5 (and no worse).
If you have 2nd worst and you don't get top 4, you can get no. 5 if the worst record landed a top 4 place and thus you're the worst of the bunch, or no. 6 if neither you nor the worst record landed a top 4 spot which means you're still 2nd worst among remaining teams.
In general, for a team with the nth worst record, they can pick 1-4 (lottery), n, or go back up one spot for every team better than you that leapfrogged you.
For instance
if you're the 7th worst record and top 4 is 4,1,3,2, then the rest of the lottery proceeds 5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14
If top 4 is 8,1,5,2 then one team with a better record than you leapfrogged you, so you're pushed back one spot to 8
if top 4 is 9,3,2,10, then 2 teams with a better record leapfrogged you, so you're pushed back 2 spots to 9
Worst case scenario is all 4 spots are awarded to teams with better records than you, say top 4 is 13,11,8,10 then there are still 6 teams with a worst record than yours so you pick 7 + 4 = 11

[Dex]

Looks to be higher than 14% though if my eye is guesstimating this properly. Looks to be closer to 16% or 17%. Not sure I understand the statistics behind that.

Technically when you flip a coin, you have a 50% chance for both heads and tails.

That doesn't mean that out of 100 flips, the final count will be 50 and 50.

[playblair]

is it u?
1641188764268544000

1641230098257829888
spurstalk getting plagiarized again.......

[exstatic]

Technically when you flip a coin, you have a 50% chance for both heads and tails.

That doesn't mean that out of 100 flips, the final count will be 50 and 50.

We have a 14 % chance. If you run a simulator 10 times, it's impossible to win 1.4 times. Sample size is everything.

[scott]

Technically when you flip a coin, you have a 50% chance for both heads and tails.

That doesn't mean that out of 100 flips, the final count will be 50 and 50.

But that’s only because a sample size of 100 is too low. As the number of iterations increase, the distribution of heads/tails will converge upon 50/50. It’s a beautiful thing, but it is also what’s leads people to be in dumbfounded shock when they watch a roulette wheel land on red 23 times in a row and the casino collects all the chips they just lost.

[offset formation]

I think offset formation meant the particular 10,000 run and bar graph that PB did, not that the ACTUAL odds aren't 14%.

Yes. Which is why I highlighted the apparent discrepancy between the 14% and what appeared to be a bit higher bar graph.

[offset formation]

do u approve of my new sig :toast

I told you to post whatever you wanted but just be prepared for the feedback if it was demonstrating ignorance, then proceeded to give you reasons why it was that.

[offset formation]

Technically when you flip a coin, you have a 50% chance for both heads and tails.

That doesn't mean that out of 100 flips, the final count will be 50 and 50.

Yes but this was a run of 10000 runs which ought to settled out at the 14% number by then, or at least I would have thought so. Guess it takes a billion though.

[Sugus]

Yes but this was a run of 10000 runs which ought to settled out at the 14% number by then, or at least I would have thought so. Guess it takes a billion though.

Exactly, and it's the reason these types of "ten thousand/million/billion times" probabilistic analysis are dumb in the first place for single-time events.

The draft lottery isn't going to be ran a number of times high enough to validate the percentages. It's up to dumb, random luck whether the Spurs have the ping-pong balls fall their way or not, and having 14% chances, or 12% or 16%, isn't a significant difference when the chances are already so low to begin with.

We either get Wemba or not, I dunno why everyone stresses about the numbers on it. Spurs have done their job, and now it's up to fate itself.

[Phenomanul]

But that’s only because a sample size of 100 is too low. As the number of iterations increase, the distribution of heads/tails will converge upon 50/50. It’s a beautiful thing, but it is also what’s leads people to be in dumbfounded shock when they watch a roulette wheel land on red 23 times in a row and the casino collects all the chips they just lost.

Well... that's because Roulette wheels are rigged (everyone knows that the Roulette operator can bias where the ball will land). On the other hand, try flipping an unrigged coin with a stated objective to get 23 consecutive heads... you would grow old before that happened.

[Phenomanul]

As an aside, I believe the NBA draft lotto can also be rigged.

[exstatic]

As an aside, I believe the NBA draft lotto can also be rigged.

And how would that be done?

[Phenomanul]

And how would that be done?

Any system can be rigged.

[Phenomanul]

If I had the engineering specifications for the machine that was used, the specifications for the ping pong balls, the materials of construction, if we knew all of the relevant operating parameters (such as the flow of air into those machines, etc...) then one could technically (by definition) develop dynamics that would counter the machine's stated design objectives. It's called devolution, reverse engineering... I'm not saying I know the precise way that the 2023 NBA Draft Lotto machine can be rigged, I'm just stating that it can be rigged. That distinction, is the point I am trying to make here.

