View Full Version : Isner-Mahut 1st Round at Wimbledon AGAIN. WTF is this ish?

Tony48

06-17-2011, 01:52 AM

No seriously. Every doubt I had about draws being rigged at slams have now vanished.

ESPN.com has doing a Isner-Mahut rewind special for the last couple of days (part 1 (http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/wimbledon11/columns/story?columnist=garber_greg&id=6657026)). Now I see why. It was the prelude to the actual match. :rolleyes:

And watch them go 5 sets, too.

zagor

06-17-2011, 01:56 AM

Hopefully they break a 200 games mark this time around.

1970CRBase

06-17-2011, 02:06 AM

No seriously. Every doubt I had about draws being rigged at slams have now vanished.

ESPN.com has doing a Isner-Mahut rewind special for the last couple of days (part 1 (http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/wimbledon11/columns/story?columnist=garber_greg&id=6657026)). Now I see why. It was the prelude to the actual match. :rolleyes:

And watch them go 5 sets, too.

I never needed convincing.

christos_liaskos

06-17-2011, 02:24 AM

This is absolutely epic! What must be going through these two guys minds!?!?!? (Just checked Isner's twitter but he hasn't posted anything yet)

Telepatic

06-17-2011, 02:41 AM

Gotta love fixed draws, I don't know for what I laughed more, this or non Fedal semi for billion-th time.

1970CRBase

06-17-2011, 02:45 AM

Fixed is fixed, grrr. If it is Fed/Nad final again, I'm not watching in protest.

dirtballer

06-17-2011, 02:48 AM

Why aren't the draws done in public? That would eliminate the speculation about fixes.

MAXXply

06-17-2011, 03:01 AM

Can the math and statistical whizzes explain the odds that these two players have met again ?

IvanisevicServe

06-17-2011, 03:33 AM

Wonder if it'll be on the same court as last year.

They should both just announce they're withdrawing from the second round regardless of the outcome.

cp37070

06-17-2011, 03:35 AM

I can give other tournaments the benefit of the doubt but never Wimbledon. I've long thought they tweak the draws to get the match-ups they want. But even this is too egregious for them. I hope it turns out to be an anti climatic straight sets win with multiple breaks of serve and no tie-breaks. That'd serve them right.

cc0509

06-17-2011, 03:41 AM

Why aren't the draws done in public? That would eliminate the speculation about fixes.

Because tennis is a business and all businesses(the smart ones that want to stay in business that is) have one thing in mind, to make money.

Of course they want to have control over the draws. Certain match ups are like gold for the tournaments and the ATP/WTA.

Are they really rigged?

You would think they'd do Murray a favour if it was to get all the other top seeds tricky matches earlier.

TheTruth

06-17-2011, 03:44 AM

I've always thought the draws were rigged. The same people always ending up on the same side, on certain surfaces. No way!

cc0509

06-17-2011, 03:45 AM

Are they really rigged?

You would think they'd do Murray a favour if it was to get all the other top seeds tricky matches earlier.

Not really. People want to see Nadal/Federer in the finals over Murray and anybody else.

MAXXply

06-17-2011, 03:46 AM

I hope umpire "Thirteee-FiffTEENAAHH Lahyani will be calling it again too!

Not really. People want to see Nadal/Federer in the finals over Murray and anybody else.

Which people? I'm pretty sure the UK would rather see Murray v anybody than a Fedal final.

For the record - the draw is done in public. Anybody who thinks draws are rigged needs to take their tinfoil hat off.

Pidgeon

06-17-2011, 03:50 AM

When I was following 'As it happened' on the wimbledon site this came in :

10:02: Murray in Djokovic's half of the draw, Roger and Rafa together Andy Murray is in the bottom half of the draw so gets a potential semi-final against Novak Djokovic. Roger Federer is in the top half - the Rafa Nadal half!

now it's :

10:02: Murray in Nadal's half of the draw, Roger and Nole together Andy Murray is in the top half of the draw so gets a potential semi-final against Rafael Nadal. Roger Federer is in the bottom half - the Novak Djokovic half! A repeat of the French Open, in fact.

did i miss something ?

These are direct quotes so i didn't misread or something like that

When I was following 'As it happened' on the wimbledon site this came in :

10:02: Murray in Djokovic's half of the draw, Roger and Rafa together Andy Murray is in the bottom half of the draw so gets a potential semi-final against Novak Djokovic. Roger Federer is in the top half - the Rafa Nadal half!

now it's :

10:02: Murray in Nadal's half of the draw, Roger and Nole together Andy Murray is in the top half of the draw so gets a potential semi-final against Rafael Nadal. Roger Federer is in the bottom half - the Novak Djokovic half! A repeat of the French Open, in fact.

did i miss something ?

These are direct quotes so i didn't misread or something like that

They later changed it... rigged draw?? :shock:

Telepatic

06-17-2011, 03:53 AM

Which people? I'm pretty sure the UK would rather see Murray v anybody than a Fedal final.

For the record - the draw is done in public. Anybody who thinks draws are rigged needs to take their tinfoil hat off.

Oh please batz, don't be so naive, "the draw is done in public", like they don't have their own ways to fix it.

