Before I get too many comments on the fact that the probablities I listed are
not really accurate for a true best of three or best of five series, I just
want to clarify why I posted them as I did.
 
First, regardless of what the exact calculations are, the main point is that
the probability of underdog victory (1 game) - probability of underdog vicotry
(2 out of 3) >> probablity of underdog victory (2 out of 3) - probablity of
underdog vicory (3 of 5) > probablity of underdog victory (3 of 5) - probablity
of underdog victory (4 of 7).  Eventually, as the number of games expand, the
difference in probablities becomes negligible and the advantage gained by
adding games is insignificant.  This occurs since the probablities are
multiplied.
 
Second, the numbers I used were easy to work with and illustrated the point
more clearly and without anyone needing a great backround in probability.
 
Third, dammit Jim, I'm a doctor not a  math major! :-)
 
Fourth, I don't believe it affects the main point although anyone who wishes to
work out the exact numbers and believes it does affect the main point is more
than welcome to challenge the assumptions made.  (That's what we is here for,
ain't it?)
 
 
--
Dave [log in to unmask]
Cornell '91 OSU Med '95
Let's Go Red!