Binomdist

**donjuan** · 01-26-12, 06:42 PM

Dribble driving goes in the basketball forum.

**Inspirited** · 01-26-12, 07:19 PM

Maybe it shows you that your theories on betting are flawed?

**135steward** · 01-27-12, 07:41 AM

Originally posted by Inspirited

Maybe it shows you that your theories on betting are flawed?

Maybe I'll post my picks in the basketball forum so y'all can make money fading me.

**hutennis** · 01-27-12, 11:31 AM

I don't see how simply evaluating favs or dogs results ATS can be of any help.
Dog ATS can actually be fav on odds.

You need avg. implied probability (no vig closer) to farther use binomdist.
Do you have that number?

**135steward** · 01-27-12, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by hutennis

I don't see how simply evaluating favs or dogs results ATS can be of any help.
Dog ATS can actually be fav on odds.

You need avg. implied probability (no vig closer) to farther use binomdist.
Do you have that number?

For example: I placed 101 ATS bets. ATS bets are basically even odds, discounting vig. I won 40. So I enter =BINOMDIST(101,40,0.5,TRUE) and Excel told me I suck. Well, it told me the odds of my sucking as bad as I do are something like 60:1, or some shit. I tried it with FALSE, too, and it still told me I suck, but not as bad.

Note, though: this post was tounge-in cheek. I mean, the results were real, but, like basically everything else, I don't really give a shit. I simply used it as another example of "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics."

**hutennis** · 01-27-12, 02:11 PM

I see.

You are using a scientific formula (binomial distribution) to evaluate scientifically (statistically) the phenomena you observed (your betting record) and you even draw your conclusion (It's simply another example that you can't put too much faith in statistics.) based on the results of your experiment. Very good.

Rather it would be very good if you'd pay the same attention to the data being evaluated as scientists do.

And you can be absolutely sure, that "ATS bets are basically even odds" is not a data format that scientists would use in any serious experiment.

Ball parking data is not something that is part of a scientific method.
Ball parking data is how misconceptions, erroneous conclusions and urban legends are being born.

**135steward** · 01-27-12, 02:31 PM

Who, me?

Originally posted by hutennis

I see.

You are using a scientific formula (binomial distribution) to evaluate scientifically (statistically) the phenomena you observed (your betting record) and you even draw your conclusion (It's simply another example that you can't put too much faith in statistics.) based on the results of your experiment. Very good.

Rather it would be very good if you'd pay the same attention to the data being evaluated as scientists do.

And you can be absolutely sure, that "ATS bets are basically even odds" is not a data format that scientists would use in any serious experiment.

Ball parking data is not something that is part of a scientific method.
Ball parking data is how misconceptions, erroneous conclusions and urban legends are being born.

So I can be an urban legend?

**TomG** · 01-27-12, 02:34 PM

1) your observed result is unlikely. however, the probability of making a sbr post given your result is high.

2) your conclusion "you can't put too much faith in statistics" makes no sense.

in summary, no one cares and i'm sorry i responded.

**135steward** · 01-27-12, 02:44 PM

I love you, too.

Originally posted by TomG

1) your observed result is unlikely. however, the probability of making a sbr post given your result is high.

2) your conclusion "you can't put too much faith in statistics" makes no sense.

in summary, no one cares and i'm sorry i responded.

Thanks for the input.

**hutennis** · 01-27-12, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by 135steward

So I can be an urban legend?

Most likely not.

But the chances that you'll stay exactly where you are now, namely being confused individual, are extremely high.

**135steward** · 01-27-12, 03:31 PM

Really?

Originally posted by hutennis

Most likely not.

But the chances that you'll stay exactly where you are now, namely being confused individual, are extremely high.

Does everyone in the think tank take yourselves so seriously? I made a simple observation; one I've repeated in different contexts here several times:
Just because someone has a bad (or good) run doesn't mean they're good or bad handicappers. I screw around gambling for kicks. I observed a bad run, an unusually bad run. But certainly not outside the realm of probability. In fact, someone can drift a few standard deviations either way from the mean and still only be something like 1/500. It happens. So don't be so sure that your "systems" are hot shit or total crap. You still may be just plain lucky or unlucky. You may never know. So who's REALLY confused?

Either way, lighten up. Don't blow a gasket, ok?

**donjuan** · 01-27-12, 09:48 PM

Dribble, dribble, dribble.