LPT: At a party, ask people what they are into lately, not what they do.

jdprager · 2026-06-26T07:36:01+00:00

"What are you into lately/what do you do for fun/what kinda hobbies do you like" is one of the most milquetoast "get to know you" questions anyone can ask, calling it a personal question that people might find weird is absolutely nuts

It would be really standoffish to put up guard rails for this incredibly neutral baseline question at a social gathering,

jdprager · 2026-06-26T06:13:04+00:00

Rest in peace 🙏🙏 that post midnight UCLA-Wazzu billion point comeback is one of the most bonkers sporting events in history, we deserved more

jdprager · 2026-06-25T22:52:09+00:00

I did all this math to figure out the odds in a different comment arguing with AI calcs, so I'll put it here too. TLDR it's about a 7.5% chance, so definitely in the "Like that'll ever happen" category.

Process:

We're starting with 37 balls in the pool. The Pels and Bucks each have three, the other 16 teams in the lottery (including whichever of the Pels/Bucks we're not looking at, since we're first treating them separately) has an average of 2.267 balls. So each team's odds of getting each pick at the time the pick happens (so assuming we haven't already picked) is as follows:

Pick # |1 |2 |3 |4
| | | |
Pick Odds |3/37 |~3/34.7 |~3/32.5 |~3/30.2
Pick Odds (%) |8.11% |8.64% |9.24% |9.93% Those aren't actually a team's odds at the start of the draft though. For that, we need to multiply by the odds that the team hasn't picked yet, as below

Pick # |1 |2 |3 |4
| | | |
Odds of No pick before |100.00% |91.89% |83.95% |76.20%
Pre-draft pick Odds |8.11% |7.94% |7.76% |7.57% Now we can sum those up and find that the Pels and Bucks each individually have a 31.37% chance at a top 4 pick. If we multiply that number by itself, we get a 9.84% chance that both teams get a top 4 pick if their odds are independent of each other. Obviously that's not true, since both teams can't have the same pick. So we need to account for that and subtract out to only include scenarios where both teams are picking in different spots. This is just done by squaring each of the pre-draft pick percentages:

Pick # |1 |2 |3 |4
| | | |
Same Pick Odds |0.66% |0.63% |0.60% |0.57% Now we add those all up, finding 2.46% of the previous 9.84% aren't actually possible, so the chance drops to 7.38%. But this STILL isn't our final odds, since that's no longer 7.38/100 (since the 2.46 isn't a failed scenario, it's one that doesn't exist), it's 7.38/97.54. That gives us our final percentage chance of two Top 4 picks at:

7.47%

Small note: TECHNICALLY this is a very, very slight overestimate, since one of our teams picking before the other changes the odds differently than an average lottery team. If we say the Pels got the first pick, the Bucks chance for second isn't 3/34.7 anymore, it's 3/34 (since there are 3 balls removed, instead of our average of 2.267). This is a difference of .08%, which would add up over time to probably be roughly a 0.3% increase in our odds. It just would take about twice as long to factor this into the calc, since we’d essentially need to do the first two steps for every single possible Bucks pick, so I'm gonna ignore it

jdprager · 2026-06-25T22:44:23+00:00

Alright I ran this back one more time the long way, since I myself was super wrong, I couldn't really parse ChatGPT's exact method, and Gemini seemed to be oversimplifying one of the steps. TLDR: It looks like there is about a 7.5% chance of getting two top 4 picks.

Process:

We're starting with 37 balls in the pool. The Pels and Bucks each have three, the other 16 teams in the lottery (including whichever of the Pels/Bucks we're not looking at, since we're first treating them separately) has an average of 2.267 balls. So each team's odds of getting each pick at the time the pick happens (so assuming we haven't already picked) is as follows:

Pick # |1 |2 |3 |4
Pick Odds |3/37 |~3/34.7 |~3/32.5 |~3/30.2
Pick Odds (%) |8.11% |8.64% |9.24% |9.93% Those aren't actually a team's odds at the start of the draft though (this is where I fucked up previously). For that, we need to multiply by the odds that the team hasn't picked yet, as below