[scott]

Well... that's because Roulette wheels are rigged (everyone knows that the Roulette operator can bias where the ball will land). On the other hand, try flipping an unrigged coin with a stated objective to get 23 consecutive heads... you would grow old before that happened.

Of course, and 23 is also a random number I made up... but the bigger point was that after you've hit 22 in a row, the odds of the 23rd are still 9/19 in roulette and 50/50 for a coin flip. The results of the previous X number are irrelevant to future outcomes.

Personally, the most consecutive strikes in a row I've seen in person in a casino is 13. Allegedly some American casino hit red 32 times in a row back in the 40s. Odds approximately 1 in 11 million. The odds of 10 consecutive are approximately 1 in 1400. "Slower" roulette games tend to run about about 30 spins per hour, so the expected value is that the typical roulette wheel will hit a 10-in-a-row every two days or so. Not that uncommon at all.

I actually think casino roulette wheels have a lower likelihood of being rigged than the NBA lottery. Casinos already have math on their side, they don't need to rig the roulette wheels.

[MannyIsGod]

If I had the engineering specifications for the machine that was used, the specifications for the ping pong balls, the materials of construction, if we knew all of the relevant operating parameters (such as the flow of air into those machines, etc...) then one could technically (by definition) develop dynamics that would counter the machine's stated design objectives. It's called devolution, reverse engineering... I'm not saying I know the precise way that the 2023 NBA Draft Lotto machine can be rigged, I'm just stating that it can be rigged. That distinction, is the point I am trying to make here.


Ah yes the NBA is precisely engineering ping pong balls in a secret ballot that no one ever sees to come out in a certain way when they could just make shit up instead. The NBA Draft lotto machine isn't rigged in this manner. This is pretty ridiculous.

[Ariel]

If I had the engineering specifications for the machine that was used, the specifications for the ping pong balls, the materials of construction, if we knew all of the relevant operating parameters (such as the flow of air into those machines, etc...) then one could technically (by definition) develop dynamics that would counter the machine's stated design objectives. It's called devolution, reverse engineering... I'm not saying I know the precise way that the 2023 NBA Draft Lotto machine can be rigged, I'm just stating that it can be rigged. That distinction, is the point I am trying to make here.
I posted the procedure in the previous page:
https://www.nba.com/news/nba-draft-lottery-explainer

Fourteen ping-pong balls numbered 1 through 14 will be placed in a lottery machine. There are 1,001 possible combinations when four balls are drawn out of 14, without regard to their order of selection. Before the lottery, 1,000 of those 1,001 combinations will be assigned to the 14 participating lottery teams. The lottery machine is manufactured by the Smart Play Company, a leading manufacturer of state lottery machines throughout the United States. Smart Play also weighs, measures and certifies the ping-pong balls before the drawing.

The drawing process occurs in the following manner: All 14 balls are placed in the lottery machine and they are mixed for 20 seconds, and then the first ball is removed. The remaining balls are mixed in the lottery machine for another 10 seconds, and then the second ball is drawn. There is a 10-second mix, and then the third ball is drawn. There is a 10-second mix, and then the fourth ball is drawn. The team that has been assigned that combination will receive the No. 1 pick. The same process is repeated with the same ping-pong balls and lottery machine for the second through fourth picks.

If the same team comes up more than once, the result is discarded and another four-ball combination is selected. Also, if the one unassigned combination is drawn, the result is discarded and the balls are drawn again. The length of time the balls are mixed is monitored by a timekeeper who faces away from the machine and signals the machine operator after the appropriate amount of time has elapsed.
So it requires multiple balls, sequence doesn't matter and each team is assigned a number of combinations. If no team contains a disproportionate amount of times a given ball (particularly teams with smaller odds), even if a given number is more likely to appear than others, it shouldn't have such a huge effect on the outcome. Also you could keep it running for a while before the process starts, and if a given number keeps popping up it should be easy to spot. I'm pretty sure NBA franchises aren't oblivious to these things, and fixing the outcome isn't as easy as coming up with the specifications of the machine.

