Independent statistics: Basketball?

evildaemonlad
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi, I'm a bit stuck on this problem

A basketball player misses 30% of his free throws. He ends up in a situation where he has the potential to shoot two penalty shots if and only if he lands the first shot (called a one and one, I believe). The outcome of the 2nd shot is independent of the first.

> Find the expected number of points resulting from the "one and one"

Here I'm assuming expected number equates to expected value -> E(x) = S x P(x) (S = sigma)

I've set up a table thusly so that I might take the sum of the 3rd column (x denotes successful shots):
x____P(x)____xP(x)
0...?...0
1.....
2.....

The issue that I am having is how to express the dependence of even taking a second shot upon this first. My gut is telling me that the first entry under P(x) ought to be .3 but after that I'm lost. Any pointers would be appreciated!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Then, 30% of the "one and one" , he misses the first shot, and gets 0 points (prob 30%).
And he lands 70% of the first shot.
Then, he misses the second throw, getting only 1 point (prob 0.7 * 0.3 = 21%).
But he lands 70% of the 2nd throw, getting 2 points (prob 0.7 * 0.7 = 49%).

So, the expected number of points is 1*0.21 + 2*.49 = 1.19 .
 
Thanks much, I actually managed to figure it out while taking a dinner break from problem sets - you beat me back it seems!
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top