Of course they would rather get tons of money from Fedal final then their man get to yet another final and lose in straights.

I mean it's laughable, Nole in Fed's half in what, last 13 of last 15 times in grand slams, really?? (and oh how surprising, that 2 times Nole was in Rafa's half was both times FO)

Isner/Mahut r1?? Really??

Come on, I'm not an idiot. :roll:

Pidgeon

06-17-2011, 03:54 AM

They later changed it... rigged draw?? :shock:

yes ...could be 'As it happened' was wrong or something but that was certainly on there...

I emailed it to a friend of mine just as it was out so i'm sure i didn't see it wrong

cc0509

06-17-2011, 03:56 AM

Which people? I'm pretty sure the UK would rather see Murray v anybody than a Fedal final.

For the record - the draw is done in public. Anybody who thinks draws are rigged needs to take their tinfoil hat off.

Not so sure about the UK wanting to see Murray in the final vs Nadal/Federer. The people in the UK probably think Murray will tank as usual.:oops:

In any case, worldwide people want to see Nadal/Federer final no question.

Re whether the draws are rigged or not, everybody has a right to draw their own conclusions.

Oh please batz, don't be so naive, "the draw is done in public", like they don't have their own ways to fix it.

Of course they would rather get tons of money from Fedal final then their man get to yet another final and lose in straights.

Can you explain to me how the AELTC gets more money from a Fedal final than any other final when all the TV and Internet contracts are already in place? Once you've demonstrated how much more revenue a Fedal final generates for AELTC (the answer is zero incidentally), you can then explain why an organisation that is patently not primarily driven by revenue (as evidenced by their refusal to allow advertising and the additional millions that would bring) suddenly compromises its integrity to frig a draw?

Not so sure about the UK wanting to see Murray in the final vs Nadal/Federer. The people in the UK probably think Murray will tank as usual.:oops:

In any case, worldwide people want to see Nadal/Federer final no question.

Re whether the draws are rigged or not, everybody has a right to draw their own conclusions.

Oh come on mate. You really think Britons want to see a show they've seen 3 times before rather than something they haven't seen in 75 years? You think Murray gets 20 times the media coverage in the UK during Wimbledon than Fedal because he is unpopular?

cp37070

06-17-2011, 04:03 AM

Not really. People want to see Nadal/Federer in the finals over Murray and anybody else.

Yep Nadal/Federer and Venus/Serena finals is what the tournament wants because they are still the biggest draws.

1970CRBase

06-17-2011, 04:08 AM

Not so sure about the UK wanting to see Murray in the final vs Nadal/Federer. The people in the UK probably think Murray will tank as usual.:oops:

In any case, worldwide people want to see Nadal/Federer final no question.

Re whether the draws are rigged or not, everybody has a right to draw their own conclusions.

And has the right to speak out when they feel their intelligence is being insulted.

Pidgeon

06-17-2011, 04:09 AM

Yep Nadal/Federer and Venus/Serena finals is what the tournament wants because they are still the biggest draws.

True and as far as : tv contracts are already sold etc

When ratings go up -> more viewers -> more munehz !

Draw IS rigged !

Crayola Oblongata

06-17-2011, 04:09 AM

http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lmt6sy8Nn11qev9yjo1_250.gif

Wonder if Moho will umpire.

Yep Nadal/Federer and Venus/Serena finals is what the tournament wants because they are still the biggest draws.

Maybe I can help here. What part of 'All the tickets are sold, all the TV and internet contracts are let - the AELTC gets the same revenue no matter who is in the final' are you struggling with?

True and as far as : tv contracts are already sold etc

When ratings go up -> more viewers -> more munehz !

Draw IS rigged !

For TV companies perhaps - but not for the AELTC - their money is in the bag. So why would the AELTC compromise their integrity to rig a draw?

Pidgeon

06-17-2011, 04:14 AM

Maybe I can help here. What part of 'All the tickets are sold, all the TV and internet contracts are let - the AELTC gets the same revenue no matter who is in the final' are you struggling with?

First round matches not many people would want to see Isner or Mahut but Isner VS Mahut will be something everyone will want to watch...

catch my drift ?

and the tv and internet contracts, see posts above

Pidgeon

06-17-2011, 04:15 AM

For TV companies perhaps - but not for the AELTC - their money is in the bag. So why would the AELTC compromise their integrity to rig a draw?

Yea right, they get their piece !

+ they want to make their tournament as spectacular as they can...

selling footage, pictures, ...

First round matches not many people would want to see Isner or Mahut but Isner VS Mahut will be something everyone will want to watch...

catch my drift ?

and the tv and internet contracts, see posts above

No - I don't catch your drift. I'll ask again - why would the AELTC compromise its integrity to frig a draw when there is nothing in it for them? Why does Andy Murray have far and away the hardest draw of the top 4 if the AELTC are frigging it?

christos_liaskos

06-17-2011, 04:19 AM

Errmm OK another mistake coming through from the live feed now...

It originally said Djok v Bags first round, just taken a look at the draw though and Djok has Chardy and Bags v Blake, Djok v Bags is a possible third round clash. This could have easily been a genuine mistake I suppose by whoever was typing the livefeed

Yea right, they get their piece !

