Super Odds

where am i? i am floating above the blog, looking down.

i am looking down at the carcass of a selfless helper, shot in the back by poisoned arrows dealt by hypocrites and philistines.

i can float down to the computer, but i can't feel the keyboard.

now, by telekinesis, i am able to type words.

it would be easy to go to sleep now, but then the people who used my good name to do ill will succeed.

there are no words in this world or the next to describe this level of treachery.

if Bucket dies, the terrorists win.

In the words of the little girl in Poltergeist.......
"He's baaaaaaaaaack"

So Coach Carroll has about a 2% chance of winning the Super Bowl. Say he is the coach for 5-years and the team remains about the same, his odds become about 10%. In other words, in all probability, it is not going to happen

I cannot believe Coach left SC for more money, I mean, how much better can you eat, how much better can you live!-- I think it was to prove he could make it at the professional level, and even win a Super Bowl But if a coach does not win a Super Bowl he is forgotten.

At least at SC he has a legacy that will remain for decades; it would have been nice if he had remained and built on that legacy.

LJ.......I'm no mathematician, but your math is off. It's not 10%. It's not 2% x 5 = 10%. Every year stands on it's own. If each year "the team remains about the same" and keeps the same odds, his odds are 2%. It's like flipping a coin. Just because you flipped heads 9 times in a row, it doesn't mean that the odds are greater on the 10th flip that it will be tails. It's still 50%. So unless Seattle greatly improves, he has much worst odds of winning the Super Bowl.

TC - clearly you are no mathematician. We'll assume you studied humanities or arts or law at SC.

Your sunk cost reasoning fails to appreciate that right now, if his odds are 2% to win the Super Bowl in any given year, then his odds after five years is simply 10%, for the entire five year period.

If however PC doesn't make it in year one, then at that point, you'd recalculate his odds to make it in the next four years at 8%.

theDuder..........You are wrong. If you have a 2% chance of winning the Super Bowl every year, then you have a 2% chance of winning the Super Bowl. Seriously, this isn't rocket science.

theDuder......look at it another way. If he was coaching a terrible team that only had a 5% chance to win a title every year, and he coaches for 10 years, then your reasoning is that he would have a 50% chance of winning a Super Bowl. 20 years and he'd have a 100% chance.

TC is dead on right about odds.

The fallacy others are trapped into is also known as the gamblers fallacy, e.g., If the odds are 1000:1 and I wager 1000 times, I will win. The failure in reasoning is that --as TC notes-- the odds are 1,000:1 for every entry, thus wagering 1000 times is no guarantee of success.

TC knows math.

Who would have thought.............Wolf's blog, provocative and educational.

It's actually better now that a certain idiot has been banned.

theDuder and LJ are correct...as is Trojan Conquest and Free Thinker.

Based on probability theory, Pete Carroll's outcome/performance each year is an "independent variable." The indepedence of each season does not affect/influence the probability of an outcome in each successive period. Therefore TC and FreeThinker are correct that he has a 2% chance of winning a Super Bowl each season.

However, if I'm thinking clearly, the Negative Binomial Probability Theory (or Pascal Distribution) would prove theDuder and LJ to be correct. The Negative Binomial Probability Theory could calculate Pete carroll's success at NOT winning a Super Bowl in all 5 years. And then by taking the inverse of this %, we can determine the probability of a Super Bowl victory in just one of his five years.

There are 5 trials (seasons) and 5 chances at success (again defined as failing to win a Super Bowl), with a 98% chance of succeeding at not winning a Super Bowl. The negative binomial probability is 90.39% that Pete Carroll does not win a Super Bowl during any of his five seasons. Therefore, the inverse of this is that there is a 9.61% chance that Pete Carroll wins a Super Bowl during his five years.

In 4 years, his likelihood of winning a Super Bowl is 7.76%; In 3 years, 5.88%; in 2 years, 3.96%; and 1 year, 2%.

Not the best odds, but exponentially better than ucla's odds of beating USC at anytime over the next 5 years.

Fight On!

theDuder and LJ are correct...as is Trojan Conquest and Free Thinker.

Based on probability theory, Pete Carroll's outcome/performance each year is an "independent variable." The indepedence of each season does not affect/influence the probability of an outcome in each successive period. Therefore TC and FreeThinker are correct that he has a 2% chance of winning a Super Bowl each season.

However, if I'm thinking clearly, the Negative Binomial Probability Theory (or Pascal Distribution) would prove theDuder and LJ to be correct. The Negative Binomial Probability Theory could calculate Pete carroll's success at NOT winning a Super Bowl in all 5 years. And then by taking the inverse of this %, we can determine the probability of a Super Bowl victory in just one of his five years.

There are 5 trials (seasons) and 5 chances at success (again defined as failing to win a Super Bowl), with a 98% chance of succeeding at not winning a Super Bowl. The negative binomial probability is 90.39% that Pete Carroll does not win a Super Bowl during any of his five seasons. Therefore, the inverse of this is that there is a 9.61% chance that Pete Carroll wins a Super Bowl during his five years.

In 4 years, his likelihood of winning a Super Bowl is 7.76%; In 3 years, 5.88%; in 2 years, 3.96%; and 1 year, 2%.

Not the best odds, but exponentially better than ucla's odds of beating USC at anytime over the next 5 years.

Fight On!

(wow. check out the big brains...it's like a NASA reunion on this blog now. maybe Bucket was bringing the level of discourse down to NUBS' level...)

So I Think what Bodog is trying to tell you is that if you bet $100.00 on Pete to win the Super Bowl this coming season there is a 98% chance you will lose $100.00. If you bet $100.00 on Mays to win there is a 97% chance you will lose $100.00

I wonder what the odds are that Charlie Bucket is back? I would lay $100.00 on that.

BTW, they have Sanchez at 10-1 just behind the two favorites Colts & Saints at 9-1. I'm thinking about it?

I am with Gnossos. Ignore the idiots and stick to facts.

Interesting that someone who calls himself "Free"_thinker wants people to be banned from the blog. Also more interesting that the prior tag laid upon him would be more appropriate as he failed to grasp the prior blog from the Goast of CB.

i would bet 100 Everlasting Gobstoppers that Southern Cal does not attend a bowl game next year due to sanctions imposed by the NCAA.

WILLY WONKA???? oh no you just didn't!!!!

So sweeeeeeeeeet!!

Welcome Willy! Please make sure to wear your top hat in here because it is now a super fancy and refined joint with ChuckerBucker gone.

Pardon, me my good man, but do you have any Grey Poupon??

PCrewe

Do you actually believe that idiot drivel from bucket and all the loser fringe adds anything to a sports blog about USC?

What started out as an interesting discussion on USC football has degenerated into the syrupy crap --would bet 100 Everlasting Gobstopper..Please make sure to wear your top hat..-- that emanates from the loser fringe the infests the blogosphere.

Which side do you want to be on is up to you. Oh wait, you've already made it clear: you're one of the losers.

FT,
Ignorance is bliss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

TC and FreeThinker bring up an interesting point re: "the gamblers fallacy" that can be proven with statistics.

At some point, Pete Carroll's odds of success (winning 1 Super Bowl) are no better with N+1 vs. N attempts. Assuming a 2% chance of winning the SB each season, Pete Carroll's odds of winning 1 Super Bowl if he is given 51 opportunities (coaches 50 seasons) to do so is about 51.96%.

His initial odds of winning a SB are minutely better (0.03925%) if he coaches 51 years vs. 50 years, and his initial odds of winning 1 Super Bowl are essentially no better if he is given 52, 75, 100 years to coach vs. 51 years.

Do not feed the trolls

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."

T_T, Precisely!