envirojeff Posted April 17, 2006 Report Posted April 17, 2006 I think that the Rangers would be the best match up for the Sabres in the first round. What has to happen, in the next few days, to create this series? I want to know who I have to cheer for!!! Jeff
PTS Posted April 17, 2006 Report Posted April 17, 2006 Out of 36 possible scenerios that can happen on Tuesday, 40% would end up in the Sabres playing the Devils, 30% in us playing the Flyers, and 30% in us playing the Rangers.
envirojeff Posted April 17, 2006 Author Report Posted April 17, 2006 Out of 36 possible scenerios that can happen on Tuesday, 40% would end up in the Sabres playing the Devils, 30% in us playing the Flyers, and 30% in us playing the Rangers. Thanks, I knew it was confusing! Jeff
Corp000085 Posted April 17, 2006 Report Posted April 17, 2006 I'll have a chi^2 table and accompanying probability plots available after work. I have mathematica on my home computer.
Stoner Posted April 17, 2006 Report Posted April 17, 2006 You put that amount on Form 1040, line 55 c.
Taro T Posted April 17, 2006 Report Posted April 17, 2006 Out of 36 possible scenerios that can happen on Tuesday, 40% would end up in the Sabres playing the Devils, 30% in us playing the Flyers, and 30% in us playing the Rangers. PTS, I'm not sure where you are getting 36 scenarios. I see 27 scenarios (each team can pick up 2 pts, 1 pt, or 0 pts in their last game). I've got 11 scenarios where the Sabres play NJ, 9 where they play the Rangers, and 7 where they play Philly. I have NJ winning all tie breakers with them having 45 wins with either 99 or 100 points and 46 with 101. I have NY winning a tie breaker vs. Philly at 100 points as both will have 44 wins and they both had 2 regulation wins and 2 OT/SO wins in their season series. The Rangers will have a better goals differential, so they get that tie breaker. I have Philly winning a tie breaker vs. NY at 101 points as they would have 45 wins to NY's 44.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.