+ they want to make their tournament as spectacular as they can...

selling footage, pictures, ...

Why do I feel like I'm going round in circles....

Let me get this straight - the AELTC, which refuses to compromise on its position of no advertising at Wimbledon despite the tens of millions in revenue that would be generated, compromises on its integrity and frigs draws to get additional revenue? Is that really what you're arguing?

Pidgeon

06-17-2011, 04:21 AM

No - I don't catch your drift. I'll ask again - why would the AELTC compromise its integrity to frig a draw when there is nothing in it for them? Why does Andy Murray have far and away the hardest draw of the top 4 if the AELTC are frigging it?

Nevermind, don't want to have internet wars here.

Just saying imo it's pretty obvious it's rigged.

Why else would the site display :

10:02: Murray in Djokovic's half of the draw, Roger and Rafa together Andy Murray is in the bottom half of the draw so gets a potential semi-final against Novak Djokovic. Roger Federer is in the top half - the Rafa Nadal half!

untill 10:08, that's when i sent this quote to my friend (whois also a poster on this forum)

and change it to :

10:02: Murray in Nadal's half of the draw, Roger and Nole together Andy Murray is in the top half of the draw so gets a potential semi-final against Rafael Nadal. Roger Federer is in the bottom half - the Novak Djokovic half! A repeat of the French Open, in fact.

not making this up dude

Pidgeon

06-17-2011, 04:22 AM

Errmm OK another mistake coming through from the live feed now...

It originally said Djok v Bags first round, just taken a look at the draw though and Djok has Chardy and Bags v Blake, Djok v Bags is a possible third round clash. This could have easily been a genuine mistake I suppose by whoever was typing the livefeed

like i said; could be ...

but mistaking andy murray for roger federer is more than a typo ...

anyway, everyone is entitled to their own opinion ! :)

Nevermind, don't want to have internet wars here.

Just saying imo it's pretty obvious it's rigged.

Why else would the site display :

10:02: Murray in Djokovic's half of the draw, Roger and Rafa together Andy Murray is in the bottom half of the draw so gets a potential semi-final against Novak Djokovic. Roger Federer is in the top half - the Rafa Nadal half!

untill 10:08, that's when i sent this quote to my friend (whois also a poster on this forum)

and change it to :

10:02: Murray in Nadal's half of the draw, Roger and Nole together Andy Murray is in the top half of the draw so gets a potential semi-final against Rafael Nadal. Roger Federer is in the bottom half - the Novak Djokovic half! A repeat of the French Open, in fact.

not making this up dude

Because the guy who was typing the words on the blog made a mistake? None of the guys who were actually at the draw e.g. Neil Harman - Times tennis correspondent - tweeted that it was a Fedal semi. The only report of it came from the Wimby blog.

The guy who writes the Wimby blog made a mistake is a thousand times more likely an explanation than 'The AELTC frigged the draw to make a Fedal final bur first they announced it as a Fedal semi'.

Ralph

06-17-2011, 04:26 AM

Nevermind, don't want to have internet wars here.

Just saying imo it's pretty obvious it's rigged.

Why else would the site display :

10:02: Murray in Djokovic's half of the draw, Roger and Rafa together Andy Murray is in the bottom half of the draw so gets a potential semi-final against Novak Djokovic. Roger Federer is in the top half - the Rafa Nadal half!

untill 10:08, that's when i sent this quote to my friend (whois also a poster on this forum)

and change it to :

10:02: Murray in Nadal's half of the draw, Roger and Nole together Andy Murray is in the top half of the draw so gets a potential semi-final against Rafael Nadal. Roger Federer is in the bottom half - the Novak Djokovic half! A repeat of the French Open, in fact.

not making this up dude

I did see this too, in person. Also, there was no text on the site to say, "Sorry, mistake made there." I followed it live.

I didn't however start listening to the draw on Radio Wimbledon on line until around 10.05, by which time the very initial seeds had been cast. Did anyone else hear this in person? Were they broadcasting live for someone to hear that Roger and Ralph were in the same half initially? Was it a genuine mistake on the site?

chrischris

06-17-2011, 04:28 AM

What a fraud ?

Pidgeon

06-17-2011, 04:35 AM

not only was the blog at fault but also the draw itself when i clicked on it but don't have a screenshot of it ...

rovex

06-17-2011, 04:35 AM

Blatantly fixed, not that I'm complaining...

In fact, I'd place my money on them playing on the exact same court too.

Pidgeon

06-17-2011, 04:38 AM

Blatantly fixed, not that I'm complaining...

In fact, I'd place my money on them playing on the exact same court too.

madness ! :)

not only was the blog at fault but also the draw itself when i clicked on it but don't have a screenshot of it ...

Bollocks. The draw wasn't even up on the site when I got home from work - and that was at 1200. The full draw only went up about 45 minutes ago. Draws never appear in realtime.

JeMar

06-17-2011, 04:39 AM

So, I thought Wimbledon drew names out of a hat or something with players present like the other slams?

What happens at Wimbledon? They make it behind a closed door and then just post it outside or what? How does Wimbledon make their draw?

