Started By
Message
re: 2016 LSU Football Season Prediction Thread
Posted on 1/19/16 at 4:17 pm to southeasttiger113
Posted on 1/19/16 at 4:17 pm to southeasttiger113
quote:
Oh look, it's the guy who tried to call me out on the gambler's fallacy even though he didn't know what it was then acted like a little butthurt bitch when I told him that it included the reverse
You are still acting like you understand what the gambler's fallacy is?
Don't they have free Business 101 classes on youtube you could watch and figure some of this stuff out?
1
Posted on 1/19/16 at 4:17 pm to southeasttiger113
quote:
Not really, I'm actually perfectly fine
quote:
Ok fig
Posted on 1/19/16 at 4:18 pm to SummerOfGeorge
He likely can't figure out the search function on youtube
Posted on 1/19/16 at 4:18 pm to RB10
Ho Lee shite. I already clarified that there's a reverse to that fallacy. Google it dipshit. Gambler's fallacy also includes the thought process that tails is more likely to hit on the 100th flip because it hit 99 times before that. That's the part of it that I was referring to. Now suck my dick and get the frick out of this thread with your pathetic 12,000 post no life arse
Posted on 1/19/16 at 4:19 pm to southeasttiger113
quote:
Ho Lee shite. I already clarified that there's a reverse to that fallacy. Google it dipshit. Gambler's fallacy also includes the thought process that tails is more likely to hit on the 100th flip because it hit 99 times before that. That's the part of it that I was referring to. Now suck my dick and get the frick out of this thread with your pathetic 12,000 post no life arse
And we're the mad ones.
Posted on 1/19/16 at 4:20 pm to RazorBroncs
Ok, I'm mad that a bunch of idiots are agreeing with each other over the fact that they don't understand what they're talking about. Don't really care. Not sure why everybody on tigerdroppings thinks being mad is an insult
Posted on 1/19/16 at 4:21 pm to southeasttiger113
quote:
Gambler's fallacy also includes the thought process that tails is more likely to hit on the 100th flip because it hit 99 times before that.
You still have yet to grasp the difference between a game of chance and an event ocurring in the real world with different abilities/strengths/weaknesses.
In a game of chance, all things equal, the odds are 50-50 on each flip. That is not the case in a college football game. Itsofacto, it is not a game of chance and therefore the gambler's fallacy does not apply because decisions are made based on factors that exist that differentiate the two opponents. No factors exist to differentiate between heads and tails on a coin. Any attempt to try and believe there are some are a fallacy, hence the gambler's fallacy.
It is really a pretty simple concept. I have no clue how you continue to totally jack it up and act like you understand it while all of us do not. It is fascinating.
Posted on 1/19/16 at 4:22 pm to southeasttiger113
quote:
Ok, I'm mad that a bunch of idiots are agreeing with each other over the fact that they don't understand what they're talking about. Don't really care. Not sure why everybody on tigerdroppings thinks being mad is an insult
You're the one that called us mad, remember? Or do I need to go get that post from a page ago to prove you wrong too?
From a whole page back:
quote:
This was what SummerOfGeorge interpreted as me calling football a "coin flip". I'm sorry that ya'll are complete idiots. The coin flip quote came directly after I said this. Nothing that I said was wrong and I said that BETTING ON AN SEC FOOTBALL GAME AND PREDICTING ITS OUTCOME is basically a coin flip, which it is. I never said that the actual football game is a "cpin flip" but ya'll keep running with it, ya'll are all so mad that there's no rational reason to believe that Arkansas is going to beat LSU next year
This post was edited on 1/19/16 at 4:24 pm
Posted on 1/19/16 at 4:22 pm to southeasttiger113
quote:
Ok, I'm mad that a bunch of idiots are agreeing with each other over the fact that they don't understand what they're talking about
You just called someone a no life for how many posts they have made but don't see how you being mad on an internet forums is sad?
Posted on 1/19/16 at 4:25 pm to SummerOfGeorge
quote:And for the 10000000th time, it isn't a game of chance WHEN THE GAME IS HAPPENING. That doesn't matter because betting on sports I.E. predicting what's going to happen is a game of chance and at the time that you put your bet down there's an either/or chance of LSU or Arkansas winning. And it doesn't have to be 50/50 you fricking tard, it just has to include two options I.E. LSU winning or Arkansas winning. Just like you can succumb to the gambler's fallacy when you're playing roulette even though it's not a 50/50 game. You can assume that if 26 hits 4 times in a row that it's going to happen again because its "hot" and that's gambler's fallacy. Do you understand that?
it is not a game of chance
This post was edited on 1/19/16 at 4:27 pm
Posted on 1/19/16 at 4:32 pm to southeasttiger113
quote:
And it doesn't have to be 50/50 you fricking tard, it just has to include two options
The gambler's fallacy is a person incorrectly interpreting consecutive outcomes of a game in which neither side has a better chance of winning than the other as some sort of proof that one side is better or has an advantage over the other or misinterpreting that advantage. That is what it means at it's base. You can apply it to other situations, but the purest form of a gambler's fallacy is a person incorrectly interpreting results as proof that there is a difference in the chance of success.
