It may be happening quietly,

[HawkeyeHypnosis]

2006 was still a great class and would have been historical if the Illinois kids panned out. Christensen, Bain and Doering were busts.

Those "kids" are almost 40 now...I'm old.

Iowa 2005 Football Commits

Iowa

247sports.com

Doering. Wow. There were high expectations. Forgot about him.

 

[NorthKCHawk]

Don't forget, Lester is on record saying he wants to keep his kids in the same school district. I don't see him leaving Iowa.

He did say that. That said, if Lester takes one of these QBs and makes him a Top third Big10 QB and has Iowa as a Top 30 overall offense, he will get phone calls. He is youngish, has HC experience, and turned around a total trainwreck of an offense into something competent to maybe even good. If KF shows no signs of retiring, and someone is willing to hand him a bag, might have to buy the wife a new Bentley.

Beth is shrewd. If he is a hot commodity, perhaps a raise and "HC in waiting" keeps him in IC.

 

[NorthKCHawk]

False. The law of averages is also known as the Gambler’s Fallacy. It’s not a thing. Just like every coin flip is an independent event, so too are recruiting results.

You're no fun. I do believe in sports Karma. Exhibit A: Nebbie football. They cheated their way through the 80s and 90s, playing women beaters, prisoners, and steroid jacked thugs all while claiming to have a Jesus loving head coach, but who only cared about winning at all costs. The past 25 years have been retribution for those sins. Suck it, Sand People.

 

[BigD]

You're no fun. I do believe in sports Karma. Exhibit A: Nebbie football. They cheated their way through the 80s and 90s, playing women beaters, prisoners, and steroid jacked thugs all while claiming to have a Jesus loving head coach, but who only cared about winning at all costs. The past 25 years have been retribution for those sins. Suck it, Sand People.

Lol, "women beaters, prisoners, and steroid jacked thugs".............. I am trying to visualize what their Mascot really should have looked like all these years.

"The Nebraska Chain Gangs"

 

[#1DieHardHawk]

You're no fun. I do believe in sports Karma. Exhibit A: Nebbie football. They cheated their way through the 80s and 90s, playing women beaters, prisoners, and steroid jacked thugs all while claiming to have a Jesus loving head coach, but who only cared about winning at all costs. The past 25 years have been retribution for those sins. Suck it, Sand People.

False. The law of averages is also known as the Gambler’s Fallacy. It’s not a thing. Just like every coin flip is an independent event, so too are recruiting results.

That is a very interesting topic. Fry is correct. From a probability viewpoint, every coin flip is distinctly independent of all other coin flips. However, when you factor in the "law of averages" and "regression to the mean," it becomes a bit muddy from a gambling standpoint.

For instance, the gambler's fallacy would be wrongly assuming that if a coin comes up heads, the next is more likely to be tails. But, let's say the coin comes up heads 10 times in a row? I would be more than willing to bet that tails will come up more than 5 times over the next 10 flips.

 

[Fryowa]

For instance, the gambler's fallacy would be wrongly assuming that if a coin comes up heads, the next is more likely to be tails. But, let's say the coin comes up heads 10 times in a row? I would be more than willing to bet that tails will come up more than 5 times over the next 10 flips.

You would also lose that bet way more often than win it. Ten heads (or tails) in a row has the same probability as any other combination of ten coin flips.

H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H

H-H-T-H-T-T-H-T-T-T

T-T-T-T-T-H-H-H-H-H

T-H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T-H

…all have the exact same likelihood of happening. People thinking they don’t is the sole reason casinos make money on the floor.

 

[NorthKCHawk]

You would also lose that bet way more often than win it. Ten heads (or tails) in a row has the same probability as any other combination of ten coin flips.

H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H

H-H-T-H-T-T-H-T-T-T

T-T-T-T-T-H-H-H-H-H

T-H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T-H

…all have the exact same likelihood of happening. People thinking they don’t is the sole reason casinos make money on the floor.

You were right on the math, so I was going to give you a pass, but that last statement is way wrong. While people being stupid by just walking into a casino and playing is a critical part of why Vegas and Tribes make truckloads of money, the real reason "the house always wins" is because the games are rigged in favor of the house. Setting aside what Cousin Eddie would have you believe, gaming floors don't include "Heads or Tails." Every game has a built in advantage for the house. Given the sheer volume of bets placed in a casino in its gaming, it is a mathematical certainty the house will make money. That would be true whether every human that walks into a casino believes in the Gamblers Fallacy or not. Vegas just needs a high volume of bettors and they are guaranteed to make money. Their customers' beliefs are irrelevant to their guaranteed profit.

That said, Nebraska still sucks ass.