[Ariel]

Yes but this was a run of 10000 runs which ought to settled out at the 14% number by then, or at least I would have thought so. Guess it takes a billion though.
It doesn't, I just took a ridiculously high number of tries because 1) it takes a few seconds and 2) wanted to make a point. But even 10000 tries should converge relatively quickly to within 1% of the true mean:
mean(rand(1,10000) < 0.14)
5 tries: 0.1404, 0.1411, 0.1389, 0.1392, 0.1425
try here: https://ideone.com/l/octave (paste code and run)
If it doesn't it's because the simulation was not properly conducted (no code posted, so) or there was no simulation at all, simply a fixed chart to elicit a response (IMO the case here). My point is, there is no need to simulate anything, because there are 2 possible outcomes and the probabilities of each are known beforehand, so it adds no value (it would if you didn't know the odds and had to estimate them, for instance). The whole concept of this thread is just stupid, IMO the OP is just trolling.

[MannyIsGod]

It doesn't, I just took a ridiculously high number of tries because 1) it takes a few seconds and 2) wanted to make a point. But even 10000 tries should converge relatively quickly to within 1% of the true mean:
mean(rand(1,10000) < 0.14)
5 tries: 0.1404, 0.1411, 0.1389, 0.1392, 0.1425
try here: https://ideone.com/l/octave (paste code and run)
If it doesn't it's because the simulation was not properly conducted (no code posted, so) or there was no simulation at all, simply a fixed chart to elicit a response (IMO the case here). My point is, there is no need to simulate anything, because there are 2 possible outcomes and the probabilities of each are known beforehand, so it adds no value (it would if you didn't know the odds and had to estimate them, for instance). The whole concept of this thread is just stupid, IMO the OP is just trolling.

People just have a completely shit understanding of probability.

[JPB]

Are we really discussing between grown people how probability work ?

[exstatic]

Any system can be rigged.

Non asnswer.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

One time I was bored I wrote a small program to calculate the exact odds, to double check on Tankathon. Their odds check out, here with a little extra precision (per row, red -hot- to blue -cold- for most likely to least likely positions per record):
https://i.postimg.cc/GtWqHdM6/draft-odds.png
also did a small program to generate a large number of batches, because Tankathon was not giving me accurate results. Simulating this is pretty fast and cheap, Tankathon adds a lot of effects and delay for dramatic purposes.

Interesting. Finishing 3rd worst means you have only about a 40% chance of a top 3 pick.

[offset formation]

People just have a completely shit understanding of probability.

Yea, because we're unsure if it takes 10,000 or a million or whatever tries to shake out the stated probabilities at ~14% instead of 13 3% or 15.1% or whatever.

I took statistics in college and got an A but I know plenty of really smart people that struggled with this class.. The NBA draft odds are not something one understands intuitively because you don't get precisely 14% odds. It has to pare down, revert to the mean if you will, over a multitude of runs. That's all that's being discussed here.

[offset formation]

Technically when you flip a coin, you have a 50% chance for both heads and tails.

That doesn't mean that out of 100 flips, the final count will be 50 and 50.

Well aware of this. Which is why I'm interested as to how many runs it takes to make the mean the most common result.

[scott]

Yea, because we're unsure if it takes 10,000 or a million or whatever tries to shake out the stated probabilities at ~14% instead of 13 3% or 15.1% or whatever.

I took statistics in college and got an A but I know plenty of really smart people that struggled with this class.. The NBA draft odds are not something one understands intuitively because you don't get precisely 14% odds. It has to pare down, revert to the mean if you will, over a multitude of runs. That's all that's being discussed here.

This is a matter of semantics, but you do get precisely 14% odds, but you only get one chance, meaning the outcome is either 100% or 0%. But the probably is still precisely 14.000000000000000000000000000000%

[scott]

Well aware of this. Which is why I'm interested as to how many runs it takes to make the mean the most common result.

Not sure if what you want to ask is exactly how you have this question worded, but except for possibly a very small number of iterations, the mean will never equal the mode (the most common result) except for those teams with very low odds of moving up (with these odds, only team 13 and 14 made their rounded mean = their mode). The mean is the Expected Position in Ariel's table, whereas the mode (over time) will be the pick in red in Ariel's table.

The mode is not tremendously valuable information, because as has been pointed out, you only get one spin. You can look at Slot 3 and say that the most common result is Pick 6 - but that should not be interpreted as it being most likely we get pick 6 since there is still a 74% chance we do NOT get pick 6. We are far more likely to not get Pick 6 that we are to get Pick 6.

[offset formation]

Not sure if what you want to ask is exactly how you have this question worded, but except for possibly a very small number of iterations, the mean will never equal the mode (the most common result) except for those teams with very low odds of moving up (with these odds, only team 13 and 14 made their rounded mean = their mode). The mean is the Expected Position in Ariel's table, whereas the mode (over time) will be the pick in red in Ariel's table.

The mode is not tremendously valuable information, because as has been pointed out, you only get one spin. You can look at Slot 3 and say that the most common result is Pick 6 - but that should not be interpreted as it being most likely we get pick 6 since there is still a 74% chance we do NOT get pick 6. We are far more likely to not get Pick 6 that we are to get Pick 6.

