Yet Another Statistical Oddity:

[clydepepper]

The Braves won tonight- for the seventeenth consecutive game, they have alternated winning and losing.

I wonder if that's some kind of record.


.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

The Braves won tonight- for the seventeenth consecutive game, they have alternated winning and losing.

I wonder if that's some kind of record.


.

I would say "Yes" and "No"

[Peter_Spaeth]

That can't last -- big bet on them to win their next game would seem to be in order.

[frankbmd]

The second game of the Braves double header with the Padres was suspended due to rain on July 21st. Regardless of who wins this game ultimately on Sept 24th, the LWLWL streak will be largely erased and truncated at 5 games.

But I'm not sure when a suspended game officially occurs, when it started or when it concluded. In this case it is 5 innings in July and 2 innings in September if that makes a difference.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

That can't last -- big bet on them to win their next game would seem to be in order.

Odds don't work that way. If you flip a coin and it comes up heads 5 times in a row, the odds of it coming up heads (or tails) on the 6th flip are still basically 50-50.

History doesn't bend the odds.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Braves 7, Cardinals 4.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

The second game of the Braves double header with the Padres was suspended due to rain on July 21st. Regardless of who wins this game ultimately on Sept 24th, the LWLWL streak will be largely erased and truncated at 5 games.

But I'm not sure when a suspended game officially occurs, when it started or when it concluded. In this case it is 5 innings in July and 2 innings in September if that makes a difference.

I thought records only become records when they are recorded, not when they occur.


'If Babe Ruth really called his shot...and NOBODY saw it...and so forth.



.

[profholt82]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Odds don't work that way. If you flip a coin and it comes up heads 5 times in a row, the odds of it coming up heads (or tails) on the 6th flip are still basically 50-50.

History doesn't bend the odds.

The year the Detroit Lions went 0-16, my buddy started betting on them to win after about the 8th or 9th game. He kept claiming that the odds of them losing this many in a row were astronomical, and that they inevitably had to win. He lost a lot of money that season.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by profholt82

The year the Detroit Lions went 0-16, my buddy started betting on them to win after about the 8th or 9th game. He kept claiming that the odds of them losing this many in a row were astronomical, and that they inevitably had to win. He lost a lot of money that season.

Yeah. I made the mistake of betting on Pro Football twice: The first on one of the last games of the season when one team, who had already clinched, rested all but one or two starters against one of the worst teams in the league. The 'champs' lost by less than a touchdown.

The second bet was again involved a heavy favorite and, though, it was not at season's end, my luck ran true again.

With that second one, I learned my lesson...it helped to have friends to remind me.

.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

I thought records only become records when they are recorded, not when they occur.


'If Babe Ruth really called his shot...and NOBODY saw it...and so forth.



.

If Babe Ruth called that shot he did it without Charlie Root, Gabby Hartnett, or any Cub infielder realizing what he was doing, otherwise Ruth would have been on the ground in a cloud of dust after the next pitch.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

If Babe Ruth called that shot he did it without Charlie Root, Gabby Hartnett, or any Cub infielder realizing what he was doing, otherwise Ruth would have been on the ground in a cloud of dust after the next pitch.

It never made sense because he would have had no clue if the next pitch would be one he could drive or not. Supposedly there is a film that pretty conclusively shows he did not call his shot, but for reasons unclear it isn't widely available.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by profholt82

The year the Detroit Lions went 0-16, my buddy started betting on them to win after about the 8th or 9th game. He kept claiming that the odds of them losing this many in a row were astronomical, and that they inevitably had to win. He lost a lot of money that season.

Exactly the problem of viewing the streak in the aggregate as opposed to a series of independent events.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Odds don't work that way. If you flip a coin and it comes up heads 5 times in a row, the odds of it coming up heads (or tails) on the 6th flip are still basically 50-50.

History doesn't bend the odds.

I know was just goofing. Although I still have trouble reconciling this with the Monty Hall problem.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by profholt82

The year the Detroit Lions went 0-16, my buddy started betting on them to win after about the 8th or 9th game. He kept claiming that the odds of them losing this many in a row were astronomical, and that they inevitably had to win. He lost a lot of money that season.

It is amazing how few people understand the basic concept of probability. With your example, the Lions were demonstrating their chances of winning were less than 50%. Therefore, for any particular game, it was a better bet to expect them to lose.