J

@cniemail @larpingtons Calculator's still wrong. I know like 10 guys personally who fit the final criteria

@larpingtons If you remove the PhD standard, your odds go up by 28x, still only 46, but it's an improvement. Remove PhD AND lower minimum income to a still-extraordinary-for-under-26 $100,000, and it skyrockets to 240x more likely (a massive pool of 395 men).

theres no way it’s that low. i wasn’t even being picky wtf..

@Christo08487755 @catchapstick @Silky1776 @patrick_just @TomerAzarly What are you even calculating then? The probability that a team wins the exact games that they won is always small!

@wervvuim @catchapstick @Silky1776 @patrick_just @TomerAzarly How is this many people so bad at math. Game three is IRRELEVANT to what the OP said!

According to ESPN Analytics, in the 4 games the Spurs lost in the NBA Finals, they had a... — 91.6% chance of winning Game 1 up 13 points midway thru the 3rd — 72.8% chance of winning Game 2 up 2 points with 1 minute left in the 4th — 99.6% chance of winning Game 4 up 20 points with 9:33 left in the 4th — 95.4% chance of winning Game 5 up 10 points with 7:54 left in the 4th

@Silky1776 @Christo08487755 @catchapstick @patrick_just @TomerAzarly Ok my point is it's a completely useless stat. The probability that the Spurs went 62 for 62 in the games they won is astronomically small. Not a useful stat though

@wervvuim @Christo08487755 @catchapstick @patrick_just @TomerAzarly Yes you can. The original post is only showing how extremely unlikely it is they went 4 for 4 in the games they won. The larger point is that this series shouldn't be over already. At worst 3-2 Knicks still.

@Christo08487755 @catchapstick @Silky1776 @patrick_just @TomerAzarly You can't just exclude game 3 though. That's like dropping the 20 games the Spurs lost and parlaying the Spurs 62 wins together.

@catchapstick @Silky1776 @patrick_just @TomerAzarly No one’s talking about game three. OP excluded game three. Game 3 is irrelevant

@Silky1776 @gppeixoto @patrick_just @TomerAzarly It's not a very meaningful stat though. I could do the same exercise with the 62 games the Spurs won and get a really tiny number.

@gppeixoto @patrick_just @TomerAzarly That's exactly how it works from the perspective of: What are the odds the Knicks go 4-0 in these games if you stipulate their chances of winning at some point in each game are this low for each game. It's like a 4-team parlay with each bet the moneyline on a huge underdog.

@Christo08487755 @catchapstick @patrick_just @TomerAzarly You're missing his point. The math isn't wrong but it's just meaningless. You can't cherry pick only the times a team came back, while ignoring the times they didn't come back. You can literally do this same calculation with any team then.

@catchapstick @patrick_just @TomerAzarly But that’s not what he’s saying. The odds of ONLY winning those four games that they were down (game they lost is irrelevant bc he’s not computing that) is 1/237k. How’s this so hard to comprehend?

@only_shans_ @jeremymonline @Khwastgaran Why would I care about your stat when you don’t even know what it means

@jeremymonline @Khwastgaran how the fuck does percentage work man

this is not a joke, if you have ADHD and you don't take your medications you are at a 9% higher risk of dementia and late stage cognitive decline

@only_shans_ You suck at math

9% doesn't sound like a lot but its 3x more likely than the average person

@TheAntMail This app literally just adds up PRA and then maps it to a win total using a monotonic function. Something my TI-84 can do. You have a very liberal definition of AI if you consider that AI.

@wervvuim Give it up, you don’t know what you are talking about. Machine learning is a subset of AI, and its core function is derived from predictive models that use some form of regression. I should’ve the audience I’m talking to when you mentioned “feeding into ChatGPT,” which is a LLM.

Realizing that 82-0 game was made by AI really ruined the fun for me, haven’t even touched the others because it’s so obvious

@TheAntMail Predictive model does not equal AI.

@wervvuim You are objectively wrong, clown. Regression is the key component to predictive models. LOOOOOL

@TheAntMail I have never heard anyone call a logistic regression (I assume what this app uses) as AI. But maybe we just disagree on semantics

@wervvuim Stats major…uh that’s cute, maybe you should study more effectively. You’re speaking to a mechanical and industrial engineer who has worked on MES and AI/ML systems. Embarrassing .

@TheAntMail Buddy I am a stats major I do regressions for my job. Regressions are not AI

@TheAntMail So you just resort to insults instead of a rebuttal bc you have no idea what you’re talking about got it

@douglaschu_ @JackRNewhouse @WokeFDR Idk why you’re putting “need-based” in quotes. Anyone under 200k of parental income goes for free. They do not look at if you’re an athlete.

@JackRNewhouse @WokeFDR don’t they give out “need-based aid” that ends up being a de facto athletic scholarship?

he got in to play on the basketball team let’s be real

@2real30842261 @Oneiric47 Granted nembhard is one of the most extreme examples of all time and of the thousands of nba players, someone HAS to have had a lucky streak in the playoffs, so this could be considered p-hacking. Regardless, it is an extremely strong statistical signal.

@2real30842261 @Oneiric47 A career .521 efg% player shooting .596 efg% on 405 playoff shots is a 10 sigma deviation. Roughly 1/10,000 chance of it being random noise. Chalk it up to scheme or opponent but such a deviation over a 405 shot sample is not due to random variation.

Truth Nuke: Playoff dropping isn’t real, it’s all just variance.

@2real30842261 @Oneiric47 Andrew Nembhard not a playoff riser?

@Oneiric47 playoff dropping is real, some ppls games or bodies can’t handle the physicality playoff risers aren’t tho lol ppl just think that maintaining your regular season production = rising just bc so many other ppl can’t w the increased physicality

@JeromeDyson5 @gobucs8828 @theblockspot Forgot him fair shoutout

@wervvuim @gobucs8828 @theblockspot Jokic as well

AI never got back. CP3 never got back. Reggie never got back. Harden never got back. Westbrook never got back. Wemby might never get back.

@TheAntMail The game could literally run on excel. My TI-84 is AI now I guess

@TheAntMail Since when was regression AI?