- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Tennis gambling is for the real degenerates
Posted on 10/11/12 at 2:31 pm to bobbyray21
Posted on 10/11/12 at 2:31 pm to bobbyray21
quote:
1) Soph is right in that he understands what the gambler's fallacy is
Glad we agree.
quote:
2) Soph is not right in thinking that that anything that I wrote comes even remotely close to touching upon the principles that might even be loosely analogized to those you elucidated above.
Other than when you pretty much described the Gambler's Fallacy to a T in your example of you and your buddy who would beat you 9 times out of 10. If he beat you nine straight times and you played a 10th, you are arguing you would have a greater chance than usual of winning that 10th match. but you don't. Your odds are still 1 in 10. The same as each of the previous 9.
quote:
3) You are similarly not right.
Except for the fact that I am.
quote:
My apparent miscue in this thread was using the word "due" instead of "primed for".
No. It is not nomenclature which is your error. Using "primed for" instead of "due" is the same fallacy only restated. Feel free to adjust your language to "primed for". It's still wrong.
quote:
The fact you and other imbeciles are either unable or unwilling to utilize this valuable tool known as "context" speaks to your resulting failures at posting and in life.
Actually, I'm a huge fan of context. Context matters a ton, especially in sports stats. Conditions change and the same numbers don't mean the same thing in different eras. The best example of this is baseball stats. A .300 average now is not the same as in 1965 which is not the same as in 1935, despite always being .300.
quote:
And let me assure you that ole BR21 didn't "lose it" and is in fact a touch xanax'd up.
Yes, pointing out that you are on drugs is always a way to demonstrate one's emotional stability.
quote:
You see, I have this gift. I can write with various tones without being personally subjected to the emotions that those tones tend to convey.
Pretty lame gift. Most people who can write can do that. But I'm glad you think that you've accomplished something, and I'd hate to take that from you.
quote:
Some have argued that when it comes to tone chamaleonability, I am arguably even more prolific than your mother. But this is arguable.
Ooooo... sick "your momma" burn. Though you realize if you're trying to insult my mother, you are the one comparing yourself to her. So if you're trying to make a "yo momma" joke, it is best to then place some distance between your behavior and my mom's. Though, yes, she is quite expressive.
quote:
What is not arguable is that the value to which I attached the listed odds of Wawrinka+800 was based on a line of reasoning which cannot be even tenuously* analogized to anything loosely** resembling the broadest reasonable construction of the term "gambler's fallacy".
It's not "analogous". It IS the Gambler's Fallacy. An analogy is when you use one thing to represent something else. It is the use of a parallel case to explain the current one. You talking about your buddy who beats you 9 times out of 10 is an analogy. But we don't have an analogy, this IS the Gambler's Fallacy. We have achieved the Platonic ideal of the Gambler's Fallacy. Hell, you are even GAMBLING. It's as Gambler Fallacy as you get.
quote:
Good day then.
Cool. You too.
2
Posted on 10/11/12 at 2:31 pm to Baloo
quote:
Yes. And yes.
Would you vehemently refute the argument that a player in his prime (Wawrinka) might fare better against a player approaching the twilight of his career (Fed) than he had in past matches?
Posted on 10/11/12 at 2:32 pm to gizmoflak
quote:
Tennis is a pussy sport
BAHAHAHA!
You're trolling right?
Posted on 10/11/12 at 2:36 pm to bobbyray21
quote:
Would you vehemently refute the argument that a player in his prime (Wawrinka) might fare better against a player approaching the twilight of his career (Fed) than he had in past matches?
While I've been enjoying this thread for what it has devolved into, Stan the Man isn't gonna be beating Fed within the next 2 years.
Posted on 10/11/12 at 2:37 pm to bobbyray21
quote:
Would you vehemently refute the argument that a player in his prime (Wawrinka) might fare better against a player approaching the twilight of his career (Fed) than he had in past matches?
