hahaha....it would be good odds if there were 1 no hitter a month.
But if you broke down the number of games per day and the days that the pitchers more likely to pitch a no hitter are pitching (and when they pitch against SD), then maybe the odds aren't as bad as it initially looks...i'm not smart enough to figure that stuff out though
But if you broke down the number of games per day and the days that the pitchers more likely to pitch a no hitter are pitching (and when they pitch against SD), then maybe the odds aren't as bad as it initially looks...i'm not smart enough to figure that stuff out though
And that's how they get you.
The last 5 year thing is an anomaly when compared to the last 50 years. I think there where only like 8 no hitters in the entire decade of the 80s so you would have gone something like 8-20000 on 30-1 odds if you made that bet in the 80s.
You cherry pick the best 5 year run in a sport that's been around for 150 years to try to justify 30-1 being good odds. And even then the best you could do was 36-1.
I'm being very generous on the 75 to 1. I would not even entertain it for less then 200 to 1
How is using the last 5 years a cherry pick? A cherry pick would be using 5 random years, not the last 5. And they didn't "get me" I would never make the bet. I didn't justify 30 to 1 being good nor did if I even come close to saying that. I said 30 to 1 was not as bad as people made it out to be.