Good stuff. Thanks Scott.

[offset formation]

This is a matter of semantics, but you do get precisely 14% odds, but you only get one chance, meaning the outcome is either 100% or 0%. But the probably is still precisely 14.000000000000000000000000000000%

Yes, in the draft you get this, but not in the simulated runs. I wasn't clear with what I meant. Which I suppose as someone said above underscores the meaninglessness of this entire discussion.

[MannyIsGod]

Yea, because we're unsure if it takes 10,000 or a million or whatever tries to shake out the stated probabilities at ~14% instead of 13 3% or 15.1% or whatever.

I took statistics in college and got an A but I know plenty of really smart people that struggled with this class.. The NBA draft odds are not something one understands intuitively because you don't get precisely 14% odds. It has to pare down, revert to the mean if you will, over a multitude of runs. That's all that's being discussed here.

It doesn't matter how many runs of a function it takes to reach the mean. The probability is the probability. You DO get precisely 14% odds my dude. That is the point. You're honestly just making the case for my point perfectly. Probability is not determined by what the percentage of an event having happened after N number of tries is. Probability is the inherent chance of an event occurring. If you run a simulation that results with the Spurs getting the first pick 100 times in a row, whats their probability of that happening again on the 101st time? 14%.

EDIT: Should have read ahead, I see Scott already covered this.

[offset formation]

It doesn't matter how many runs of a function it takes to reach the mean. The probability is the probability. You DO get precisely 14% odds my dude. That is the point. You're honestly just making the case for my point perfectly. Probability is not determined by what the percentage of an event having happened after N number of tries is. Probability is the inherent chance of an event occurring. If you run a simulation that results with the Spurs getting the first pick 100 times in a row, whats their probability of that happening again on the 101st time? 14%.

EDIT: Should have read ahead, I see Scott already covered this.

This isn't correct. And not the point of Scott's post

[tonight...you]

Interesting. Finishing 3rd worst means you have only about a 40% chance of a top 3 pick.
True. Same as the 2nd worst and THE worst.

[MannyIsGod]

My dude, its absolutely correct, but if you want to believe its not and that the probability is somehow different then by all means. Only making my point about how bad people are at understanding probability for me.

[MannyIsGod]

True. Same as the 2nd worst and THE worst.

Yeah but it does mean you have a 0% probability to getting worse than the 5th pick where as the 3rd worst record has that happen about one third of the time.

[tonight...you]

Yeah but it does mean you have a 0% probability to getting worse than the 5th pick where as the 3rd worst record has that happen about one third of the time.
This is true. I was just addressing your statement straight. Not bringing in other things that you had not mentioned in said post.

[The Truth #6]

So about those Spurs…lol

[MarCowMar]

OK, to remove doubts, this simulation is a one liner on Matlab:
sum(rand(1, 1000000000) < 0.14) / 1000000000
That's one BILLION runs. Results a few seconds later:


0.139993920
0.140003561

Conclusions: 14% means 14 F'ING PERCENT!!!!

I ran the same numbers in chatgpt and got a better result...

https://files.catbox.moe/cabat4.png

[Ariel]

You're in Skynet's sh!tlist. Watch out.

[tonight...you]

I ran the same numbers in chatgpt and got a better result...

https://files.catbox.moe/cabat4.png
Lol. Love ChatGPT for coding (80% of it anyways), but it is so off on so many things.
Very cool tool though.

[Ariel]

This thread is all over the place :lol

[scott]

This thread is a great reminder that I am a significantly nicer person than MannyIsGod

[MannyIsGod]

This thread is a great reminder that I am a significantly nicer person than MannyIsGod

What's the confidence on the significance?

[scott]

What's the confidence on the significance?

I feel like the CI of me being nicer these days is the same as the CI of you being a better poker player, but of which have increased significantly over the years. These two variables may also have an r-value of 0.9 over the years, but the causal relationship is still to be determined.

(I'm just kidding, you're still a nice guy, but I am a considerably worse poker player these days)

[Thomas82]

I ran the same numbers in chatgpt and got a better result...

https://files.catbox.moe/cabat4.png

Whether or not it happens like that, which I doubt, it's been 26 years since the last time the Spurs got the #1 pick. It definitely wouldn't be unfair.

[Sugus]

I ran the same numbers in chatgpt and got a better result...

https://files.catbox.moe/cabat4.png

It is insane that a robot wrote this. Absolutely insane. Thanks.

[Ariel]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2IVM8hBvHE