This is hardly vehement. And no, I wouldn't doubt that a younger player entering his prime would have a better chance than an older player entering his decline. That logic is totally fine. But that wasn't your argument. Your argument was that Wawrinka's been beaten by one guy a whole bunch of times, which makes it more likely he will win this time because he's due (or primed for) a victory. and that's just a silly argument. You even explicitly used the analogy of your own play and how your true rate of winning is 1 in 10, showing that you think that you think you have a greater chance of winning as you are on a losing streak. You don't. Your odds are the same, all things being equal.
Posted on 10/11/12 at 2:40 pm to bobbyray21
Damn. You got Balooed.
Posted on 10/11/12 at 2:46 pm to Baloo
quote:
Other than when you pretty much described the Gambler's Fallacy to a T in your example of you and your buddy who would beat you 9 times out of 10. If he beat you nine straight times and you played a 10th, you are arguing you would have a greater chance than usual of winning that 10th match. but you don't. Your odds are still 1 in 10. The same as each of the previous 9.
quote:
Stop right there. Because that's where you're wrong. And if your argument is based on that, then we can end it right here and now.
In tennis, players of nearly equal skill level will play close matches. One will not dominate the other consistently. It's just not how it plays out. In high school, my friend Bryan was a better overall tennis player than me, but in any match -- win or lose -- I could do things that would frustrate his game. Him winning the points wasn't automatic. I was always competitive, and in a sport that scores in units (games), which are won by the first player to win four points, you have to be way way way better than them to be able to beat them consistently.
Let me frame this differenty. If you watch two guys play Guy 1 has won several straight matches, but you noticed that Guy 2 is pushing Guy 1 to several deuces on nearly all of his service games, it is not -- I emphatically repeat it is NOT -- "gambler's fallacy" to conclude that Guy 2 has a good chance of beating Guy 1 next time they play.
If you play tennis, I don't know how this isn't blatantly obvious to you. And how in the world you could call that "gambler's fallacy" is beyond me, and it's complete drivel. It's something that you'll have to figure out on your own, because I'm not wasting any more keystrokes telling you that you're wrong.
Posted on 10/11/12 at 2:50 pm to Baloo
quote:
This is hardly vehement. And no, I wouldn't doubt that a younger player entering his prime would have a better chance than an older player entering his decline. That logic is totally fine. But that wasn't your argument. Your argument was that Wawrinka's been beaten by one guy a whole bunch of times, which makes it more likely he will win this time because he's due (or primed for) a victory. and that's just a silly argument. You even explicitly used the analogy of your own play and how your true rate of winning is 1 in 10, showing that you think that you think you have a greater chance of winning as you are on a losing streak. You don't. Your odds are the same, all things being equal.
Tip: next time read what I wrote.
I said this:
quote:
Fed is the better player than Wawrinka, but he isn't THAT much better at this late stage in his career
Which is not this:
quote:
Your argument was that Wawrinka's been beaten by one guy a whole bunch of times, which makes it more likely he will win this time because he's due (or primed for) a victory
Are we clear? Reading comprehension is fun for everybody. Try it sometime.
Posted on 10/11/12 at 2:55 pm to Mongeaux
quote:
While I've been enjoying this thread for what it has devolved into, Stan the Man isn't gonna be beating Fed within the next 2 years.
Wanna bet?
Posted on 10/11/12 at 2:57 pm to Baloo
quote:
It's not "analogous". It IS the Gambler's Fallacy. An analogy is when you use one thing to represent something else. It is the use of a parallel case to explain the current one. You talking about your buddy who beats you 9 times out of 10 is an analogy. But we don't have an analogy, this IS the Gambler's Fallacy. We have achieved the Platonic ideal of the Gambler's Fallacy. Hell, you are even GAMBLING. It's as Gambler Fallacy as you get.
In view of what I've already written, I just would like to further point out that what you wrote above is completely incorrect. Pure drivel. Try to follow along, or you're just going to continue to look stupid.
Posted on 10/11/12 at 3:01 pm to bobbyray21
quote:
Are we clear? Reading comprehension is fun for everybody. Try it sometime.