Rippy

06-17-2011, 04:43 AM

So, I thought Wimbledon drew names out of a hat or something with players present like the other slams?

What happens at Wimbledon? They make it behind a closed door and then just post it outside or what? How does Wimbledon make their draw?

I'm fairly sure it's a public draw.

People just love their conspiracy theories. Weird coincidences can just be weird coincidences.

cc0509

06-17-2011, 04:43 AM

And has the right to speak out when they feel their intelligence is being insulted.

LOL that too! It amazes me that some people think that virtually the same draws would come up randomly over and over again. It is like watching the movie Groundhog Day!

So, I thought Wimbledon drew names out of a hat or something with players present like the other slams?

What happens at Wimbledon? They make it behind a closed door and then just post it outside or what? How does Wimbledon make their draw?

Same as any other slam - in public, with lots of people present.

Feck it - I give in. Yep - the draw was frigged. I know it's frigged because Elvis told me so - he was riding Shergar at the time - apparently him and Lord Lucan are shacked up together over at the retirement home for Illuminati members down in Atlantis - he said it's much nicer than the old places they had in Shangri-La and Brigadoon.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=384686&page=9

Sentinel made a screenshot

weird ...

LOL that too! It amazes me that some people think that virtually the same draws would come up randomly over and over again. It is like watching the movie Groundhog Day!

It amazes me how people have such little understanding about the basics of probability that they feel the need to don tinfoil hats.

Incidentally the probability of Isner drawing Mahut was the same as the probability of him drawing any other named player: 1 in 127.

Fedex

06-17-2011, 04:50 AM

not only was the blog at fault but also the draw itself when i clicked on it but don't have a screenshot of it ...

Just basic admin/communication errors. Chinese whispers etc.

If people make mistakes does that mean there's a fraud especially when Batz clearly explained why there is absolutely no motivation to do so.

If they wanted to fix things then there's far more motivation to give Murray an easy draw which obviously hasn't happened.

Far more money and political kudos to have a British Wimbledon champion than another Fed/Nad final.

The world does not entirely revolve around Fed and Nadal.

rovex

06-17-2011, 04:51 AM

Would be nice to have the ability to see a video of it like at the Australian open.

Rippy

06-17-2011, 04:51 AM

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=384686&page=9

Sentinel made a screenshot

weird ...

They obviously just typed it up wrong.

If Wimbledon was going to rig the draw (which they wouldn't), they'd do it from the start, not by changing it half way through.

cc0509

06-17-2011, 04:56 AM

It amazes me how people have such little understanding about the basics of probability that they feel the need to don tinfoil hats.

Incidentally the probability of Isner drawing Mahut was the same as the

probability of him drawing any other named player: 1 in 127.

That is fine that you have your opinion but I have my opinion and it differs from yours. Oh, and I am allergic to tin foil. :twisted:

That is fine that you have your opinion but I have my opinion and it differs from yours. Oh, and I am allergic to tin foil. :twisted:

No worries mate - you are absolutely entitled to your opinion.

stringertom

06-17-2011, 04:58 AM

Hey you stuff-shirted hypocrites!,

In America, we celebrate Ground Hog's Day on Feb. 2, not June 17. To put those two guys through a rematch to fatten your already bulging wallets is beyond RIDONCULOUS! They should both deef in protest. Random draw my arse.

Somebody wake Bill Murray up. His alarm clock is going off. Here we go again!

cc0509

06-17-2011, 04:59 AM

No worries mate - you are absolutely entitled to your opinion.

As are you. :)

Tammo

06-17-2011, 05:12 AM

Hmmmmmmm. maybe it will be 71-69?

Kunohara

06-17-2011, 05:13 AM

This match is going to go 4 sets tops. Probably in Isner's favor again, unfortunately.

ART ART

06-17-2011, 05:16 AM

It's all about BETs and MONEY.

All major and small events, are done in the way to make money.

There are no truth when Money talks.

It's sad but true...

I'm gonna die of laugher if one of them pounds the other one 6-2, 6-1, 6-0

The match is going to be played on centre court.

i bet it wont live up to the hype....as unfortunate as that is.

Fedex

06-17-2011, 05:44 AM

I'm fairly sure it's a public draw.

People just love their conspiracy theories. Weird coincidences can just be weird coincidences.

LOL that too! It amazes me that some people think that virtually the same draws would come up randomly over and over again.

It's not weird conicidences. It's the natural laws of probability and randomness.

True randomness, counter intuitively, throws up a reptitive sequence of events.

I remember we did an experiment years ago throwing a coin many, many times and recording the results. (Sad I know but that's the sort of things we'd get up to ocassionaly)

There was one time heads came up 10 times in a row!

It was incredible then I found out later that a true random sequence will, sooner or later, throw up something like this. Abd this is actually the nature of a true random sequence. It's one of the signs for Mathematicians that a sequence is truly random. Order within disorder.

This is one of the reasons why it is impossible for a human to recreate a truly random sequence.

And this is all we are seeing at Slam draws.

Sentinel

06-17-2011, 05:59 AM

NADAL SHOULD BE HAPPY he won't be taken out by Izzie.

Wait, is Izzy in Dull's quarter ?

