Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

He wasn't playing me, he's just DUMB!   

No, he played you.  You are confusing "odds" which is a mathematically defined term with "probability" which is also mathematically defined but different.  Jim

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Your 1 in 10,000 claim is wildly wrong. All your other blabber is just a distraction.

By the way, anyone who cares, and there aren't many, can determine how to convert percentages to odds and decide for themselves. I'm comfortable with my answer, and I know that 1 in 10,000 is wildly incorrect.

WARNING - THIS IS TOO DAMN LONG, DO NOT READ.  (I worked this out for my own amusement and a math refresher course).

Rich is confusing the concept of probability with the concept of odds.  Rich will never admit this, but you are quite correct in your assessment of the odds, James.  A good discussion of these concepts can be found here:  https://journalfeed.org/article-a-day/2018/idiots-guide-to-odds-ratios/

For my own amusement, I worked it out.  I know that you know this stuff.  I had to look it up.  In context it was clear that you listed a probability of getting killed or severely injured in a knife fight as 99.99%  (I know you were just exaggerating to make a point, we went through that yesterday).  Probably being too pedantic, but for Rich's sake 99.99% = .9999.  This is a probability.   This means that the probability of emerging unscathed from the knife fight is 1.0000 - 0.9999 =  0.0001.

Rich interjected the concept of "odds" and I know that you are just busting his balls "Rich style" by seizing on his mis-use of the word "odds" when he meant "probability"  But hey, what would Rich do in similar circumstances?  Like I said above, you played him like a maestro.

Here is where it gets interesting from a math perspective.  "Odds" is a ratio, defined as the probability of something happening over the probability of that something not happening.  https://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/mph-modules/bs/bs704_confidence_intervals/BS704_Confidence_Intervals10.html#:~:text=The%20odds%20are%20defined%20as,not%20occurring%20is%201%2DY.

The example using playing cards in the first link above is quite informative.  The probability of drawing a spade from a deck of cards is 13/52 = .25 or 25%.  Probability is very intuitive.  The odds of drawing a spade are much less intuitive.  

The odds in the card example are the ratio of the probability of drawing a spade over the probability of not drawing a spade. 

Specifically, the odds of drawing a spade are: .25/.75 = 1/3 pronounced 1 to 3 odds.  (meaning you will overall draw 1 spade to 3 other suits) Here is where I think most people get confused.  They think the odds are pronounced 1 in 3, and that the odds of drawing a spade should intuitively be 1 in 4, not 1 in 3.  What reasonable people have done there is ignored the mathematical definition of "odds" and converted back to the "probability" of drawing a spade in their heads since 1/4 is in fact the correct probability.

So, the odds of getting killed or maimed in your admittedly exaggerated knife attack are .9999/.0001 = 1 to 9999 - you were exactly correct, except for the original exaggeration and adding a decimal place later.

Jim

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Did I say 99.99% in my original post? Ok, that's part of the problem. I was misremembering and thought I said 99.999%. That's my bad. Regardless, we've wasted way too much time on this exercise when the real point to all of it was that whatever I said was meant to be hyperbole to make a point. But Rich, of course, latched onto it literally to try and score cheap points.

Not wasted time at all.  I needed the math refresher and it is always fun to see Rich get played. 

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Its not a matter of what you BELIEVE or what you decide for yourself..  Math is a hard science.  Its not touchy feely.  

I was feeling a little bad for you Rich, since I think that confusing the separate mathematical concepts of probability with odds is something almost everyone does, (except James, Brian and other engineers/data scientist types).  Then I re-read the above and quit feeling bad for you.  

Originally Posted by James Lacey

I was nitpicking to mimic you, you obtuse walnut.

Besides, if you said 99.99% was the odds of 1 in 10,000, you were incorrect too. It's 1 in 9,999.

That is a funny turn of phrase right there!! 

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Looks like Kari Lake is going to win in Arizona and Blake Masters has an excellent shot as well of taking that Senate seat as well. 

Lake is a near certainty because she is only 12,000 votes behind and there are still over 480,000 Ballots to be counted, as 31% of the vote has NOT been tallied AND the votes are from election day, not the mail in ballots.

Those votes swing 65%-70% REPUB. 

It is now predicted that Kari Lake will win by 80,000 Votes in AZ.

So then Blake Masters is less than 5% points behind, and with all the DAY OF VOTING ballots to be counted, he should get a very good majority of the votes, which may just put him in as the New US Senator for AZ.

And the Repubs may just take the Senate by 1 vote. 

Adam Laxalt of Nevada could win his race and if Blake Masters wins along with Walker in Ga, which is a very good possibility, then the US Senate will be run by the Republican party.

No snark question - where are you sourcing this info?  I have been very frustrated this morning by the lack of clear reporting across the board 
on the state of the outstanding races.  Jim

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

3 races still to be won by the candidates.

Blake Masters - only 69% of the ballots counted and the remaining 31% are heavily weighted towards Republicans.

Adam Laxalt in NV

Herschel Walker - heading to a runoff on Dec. 6 and if the Republicans in GA are serious, they can get it done. 

That would be the death knell for the Dems, losing the US Senate.

This is the sort of data I am looking for - where are you finding this analysis?

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

3 races still to be won by the candidates.

Blake Masters - only 69% of the ballots counted and the remaining 31% are heavily weighted towards Republicans.

Adam Laxalt in NV

Herschel Walker - heading to a runoff on Dec. 6 and if the Republicans in GA are serious, they can get it done. 

That would be the death knell for the Dems, losing the US Senate.

Maybe.  They failed to get it done in 2020 with a better candidate though...

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

https://www.businessinsider.com/results-katie-hobbs-kari-lake-arizona-governor-election-2022-11

Right there is the best I've found. It has live, minute by minute updates.

If you look carefully it shows Lake at 890,000 votes and Hobbs at 902,000 with 73% reporting.

Hope that one helps.  

Thanks.  that is consistent with the AZ SOS data.  The "nature" of the votes left to be counted, as in "election day" vs. "mail in" seems to be something only insiders know.  This matters a lot. Lake is winning "election day" by a lot.  and Hobbs is winning "mail in"

County-by-County and vote type data is here for AZ:https://results.arizona.vote/#/featured/33/0  (Click on view more)  


I am surprised that the Governor's race is so different from the Senate race, but that is a theme that was repeated a lot last night.  

Originally Posted by James Brown

Thanks.  that is consistent with the AZ SOS data.  The "nature" of the votes left to be counted, as in "election day" vs. "mail in" seems to be something only insiders know.  This matters a lot. Lake is winning "election day" by a lot.  and Hobbs is winning "mail in"

County-by-County and vote type data is here for AZ:https://results.arizona.vote/#/featured/33/0  (Click on view more)  


I am surprised that the Governor's race is so different from the Senate race, but that is a theme that was repeated a lot last night.  

It is really shocking how much the in-person vs. early ballot numbers differ in AZ and pretty much everywhere else.   If your radio guy is right, and the remaining 20% or so are really in-person votes, I'd feel good if I were Keri Lake.

(image from link in previous post)