Really? Here's what you wrote, with that context you claim to value.
quote:(Bolding is mine)
3. Fed is 11-1 lifetime against Wawrinka
You might look at factor #3 and argue that it suggests betting on Wawrinka would be stupid, but I disagree. What that career record tells me is that Wawrinka is due for a win. Fed is the better player than Wawrinka, but he isn't THAT much better at this late stage in his career. Moreover, Fed isn't gonna terribly upset if his buddy advances to the quarters at his expense.
You’re suggesting there that the record will “even out”. Wawrinka is winning at a 10% clip like you did to your buddy, but you’re saying his “true talent” is closer to 20% or something. Therefore the numbers are going to correct themselves to reflect their actual talent gap at this point.
But that’s not how the world works. Not even in tennis, though I can see you think it is its own impossible to understand to outsiders world. But it’s really not. If Federer’s true talent is to win 80% of the time, he has an 80% chance to win regardless of whether he is 11-1 or 7-5 against Wawrinka. There is no alchemy. The numbers do not have to even out. Life is unfair.
To be clear, no one is arguing that Federer couldn’t possibly lose or it’s stupid to pick against him. We’re just contesting one specific part of your logic.
Posted on 10/11/12 at 3:08 pm to Baloo
quote:
You’re suggesting there that the record will “even out”.
Last time.
I'm suggesting that there will be an evening out of records that will occur as a result of the fact that Fed isn't THAT much better at this late stage in his career.
How is this discussion still going on? What the frick are you not understanding?
Am I saying: Guy 2 will beat Guy 1 because there are only so many times that it's possible for one person to beat another.
Or an I saying; Guy 2 will beat Guy 1 because he's almost as good as Guy1.
It's obviously the latter. You cannot dispute this. And the latter is obviously not the gambler's fallacy. You cannot dispute this.
So STFU. You lost this one, buddy. It's okay. Nobody hates you. It's just an argument, but you lost. Let it go.
Posted on 10/11/12 at 3:17 pm to bobbyray21
quote:
I'm suggesting that there will be an evening out of records that will occur as a result of the fact that Fed isn't THAT much better at this late stage in his career.
Then why quote the 1-11 record? You said the 1-11 record is not representative of the gap in talent, and we will therefore so an evening out of the records to better reflect the gap. Sorry. that's not how numbers work. There is no rule that things have to even out.
quote:
Am I saying: Guy 2 will beat Guy 1 because there are only so many times that it's possible for one person to beat another.
But no one is saying this. That's not even the Gambler's Fallacy.
quote:
Or an I saying; Guy 2 will beat Guy 1 because he's almost as good as Guy1.
You're not saying this either. You're saying Guy 2 is almost as good as Guy 1 and Guy 1 is 11-1, and that doesn't reflect the gap between the two. But that 11-1 is banked. It has no bearing on this next match. It is, to use an analogy, a new coin flip.
quote:
t's obviously the latter. You cannot dispute this. And the latter is obviously not the gambler's fallacy. You cannot dispute this.
Well it's not, so I do. Neither of those examples are the Gambler's Fallacy, which you clearly do not understand.
quote:
So STFU. You lost this one, buddy. It's okay. Nobody hates you. It's just an argument, but you lost. Let it go.
For the record, no one said I got bobbyray'd. But discussions aren't about victory, they are about finding truth. I'm uninterested in "victory". I want people to achieve understanding, even if you don't.
To bring it back to Soph, one of the reasons I assume his tagline is that message boards are the killing fields of intellectual discourse is precisely this reason. Too many people approach it as a battle to be won, not a joint endevour to enjoy and increase our understanding.
Posted on 10/11/12 at 3:39 pm to Baloo
quote:
Then why quote the 1-11 record?
