Quote:
Originally Posted by Thremp
No. This is completely absurd. The better reason is that Paddy sucks **** at what they do.
Paddy wants to make money. Cashy gave good reasons why it would make sense for them not to try to give the precise odds.
Quote:
Its cool. I'd be favored over Rod Laver. Thremp > Laver
In the comment you wrote how Nadal was favorite over Federer in every slam. Sounds like a vote for Nadal > Federer, at least in the current year.
Quote:
Sweet christ. Stop using voodoo math. lol "lox". Why would you ever call something for the dog as well? Under this bit of jackassery its 4-0 Nadal ezpz.
Sure, I am making up numbers, but I really think that the expected value of Nadal + Federer slams next year is a bit above 3. I think it is more likely for them to get 3 than 4, but I think it is more likely for them to get 4 than 2. I don't think it is unreasonable to assume they will get all four.
Your statement "Under this bit of jackassery its 4-0 Nadal ezpz." has little connection to my post. Obviously Nadal + Federer winning all four is quite more likely than Nadal winning all four on his own. It is not just more likely, it is way more likely.
For a little reason why, let's just plug in some numbers to see why Nadal+Federer winning all four is way more likely than Nadal winning all four.
Assume the probabilities of winning for Nadal are AO: 1/3 (what Paddy predicts), FO: 3/4 (what they predicted this year where it was uncertain if he would be good enough to play), Wimbledon: 2/5, US: 1/3. Then the odds of him winning all four would be 6/180 = 3/90 = 1/30.
Assume the probabilities of Fed are AO: 1/4, FO: 1/4, Wimbledon: 1/3: US: 1/4.
Then the odds of Nadal + Fed are: (7/12)(1)(11/15)(7/12) = 539/2160 = .249 about 1/4. You can see that 1/4 is way way higher than 1/30. In fact 7.5 times higher.
Now, I don't claim that those probabilities are correct. But the point was just to show how the probabilities change drastically once you include both of them as possible winners. It is not just double, it is 7 times higher in that particular example.
Next time you say "under the same reasoning", maybe you should actually figure out what the original reasoning was.