Sentinel

06-17-2011, 06:03 AM

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=384686&page=9

Sentinel made a screenshot

weird ...

They obviously just typed it up wrong.

If Wimbledon was going to rig the draw (which they wouldn't), they'd do it from the start, not by changing it half way through.

Yeah , a typo, i sure can believe that easily. Federer and Djokovic are so close on the keyboard i suppose. That mistake was up for so long, its not funny.

Then they changed it. And then that portion disappeared totally. Luckily i found an open tab in my browser from where i made a screenshot.

cc0509

06-17-2011, 06:06 AM

It's not weird conicidences. It's the natural laws of probability and randomness.

True randomness, counter intuitively, throws up a reptitive sequence of events.

I remember we did an experiment years ago throwing a coin many, many times and recording the results. (Sad I know but that's the sort of things we'd get up to ocassionaly)

There was one time heads came up 10 times in a row!

It was incredible then I found out later that a true random sequence will, sooner or later, throw up something like this. Abd this is actually the nature of a true random sequence. It's one of the signs for Mathematicians that a sequence is truly random. Order within disorder.

This is one of the reasons why it is impossible for a human to recreate a truly random sequence.

And this is all we are seeing at Slam draws.

Yes, but a coin only has two sides. In a draw there are more than two variables. I am no expert on the subject for sure and I want to believe you and the laws of randomness, but I am finding it hard to be a believer! Either way, it is what it is.

stevorino

06-17-2011, 06:33 AM

6:0 6:0 6:0 this time. shortest match ever ;)

mellowyellow

06-17-2011, 06:35 AM

Please Delete

Andres

06-17-2011, 06:53 AM

If Mahut-Isner doesn't get Centre Court, I'm burning everything down to ashes!! :mad: :mad:

Netzroller

06-17-2011, 06:53 AM

Nevermind, don't want to have internet wars here.

Just saying imo it's pretty obvious it's rigged.

Why else would the site display :

10:02: Murray in Djokovic's half of the draw, Roger and Rafa together Andy Murray is in the bottom half of the draw so gets a potential semi-final against Novak Djokovic. Roger Federer is in the top half - the Rafa Nadal half!

untill 10:08, that's when i sent this quote to my friend (whois also a poster on this forum)

and change it to :

10:02: Murray in Nadal's half of the draw, Roger and Nole together Andy Murray is in the top half of the draw so gets a potential semi-final against Rafael Nadal. Roger Federer is in the bottom half - the Novak Djokovic half! A repeat of the French Open, in fact.

not making this up dude

Seriously, you don't believe they would be this stupid!?

If they wanted to rig, why in hell would they change it after it's been shown on their website (ergo a ~100% chance that someone notices it), and not just do it...?

Secondly, there is a 50/50 change for each SF draws. It is not that unlikely to have the same draw a few times in a row. If you flip a coin, you also dont get head and tails alternating all the time, right?

bluetrain4

06-17-2011, 07:01 AM

Why aren't the draws done in public? That would eliminate the speculation about fixes.

There are players who are part of the draw proceedings, and every one that has participated has stated that it's all legit.

If Isner and Mahut's match last year hadn't been epic (say, a straight sets win by Isner), no one would think anything of it. Sure, the chances aren't that high, but the chance exists nonetheless. I've never really though the draws were rigged.

Rippy

06-17-2011, 07:04 AM

Yeah , a typo, i sure can believe that easily. Federer and Djokovic are so close on the keyboard i suppose. That mistake was up for so long, its not funny.

Then they changed it. And then that portion disappeared totally. Luckily i found an open tab in my browser from where i made a screenshot.

Well, by typo, I just meant they typed it up wrong.

If you think the biggest tennis tournament in the world is going to change their draw (which is public) half way through, you are a muppet.

If they really wanted to rig it, they'd have rigged it properly.

Crayola Oblongata

06-17-2011, 07:05 AM

FerVerdasco83 Fernando Verdasco

It's somebody talking about the Isner - Mahut 1st round match again? Hahahaha! The truth is that looks unreal. Somebody did it on purpose!

From his Twitter. I love how they were trending earlier.

bluetrain4

06-17-2011, 07:13 AM

Seriously, you don't believe they would be this stupid!?

If they wanted to rig, why in hell would they change it after it's been shown on their website (ergo a ~100% chance that someone notices it), and not just do it...?

Secondly, there is a 50/50 change for each SF draws. It is not that unlikely to have the same draw a few times in a row. If you flip a coin, you also dont get head and tails alternating all the time, right?

Great point. Yet, people never seem to understand that it's a 50/50 chance every time you flip the coin, no matter the results of the previous flips. If it comes up heads 3 times in a row, people say "well the next one has to be a tail" thinking that the previous flips have something to do with the current flip. But, it doesn't. There's still a 50-50 chance on the next flip.

Hitman

06-17-2011, 07:13 AM

Isner V Mahut at Wimbledon now is greater than Federer V Nadal at Wimbledon. It is money in the bank.

Cesc Fabregas

06-17-2011, 07:18 AM

Can't believe the ALL England club organisers fell for the hype of last years match and put it on centre court. It'll be a boring match.