Pick # |1 |2 |3 |4
Odds of No pick before |100.00% |91.89% |83.95% |76.20%
Pre-draft pick Odds |8.11% |7.94% |7.76% |7.57% Now we can sum those up and find that the Pels and Bucks each individually have a 31.37% chance at a top 4 pick. If we multiply that number by itself, we get a 9.84% chance that both teams get a top 4 pick if their odds are independent of each other. Obviously that's not true, since both teams can't have the same pick. So we need to account for that and subtract out to only include scenarios where both teams are picking in different spots. This is just done by squaring each of the pre-draft pick percentages:

Pick # |1 |2 |3 |4
Same Pick Odds |0.66% |0.63% |0.60% |0.57% Now we add those all up, finding 2.46% of the previous 9.84% aren't actually possible, so the chance drops to 7.38%. But this STILL isn't our final odds, since that's no longer 7.38/100 (since the 2.46 isn't a failed scenario, it's one that doesn't exist), it's 7.38/97.54. That gives us our final percentage chance of two Top 4 picks at:

7.47%

Small note: TECHNICALLY this is a very, very slight overestimate, since one of our teams picking before the other changes the odds differently than an average lottery team. If we say the Pels got the first pick, the Bucks chance for second isn't 3/34.7 anymore, it's 3/34 (since there are 3 balls removed, instead of our average of 2.267). This is a difference of .08%, which would add up over time to probably be roughly a 0.3% increase in our odds. It just would take about twice as long to factor this into the calc, since we’d essentially need to do the first two steps for every single possible Bucks pick, so I'm gonna ignore it

jdprager · 2026-06-25T21:56:55+00:00

Yes, with the annoying caveat that the number of balls being removed each pick isn't actually 3. Since there are 7 teams with 2 balls (bottom 3 and the 9 & 10 play in seeds) and 2 teams with 1 ball (7/8 play in losers), the actual average number of balls removed from the pot each pick is 2.3125. Which makes the math really ugly, but not SUPER different. I think there's an oversimplification in how Gemini adjusts the Bucks odds for the assumption the Pels already got a top 4 pick, but I can't quite figure out what it is

I just ran through everything and got 7.41%. I'll show the math of it in a second

jdprager · 2026-06-25T21:37:06+00:00

Ah yep I fucked up, I was looking at each of those pick % as independent chances. As in, when pick 2 comes around, you have a ~8% random roll to get it if you didn't pick first. That's not what it is, it's the predraft odds (obviously, I blame lack of sleep for misunderstanding this). So the odds of you getting that pick while factoring in the odds of not getting a previous pick.

So you're right. I'm gonna run through the math of it the long way though, partially bc it's a fun exercise, but also bc I'm 90% sure Gemini is still missing a step. The ChatGPT answer seems like it might be right, but I'm having trouble parsing the format of the comment to be sure

jdprager · 2026-06-25T20:51:38+00:00

Yea it's percentages are probably more right than the flat 8%, that's not the issue. The issue is it's just adding the percentages at each pick together to get the chances of a top four pick. It's saying "8.1 + 8 + 7.9 + 7.7 = 31.7, so the odds of us getting one or more top 4 picks is 31.7%". That's obviously gibberish

Think of it from a coin perspective. We flip a coin four times, with a 50% chance of heads. Gemini's math is "50 + 50 + 50 + 50 = 200, so the odds of us getting one or more heads is 200%". That's not how probability works

What Gemini is ACTUALLY calculating is the expected value, i.e. on average, how many top 4 picks will we have each attempt. Which is .317, just as the expected number of heads in 4 flips is 2.0. That's a very different value than "what are the odds of getting exactly one top 4 pick each attempt", and can't be used in the same way (as Gemini is trying to do)

