blank'/> Liberally Lean From The Land Of Dairy Queen: Math Question

3.13.2009

Math Question

Just thought about this and need some help from The Big Brains on Brad out there. Baylor and Texas play tonight. Baylor has lost 24 straight times. Let's assume that in each of those games Texas entered the contest with a 90% chance of winning. With that being said: What were the odds that Texas would win 24 in a row? My guess is the equation would be 90/100 to the 24th power. But I have no idea what I'm saying. Edit: Thanks, guys. I chose the 90% assumption for each game in order to see how incredible it is to win 24 in a row (even if one team is an overwhelming favorite each time.)

36 comments:

Anonymous said...

You can't do this with math. There are too many varibles, probably thousands of them. That would be Al Gore science if I tried to apply science here.

Anonymous said...

100%, unless the team has a fatal traffic accident on the way to the game.

Anonymous said...

I was told there would be no math.

Anonymous said...

21-3 or 22-2 odds. I think thats correct even though I just pulled the equation out of my butt. You would need to consider the 90% against the 24 games with the point spread being acurate with the exact calculation of the distinctive matter or element, considering of course, the selective mathematics are correct with the power of the equation verses the percentage of the fraction thereof.

Double fake: Jimmy Da Greek

Anonymous said...

And I will strike down with avengence on thee

wordkyle said...

Your guess is right on. If the Horns' victories were independent of each other (which they’re not, but for ease of calculation, we’ll say they are,) and the probability of their winning an individual game is 90% (or .90,) then the odds of their winning two games in a row would be .9 x .9, or .81 (81%). Three games in a row would be .9 x .9 x .9, for .729 (73%). We do the calculation 24 times, and the probability of their winning 24 games in a row is .07, or 7%.

Of course, we’re talking about Baylor and the Longhorns, so the probability of a UT win is 100%.

Anonymous said...

4.7%

Anonymous said...

The answer would be Texas has a 90% chance of winning.

The reasoning, the prior 24 wins have nothing to do with the next game. Baylor gains no additional advantage, nor does UT, for the 24 previous games.

Think of flipping a coin. Say you get 24 straight heads. What are the odds of getting a tail on the next flip? Answer: 50%

The previous results do not impact the odds of the next result. Using your assumption that UT is 90% likely to win, then they are a 90% chance to win the next game.

Next question?

Double Fake Wile E. Coyote, resident genius

wordkyle said...

I'm forced to correct myself. I took the calculation one step too far. Actual probability is .079766, or roughly 8%. Sorry about dat.

205, you are correct about the probabilty in predicting the result of the 25th game. However, the question was on the odds of Texas winning 24 in a row. Thus my rather pedantic statistics comment.

Anonymous said...

The probability that an event and another event will occur is equal to the product of the two probabilities. In other words if there is a 90% chance that team will win a game, then the probability that the team will win a second game is 90% ( .90) x 90% (.90) which equals .81 or 81%. So the probability that Texas would beat Baylor 24 straight times, assuming a 90% chance each time is .9 x .9 x .9 etc. until .9 has been multiplied by itself 24 times OR another way to say it is .90^24th power. The answer is .0798 OR 7.98%.
Willie Coyote is kind of right though.>>> using your numbers there is still a 90% chance that Texas is going to win each game; however there was a 7.98% chance that Texas would win 24 games in a row.

Anonymous said...

come on barry, you know better than to think someone in wise county could answer that

Anonymous said...

2:16 thanks for explaining it to me like I was an idiot. That is the first one that made sense.

-W

Anonymous said...

The cumulative probabilities method does not apply for this type of situation. The context is not sufficiently random to make probability or statistics meaningful as a predictor.

Anonymous said...

2:13 and 2:16

Minor error in your logic. You are both assuming UT was a 90% favorite in the previous 24 games, thus multiplying .9 24 times to calculate your result. UT being a favorite to win 90% for each of the 24 straight games is not a fact in evidence.

Based on BuBear's assumption, UT is a 90% chance to win the next game.

Class dismissed.

Double Fake Wile E. Coyote

Anonymous said...

Get those Bears enough hot Dr. Pepper and the statistics go out the window. Go Bears!

My Other Brother Darryl

Anonymous said...

Please back away from your computers.

Anonymous said...

So, I'm guessing Wordbyle ghost-wrote a book about mathematical statistics for 2:16PM, which featured a foreward by Double Fake Wile E. Coyote, resident genius, aka 2:05PM, which was recently listed on Amazon.com's best seller list, or so Wordbyle said, of which there is about a .666 chance he is telling the truth about that.

I'm thinking they've enjoyed about .0245679 in sales profits, after the self-publishing costs are subtracted, then divided by three, giving WC a tiny bit, or something like that.

Anonymous said...

Actually, Mr. Double Fake Wile E. Coyote 2:05, you are not correct.

If you flip a coin 24 times and get the same result on each occasion, the odds of the 25th flip again repeating that same result are NOT "50/50", but are somewhat reduced.

Do not remotely ask me to explain why. But I once read an explanation of that very example by some math genius who was trying to explain statistical probability. I did not understand the explanation, but I clearly remember the answer.

Anonymous said...

~
II

wordkyle said...

316 - You cut me to the quick. The book was on personal finance, not statistics; was not for Wile E., but for another client; and I have screenshots of it at #1 in two categories on Amazon, if you want to see them. Of course, as a ghost, my name's nowhere to be found, which makes looking at them sort of pointless. Here's a hint, though: If you really know how to research, you can find the proof yourself.
Disbeliever. Hmmph.

As for the statistical debate between Wile E and the world, some assumptions were made by BG et al simply to stimulate the convesation. And there's a difference in calculating the probability of one result, and the probability of a series of results.

