|
Colorado
|
HS.S-MD.B.7 - (+) Analyze decisions and strategies using probability concepts (e.g., product testing, medical testing, pulling a hockey goalie at the end of a game).
|
- I can identify a siege game decision, list possible outcomes, and tell whether my prediction matched the result with some support
- I can use given or simple probabilities to describe which choice seems better, but my explanation may be incomplete or not fully connected to expected value.
|
- I can calculate probabilities and expected payoff for at least two siege strategies and explain which strategy looks stronger based on my results
- I can use a fair random method for one decision with some accuracy, and I can describe how odds and predictions influenced my choice.
|
- I can calculate probabilities, expected values, and payoffs for at least three siege strategies and compare them using clear evidence from my match data or simulation
- I can design and test a fair random decision method, then explain how odds, predictions, and expected value support my recommended strategy.
|
- I can independently analyze multiple siege strategies by assigning reasonable probabilities, calculating expected payoff, and comparing outcomes to defend the strongest strategy
- I can use match data, simulations, and a fair random method to make and justify decisions, and I can clearly explain how odds and predictions change strategy in a siege match.
|
|
Colorado
|
HS.S-MD.B.5.a - Find the expected payoff for a game of chance. *For example, find the expected winnings from a state lottery ticket or game at a fast-food restaurant.*
|
- I can name a siege game strategy and identify possible outcomes, but my probabilities, payoff values, or predictions may be incomplete or partly inaccurate
- I can use a random method with support, but I need help to explain how it is fair or how it connects to expected payoff.
|
- I can calculate basic probabilities and expected payoff for one or two siege strategies with some accuracy
- I can compare strategies using my results and make a simple prediction about which choice may work best, though my explanation may not fully justify all parts of my decision.
|
- I can calculate probabilities, assign payoff values, and find expected value for at least three siege strategies
- I can compare the strategies, explain how odds and predictions shaped my choice, and use a fair random method correctly to support one in-game decision.
|
- I can accurately analyze multiple siege strategies using probabilities, expected payoff, and expected value to recommend the strongest choice
- I can clearly defend my decision with match data, predictions, and a fair random method, and I can explain how my strategy would change if the odds or outcomes changed.
|
|
Colorado
|
HS.S-MD.B.6 - (+) Use probabilities to make fair decisions (e.g., drawing by lots, using a random number generator).
|
- I can identify when a siege game choice needs a fair random method, but I may need help choosing the probabilities or explaining why it is fair
- I can name the possible outcomes and begin to connect odds to a decision, though my reasoning may be incomplete or inconsistent.
|
- I can use a simple probability model or random number method to make a fair in-game decision in a siege scenario
- I can explain the possible outcomes, show basic odds, and use my result to compare at least one strategy.
|
- I can use probabilities to make a fair decision, assign payoff values, and calculate expected value for multiple siege strategies
- I can compare strategies using predicted outcomes, odds, and expected payoff, and I can explain why one option is stronger than another based on my evidence.
|
- I can independently build and justify a probability-based strategy for a siege game using a fair random method, expected values, and match data or simulation results
- I can evaluate and defend the strongest strategy by clearly connecting odds, predictions, and payoff to my final recommendation, and I can explain how changing probabilities would change the decision.
|
|
Colorado
|
HS.S-MD.B.5 - (+) Weigh the possible outcomes of a decision by assigning probabilities to payoff values and finding expected values.
|
- I can identify a siege game decision and list the possible outcomes, but my probabilities, payoff values, or predictions may be incomplete or partly inaccurate
- I can use support to compare at least one strategy and explain my choice in a simple way.
|
- I can assign reasonable probabilities and payoff values to at least two siege strategies and calculate their expected values with some accuracy
- I can explain how odds influence my prediction and use evidence from the match or simulation to support a basic recommendation.
|
- I can calculate probabilities and expected values for three or more siege strategies accurately and compare them to determine which strategy has the strongest chance of winning
- I can explain how my predictions changed based on the data and use a fair random method to make one uncertain decision.
|
- I can create a clear, accurate probability model that weighs multiple siege strategies using probabilities, payoff values, and expected values, and I can justify my strongest recommendation with strong evidence
- I can evaluate how changing odds affect strategy choices, test a fair random decision method, and clearly defend how my predictions and calculations led to the best decision.
|
|
Colorado
|
HS.S-MD.B.5.b - Evaluate and compare strategies on the basis of expected values. *For example, compare a high-deductible versus a low-deductible automobile insurance policy using various, but reasonable, chances of having a minor or major accident.*
|
- I can identify a siege game strategy and describe a possible outcome using simple probability words like likely, unlikely, or certain
- I can use a basic prediction or guess to explain why one choice might work better than another, with help.
|
- I can calculate probabilities and expected payoff for at least one siege strategy and explain what the numbers mean
- I can compare two strategies using evidence from a match log, but my reasoning may still be incomplete or only partly justified.
|
- I can calculate and compare the expected values of at least three siege strategies and use those results to recommend the strongest strategy
- I can explain how predicted outcomes, odds, and payoff values influence my choice and use a fair random method for one uncertain decision.
|
- I can independently analyze several siege strategies by using probabilities, expected values, and match data to justify the best option
- I can defend my recommendation with clear, accurate reasoning, explain why the strategy has the strongest chance of winning, and evaluate how fair random decision-making supports the plan.
|