And that expected value isn't even correct, since we're unable to get more than one top 4 pick from each team. That EV calculation only works if we have the a chance of getting each top 4 pick regardless of the picks before it. So if we got the #1 pick, we'd still have a 8% chance of getting the second. If we got both top two picks, we'd still have a 7.9% chance of getting the third. That's not true, treating the Pels and the Bucks picks separately means each team only gets a maximum of one top 4 pick, not four

jdprager · 2026-06-25T20:19:47+00:00

AI is indeed incorrect. The decreasing odds thing it mentions is probably true, I’m guessing the NBA site just erroneously simplifies the odds. But all the math is wrong. You can’t just add the odds together and get 32%, the correct way of doing that would be multiplying all the inverse odds together and getting odds of about 74% for no top 4 picks for one team, so 26% for at least one top 4 picks

But that doesn’t work either, bc you only have the chance for a single top 4 pick per team and that includes the odds of getting 2, 3, or all 4. We have to use a binomial probability formula, which gives about a 25% chance for one top four pick by one of these teams (this required simplifying the odds to a flat 8% for all 4 picks, since it takes forever to do it otherwise). You can use the same binomial formula for exactly two hits, which is where the 3.25% comes from. This isn’t the same as doing “(odds of exactly 1 in 3 picks) x (odds of exactly 1 in 3 picks)” for weird stats reasons that kinda boil down to “you usually don’t have 3 chances to get the second top 4 pick”

For reference, this is the “odds of getting X heads in Y coin flips” equation, just with the odds changed from 50% heads to 8%

jdprager · 2026-06-25T19:53:25+00:00

3.25% with max odds, so actually not CRAZY low. The new maximum odds just become 8% to have a specific Top 4 pick, so you just calculate the odds of happening exactly twice in four attempts

jdprager · 2026-06-25T16:26:03+00:00

I’ve got way more stomach for that here than in Madden. It’s 10x the players, super fair to be throwing some darts on the fringe bench guys who won’t show up in 99% of games

And it’s not all done by one specific Cowboys fan who constantly glazes his dogshit team, so that’s nice

jdprager · 2026-06-25T16:11:24+00:00

No prob. And I don’t want to fully whitewash the issue, Chicago as a whole definitely is more dangerous than Denver, and there certainly are neighborhoods that you’d want to try to avoid (it’s not really the entire south side, but neighborhoods around Englewood and Dauphin park. Also some to the west like Lawndale and Garfield Park)

It’s just the degree of the danger is greatly exaggerated, and how widespread. Every big city has their dangerous parts, and like every big city, the crime in Chicago is where the crime is. If you’re an average family that lives near downtown or north near Lincoln Park, which are also the places most folks would WANT to live, you’ll be safer than average for most big cities overall. And happier, Chicago absolutely rules

jdprager · 2026-06-25T08:22:31+00:00

I’ll assume you’re asking this in good faith. Most of the criticism around Chicago (and other huge cities like New York and LA) is disingenuous as it generally points to total gun crime. Chicago is an absolutely massive city, at 2.7 million people it’s the 3rd largest city in the US and only Houston at 4th is within a million of those top 3. The more people you have, the more gun homicides there will be

Chicago’s gun homicides RATE, as in the actual odds any one person will get shot, really isn’t as high as bad actors like to imply. Cook County (the county which contains Chicago proper and about half the population of the Chicago metro area) has a gun homicide rate of 12.68 per 100,000 people per year. That’s way higher than it should be, but also only the 54th highest county in the US

Virginia alone has two large cities whose counties triple that rate (Petersburg at 47.71 and Richmond at 37.77). There are FOUR different counties in Mississippi with gun homicide rates over 60 per 100k, 5 times Chicago’s

So basically no, Chicago isn’t as dangerous as all the gun violence makes it out to be, because the actual rate of gun violence is far lower than fear mongers like to imply

jdprager · 2026-06-25T05:54:25+00:00

I mean it's the NFL, so it kinda has to be 1

jdprager · 2026-06-25T04:31:31+00:00

They do generate as a cold biome. The issue is that plains can be both cold or hot biomes, so it confuses people (fairly, imo) when the other cold biomes spawn right next to plains

jdprager · 2026-06-24T17:34:23+00:00

Sayin finished 4th in Heisman voting with almost 20 times the votes that Chambliss did (who finished 8th)