 

[#1DieHardHawk]

You would also lose that bet way more often than win it. Ten heads (or tails) in a row has the same probability as any other combination of ten coin flips.

H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H

H-H-T-H-T-T-H-T-T-T

T-T-T-T-T-H-H-H-H-H

T-H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T-H

…all have the exact same likelihood of happening. People thinking they don’t is the sole reason casinos make money on the floor.

You are exactly correct, but we are talking about two different things really. The probability with each toss is always 50%.

However, as the number of tosses increases, the variability of the outcomes becomes more heavily subjugated to regression to the mean.

An extremely unlikely analogy would be:

A total of10,000 tosses is planned. Tails comes up 4000 times in the first 5000 throws. For toss number 5001 the probability remains 50%, BUT, regression to the mean would dictate that over the next 5000 throws heads will come up at a much higher rate than tails.

In that, albeit very unlikely, scenario, I would be happy to place a wager on heads coming up more than tails, as a higher percentage of the sum of the tosses, in the last 5000 tosses. The wager is on the percentages, not on the probability of the throw.

 

[NorthKCHawk]

You are exactly correct, but we are talking about two different things really. The probability with each toss is always 50%.

However, as the number of tosses increases, the variability of the outcomes becomes more heavily subjugated to regression to the mean.

An extremely unlikely analogy would be:

A total of10,000 tosses is planned. Tails comes up 4000 times in the first 5000 throws. For toss number 5001 the probability remains 50%, BUT, regression to the mean would dictate that over the next 5000 throws heads will come up at a much higher rate than tails.

In that, albeit very unlikely, scenario, I would be happy to place a wager on heads coming up more than tails, as a higher percentage of the sum of the tosses, in the last 5000 tosses. The wager is on the percentages, not on the probability of the throw.

Your theory is still off (and I love this nerdy shit). Regression to the mean in mathematics is a statistical way of predicting outcomes, yes, but its not a perfect predictor. Certainly, as the number of tosses grows with a true 50/50 coin, it should get close to 50%, but it likely will never be exactly 50%. And, even if you buy off on your thinking, it would only work if you are going to make wager on all or nearly all of the remaining 5,000 tosses. If you are just betting on 5001, your statistical predictive advantage under a regression to the mean analysis is almost zero.

The reality is that in your scenario, you have a loaded quarter. You have more than enough evidence to show it is not a fair toss. 80% over 5000 samples? No way. Loaded. You are making a bad bet betting against tails with that coin.

 

[#1DieHardHawk]

Your theory is still off (and I love this nerdy shit). Regression to the mean in mathematics is a statistical way of predicting outcomes, yes, but its not a perfect predictor. Certainly, as the number of tosses grows with a true 50/50 coin, it should get close to 50%, but it likely will never be exactly 50%. And, even if you buy off on your thinking, it would only work if you are going to make wager on all or nearly all of the remaining 5,000 tosses. If you are just betting on 5001, your statistical predictive advantage under a regression to the mean analysis is almost zero.

The reality is that in your scenario, you have a loaded quarter. You have more than enough evidence to show it is not a fair toss. 80% over 5000 samples? No way. Loaded. You are making a bad bet betting against tails with that coin.

You misread the post.

In that scenario, the bet is on the percentage of totality of the last 5000 tosses. I pointed out that betting on any one toss is a losing proposition. Regression to the mean is not perfect, no, but it is statistically almost a certainty that heads would come up at a higher percentage over the subsequent 5000 flips.

And, yes, a loaded quarter is likely in that scenario. The hyperbole was to illustrate a point.

 

[Fryowa]

You were right on the math, so I was going to give you a pass, but that last statement is way wrong. While people being stupid by just walking into a casino and playing is a critical part of why Vegas and Tribes make truckloads of money, the real reason "the house always wins" is because the games are rigged in favor of the house.

That said, Nebraska still sucks ass.

I agree with your statement, but I think you misunderstood the point I was making overall.

Casinos make money because people think their chances of winning money are above .5 (in truth they are way below .5). These people are morons. Yes, there are people who do it casually for fun and consider it a cost of entertainment, but the majority of people who consistently spend money in casinos think they can win money over time. Again, said people are morons, and thus casinos make their money (the gambling portion) because of these morons.

 

[Hawkfnntn]

I agree with your statement, but I think you misunderstood the point I was making overall.

Casinos make money because people think their chances of winning money are above .5 (in truth they are way below .5). These people are morons. Yes, there are people who do it casually for fun and consider it a cost of entertainment, but the majority of people who consistently spend money in casinos think they can win money over time. Again, said people are morons, and thus casinos make their money (the gambling portion) because of these morons.

