NBA Master Thread

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Where in that whole video did they mention favorites once?

I was asked about underdogs and responded.

[skyguy918]

You can't lump all underdogs together. A 2-1 underdog is not the same as a 10-1 underdog.

I was asked about underdogs and responded.

You don't have to lump them together. You can compare 2-1 underdogs in sport A to 2-1 underdogs in sport B, and 10-1 underdogs in sport A to 10-1 underdogs in sport B.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

You don't have to lump them together. You can compare 2-1 underdogs in sport A to 2-1 underdogs in sport B, and 10-1 underdogs in sport A to 10-1 underdogs in sport B.

That is my point. Lets say in sport A 2-1 underdogs win 64% of the time and in sport B they win 68% of the time. What does that tell you about skill vs luck? IMHO nothing the same as the OP.

[yuneeq]

You can't lump all underdogs together. A 2-1 underdog is not the same as a 10-1 underdog.

That was precisely my point.
In hockey underdogs perform better because the favorites are not as strong.
The parity in skill is very close between any given team.
You'll never see 3-1 in the finals.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

That was precisely my point.
In hockey underdogs perform better because the favorites are not as strong.
The parity in skill is very close between any given team.
You'll never see 3-1 in the finals.

The article is basing it on skill vs luck and that is BS. You are saying if I understand correctly that it is based on parity.

[keemster26]

[joe1234]

All you Cleveland fans out there are lucky game 4 is Friday night... and GS fans we don't need to watch it...

[yuneeq]

The article is basing it on skill vs luck and that is BS. You are saying if I understand correctly that it is based on parity.

The closer you are to parity in skill the more that luck is a bigger factor in determining who wins.
If everyone is equally skilled, luck will push you over the top. In the NBA there is more skill heavy and skill-free teams, so luck is not such a big factor. You also have a huge amount of scoring chances in the NBA vs the NHL, which again, gives the lucky NBA plays less importance, and more likely to even out.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

The closer you are to parity in skill the more that luck is a bigger factor in determining who wins.
If everyone is equally skilled, luck will push you over the top. In the NBA there is more skill heavy and skill-free teams, so luck is not such a big factor. You also have a huge amount of scoring chances in the NBA vs the NHL, which again, gives the lucky NBA plays less importance, and more likely to even out.

You are living in dream world. When a 5-1 underdog wins it is not because of skill. The bigger the underdog the more you need luck (things go your way) to win.

[farmbochur]

Cringing at the blatant error in what is supposed to be a statistically driven video.

Var(x+y) = var(x) + var(y) + cov(x,y)

So if x = luck and y = skill, you have to consider the degree to which they correlate with one another. Good things generally happen to players who hustle (ie luck and skill are positively correlated).

[skyguy918]

Cringing at the blatant error in what is supposed to be a statistically driven video.

Var(x+y) = var(x) + var(y) + cov(x,y)

So if x = luck and y = skill, you have to consider the degree to which they correlate with one another. Good things generally happen to players who hustle (ie luck and skill are positively correlated).

But ultimately that can (and probably should) be defined as skill, not luck. There's an article with an interview of the guy (maybe wired), and he talks about the fact that the beginning of the book defines his terms - and that some things are conceptually difficult to parse between the 2 categories. If I can find it I'll post the way he defines it.

[springles]

You don't have to lump them together. You can compare 2-1 underdogs in sport A to 2-1 underdogs in sport B, and 10-1 underdogs in sport A to 10-1 underdogs in sport B.

The issue with going off of vegas odds is that theyve already accounted for the "luck" involved in the sport. You are never going to get the same odds in a favored team in hockey as compared to basketball. Vegas will already have included the fact that hockey underdogs have a better chance than basketball underdogs and will decrease the degree that the favorite is favored by

[Toasted]

Cringing at the blatant error in what is supposed to be a statistically driven video.

Var(x+y) = var(x) + var(y) + cov(x,y)

So if x = luck and y = skill, you have to consider the degree to which they correlate with one another. Good things generally happen to players who hustle (ie luck and skill are positively correlated).

....+2cov(x,y)

Keep that in mind on the next actuarial exam .

[farmbochur]

....+2cov(x,y)

Keep that in mind on the next actuarial exam .

Knew I shoulda googled the formula instead trying to recall it from memory.
Either way, I'm all done with prelims so I figure I can just dump all the stats out of my brain now 😆

[ChaimMoskowitz]

The issue with going off of vegas odds is that theyve already accounted for the "luck" involved in the sport. You are never going to get the same odds in a favored team in hockey as compared to basketball. Vegas will already have included the fact that hockey underdogs have a better chance than basketball underdogs and will decrease the degree that the favorite is favored by

That's not how bookmakers come up with their odds. Luck has nothing to do with it.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Money line: GS -220 / CLE +190 minus the luck factor! 

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Some hope for CLE fans. If they can win the next two they will be the favorite in game six but it looks like they are any where from 70-100/1 to win the next four.

[jj1000]

Some hope for CLE fans. If they can win the next two they will be the favorite in game six but it looks like they are any where from 70-100/1 to win the next four.

Basically same odds as last year 4 games in.

[Dan]

Money line: GS -220 / CLE +190 minus the luck factor! 

Tempting.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Tempting.

I am here for you.