RealGM

The expected outcome between pick 16 and pick 19 is pretty neglible.

Ppl perceive the draft in such a bizarre way imo. So now the 19th overall is a big disappointment. But let's spend YEARS and make 1000s of posts about trading down from 20th to 33rd.

And the 14th overall from ONE YEAR BEFORE A TRADE (agbaji) is treated as a trade throw-in.

Mystery box logic combined with bizarrely selective value assessment all just used as agenda fodder.

Meh, keeping ours is more important.

MiamiSPX wrote:Meh, keeping ours is more important.

No way that's happening. The lakers game should have woke you up

Coming into today, the odds of NOT having a top4 pick AND pick #19 were

62,8% * 25% = 15,7%

Obviously the two events are not related and right now the odds of NOT having a top4 pick is 62,8% but I would like to think that the above scenario will not happens and 38,2% will prevail.

Let’s GO!

SpezNc wrote:Coming into today, the odds of NOT having a top4 pick AND pick #19 were

62,8% * 25% = 15,7%

Obviously the two events are not related and right now the odds of NOT having a top4 pick is 62,8% but I would like to think that the above scenario will not happens and 38,2% will prevail.

Let’s GO!

Finite math was the only HS math class that I have found to be applicable and highly useful in real life. One math class I actually enjoyed.

SpezNc wrote:Coming into today, the odds of NOT having a top4 pick AND pick #19 were

62,8% * 25% = 15,7%

Obviously the two events are not related and right now the odds of NOT having a top4 pick is 62,8% but I would like to think that the above scenario will not happens and 38,2% will prevail.

Let’s GO!

Finite math was the only HS math class that I have found to be applicable and highly useful in real life. One math class I actually enjoyed.

I guess algebra is useful to in grocery shopping and stuff like that....but probability was actually kinda enjoyable imo.

SpezNc wrote:Coming into today, the odds of NOT having a top4 pick AND pick #19 were

62,8% * 25% = 15,7%

Obviously the two events are not related and right now the odds of NOT having a top4 pick is 62,8% but I would like to think that the above scenario will not happens and 38,2% will prevail.

Let’s GO!

It is funny that even when you know about the gambler’s fallacy, you still feel due somehow. I am will to pretend if you are.

Lol ofcourse we get 19
There goes the McCain or Carter dream

Zeno wrote:

SpezNc wrote:Coming into today, the odds of NOT having a top4 pick AND pick #19 were

62,8% * 25% = 15,7%

Obviously the two events are not related and right now the odds of NOT having a top4 pick is 62,8% but I would like to think that the above scenario will not happens and 38,2% will prevail.

Let’s GO!

It is funny that even when you know about the gambler’s fallacy, you still feel due somehow. I am will to pretend if you are.

The fallacy only comes into effect after one event has occured though right? (As it has here)

Or am I getting that wrong?

mdenny wrote:

Zeno wrote:

SpezNc wrote:Coming into today, the odds of NOT having a top4 pick AND pick #19 were

62,8% * 25% = 15,7%

Obviously the two events are not related and right now the odds of NOT having a top4 pick is 62,8% but I would like to think that the above scenario will not happens and 38,2% will prevail.

Let’s GO!

It is funny that even when you know about the gambler’s fallacy, you still feel due somehow. I am will to pretend if you are.

The fallacy only comes into effect after one event has occured though right? (As it has here)

Or am I getting that wrong?

The first event, us being ‘unlucky’ with this tiebreaker does not increase the likelihood that we will be lucky in the next event (the lottery). But somehow it feels that way doesn’t it? Because we don’t like randomness.

WuTang_OG wrote:getting 19 means good juju we keep our pick lol

I knew we would get 19 lol.. we probably losing our pick too.. just aint our year.. better luck in 2025.. If we don't get top 2 pick this year(Ron Holland or or the french guy Zacharie) aint even worth it since the other players aint gonna be much.

Zeno wrote:

mdenny wrote:

Zeno wrote:It is funny that even when you know about the gambler’s fallacy, you still feel due somehow. I am will to pretend if you are.

The fallacy only comes into effect after one event has occured though right? (As it has here)

Or am I getting that wrong?

The first event, us being ‘unlucky’ with this tiebreaker does not increase the likelihood that we will be lucky in the next event (the lottery). But somehow it feels that way doesn’t it? Because we don’t like randomness.

But before the first event occurs...the combined probability is not yet a fallacy. It's only a fallacy when the probability of the first event is included in the combined probability when the first event has already occured. Or at least that'smy understanding.

Combined probabilities are valid before all events have occured.

WuTang_OG wrote:getting 19 means good juju we keep our pick lol

Spurs in 2023: Dropped via tiebreaker, won lottery to get Wemby
Raptors in 2024: Dropped via tiebreaker, ???

mdenny wrote:

Zeno wrote:

mdenny wrote:
The fallacy only comes into effect after one event has occured though right? (As it has here)

Or am I getting that wrong?

The first event, us being ‘unlucky’ with this tiebreaker does not increase the likelihood that we will be lucky in the next event (the lottery). But somehow it feels that way doesn’t it? Because we don’t like randomness.

But before the first event occurs...the combined probability is not yet a fallacy. It's only a fallacy when the probability of the first event is included in the combined probability when the first event has already occured. Or at least that'smy understanding.

Combined probabilities are valid before all events have occured.