Great point. Yet, people never seem to understand that it's a 50/50 chance every time you flip the coin, no matter the results of the previous flips. If it comes up heads 3 times in a row, people say "well the next one has to be a tail" thinking that the previous flips have something to do with the current flip. But, it doesn't. There's still a 50-50 chance on the next flip.

Well said. Some people have this 'law of averages' outlook - and it's plain wrong. If such a law existed, then the more times a person played the same numbers in a lottery, the higher their chances of winning the jackpot i.e. given enough time, the probability of winning the lottery jackpot would become 1 - which is absurd.

Rippy

06-17-2011, 07:21 AM

Can't believe the ALL England club organisers fell for the hype of last years match and put it on centre court. It'll be a boring match.

This. But then most first round matches will be relatively "boring", so I suppose there's no harm putting this one on centre.

It'll just be a pretty routine match though.

mellowyellow

06-17-2011, 07:29 AM

A coin does not have 128 sides. A coin flipped by a human has many variables. A machine with an exact starting position with the same side up for the coin and the same repetitive motion to flip and a consistent surface to land on is a real test. The funny thing is its so obvious that someone would say "Seriously, you don't believe they would be this stupid!?

If they wanted to rig, why in hell would they change it after it's been shown on their website (ergo a ~100% chance that someone notices it), and not just do it...?"

Someone made a mistake, and it got out, but that s ok because morons like you populate the world over and believe everything their gov't and sports organizations tell them and rationalize things like this out for them and the rest of the sheep. How could they be wrong or deceitful with all of the Tourney money not to mention the legal and illegal gambling money involved.

glazkovss

06-17-2011, 07:33 AM

So what is the draw? I mean Fedal.

About probability: are there any other match-ups apart from Isner-Mahut to be repeated from last year's 1st round? Would be strange if there is none of them.

Remembering from my university lessons the theory is not as simple as it may seem.

Manus Domini

06-17-2011, 07:40 AM

maybe they can make it a 6 day match and delay the entire tournament lol

mellowyellow

06-17-2011, 07:57 AM

This was supposed to be played on court 18 initially. I guess that was a typo too?

Fedex

06-17-2011, 07:59 AM

Well said. Some people have this 'law of averages' outlook - and it's plain wrong. If such a law existed, then the more times a person played the same numbers in a lottery, the higher their chances of winning the jackpot i.e. given enough time, the probability of winning the lottery jackpot would become 1 - which is absurd.

Sorry to contradict you here Batz, but you're talking about infinity when you say "given enough time".

The probability of winning the lottery as the number of attempts tends to infinity, tends to 1.

So you would actually definitely win the lottery if you factor infinity or "given enough time" into the equation.

Sneezy

06-17-2011, 08:03 AM

Maybe they both will intentionally try to draw the match out and make it like 88-90 in the fifth or something.

Mikael

06-17-2011, 08:25 AM

If it was rigged it's a little dumb to put Isner vs Mahut, it's bound to be a complete anti-climax and everyone will be disappointed.

Finally the geniuses on this forum waking up to reality.

Wimbledon doesn't give a damn about suckers like us. It's all about money. Welcome to the commercial world.

Sorry to contradict you here Batz, but you're talking about infinity when you say "given enough time".

The probability of winning the lottery as the number of attempts tends to infinity, tends to 1.

So you would actually definitely win the lottery if you factor infinity or "given enough time" into the equation.

Sorry mate - but it simply doesn't. The probability of getting six numbers 'right' out of 49 is around 1 in 14 million - every single time you play. You are saying that the odds of winning the jackpot reduce with time - and they don't; they can't - there is no process whereby a given draw could 'know' that you had done x previous draws and your odds of winning were now less than around 14 million to 1 - the probability of naming 6 numbers out of 49 randomly drawn numbers is always 14million odd to 1.

The only way to improve your odds of getting 6 numbers right is to buy more tickets. Buy 14 and you reduce the probability to 1 in a million, buy 14 odd million and you reduce the probability to 1 i.e. certainty

Sintherius

06-17-2011, 08:37 AM

on SportsCenter they said the likeliness of this happening was .7%.

Folks, can we all quit bickering and focus on it now that Wimbledump has manipulated the draw and given us some exciting matches?!

NamRanger

06-17-2011, 08:42 AM

Folks, can we all quit bickering and focus on it now that Wimbledump has manipulated the draw and given us some exciting matches?!

Hey, I wouldn't mind manipulation of matches as long as it logically made sense by seeding/ranking. Saves me the trouble of having to watch horrible qualifier vs qualifier matches where it's a question of who is going to hold it together mentally more than who is the better tennis player.

Finally the geniuses on this forum waking up to reality.

Wimbledon doesn't give a damn about suckers like us. It's all about money. Welcome to the commercial world.

Aaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggggggghhhhh hhhhhhhhh!

How much do you reckon 'Wimbledon' made by frigging the draw then?

Batz, simple question ... can you please explain the inconsistencies proved with screenshot evidence by Sentinel? How did Nadal-Federer being in the same draw become magically separated?

Aaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggggggghhhhh hhhhhhhhh!

How much do you reckon 'Wimbledon' made by frigging the draw then?