I worked at a casino for a long time... This is as true as the sky is blue. They think they are due after spending an arbitrary amount of $ and or time there and obviously neither of those things has anything to do with if you end up getting lucky or not.

 

[NorthKCHawk]

I know a lot of people who enjoy going to a casino. I don't know anyone who thinks it is a good investment or a way to make money. Everyone I know goes to a casino for fun and knows that the odds are against them, but gambling is exciting and they have fun (that's them talking, I don't particularly like casino gaming). I am sure you are right that there are people who think they are the exception to laws of mathematics or are just plain stupid to not understand that the house has rigged the games in its favor. The irony is that the more those folks gamble, the more statistically certain it is that they will lose money.

The one exception to all this is poker. There, you actually can make money consistently if you are good because you are playing against other gamblers, not the house.

In any event, Nebraska still sucks ass.

 

[#1DieHardHawk]

I know a lot of people who enjoy going to a casino. I don't know anyone who thinks it is a good investment or a way to make money. Everyone I know goes to a casino for fun and knows that the odds are against them, but gambling is exciting and they have fun (that's them talking, I don't particularly like casino gaming). I am sure you are right that there are people who think they are the exception to laws of mathematics or are just plain stupid to not understand that the house has rigged the games in its favor. The irony is that the more those folks gamble, the more statistically certain it is that they will lose money.

The one exception to all this is poker. There, you actually can make money consistently if you are good because you are playing against other gamblers, not the house.

In any event, Nebraska still sucks ass.

Yep. Even then, you have to be really savvy, though. The casinos would never come clean about it, but serious experienced poker players have known for years that management will "plant" players at a table to collude by running an angle (or "shill"). This is especially common when it involves what they label a "Whale."

I rarely gamble, but, if I do, it's generally blackjack. Good blackjack players often can even the odds, and the really, really, good ones can swing them. Hundreds of those have been black-balled in Vegas and Atlantic City.

 

[NorthKCHawk]

Yep. Even then, you have to be really savvy, though. The casinos would never come clean about it, but serious experienced poker players have known for years that management will "plant" players at a table to collude by running an angle (or "shill"). This is especially common when it involves what they label a "Whale."

I rarely gamble, but, if I do, it's generally blackjack. Good blackjack players often can even the odds, and the really, really, good ones can swing them. Hundreds of those have been black-balled in Vegas and Atlantic City.

You have seen a lot of movies about gambling I see. This isn't 1970. Casinos in Vegas are owned and run by mega corporations. They don't need to pull shenanigans to make money. Their business model is math. They build very tall buildings in a desert with all that money that flows.

Yes, card counting is frowned upon, but given the size of the modern shoe, it is extremely difficult to pull off. That theoretic risk is not even a rounding error on the profit the casinos pull in every day like clock work.

 

[guffus]

Once you figure out you can't win in the long run, gambling becomes boring and depressing and you never want to go back to a casino.

Now I only buy lottery tickets, and I only buy 1 single ticket when the jackpot goes over $1B. Mostly for the entertainment I guess. I don't expect to win. I like to fantasize about what I would do if I won. Thats worth a $2 ticket to me. Not sure if its worth a $5 ticket though.

 

[HuckFinn]

Whether you buy a lottery ticket or not, the result will be the same.

 

[NorthKCHawk]

Lottery winners are like Rutgers fans. Never met one. Don't know anyone who has met one.

 

[Fryowa]

Lottery winners are like Rutgers fans. Never met one. Don't know anyone who has met one.

Their wrestling fans travel better than most B10 teams by far for some reason. Maybe it's because Carver is still Mecca and Rutgers parents tend to be generationally wealthy Italians, but they travel strong.

 

[#1DieHardHawk]

You have seen a lot of movies about gambling I see. This isn't 1970. Casinos in Vegas are owned and run by mega corporations. They don't need to pull shenanigans to make money. Their business model is math. They build very tall buildings in a desert with all that money that flows.

Yes, card counting is frowned upon, but given the size of the modern shoe, it is extremely difficult to pull off. That theoretic risk is not even a rounding error on the profit the casinos pull in every day like clock work.

Both of your assumptions are wrong.

A friend of mine was a professional gambler for about 10 years, primarily Texas holdem. He had first-hand knowledge of strategies casinos would use to entice "whales" to come in for a stay, and, the plants used to get as much money from them at the card table as they could. I've seen a few gambling movies, but that has nothing to do with what I posted.

As for blackjack, I wasn't referring to card-counters. As you wrote, counting into a modern shoe is next to impossible. These are players that simply are/were very good and consistently beat the house. As soon as the casinos see a trend, they often get black-balled. Seems disingenuous to me, but that is their legal right.