I barely passed grade 11 math years ago but apparently…

To determine the probability of two independent events, and , both occurring, we multiply the probabilities of each of the two events together

So you appear to be correct beforehand.

Duffman100 wrote:

Scase wrote:

Duffman100 wrote:
16 to 19 isn’t a disaster.
Raptors can’t foresee a 4 way tie for the pick they acquired


Stop with the trolling. This was bad luck.

I was referring to the entirety of this season my guy. For instance, we are currently hoping and praying that we dont lose our 6th pick, cause then this season will be objectively pretty disastrous.

Pro-tip, ask for clarification instead of being accusatory.

Pro tip. Read the forum rules and post something other than constantly **** ing on everything.

Oh so now it's negativity because the trolling one didn't fit? That's awfully convenient. Alright cool, let’s sing the praises of getting the worst possible pick! Hooray, toxic positivity brigade hoooo!

Warned. Take some time off until you can contribute something.

Zeno wrote:

mdenny wrote:

Zeno wrote:The first event, us being ‘unlucky’ with this tiebreaker does not increase the likelihood that we will be lucky in the next event (the lottery). But somehow it feels that way doesn’t it? Because we don’t like randomness.

But before the first event occurs...the combined probability is not yet a fallacy. It's only a fallacy when the probability of the first event is included in the combined probability when the first event has already occured. Or at least that'smy understanding.

Combined probabilities are valid before all events have occured.

I barely passed grade 11 math years ago but apparently…

To determine the probability of two independent events, and , both occurring, we multiply the probabilities of each of the two events together

So you appear to be correct beforehand.

The fallacy occurs when you don't recalculate the odds AFTER the first event.

So flipping two heads in a row is a 1 in 4 chance.

But after the FIRST head....the second head is 1 in 2 chance (*no longer 1 in 4)

mdenny wrote:

Zeno wrote:

mdenny wrote:
But before the first event occurs...the combined probability is not yet a fallacy. It's only a fallacy when the probability of the first event is included in the combined probability when the first event has already occured. Or at least that'smy understanding.

Combined probabilities are valid before all events have occured.

I barely passed grade 11 math years ago but apparently…

To determine the probability of two independent events, and , both occurring, we multiply the probabilities of each of the two events together

So you appear to be correct beforehand.

The fallacy occurs when you don't recalculate the odds AFTER the first event.

So flipping two heads in a row is a 1 in 4 chance.

But after the FIRST head....the second head is 1 in 2 chance (*no longer 1 in 4)

Right that is my understanding. But there is still this mistaken feeling like we are due now after have better odds which of course we don’t

Zeno wrote:

mdenny wrote:

Zeno wrote:I barely passed grade 11 math years ago but apparently…

So you appear to be correct beforehand.

The fallacy occurs when you don't recalculate the odds AFTER the first event.

So flipping two heads in a row is a 1 in 4 chance.

But after the FIRST head....the second head is 1 in 2 chance (*no longer 1 in 4)

Right that is my understanding. But there is still this mistaken feeling like we are due now after have better odds which of course we don’t

I guess I would lean towards keeping pick this year but only slightly. We might have too worry about scotty timeline in 3 or 4 years. So given that some of these picks may take 3 or 4 years to have solid contributions..maybe sooner than later is better.

But I don't think it's a disaster either way.

mdenny wrote:

Zeno wrote:

mdenny wrote:
The fallacy occurs when you don't recalculate the odds AFTER the first event.

So flipping two heads in a row is a 1 in 4 chance.

But after the FIRST head....the second head is 1 in 2 chance (*no longer 1 in 4)

Right that is my understanding. But there is still this mistaken feeling like we are due now after have better odds which of course we don’t

I guess I would lean towards keeping pick this year but only slightly. We might have too worry about scotty timeline in 3 or 4 years. So given that some of these picks may take 3 or 4 years to have solid contributions..maybe sooner than later is better.

But I don't think it's a disaster either way.

I don’t think it is a huge disaster either but it will be treated as one so if I had a choice I would rather keep the pick. If I still have to hear about the Thad trade, I can’t imagine this place if the pick conveys.

But in vacuum , I would probably rather keep it too because adding a highly touted rookie is always good energy.

tecumseh18 wrote:

LoveMyRaps wrote:

alpngso wrote:Raptors not getting 6th or top 4 would be Chef’s kiss

Don't even care. Sarr wouldn't even be a top 5 in next year's draft. Retaining our 2025 pick is ideal. But I wouldn't be upset if we end up jumping into the top 4 this year.

It's so obvious that the league rigged this - they even switched from coins to ping pong balls - so that the Raptors would lose here, but win at the lottery night.

Or convey, if that's what Masai wants. It's starting to be what I would prefer. I'm really not high on the top 10 in this draft. It reminds me of 2011 - Kyrie and a whole bunch of nothing in the top 10, then Klay, Kawhi and Jimmy thereafter.

It's so obvious that the league rigged this

This is hilarious. Fans jumping off cliffs every time the Raps lose something. Oh and somehow draw consolation this the bad intention of external forces beyond our control. Hey if we lose the top 6 pick this year we get it, or a version of it, next year. We find the best 19th pick we possibly can round one. We package the 31 and Poetl for a legit starter. We run 82 scrimmages next year and rock the 2025 draft. There is no loss here just have to a find a player with the best floor or we end up throwing the 19 away.

I hope we have the fortitude to take someone like da Silva, Tyler Smith or Isaiah Collier and of course if Edey is there we should pounce.