1) Because it's the obvious counter-argument to my position that taking Wawrinka+800 was a good play
2) And because it is my position that the 1-11 record is not reflective of their gap in talent at the PRESENT TIME. In other words, if they played 12 times going forward, the record would be quite different (as I see it, at least).
quote:
You said the 1-11 record is not representative of the gap in talent, and we will therefore so an evening out of the records to better reflect the gap. Sorry. that's not how numbers work. There is no rule that things have to even out
No no no. The gap in talent isn't a constant. I'm saying it isn't represenative NOW. Remember: "late stage in his career".
quote:
(1)
But no one is saying this.
(2)
That's not even the Gambler's Fallacy.
(1)
Except me for the past goddamn two hours.
(2)
I agree.
quote:
You're not saying this either.
Wow. And Wow.
Jesus tittyfricking Christ, dude. What does this mean to you?
but he isn't THAT much better at this late stage in his career
When did "not that much better" cease being the equivalent of "almost as good"?
And when did you have your lobotomy?
quote:
Neither of those examples are the Gambler's Fallacy, which you clearly do not understand.
Oh, I understand it guy. It's the thought that a memoryless system has a memory.
You don't understand plain English (see directly above). And I'm done teaching it to you.
quote:
For the record, no one said I got bobbyray'd. But discussions aren't about victory, they are about finding truth. I'm uninterested in "victory". I want people to achieve understanding, even if you don't.
To bring it back to Soph, one of the reasons I assume his tagline is that message boards are the killing fields of intellectual discourse is precisely this reason. Too many people approach it as a battle to be won, not a joint endevour to enjoy and increase our understanding.
Dude, your argument amounts to: "not that much better" is way different than "almost as good". The intellectual discourse in this thread already died. And I didn't kill it.
This post was edited on 10/11/12 at 3:40 pm
Posted on 10/11/12 at 3:47 pm to Baloo
This certainly has been a fun thread to read. What Bobbyray initially said is not the Gambler's fallacy though. It is, however, lazy gambling.
Posted on 10/11/12 at 3:59 pm to LSUSOBEAST1
Hey look everybody. Pics of Anna K. Everybody is happy again!
Posted on 10/11/12 at 4:12 pm to bobbyray21
Wawrinka +800 for a 3-setter was some pretty good odds FWIW
Posted on 10/11/12 at 4:12 pm to bobbyray21
Happy people everywhere!
Posted on 10/11/12 at 4:21 pm to gizmoflak
quote:
Wawrinka +800 for a 3-setter was some pretty good odds FWIW
I definitely think so.
Murray was up against Dolgopolov -- who isn't as good as Wawrinka -- and Dolgo was at +500.
Now the real play is if you think Djokovic might lose. It doesn't matter who Djokovic is playing, he gets MAD respect from the oddsmakers. He played Feliciano Lopez today and was -5000. Lopez is 29 in the world. Betting on Djokovic isn't even an option at those prices. He pulls a hammy in the second set and you're fuuuuuuucked.
Posted on 10/20/12 at 10:44 am to bobbyray21
After this weekend, there are only three ATP tournaments left, and then the Tour Finals, and then that's it for 2012.
I will be taking advantage of the tennis home stretch for gambling purposes. I was doing really well this week until Tommy Haas started playing like an old man.
25 Baghdatis at -230 (W)
25 Falla at -200 (W)
100 Seppi at -190 (W)
100 Haas at -450 (W)
50 Berdych at some high number (W)
200 Almagro at -225 (W)
100 Seppi at -500 (W)
100 Haas at -500 (L) -500
Pending:
100 Tipsarevic at -800
100 Seppi at -500
I will be taking advantage of the tennis home stretch for gambling purposes. I was doing really well this week until Tommy Haas started playing like an old man.
25 Baghdatis at -230 (W)
25 Falla at -200 (W)
100 Seppi at -190 (W)
100 Haas at -450 (W)
50 Berdych at some high number (W)
200 Almagro at -225 (W)
100 Seppi at -500 (W)
100 Haas at -500 (L) -500
Pending:
100 Tipsarevic at -800
100 Seppi at -500
This post was edited on 10/20/12 at 10:47 am
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News