Speculation: The REAL probability of Leafs winning the lottery over X number of years

Status
Not open for further replies.

Al14

Registered User
Jul 13, 2007
24,210
5,584
Man could you imagine the ****storm if we got McDavid and he Daigle'd on us?

Hows our development record with prospects? :dunno:

I'd be more concerned of our development system breaking our top pick then them turning into a bust on their own. :p:

I just wish we could employ the Detroit model for player development. :nod:
 

Shwaguy*

Guest
Hows our development record with prospects? :dunno:

I'd be more concerned of our development system breaking our top pick then them turning into a bust on their own. :p:

I just wish we could employ the Detroit model for player development. :nod:

That's fallacy I think.


Crosby wouldn't bust no matter where he went.


Development is important for making players who normally won't be anything------>Something


If a player is going to be good he's going to be good.

Schenn was going to be a bust with us or with anyone else.
 

Darth Milbury

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
44,582
1
Searching for Kvasha
Visit site
Would the Hypergeometric Probability Distribution not be used to do that?



No. That would assume that each lottery ball was drawing on the same overall sample. The probability distribution you are talking about is when each draw is from the same overall sample without replacement. So, that distribution would apply to the odds for each team within the same lottery year, not for a team across years.
 

Darth Milbury

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
44,582
1
Searching for Kvasha
Visit site
Would the Hypergeometric Probability Distribution not be used to do that?



No. That would assume that each lottery ball was drawing on the same overall sample. The probability distribution you are talking about is when each draw is from the same overall sample without replacement. So, that distribution would apply to the odds for each team within the same lottery year, not for a team across years.
 

indigobuffalo

Portage and Main
Feb 10, 2011
6,790
559
Winnipeg MB
If the average % rate to win the lottery for the Leafs is 5.2% then over a sufficiently large sample size the results would trend towards 5 wins out of every 100 lotteries.

And don't take that to mean that if there were 100 lotteries the Leafs should have 5 wins.

It means that they should be trending in that direction. Maybe after 1000 lotteries the Leafs might only have 32 wins then over the next 1000 they could have 58 more wins. Then maybe 40 over the next 1000, then 60 over the next 1000, and so on and so forth.

Over a sufficient number of tries, the Leafs would expect to be getting closer and closer to 5.2%.

What OP is saying isn't completely wrong, but it misrepresents reality.

The Leafs' accumulated chance of winning needs to be compared against the rest of the League's accumulated chances of winning.

It's not 50% for the Leafs, 50% for the rest of the NHL.

Each other team is probably also at or around the 50% range, with teams like FLA, EDM, COL, CBJ, etc. sitting a little farther back as they've won the lottery.

You could then convert the differences in the Leafs' accumulated percentage on a percentile scale and see how the Leafs compare against other teams (i.e. the "Our Time is Coming" pie chart).

While each individual event occurs without influence on the previous event, it would, at some point, suggest that the Leafs would have "good luck" and win multiple lotteries.

The problem is that since this "event" only occurs once annually, a sufficient sample size won't accrue till about the year 3015 or so (ideally the year 10,015 or later).

I don't have much faith that over the next several millennia hockey will be still around.
 

Mystifo

No more Mr.FightGuy
May 26, 2011
3,825
2
YYT
I'm pretty good with math, but this problem was always pretty tough for me to wrap my head around.

But the explanations on this site are good. I think I get it now.

I still do not understand why it is 66% chance of being right if you change your door.
 
Feb 24, 2004
5,490
611
I'm pretty good with math, but this problem was always pretty tough for me to wrap my head around.

But the explanations on this site are good. I think I get it now.

I still do not understand why it is 66% chance of being right if you change your door.

Glad to hear that. The best way I can tell someone to wrap their head around it is to extend the sample to a much more extreme example - instead of 3 initial doors and removing 2, consider 100 initial doors and removing 99.
 

Shwaguy*

Guest
Love the Monty Hall Problem

To me it always made a lot of sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad