daviddoji/pytudes
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Update WWW.ipynb

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Peter Norvig 2018-10-06 15:31:26 -07:00 committed by GitHub
parent 3d470798f7
commit 3046397f4e
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: 4AEE18F83AFDEB23
1 changed files with 1 additions and 1 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
ipynb/WWW.ipynb
View File

@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
"\n", "\n",
"## 12 April, 2018\n", "## 12 April, 2018\n",
"\n", "\n",
"\"It's tough to make predictions, especially [about](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Yogi_Berra) [the](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr) future.\" That's true for the **NBA basketball playoffs**, where there is a wide range of opinion about the Warriors and Cavs, the teams that met in the finals each of the last three years. The Las Vegas oddsmakers have the Warriors as co-favorites at 35% chance to win the title, while [538](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-nba-playoffs-sleepers-favorites-and-best-first-round-matchups/), using their ELO rating, give the Warriors only a 4% chance. That 9-fold difference underscores that rational people can use different models with different assumptions and come to different conclusions. Here are some models you might choose:\n", "\"It's tough to make predictions, especially [about](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Yogi_Berra) [the](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr) future.\" That's true for the **NBA basketball playoffs**, where there is a wide range of opinion about the Warriors and Cavs, the teams that met in the finals each of the last three years. The Las Vegas oddsmakers have the Warriors as co-favorites at 35% chance to win the title, while [538](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-nba-playoffs-sleepers-favorites-and-best-first-round-matchups/), using their ELO rating, give the Warriors only a 4% chance. That 9-fold difference underscores that rational people can use different models with different assumptions and come to different conclusions. One important way that models can vary is in their level of abstraction, or level of detail that they cover. Are we better using a general impression, or using specific low-lwvel statistics and aggregating them? Here are some models you might choose:\n",
"\n", "\n",
"1. **Holistic**: I just feel that the Warriors have about a 1 in 5 chance of winning it all.\n", "1. **Holistic**: I just feel that the Warriors have about a 1 in 5 chance of winning it all.\n",
"2. **Game by Game**: I think the Warriors have an 75% chance of winning each game in the first round, then 65% for each game in the second round, but only 45% against the Rockets, then 55% if they make it to the finals. From that I'll calculate their overall chance.\n", "2. **Game by Game**: I think the Warriors have an 75% chance of winning each game in the first round, then 65% for each game in the second round, but only 45% against the Rockets, then 55% if they make it to the finals. From that I'll calculate their overall chance.\n",