OCinBuffalo
-
Posts
9,102 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by OCinBuffalo
-
-
265 pages....and I wonder what exactly is in there that I missed.
Did I miss something? All those hours spent....talking about what exactly, as we now know things today?
What a waste of man hours. All this, for literally nothing. Oh, I am certain there's some humor in here....but you're high if you think I'm gonna start at page one of this...monstrosity.
Almost makes me pine for the days of Molson Golden: at least you knew the thread was going to die in 3 or less pages, with a punchline.
-
BTW, so how's this thread going?
55 pages about 400 pages....that all lead to: Nothing.
Wonder why I don't feel bad that I missed it.
-
On 4/25/2019 at 9:17 AM, BigMcD said:
I don’t need advice. Especially from someone who still has to give advice for a living. If you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn’t need to do it. And don’t feed me the garbage that you enjoy helping people. I love all the questrade commercials. https://youtu.be/kpQB1tEpH1w
This is hilarious. I've only been giving advice as a job for decades. I look at it as coaching. Sure, we do things for some people some of the time, but, mostly, we spend our time teaching, in some form or another, each other, clients, even partners.
And, apparently an amazing aspect: literally no one has doubted my knowing what I am doing all this time, regardless of whether I've been working for myself or others. I wonder: given this logic, should every coach in the NFL, every CEO in the Fortune 500, be forced to confront the fact that most of what they do now is teach/advise, and, because they didn't "do" enough being worker bees...should fire themselves...after they were promoted?
Better: For every 1 coder Oracle has, each year they have between 5-7 "teachers". Sometimes they have as many as 10 "trainers" per coder. What a way to run a company....all those people who have no idea what they are doing, because they don't do....billing an average of $150/hr at .8 utilization.
-
25 minutes ago, formerlyofCtown said:
I laugh at the draft chart but Polian although good, he is also overrated.
You laugh at something that is literally proven to be valid by every draft trade since 2012. What else do you laugh at: the earth being round?
-
21 minutes ago, Warcodered said:
Sure it's pretty simple there are 128 unique results(2^7) each with an equal chance of occurring and only 1 of which is heads 7 times. 1/128=.0078125
21 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:Basic statistics. Each flip is 0.5 (head or tail) to the power of the number of flips. 0.5 to the 7th power is 0.78%.
Basic 8th grade math, which both of you should be made to re-take. God where is Ramius when we need him...this is approaching 3.5 status.
Possible combinations are not probable results. And results are not outcomes. Possible combinations have no predictive value whatsoever. Multiplying things to 7th power....does something somewhere, I am sure(perhaps it cures Madonna's Hep C?)...but it does not predict outcomes of flipping a coin.
24 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:I wonder if OCinBuffalo and TaskersGhost are related? Who is more condescending? Who is grumpier? Is OCinBuffalo TaskersGhost when he's off his meds?
Great post. Wanna try posting something that isn't garbage. Better: do you actually know anything about the draft? CB play? Or hey how about O line play? Let's start with an easy one: given our personnel so far, are we setting up to be a power or zone blocking team?
Can you answer that?
-
24 minutes ago, Augie said:
This doesn’t seem to be going very well.
It's going great: notice how the crap stopped and people started posting substance again? Works. Every. Single. Time.
-
24 minutes ago, Augie said:
If you can provide evidence that you are also SDS, I’m happy to oblige. You may have started a thread, but you can’t control how people respond. It doesn’t mean you will get rave reviews.
You can ask anybody this also: Do I care? Never. Do the mods care? Never. I run my threads the way I run them, precisely because it ensures quality...which is all SDS cares about, and what this board is known for.
You think you'll be able to whine to a mod because you are being crushed for posting garbage in one of my threads?
Good luck with that.
24 minutes ago, Augie said:But what if @Gugny wants to tell you how he makes sausage? What are the consequences? I just might enjoy that!
Gugny wouldn't do that. He and I get along far too well. And, also: Gugny knows what's best for Gugny, and what's best isn't posting crap in my threads.
-
Just now, formerlyofCtown said:
Yes our top rated secondary is filled with castoffs because the Steelers apparently had the #1 pass D and not us.
This past year: 1 time out of 10 that was true. So, I suppose we just write off the other 9...in a division...with Tom Brady. Oh, yeah, makes tons of sense.
Hey, in general, I'm finally happy about what we have going into this season: I haven't been for 14 seasons before this one. So, what, am I supposed to just forget the 14 years of people complaining when we draft a CB high, or at any position? I'll be happy if we pick up one more quality DB, one way or another, that I can see can play, before the season.
This thread is about waste: if we take a OT at #9, and a G for our 3rd I'll be happy. Why? Because for all the FAs? I have no idea if we have 5 starting caliber OLs on this team. Even with Dawkins, who took a step back last year. I have NEVER been supportive of an O line pick at 1 or 2(looking at you Kouandjio)...but last year's O line was a dumpster fire, and no it wasn't preventable via the draft: you can't predict both Wood and Incognito being gone so abruptly, and you can't do anything about it when you need to draft a QB.