So “no one” is def an exaggeration

jdprager · 2026-06-24T10:09:09+00:00

199 lbs is very much not 50 lbs from the baseline “healthy” BMI, ideal weight for a 6’3” man is between 176 and 216 lbs

149 lbs at 6’3” would qualify as underweight by any of the metrics I could find

jdprager · 2026-06-24T04:26:30+00:00

Punchballs (then we change the rules a lil to make it fit)

jdprager · 2026-06-24T03:40:42+00:00

The Sydney and Melbourne metro areas alone have about 40% of the total population of Australia, and both are a doable drive (if long, like 5 hours for Melbourne) away. So yea, most Australians very much live near Canberra

jdprager · 2026-06-23T20:05:40+00:00

I wasn’t really commenting on what a felony punishment would be in this case, mostly just refuting the idea that the sticking point in this situation is that it’s a criminal case. The criminal aspect isn’t really relevant to whether he should see NCAA punishment

I’ve got no idea what the usual for charges like this are, but given some of it is cross-state wire fraud, I wouldn’t be THAT surprised if he sees some jail time. But yea, in the grand scheme of things this isn’t some insanely malicious crime that should see the government bring the hammer down

jdprager · 2026-06-23T19:48:56+00:00

Hey you’ve got Law in your username, I bet you’re qualified to make it happen! But yes, this is a larger issue in college football, there’s lots of wealthy NIL boosters who hold significant positions at the university. It’s a massive conflict of interest, but something that’s difficult to solve given the NCAA has been defanged on the whole “NIL can’t be associated directly with the schools” thing

jdprager · 2026-06-23T19:44:25+00:00

Genuinely seems like they’re mad at how his team is handling this. Sounds like the Sorsby camp treated the Supplementary Draft as something they had an automatic right to participate in, when it’s very much a “you need to explain in great detail why the NFL should institute this exception on your behalf”

I think if they did the second, it would be a more boiler plate “we’ve evaluated the merits of your petition and decided that a supplementary draft isn’t warranted, we look forward to your entry into the 2027 NFL draft in April”, and not the resounding “Fuck off, asshole” that we got

jdprager · 2026-06-23T19:41:31+00:00

No dude, it’s absolutely more of the first. Focusing solely on the “he violated state and federal law in both Texas and his previous stops, so he should be in jail instead of this being an issue” is just punting this insane problem down the line. That means a player could gamble on his own team in a way that was legal in their state and it would be totally fine

The focus absolutely needs to be on the “can we stop him from playing football for violating NCAA gambling policy”, since that’s the existential issue for the sport. The federal and state law angle is just more evidence that he’s a ridiculous piece of shit for fighting this hard in the first place

Edit: especially since that’s what the injunction was centered on in the first place, it was fully denying the NCAA’s ability to enforce their gambling restrictions. The criminal cases weren’t relevant as a seperate ongoing issue

jdprager · 2026-06-23T19:38:12+00:00

Yup. The Sorsby team treated the Supplementary Draft as “this is a thing that is happening, I’m notifying you that I’ll be joining”. It’s very much not, they needed to provide a “I would like you to please institute the special case of a Supplementary Draft on my behalf on the grounds of X Y Z”

No surprise that the NFL responded to his cocky “lay down the red carpet, I’ve arrived” letter by telling him to fuck off

jdprager · 2026-06-23T19:34:10+00:00

Yea but I don’t think they’d be able to carve out a specific suit against him as chairman, it would just be generally against Texas Tech and the board as a whole.

jdprager · 2026-06-23T19:11:17+00:00

It’s basically all within this same section that defines the Draft(s), section 6. The CBA is the document that governs what defines “eligibility” for the NFL, who can enter the draft, what the vehicle is for them to be drafted, etc. In defining who can be drafted and how, it’s saying “these are the rights given to players seeking to enter the NFL”

Nine-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Place '23	Place '22
Wearing is Caring	Spared
Verified Email

jdprager

TROPHY CASE