Agreed! But where's the integrity anymore? I thought this sport had an inkling of integrity left. But no, I was wrong. It has been consumed by money, just like Nascar & Formula1.

Hey, I wouldn't mind manipulation of matches as long as it logically made sense by seeding/ranking. Saves me the trouble of having to watch horrible qualifier vs qualifier matches where it's a question of who is going to hold it together mentally more than who is the better tennis player.

Fedex

06-17-2011, 08:53 AM

Sorry mate - but it simply doesn't. The probability of getting six numbers 'right' out of 49 is around 1 in 14 million - every single time you play. You are saying that the odds of winning the jackpot reduce with time - and they don't; they can't - there is no process whereby a given draw could 'know' that you had done x previous draws and your odds of winning were now less than around 14 million to 1 - the probability of naming 6 numbers out of 49 randomly drawn numbers is always 14million odd to 1.

The only way to improve your odds of getting 6 numbers right is to buy more tickets. Buy 14 and you reduce the probability to 1 in a million, buy 14 odd million and you reduce the probability to 1 i.e. certainty

Maybe I've got a mental block here but I just can't agree.

The more times you play the lottery, the more chance you have of winning.

If you play it enough times, you will eventually win it.

It's been a long time since I sudied Maths and Stats, and I know I've dumbed down a lot since then but I just can't see it any other way.

I'll keep thinking about what you're saying though.

TennisandMusic

06-17-2011, 08:55 AM

It amazes me how people have such little understanding about the basics of probability that they feel the need to don tinfoil hats.

Incidentally the probability of Isner drawing Mahut was the same as the probability of him drawing any other named player: 1 in 127.

Yeah but the odds of it happening two years in a row are 1 in 16,000+.

Of course when you don't factor in last year, the odds this year are still 1 in 127 yeah, but odd, definitely.

Rippy

06-17-2011, 08:58 AM

Yeah but the odds of it happening two years in a row are 1 in 16,000+.

Of course when you don't factor in last year, the odds this year are still 1 in 127 yeah, but odd, definitely.

No matter who Isner drew this year, the odds of him getting Mahut last year, and that particular player this year, would have been 1/16000+

And to people still going on about the screenshot of the draw... It's blatantly obvious they just typed it up wrong. If they were going to rig the draw, they obviously wouldn't change it halfway through FFS. They'd have it all planned from the start. :oops:

Maybe I've got a mental block here but I just can't agree.

The more times you play the lottery, the more chance you have of winning.

If you play it enough times, you will eventually win it.

It's been a long time since I sudied Maths and Stats, and I know I've dumbed down a lot since then but I just can't see it any other way.

I'll keep thinking about what you're saying though.

OK mate - no worries. Have a think about how the odds would reduce if you were right - by what mechanism would you transfer the 'knowledge' about your previous draws to future draws in order for the odds to reduce?

Re the bold above - your first contention is correct in as much that a person who has played the pottery 100 times clearly has more chance of winning than a person who has played the lottery only once - but the odds of getting 6 numbers correct on any given week are always 14 million to 1 - for the person who did it for 1 week and for the person who did it 100 weeks. They had not reduced 1 iota by the hundredth attempt and they don't reduce 1 iota by the infinite attempt.

Batz, simple question ... can you please explain the inconsistencies proved with screenshot evidence by Sentinel? How did Nadal-Federer being in the same draw become magically separated?

It's a blog. The guy who wrote the blog mis-interpreted the draw. There were hundreds of journalists at the draw - lots of them tweeting - none of them tweeted that there was a Fedal semi. If a fedal semi had actually been drawn and then frigged, it would have been all over twitter - unless all the journalists are now part of the conspiracy. The draw was also live on internet radio - I'm sure someone listening would have heard the Fedal semi draw if it had actually happened - it didn't.

C*rap! Are you sure? I owe an apology to all then. I assumed Sentinel was quoting from the Wimbledon site. Man I feel stupid! :)

It's a blog. The guy who wrote the blog mis-interpreted the draw. There were hundreds of journalists at the draw - lots of them tweeting - none of them tweeted that there was a Fedal semi. If a fedal semi had actually been drawn and then frigged, it would have been all over twitter - unless all the journalists are now part of the conspiracy. The draw was also live on internet radio - I'm sure someone listening would have heard the Fedal semi draw if it had actually happened - it didn't.

Sentinel

06-17-2011, 09:13 AM

Well, by typo, I just meant they typed it up wrong.

If you think the biggest tennis tournament in the world is going to change their draw (which is public) half way through, you are a muppet.

If they really wanted to rig it, they'd have rigged it properly.

Yeah, I agree with you there. And you are dead right about me being a muppet.:)

Sentinel

06-17-2011, 09:15 AM

C*rap! Are you sure? I owe an apology to all then. I assumed Sentinel was quoting from the Wimbledon site. Man I feel stupid! :)

You are NOT stupid. Please check the link I posted. It is:

http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/news/log/index.html

Does not appear to be a personal blog. And it clearly says wimbledon.com --- I am not such a big muppet.

Or am I ?

http://i52.tinypic.com/288niq9.png

You're still the man, Sir Sentinel!