-
Just now, oldmanfan said:
Your first statement is unsubstantiated.
No, I have substantiated it...by comparing each draft pick traded on one side, to picks trades on the other, and they add up...to exactly what the value chart requires.
Tell me about the trade of Polian's you found that didn't. Go on. Don't be shy.
-
3 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:
The probability of getting 7 heads from 7 coin flips is 0.5 to the seventh power. Way less than 50%. 0.78% to be precise.
The sheer nonsense of this might be enough to power a warp engine. But be careful, we don't have much experience containing nonsense like this, there could be an accident.
-
8 minutes ago, Warcodered said:
Yes everyone gets that each flip has a 50% chance of being heads or tails but the odds of you getting heads 7 times in a row is about .78%.
Jesus....and how did you arrive at that? Show your work.
-
5 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:
You don't run an NFL team either. I consider Bill Polian to be one of the best GMs in history. And he would laugh when the concept of the draft chart came up. I'll go with Bill
Yet he used it for every single trade he made as the Colts GM. I did the work on ALL NFL trades, including and especially his, back when the RG3 debacle came up. Curious: what work have you done on Polian's trades? Do you have any specific trade you can point to that deviates from the value chart?
Let's hear it. I'd be very interested to hear about that...because I haven't found a single one, ever.
-
Just now, Dr. Who said:
You seem upset.
Nope, I've just been here for 10 years and I don't put up with pissants posting nothing of value in my threads. Again, ask anybody. Same thing as above: it's not like there's a shortage of places for you to post, substance-free, here. Do it elsewhere.
1 minute ago, ndirish1978 said:So starting a thread means the thread is "yours" now? This is the smallest amount of power I've ever seen go to someone's head.
Nothing to do with power, everything to do with: this is how I run my threads, you're free to run yours your way.
-
2 minutes ago, Augie said:
See my edited post above. It’s not worth getting riled up over. It’s OK, if we can all just stay calm and balanced. No need for anyone to lash out.
This has nothing to do with you, but everything to do with: 0 tolerance for substance free posts in my threads. You want to F about: take it elsewhere, I mean it's not like there's a shortage of places for you to post here.
-
6 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:
Snide contempt for nearly all one's interlocutors is unlikely to promote civility and good discussion. Probably that isn't covered in statistics.
Refusing to post anything of substance will 100% of the time get you crushed in my threads. Ask anybody. You can start: now.
Or GTFO of my thread.
-
Just now, Warcodered said:
Each individual coin flip has a 50% chance of being heads or tails. But if you flip the coin twice you only have a 25% chance of getting heads or tails twice. You also have a 50% chance of getting one of each as well as a 75% of getting at least 1 heads and a 75% chance of getting 1 at least 1 tails.
No. Each flip, 50% of heads, 50% of tails. Why is this so hard?
Look, if I flip a coin one time and get heads, the universe doesn't tilt on it's axis, bend the coin....time...space...and create a 25% chance that I will get heads again. The second time there are only 2 outcomes, same as the first. Past outcomes of coin flips don't predict future outcomes. 7 coin flips = 50% chance of heads or tails for each, with no predictive...anything. 7 heads in a row has a chance of 50% 2 heads, 1 tails, 3 tails, 1 heads? 50% chance...exactly.
Get it...yet?
-
Just now, Augie said:
I hate to go first.
So, you just post crap instead?
-
2 minutes ago, Augie said:
I’ll post when I like, thank you.
But, I thought you were sleepy. I'm just trying to help you out. Perhaps after you rest you can add something substantive to this thread?
-
1 minute ago, Augie said:
Wordy + mathy = sleepy.
Ok, I'll wake you up when I find a way to flip 121 on a coin. Then you can post.
-
2 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:
Ok. I think what you're struggling to say is that one roulette spin or flip of a coin has no bearing on the next flip/spin. That is true. If heads comes up 10 times in a row, tails is not "due" as some would believe. This changes when you factor in the QUANTITY of spins/flips. If I have 100 chances at a 1/38 proposition, of course I have a better chance than if I only have one.
Yeah, somehow, I doubt the even mildly educated observer of this thread would say that I'm the one who is "struggling".
No. Never. Not ever. Each spin/flip is totally and completely independent and has NO BEARING on the next. The odds never change. They stay exactly the same. Just like whether or not pick #160 makes the team, has no bearing on whether pick #159 or #162 or #1 makes their team...if that's how we define "hit". They hit, or miss, completely independently from each other.
Man, I am glad I no longer give NYS ANY of my $, if this is what their education looks like. You should ask for a refund/start voting for different people.
1 minute ago, Warcodered said:There are 2 outcomes for any 1 pick hit or miss. With 2 picks there are 4 (hit, hit), (hit, miss), (miss, hit), and (miss, miss).