Gorilla said...

What is the probability the jheri curl makes a comeback?

Foghorn said...

PEOPLE PEOPLE PEOPLE

We have to multiply the number of .......oh forget it. While you all were splaining to BG how to cypher, he lost out on mz green number 9 (if my math is right). Brittney is dating again (Jason Twit, according to my reliable sources).

So, the actual odds of the bu girls beating up the teasips are now equal to Barry getting with Brit, could happen, just real hard math.

Anonymous said...

R. C. Bunger at NTSU was the best stats prof...

Collectionsite said...

50/50 Just like betting on red or black at the roulette table.

Anonymous said...

Coyote:
BG said that the chance Texas would win each game would be 90%, which is why we used that number all 24 times.
Also, the chance that Texas would win 24 games in a row assuming a 90% chance of winning each game IS 7.98%, BUT the chance that Texas will win the next game is still 90%. 7.98% is the chance of winning 24 in a row, but each game individually is still 90%.
The coin-flip person is right too>>>> if a coin lands on heads 24 times in a row, the chance is still 50% that it will land on heads the 25th time; however the chance is NOT 50% that it will land on heads 25 times in a row.

Anonymous said...

3:43

You, and your reference, are incorrect. (Probably the Comedy channel)

Any coin flip, regardless of any previous occurrences, is a 50/50 probability on if it will be heads or tails.

And I must say, Dumpsite, you are incorrect on the roulette wheel reference. The 2 green numbers, 0 and 00, bring the odds of red/black slightly below 50/50 for each color, since red AND black both lose on 0 or 00.

Time for the remedial statistics class.

Double Fake W. E. C.

Anonymous said...

This year the odds of UT winning a 24th straight against Baylor are 1:100...that is Baylor would win this game once in 100 chances or you would have to bet $100 on Texas to win $1. I'd advise against any of the previous commentors gambling on sports.

Anonymous said...

6:44, you just wrote there is only a one in a hundred chance (1:100) of UT winning a 24th straight against Baylor. And then in the next several words you completely reversed yourself. Your entry, not mine. Perhaps it is you that should stay away from the odds.

Anonymous said...

Baylor WON

wordkyle said...

Wow, imagine if we had mortgaged the house and bet the cash on Texas to win. It would have been a stupid waste of money.

Yet our calculations were much more dependable and accurate than the research done on "global warming," (or its easier-to-claim-everything-is-caused-by-it name, "climate change."} Even in retrospect the UT bet makes more sense.

The Wizard of Oz said...

Wordy... So, you don't believe in any "climate change"? Is it all garbage? So, notwithstanding all studies and evidence to the contrary, you don't belive any science that supports global warming/climate change.

Ahh... THIS is an example (one of many that I'll try to remember to point out) of the many times you ignore any and all evidence that does not fall in line with your preconcieved world view.

BTW, I had no problem with your stats talk, but you couldn't stay on topic and were compelled to beat us down with your politics.

Anonymous said...

10:19 But just wait - wordy will dredge up 3 or 4 "scientists" to refute your thousands. Then he'll point out that it is cold outside thereby refuting your claim to global warming and/or climate change. You see, wordy know which scientists or which facts are correct. He just knows - everything.

wordkyle said...

WoOz...let's see. #1 - The threat used to be "global warming." Now it's called "climate change." Why? Because real life kept proving the propagandists' predictions (always based on inaccurate computer models) incorrect.

#2 - Why are "inconvenient truths" like the Little Ice Age ignored when trying to prove an increase in temperature? That's why Gore's famous "hockey stick" graph has been discredited. So has his claim about "928 papers." Read about it here.

#3 - The increase in global temperature over the last 100 years is cited as "evidence" of human contribution to global warming, er, "climate change." Yet the temperatuer has gone up and down over the last century. It has not been a steady increase.

#4 - CO2 levels are cited as causing global warmng. Yet, the evidence is that increases in CO2 follow increases in the earth's temperature, not cause it.

#5 - The notorious photo of the "stranded" polar bears from Gore's lecture was faked, or at the best, misrepresented. Why is it necessary to cheat?

#6 - At least one distinguished climatologist puts the effective range of computer climate forecasts at five days. Scientists -- many more than "3 or 4" -- who share his opinion on global warming can be found here and here. A campaign of intimidation against global warming "dissenters" has kept many more of them quiet.

So, when a theory -- which is all that manmade global warming is -- has ignored data and misrepresented evidence, is based solely on inaccurate and undependable computer models, and hundreds of qualified scientists disagree with the theory, then yes, I'm skeptical. I don't believe massive government action is called for on such flimsy evidence. Of course, scientists whose research money depends on manmade global warming remaining a threat will likely disagree. I'm skeptical also when propagandists such as Gore claim "the debate is over." My experience on this board proves that Liberals hate it when someone fights back against their specious arguments.

Anonymous said...

What is this? What happened to Barry's Blog???? I have a headache!!!

Anonymous said...

Truth is, one may or may not believe in "climate change" or "global warming", but there is absolutely no doubt, that the stuff that we burn and release into the air, POLLUTES the air we breathe. Have you noticed the color of the sun as it sets? I'm sure that some f*cktard will post that is just dust or something.

wordkyle said...

656 - Your point is valid. I have no problem with trying to find cleaner energy sources. No one wants dirty air or water. Having a sense of stewardship does not mean that I approve government introducing draconian "cap and trade" policies (essentially a new tax on Americans,) nor the fairy tale of "carbon offsets" whereby some people can pollute all they want and buy their way to a clear conscience (see "Gore, Al") while others are forced to roll back their lifestyles.