[hockey216]

Since you questioned my credibility in my comments regarding the Cubs winning at least 1 world series, i wrote proof showing that even with low fixed probability (assumed 2.5% each year in this proof), as you increase n, the number of trials, the binomial/normal distribution is strictly shifting to the right. I wrote the assumptions. I analyzed probability of cubs winning at least 1 world series in n=400,800,1200, and took limit of binomial/normal distribution as n, number of trials increases. I show that probability goes to 0.99999998 (99.999998%) as you increase n to 1200. When you take limit of distribution as n approaches infinity, probability becomes 1 (100%). It was almost 1, to 1 in 10 millionth of a decimal away, when n=1200. As n approaches infinity, the mean of the normal distribution, with is n*(prob. success), strictly increases as well, because n is strictly increasing. This is summary. All the mathematics is laid out in the proof. So yes, Cubs will win greater than 1 world series with probability 100% (certainty) as n gets large enough. Cubs will win infinite # world series as n approaches infinity. Obviously, mean will approach infinity at slower rate than n. The model is simplistic though, notably assuming fixed probability of 2.5% winning each year. I could write same proof to allow randomness in the probability of winning, assigning it to a set of independent and identically distributed normal random variables with mean mu and std dev sigma. But for any stricly positive nonzero probability, limit of distribution as n approaches infinity would hold the same. I know how to use statistical software to account for this. But, in layman's terms, because the distribution is shifting right, the area under it shifts right too. Area under curve is the total probability, and it sums to 1. As you infinitely shift distribution to right, the area (probability that wins > any amount a) shifts to right as well, with probability approaching 1 as n gets large enough. Thus, the probability continues to approach 1, with all of the area under the normal curve to be to the right (corresponding with probability=1). There are some assumptions involved, notably what you pointed out before about the ability of n to increase to infinity due to real-world complications. Reasonable concern. But assuming that baseball can continue without time constraints like (baseball dies out in 200 years), then the proof will hold. So, yes, if you are allowed to increase n as large as you want, the probability that it will be greater than any finite amount will increase/approach 100%. Even for low probability like 2% or 0.0002% or 0.00000000000000002% of winning each year. Doesn't make difference. Thanks for challenging my credibility in mathematics, but i knew what i was talking about. Read the proof. But yes, the proof based on assumption that you can increase n as large as you want. That is valid concern and is important assumption.

[PhillyFlyers]

Since you questioned my credibility in my comments regarding the Cubs winning at least 1 world series, i wrote proof showing that even with low fixed probability (assumed 2.5% each year in this proof), as you increase n, the number of trials, the binomial/normal distribution is strictly shifting to the right. I wrote the assumptions. I analyzed probability of cubs winning at least 1 world series in n=400,800,1200, and took limit of binomial/normal distribution as n, number of trials increases. I show that probability goes to 0.99999998 (99.999998%) as you increase n to 1200. When you take limit of distribution as n approaches infinity, probability becomes 1 (100%). It was almost 1, to 1 in 10 millionth of a decimal away, when n=1200. As n approaches infinity, the mean of the normal distribution, with is n*(prob. success), strictly increases as well, because n is strictly increasing. This is summary. All the mathematics is laid out in the proof. So yes, Cubs will win greater than 1 world series with probability 100% (certainty) as n gets large enough. Cubs will win infinite # world series as n approaches infinity. Obviously, mean will approach infinity at slower rate than n.

Bro, there ain't no formula that can cure a century of suck.

[altieriflyers]

Where the fukk was Detroit when the Flyers and Blackhawks were playing for the Cup? Remind me again bitch.

There you go again, you are really retarded, you just don`t learn, they are going to answer you that Detroit kicked our ass in the 1997 stanley cup.

[hockey216]

Bro, there ain't no formula that can cure a century of suck.

Actually, i just wrote the formula in my proof. I just mathematically proved you wrong. They could have gone 100 years without title because probability of winning each year was 0.5%, which, with a probability this low, could very well happen. But, my proof holds for any nonzero probability. As long as it is something above 0, even if its 0.0000000001% chance of winning each year, the proof will still hold. Obviously, if prob is that small, n would have to get very large. But geometrically because the normal density curve continues to shift right forever, area (probability) shifts right too that its on higher number of world series wins. Doesn't matter. As long as have a nonzero probability, the limit of the function as n approaches infinity will be infinity (less some distance). Obviously for probability that small, n would approach infinity much faster. Area of normal density curve continues to shift right forever, with the corresponding area (probability) shifting right as well. When prob shifts right far enough, prob of wins > any amount will approach 1. I illustrated this under 3 cases showing that if n=1200, with a 2.5% chance of winning each year, the probability that cubs have > 1win is 99.999998%. Increase n more by taking limit as approaches infinity, probability becomes 1. Read the proof. You are mathematically false.

[Deuce]

Where the fukk was Detroit when the Flyers and Blackhawks were playing for the Cup? Remind me again bitch.

3 in a decade 4 in 11 years is tremendous. Not one fukk was given. It's been 5 years, I've seen Detroit win 4 in my lifetime, can you say the same? No, but Pittsburgh won one too!

[hockey216]

Hey PhillyFlyers, do you still think Flyers are beat team in East like last year? Or do you finally admit that their defense is terrible? Do you think any team can win the stanley cup playing defense this piss-poor every night? Still think Flyers better than Boston (16-3-3)? Still think Flyers players are tougher than Chara, McQuaid, Lucic, Thornton? Let me remind you of today's events, where a poor defensive team got destroyed in 1st period, and flyers got shut-out and lost 3-0. Bruins dominated all the big scoring chances. Had a million of them sine Flyers don't care about playing defense. Bryzgalov kept you in the game and only reason it wasn't 6-0. Bruins beat them, and then they beat them up.

[Deuce]

Buried again.

[Vegas39]

Flyers

[Vegas39]

Tick rock Philly as per our bet you will be done posting once playoffs start