With 7 there are 128.
You are confusing combinations with outcomes. And, you are falsely implying that combinations are predictive of outcomes.
There are only 2 outcomes: heads or tails, the possible combinations are a nice exercise for you...but they predict nothing.
The only prediction for a coin flip: it will be heads, tails, or magically land, and stay, on its edge. Heads 50%, Tails 50%, magic 0%.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Warcodered said:
But I'm not talking about 1 pick I'm talking about 7. If I flip a coin 7 times there are 128 possible outcomes 127 of which involve me getting heads at least once.
No there are 2 outcomes. Heads or tails. I've never heard of somebody flipping 121 on a coin. Maybe that's possible in another dimension? It's not possible here.
-
16 minutes ago, Warcodered said:
So if you have 7 picks does that mean you have a 99% chance of one of them being a hit?
No, it means you have 50% chance that any of them, all of them, some of them, or none of them...will be a hit. Again, using the statement "hit on draft pick", and as I said in the beginning, "setting aside the subjective evaluation, of a hit, being a hit". If a guy is drafted and makes the team, is that a hit? How about the PS? Is that a hit? These are subjective evaluations. If a guy is drafted #9 overall, makes the team but doesn't make the Pro-Bowl, is that a hit? That's a subjective standard AND a subjective expectation. But, if that's the standard then he is either a hit, or a miss.
Regardless of how we define "hit", once we have, the guy either meets the subjective criteria of being a "hit", or he doesn't, so he's a "miss".
Thus, this is a binary, as defined. One can come up with irrational standards, like "if every pick the Bills make isn't a starter, they are not a hit, but every pick other teams make are hits if the merely make the team". That's not just subjective, it's irrational, and therefore must be rejected.
No. Once you decide on a rational methodology of determining which pick is a hit, and apply it rationally and evenly, then, every pick is STILL: either a hit or a miss, and STILL has a chance of 50% for either.
12 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:Yes.
Then you should ask for your parent's property tax $ back and/or sue your teachers, because that is flat out wrong.
On every single spin you have 1/38 chance or 37 to 1 odds of 23 hitting. If 23 comes up 3 times, or never, it had 37 to 1 odds each time, every time. For the rest time, for each spin of that wheel 23 has a 37 to 1 chance, no matter what.
-
Look, if I have to get a 8th grade math textbook, I will. I suggest you stop now.
Here's the right way to look at the relationship between players and picks, which also explains exactly WHY the value chart works the way it does.
1. If I pick #1, I can literally pick any 1 player. If I pick #2, I can pick any player - the player that was picked #1. If I pick #3, I can pick any player minus the ones picked at #1 and #2. Thus the value of each successive pick is defined by what players are excluded from the players that are available for that pick.
2. Thus, the 161st pick's value is defined by the fact that 160 players are no longer available to be taken.
3. However, hitting on 161 has nothing to do with who was picked at 160, or who will be picked at 162. Player #161 will make plays/make the team/be considered a hit, regardless of whether each of the 160 players before before him, or after him, "hit".
4. What we get by trading all of 4-7 for 1 #3 is: a chance to pick when less players have already been taken. That's it. Whether that player hits, or whether players 4-7 hit, using the binary definition, is and ALWAYS WILL BE: 50%.
14 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:Then why use the coin flip analogy? You presupposed that any given draft pick is a 50/50 proposition. If that's the case(which it's not), then the chances of hitting on a single draft pick is greater if given 7 cracks at it. The same way I have a better chance of getting a single heads if I have seven opportunities.
Yes it is, if we use the "chance to hit on a draft pick" statement. You either hit or you don't.
Jesus: they must love you at the roulette table. If you pick 23 for 10 spins one night, and then 100 spins the next, do you think you have a better chance to win the 2nd night? NO! Bad!
You don't, and therefore, you should lifetime ban yourself from playing roulette.
-
Just now, LSHMEAB said:
You said the chances of hitting on one draft pick is equivalent to the chances of busting on 7. Remember?
Yes, I did, because they are absolutely == to 50%.
What have you learned about the media since 2005?
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted · Edited by OCinBuffalo
Why 2005? Last time the media's confidence/approval/whatever was >=50%: 2005.
For many here, 2005 was like a lifetime ago. It was for me anyhow. It's only 13 years, but literally everything has changed, for me anyway. I believe we were talking Iraq war, and the Surge and stuff like that back then. But, maybe there was other stuff too. Certainly Asian Carp/Great Lakes was on the agenda.
The media's rating is someplace around 32% as I write this...clearly something/many things have changed.
What has changed for you, if anything, in terms of your views on the media? Think a little, please, what were you thinking about then, and how much did the media inform those thoughts vs how much your own work did? Now, how much does the media inform you vs how much research do you do yourself/live TV(or unfiltered clips on the internet) do you watch? Same/less/more?
And, why do you think they've lost 18 points? What can be realistically done about this?