MBB: Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association

[Mr. Ypsi]

Oh, well if you're gonna bring Trigger in to it ...!

Of course, if you had been smart enough to hold on to Trigger until the final sale, you'd have made $30!

(And if you STILL had Trigger, you might be a millionaire! )

[BTW, you're right of course - the $10 'loss' is irrelevant. :-[]

[calvin_grad]

Oh, well if you're gonna bring Trigger in to it ...!

Of course, if you had been smart enough to hold on to Trigger until the final sale, you'd have made $30!

(And if you STILL had Trigger, you might be a millionaire! )

[BTW, you're right of course - the $10 'loss' is irrelevant. :-[]

Well, at least I convinced you on 1 out of 2.  You'll eventually come around on the other one.   

[Dark Knight]

... the simulators do not understand that the host KNOWS where the loot is, and will never open that door.  Simple problem, botched by many!  

Is that sort of like the scientist saying "that experimental evidence must be wrong because it doesn't support my theory"?

This problem is fascinating because it hinges on "who knew what, when" and whether probabilities of unknown variables can change when new information is inserted into the system -- an area that statistical theory really doesn't account for very well. Maybe that makes it particularly difficulty for trained statisticians to deal with? A disciplinary blind spot?

But when multiple, independent empirical tests all affirm that the switching strategy is better, you've got to have a lot of faith in your theory to deny it...

[Dark Knight]

Possibility #1 - cash behind door #1, I pick door #1, you open door #2 to reveal it is empty, if I switch doors I lose
Possibility #2 - cash behind door #1, I pick door #1, you open door #3 to reveal it is empty, if I switch doors I lose
Possibility #3 - cash behind door #2, I pick door #1, you open door #3 to reveal it is empty, if I switch to door #2 I win
Possibility #4 - cash behind door #3, I pick door #1, you open door #2 to reveal it is empty, if I switch to door #3 I win

All true. However, initially there was a 1/3 chance that the loot was behind each door. That probability doesn't change simply because Monty inserts some new information into the system.

That means Possibility #1 has a 1/6 probability, #2 has a 1/6 probability, and #3 and #4 have a 1/3 probability each. Giving 2/3 chance of winning if you switch.

[Dark Knight]

A disciplinary blind spot?

That reminds me of a riddle. This one is curious in that the more education you have, the harder it is to answer. Highly educated people may take days to answer it, while a 6-year-old might blurt out the answer immediately.

What's greater than God,
more evil than the devil,
rich people need it,
poor people have it,
and if you eat it you die?

[Let's see if anyone dares to answer this one quickly!  ]

[KnightSlappy]

A disciplinary blind spot?

That reminds me of a riddle. This one is curious in that the more education you have, the harder it is to answer. Highly educated people may take days to answer it, while a 6-year-old might blurt out the answer immediately.

What's greater than God,
more evil than the devil,
rich people need it,
poor people have it,
and if you eat it you die?

[Let's see if anyone dares to answer this one quickly!  ]

Nothing

[calvin_grad]

... the simulators do not understand that the host KNOWS where the loot is, and will never open that door.  Simple problem, botched by many!  

Is that sort of like the scientist saying "that experimental evidence must be wrong because it doesn't support my theory"?

This problem is fascinating because it hinges on "who knew what, when" and whether probabilities of unknown variables can change when new information is inserted into the system -- an area that statistical theory really doesn't account for very well. Maybe that makes it particularly difficulty for trained statisticians to deal with? A disciplinary blind spot?

But when multiple, independent empirical tests all affirm that the switching strategy is better, you've got to have a lot of faith in your theory to deny it...

That's exactly right, Dark Knight.  And the simulators do understand the host knows where the loot is, because if the simulator was just randomly opening one of the other doors without knowing where the loot was, it would reveal the loot about 1/3 of the time.  But it never does.

[ziggy]

A disciplinary blind spot?

That reminds me of a riddle. This one is curious in that the more education you have, the harder it is to answer. Highly educated people may take days to answer it, while a 6-year-old might blurt out the answer immediately.

What's greater than God,
more evil than the devil,
rich people need it,
poor people have it,
and if you eat it you die?

[Let's see if anyone dares to answer this one quickly!  ]

I hesitate to answer based on the stated implication of my intellect in doing so.

