Sportscasters misunderstanding probability

By -
March Madness is upon us, so it's time for more "sportscasters misunderstanding probability" fun. Here is one I hear a lot:

Let's say that every single year, one of the four 14-seeds beats one of the four 3-seeds. Pundits will say, "Well, because one of the 14-seeds always wins, you should pick one to upset a 3."

No: unless you have some special knowledge as to which 14-seed will win, you should pick all four 3s. Then, you will get 3 of the 4 games right. But if you pick (at random) a 14-seed to win, one time out of four you will get four right, but three times out of four you will get two wrong. That's an expected 1 and 1/2 wrong, as opposed to a certain one wrong by picking all the 3s.

Comments

  1. Matt2:30 PM

    This should be a TV show: "America's Least Probable Sportscasters"

    ReplyDelete
  2. gcallah9:12 PM

    One of the announcers on CBS just mentioned how, "When you fill out your bracket, you always have to figure out which 12 will beat a 5."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ken B12:18 AM

    It's like a ratings difference in chess. If your rating is 200 points higher than mine and we play a 6 game match you should bet on a score of 5 to 1.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah1:49 PM

      But one isn't betting on *how many* 12s will advance! You have to *pick one of them*. And that means you should pick none.

      Delete
    2. Ken B2:27 PM

      I am pointing out his confusion. You should expect a one in a million event to happen once in a million events, not zero, but in any particular instance you should bet against it.
      I always bet for you to beat MF, for exactly this reason, and exactly these odds.

      Delete
    3. gcallah12:51 PM

      Yes, got it.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Machine Learning"

By -
 The name is a misnomer. And a harmful one, because it interferes with understanding the process that is really occuring. What is really occurring is a search of a constrained program space. Let's say you want to be able to identify images of hot dogs . You begin with a plausible program for doing so, that is able to also search the space of nearby programs that might get better results on the problem. You then (in "supervised learning") provide scores that indicate how well one of these possible programs has done on solving the problem. After doing this for some time you settle upon a program that solves the problem "well enough." This is a great technique that can produce truly impressive results on a wide class of problems, such as identifying images of hot dogs. But notice that, except for the phrase in scare quotes, there is no "learning" in the description. Calling this "learning" is importing ideological baggage that just obscures what
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more