It is the same as the hot hand theory.
Every game/play is independent of all other games/plays. However, in the real world, every game/play has odds of success based on 1,000 different factors. You are right, someone could see a bad hitter have a good week and decide that proves they are a good hitter. However, larger sample sizes generally prove that fallacy wrong (along with stats like BABIP and the like that attempt to break down "hot hand" and strip it out). Football isn't the same as baseball and it can't be broken down in the same way, and the idea that a team won the last 2 years based on luck is silly. A football game is not in anyway the same sort of small sample sized luck based situation as a baseball player having 3 at bats and squeaking 3 balls through the left side. That is just silly.
You are applying the fallacy in a way that assumes the "facts" you believe are infallible, and the "facts" that might not support your belief are unallowable and irrational. You earlier said that Vegas makes their money off of people like me. Vegas makes it's money off of irrational people like you.
It's silly.
This post was edited on 1/19/16 at 4:34 pm
Posted on 1/19/16 at 4:33 pm to southeasttiger113
quote:
southeasttiger113
This dude must be a glutton for punishment or something, he keeps getting owned in this thread and coming right back for more.
Posted on 1/19/16 at 4:35 pm to RazorBroncs
Again, you're dumb enough to think that past game results are a good indicator of future results so your opinion of me is completely irrelevant. Just because 5 morons are arguing with me and telling me that I got owned doesn't mean that ya'll are right
Posted on 1/19/16 at 4:35 pm to southeasttiger113
Yeah everyone in this thread is "complete idiots" and you are the only poster making any sense. 
Posted on 1/19/16 at 4:36 pm to southeasttiger113
quote:
past game results are a good indicator of future results
They aren't. Player skill levels and matchups are, which are inevitably based on a player's history of performance.
Posted on 1/19/16 at 4:37 pm to southeasttiger113
quote:
No, I never said that they weren't real. I'm sorry that you're an idiot and interpreted it that way. I said that past events which are frozen in history and no longer dynamic aren't a good indicator of future success in comparison to things like physical talent of living, breathing, walking, thinking humans who are currently on a team
Actually that is precisely what you said... junkie.
Pitiful.
Posted on 1/19/16 at 4:41 pm to southeasttiger113
quote:
Again, you're dumb enough to think that past game results are a good indicator of future results so your opinion of me is completely irrelevant. Just because 5 morons are arguing with me and telling me that I got owned doesn't mean that ya'll are right
Oh Jesus, I repeat, NOBODY is saying this. Past performance has zero bearing on the OUTCOME of a game, other than PREDICTING BEFOREHAND, AKA EDUCATED GUESSES, which is WHAT WE ARE DOING THAT YOU TAKE EXCEPTION TO.
Posted on 1/19/16 at 4:42 pm to southeasttiger113
quote:
And LSU has been the vastly superior team both years. Motivation is an amazing thing
The team that was never in either game was "vastly superior."
Posted on 1/19/16 at 4:43 pm to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
You earlier said that Vegas makes their money off of people like me. Vegas makes it's money off of irrational people like you.
He still doesn't understand that when betting sports, which is what we're discussing, going against the hot team because the "have to lose eventually" is what's considered the fallacy.
Bookies scalp uninformed betters because of this all the time. They love when people, like this moron, look at betting sports as anything close to 50/50 odds.
Posted on 1/19/16 at 4:45 pm to SummerOfGeorge
quote:I know this. And those factors are nonexistent and impossible to predict at this point in time. Ya'll are acting like I'm dumb because I'm choosing to disregard a bunch of random speculation that's impossible to validate being thrown around.
in the real world, every game/play has odds of success based on 1,000 different factors
quote:No it doesn't, because I don't bet on sports. I'm willing to bet that more than a few people who are trying to explain to me that there are all of these methods to predict winners DO like to bet on sports though, and I'm willing to bet that they're down in their lifetimes.
Vegas makes it's money off of irrational people like you.
quote:Is this not what several people have been saying? Not saying you, but other people, specifically that Arkansas fan that was dumb enough t think I'm fricked up 75% of the time. You're dragging the things I'm saying to other people and acting like I'm targeting you. I'm not, I understand what you're saying but you're replying to me when I'm not talking to you and it muddied up the conversation to the point that it was completely blown apart
purest form of a gambler's fallacy is a person incorrectly interpreting results as proof that there is a difference in the chance of success.
Page 16 of 19
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News