[KnightSlappy]

They key to the door question, for me at least, was finally realizing (the obvious) that the probability of winning with the pick-and-stay method can only equal the probability that the prize was behind your door in the first place (1/3), and no more. Your total chances of winning has to equal 100%, so you have a 2/3 chance of winning if you switch.

[realist]

If one assumes that a coach is going to play his 5 best players does it really matter if they are all fr., or so's or sr's or some sort of mixture for this season?
While the Knights this year may be younger than the average Knight team over the last 20 years how does that really matter? 
Calvin's lone jr. this year played a grand total of 84 minutes in 13 games last year as a so.  There really is no reason to expect he will play more minutes this season just because he moved up a grade, and he may struggle to even duplicate last years p.t. 
My point is the idea of "baby knights", or "baby dutch" may well be a lot like a "hot hand".  Interesting to talk about, but not all that important.   

"Baby knights or "baby dutch" does have relevance to the question of experience at the college level, experience playing with the other members of the team, etc. Some players do not adjust quickly to the next level of competition so a young roster can make a difference.

The basic assumption is the coach uses his 5 best players.  Using CM's example of Caleb Veldhouse he started, and played as a freshemn why?  He started and played becuase, even with his lack of experience at the college level, his talents and ability made him a better choice than other team members with experience, but lesser abilities.  A coach may use "experience" as the deciding factor in choosing between players with essentially equal abilities.  Caleb Veldhouse was accepted by, and played well with his teammates because they realized they were a better team with him playing.  The 4 freshemen on last years Calvin roster did not appear all that intimidated by playing more experienced players, and I expect this years group of fr. will not have a problem either.  If expereince were as important as talent few freshem would ever play at any level.
It won't trouble me any to watch an "inexperienced" bunch of "baby knights" kick the stuffing out of any more "experienced" team.

[Flying Dutch Fan]

Hope's rosters are up:

http://www.hope.edu/pr/athletics/mbb/mbbrost.html

[Mr. Ypsi]

[Apologies to those not interested in the Monty Hall debate!]

Some posters have mentioned that the odds can't change, but of course they can.  IF you had not yet made a selection, but Monty opened a door, I'm sure you would now agree that the odds are 50-50 on the remaining two doors.  Since, even after you have made your selection, Monty can always reveal an empty room (or goat), there is no material difference between this situation and the situation where you never selected.

I presented the diagram of all possible options (or extend it out to 9 options, with Monty opening door 1 (NOT POSSIBLE by the game rules) to make them all 1/9) - same result); I don't see the problem?  (The simulators don't impress me - GIGO.)

[ziggy]

Hope's rosters are up:

http://www.hope.edu/pr/athletics/mbb/mbbrost.html

I heard that Will Campbell might switch to guard but I didn't think the adjustment would be so drastic.

[sac]

Hope's rosters are up:

http://www.hope.edu/pr/athletics/mbb/mbbrost.html

A brief thought or two on Hope's roster.


Hope is carrying 15 this year as opposed to 14 last year.   Four players got the bump from last years JV to varsity, Coltan Overway, who I believe was called up to varsity for the MIAA/NCAA tournaments last spring.  Chris Ray, Billy Seiler and Corey Williams.

Unfortunately my JV watching last year consisted of about 1/2 not really paying attention, and several handshake lines.  So I don't have much to offer about what they bring to the varsity.  Corey Williams is the only player I'm even a little familiar with and that was from seeing him play in a high school tournament over at the Breslin Center 2 years ago now.   I was impressed with him then and thought he could do well in D3.

Other than the Sr's who graduated, the only player not returning is Ryan Ross.  Ross played little last season, appearing in 15 games.

[Flying Dutch Fan]

Thoughts on the 4 JVers from last year who are on Varisty this year:

Colton Overway - 6-0 point guard - Very slick ball handler with great passes, who can hit from outside, drives the basket very well, is fast and jumps well (several impressive dunks last year).  Numerous games over 20 points

Chris Ray - 6-5 wing - good inside moves and a good short-mid range jumpshot.  Rebounds well and is not afraid to bang inside.  Had a game last year with 40+ points and 15 or so rebounds. 

Billy Seiler - 6-2 wing - slasher who plays big.  Lots of potential that we didn't get to see much of last year due to more than half a season battling injuries (ankle I think)

Cory Williams - 6-0 guard - great 3 point shooter, and can rebound like he's 6-5. Brings energy, hustle, heart, and toughness to the floor.

All in all, these are four very athletic players who add to an already athletic team.   Go HOPE!