By all means, please enlighten me, what does this meanYou didn't know what he meant either.
I know that but we want to clinch a top 2 pick have a chance at number 1 pick
By all means, please enlighten me, what does this meanYou didn't know what he meant either.
Thats classic lottery blinder fallacy. There is no clinching any of the top 4 picks. Best you can "clinch" is 5th, if you are the Wizards.By all means, please enlighten me, what does this mean
I know that but we want to clinch a top 2 pick have a chance at number 1 pick
Pretty obvious that he mistakenly didn't put the word "better" right before the word "chance"By all means, please enlighten me, what does this mean
I know that but we want to clinch a top 2 pick have a chance at number 1 pick
Pretty obvious that he mistakenly didn't put the word "better" right before the word "chance"
He also forgot the word "to" before the word "have"
Should have said "lottery position" or something instead of "pick" after top 2 as well.
We all make mistakes sometimes when we post (and this poster made a lot of them) but this one was pretty obvious to me.
"I know that but we want to clinch a top 2 lottery position to have a better chance at the number 1 pick".
Read the sentence now. Then you should understand why responding to that post with "every lottery pick has a chance at the #1 pick" isn't helpful and why I responded with "you know what he means".
He was simply saying he wants the jazz to lose more to increase their chance at the #1 pick. As do I and many of us who are hoping that the jazz can reach their goal this season.
You have been enlightened.
Exactly.So he should have said, "better", "lottery position", and really should have said top 3 picks because picks 1-3 have the same odds.
You're right, I feel horrible now. It was so obvious. Who could have misunderstood that point?
Yeah, when you edit half a sentence to your liking, that tends to be the outcome.Exactly.
It was super easy to figure out for me.
Didn't need to. I simply read the post as it was written with all its flaws. Just had to use context. We had just won a game and dude was worried about other teams passing us in the tank race.Yeah, when you edit half a sentence to your liking, that tends to be the outcome.
I think for some of us (though maybe I'm just speaking for myself), the inclination not to overlook flaws in statements like the one at issue here is that we're not convinced that all the pro-tankers really understand how the lottery/lottery odds work. And seeing statements like the one at issue here doesn't help allay our worries.Didn't need to. I simply read the post as it was written with all its flaws. Just had to use context. We had just won a game and dude was worried about other teams passing us in the tank race.
You could also read some of the prior texts by the poster in this thread regarding to the discussion as well (the post being discussed wasn't his only one) for further context if you want. Though I think you understand now after I explained it so you could also just move on.
I could be wrong (if so, apologies), but I think what you're getting hung up on is that the team with the worst record has a 52.1% chance of getting a top 4 pick. In any of those cases, the #5 pick would go to the team with the next worst record (starting with the 2nd worst team) that didn't luck into a top 4 pick. So if the 2nd worst-record team pre-lotto doesn't get a top 4 pick, they'll have more than a 50% chance at the #5 pick.Yeah, others have chimed in. I don’t quite get it but whatever.
You are less of an idiot than appearances indicate.I think for some of us (though maybe I'm just speaking for myself), the inclination not to overlook flaws in statements like the one at issue here is that we're not convinced that all the pro-tankers really understand how the lottery/lottery odds work. And seeing statements like the one at issue here doesn't help allay our worries.
More generally we (or at least I) worry that some of the pro-tanking sentiment is more of a following-the-crowd type of phenomenon rather than something tethered to the reality of low-likelihood outcomes that is the lottery.
Not trying to call out any particular person; more just that these uncareful statements are likely contributing to the kind of crowd-think toward tanking that may not be very helpful.
(... just my 2 cents)