|
11-05-2008, 12:30 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,431
|
I weep for America
Really because of its education system. Doesn't anyone teach Bayes Rule? People, if you believed that Texas was a better team than Texas Tech before then played, it still may be perfectly rational (and correct from a subjective probability sense which is all we have absent an experimental setting) to still believe that Texas is better than Texas Tech (meaning that Texas is more than 50% likely to beat Texas Tech if they play on a neutral field. Remember games have a random component (bad bounces, it wasn't Texas' day, etc), the best team doesn't alwways win and things like home field advantage needs to be taken into account
Let's use the Vegas rankings as an example. The spread was 4 points (Texas favored by 4). That implies on a neutral field Texas would have been favored by about 7. Lets suppose this means that the oddsmakers believed that there was a 70% chance that Texas was better than Texas Tech (a little of slight of hand here but I really just want a prior that favors Texas which Vegas really did). Let me simplify it a bit so there are only two possibilities Let P(A1) = 0.70 Probability that Texas is 4 points better than Texas Tech in expectation iwhen playing at Texas Tech Let P(A2) = 0.30 Probability that Texas Tech is 6 points better than Texas in expectation when playing at home Let's suppose this the preceeding is what Vegas believed before the game (this is their Bayesian prior). Now for the conditional probabilities (B= 6 point win by Texas Tech): Let P(B|A1) = 25% (just a guess but reasonable) . This is Probability that Texas loses by 6 or more at Texas Tech given they are 4 points better in expectation (ie., they have a bad game but are better) Let P(B|A2) = 50%. Probability that Texas Tech wins by 6 or more if Texas Tech is 6 points better than Texas in expectation when playing at home. After Texas Tech wins the game this is how you should compute the probability the Texas is better than Texas Tech given the outcome of the game: Using Bayes Rule: P(A1|B) = P(B|A1)*P(A1)/(P(B|A1)*P(A1) + P(B|A2)P(A2)) P(A1|B) = 0.25*0.70/(0.25*0.70 + 0.50*0.30) = 0.54 Thus after the game you still think that Texas is probably better than Texas Tech. You are much less confident and you think there is a much higher probability than before that Texas Tech is better but you still think Texas is more likely to be better. This is rational. This is how you update under uncertainty. The Vegas poll update looks perfectly consistent with Bayesian updating. As long as you believed with some confidence (not a ton of confidence) before the game that Texas was better than Texas Tech, you should still believe that Texas is better than Texas Tech after the game. This is for a specific calibration of numbers but the principle will hold more generally. Last edited by pelagius; 11-05-2008 at 03:42 AM. |
11-05-2008, 12:32 AM | #2 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,177
|
Quote:
|
|
11-05-2008, 12:34 AM | #3 |
Board Pinhead
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the basement of my house, Murray, Utah.
Posts: 15,941
|
I'm not a lawyer.
I'm just a guy that went to school to play baseball. Whatever it is that you and Pelagius are talking about is like me looking for a fastball and having a curveball hit the outside corner.
__________________
"The beauty of baseball is not having to explain it." - Chuck Shriver "This is now the joke that stupid people laugh at." - Christopher Hitchens on IQ jokes about GWB. |
11-05-2008, 12:39 AM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,431
|
Il Pad, not problem. I didn't see you make a statement like the Vegas consultant poll made no sense with regard to Texas and Texas Tech. However, if one is inclined to make such statements I am suggesting you should consul Bayes Rule before you decide it can't make any sense.
Last edited by pelagius; 11-05-2008 at 02:12 AM. |
11-05-2008, 12:52 AM | #5 | |
Board Pinhead
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the basement of my house, Murray, Utah.
Posts: 15,941
|
Quote:
The only kind of Bayes rule that I'm familiar with is that there are 90 between each.
__________________
"The beauty of baseball is not having to explain it." - Chuck Shriver "This is now the joke that stupid people laugh at." - Christopher Hitchens on IQ jokes about GWB. |
|
11-05-2008, 02:37 AM | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Clinton Township, MI
Posts: 3,126
|
Quote:
Et Tu Il Padrino?
__________________
Its all about the suit |
|
11-05-2008, 02:39 AM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 9,483
|
POO, let's cut to the chase....how much do you want for your faculty tickets to the SC game next year?
__________________
Fitter. Happier. More Productive. "Everyone is against me. Everyone is fawning for 3D's attention and defending him." -- SeattleUte |
11-05-2008, 02:44 AM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,431
|
If I stick around I will let you have them for face value (they would be crappy seats though and this assumes faculty tickets are available next year at my senoirity level and I remember to put in a request for tickets)
|
11-05-2008, 02:45 AM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 9,483
|
So your telling me there's a chance.....
__________________
Fitter. Happier. More Productive. "Everyone is against me. Everyone is fawning for 3D's attention and defending him." -- SeattleUte |
11-05-2008, 02:52 AM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,431
|
|
Bookmarks |
|
|