Now let's see Batz wriggle out of this one! Wimbledump it is!

You are NOT stupid. Please check the link I posted. It is:

http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/news/log/index.html

Does not appear to be a personal blog. And it clearly says wimbledon.com --- I am not such a big muppet.

Or am I ?

rovex

06-17-2011, 09:20 AM

Frickin Fragged Frogged Frigged draw.

Speranza

06-17-2011, 09:26 AM

You are NOT stupid. Please check the link I posted. It is:

http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/news/log/index.html

Does not appear to be a personal blog. And it clearly says wimbledon.com --- I am not such a big muppet.

Or am I ?

http://i52.tinypic.com/288niq9.png

You're still the man, Sir Sentinel!

Now let's see Batz wriggle out of this one! Wimbledump it is!

Holmes: Sorry I'm late to the party, and I cannot stay for the time being. However, I'll add that I was fortunate enough to be following it live this morning on the website.

Sentinel is correct, the screen grab is from THE WIMBLEDON SITE.

It doesn't mean that this is proof of a rigged draw, but there was definitely a change shortly after on the same site. Did anyone hear the radio announcement simultaneously?

Wasn't this picked up in the thread earlier on? I was following it and noticed that others had picked up on it, after all; a Roger/Ralph semi?

Gotta dash, Scotland Yard beckons as ever...

Fedex

06-17-2011, 09:26 AM

You are NOT stupid. Please check the link I posted. It is:

http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/news/log/index.html

Does not appear to be a personal blog. And it clearly says wimbledon.com --- I am not such a big muppet.

Or am I ?

http://i52.tinypic.com/288niq9.png

You're still the man, Sir Sentinel!

Now let's see Batz wriggle out of this one! Wimbledump it is!

So the Wimbledon guy made a typo.

Rippy

06-17-2011, 09:27 AM

You are NOT stupid. Please check the link I posted. It is:

http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/news/log/index.html

Does not appear to be a personal blog. And it clearly says wimbledon.com --- I am not such a big muppet.

Or am I ?

http://i52.tinypic.com/288niq9.png

Nobody is doubting you have the screenshot. It's your assertion that the screenshot is proof of a rigged draw that is absolutely laughable. Someone typed it up wrong - big deal...

If they WERE going to rig the draw, they wouldn't do it halfway through!

It doesn't mean that this is proof of a rigged draw, but there was definitely a change shortly after on the same site. Did anyone hear the radio announcement simultaneously?

Yes, Murray in Rafa's half. But they didn't say it that way. They just announced the numbers and the guy who takes care of the site probably got confused. I don't understand why people make such a big deal out of this.

Sentinel

06-17-2011, 09:40 AM

Nobody is doubting you have the screenshot. It's your assertion that the screenshot is proof of a rigged draw that is absolutely laughable. Someone typed it up wrong - big deal...

If they WERE going to rig the draw, they wouldn't do it halfway through!

Rippy, wait a min, buddy.

First I cut paste this portion from the site into a post in the draw thread.

Then Marius Hancu said that some "f**ers lied" since it had been changed by then.

Then i found that page and posted a screenshot just to tell Marius and others that I/we were not lying.

To which you said it was a typo. And i reacted to that sarcastically saying "what a typo it was. etc etc" Nowhere did i post that image to prove the draw was rigged.

If you were here during the excitement of the draw being announced, and different people saying different things on this forum, it certainly was odd that it should change. One was totally perplexed and searching for the right answer, and it changed in between.

Anyway, it was silly of me to react to you about the typo thing. Otherwise i really have no idea how a public draw can be rigged.

p.s. my original post. no claim of rigged draw. http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=5752009&postcount=164

Fedex

06-17-2011, 09:47 AM

Rippy, wait a min, buddy.

First I cut paste this portion from the site into a post in the draw thread.

Then Marius Hancu said that some "f**ers lied" since it had been changed by then.

Then i found that page and posted a screenshot just to tell Marius and others that I/we were not lying.

To which you said it was a typo. And i reacted to that sarcastically saying "what a typo it was. etc etc" Nowhere did i post that image to prove the draw was rigged.

If you were here during the excitement of the draw being announced, and different people saying different things on this forum, it certainly was odd that it should change. One was totally perplexed and searching for the right answer, and it changed in between.

Anyway, it was silly of me to react to you about the typo thing. Otherwise i really have no idea how a public draw can be rigged.

Oh us bloody people taking things out of context again.

You're still the man, Sir Sentinel!

Now let's see Batz wriggle out of this one! Wimbledump it is!

Yes, but is the wimbledon blog - the only place where it was stated that fedal had been drawn in the semis. There were loads of journos at the draw - many of them tweeting - nobody tweeted that fedal had been drawn to meet in the semis. The draw was also broadcast live on internet radio - if fedal had actually been drawn together and then been separated lots of people would have heard it.

Face it - the guy who does the Wimby blog got it wrong. Fedal were never drawn to play in the semis.

PS for the record - at no point have I accused Senti of doing anything untoward. He's a top man.,

Rippy

06-17-2011, 09:53 AM

Rippy, wait a min, buddy.

First I cut paste this portion from the site into a post in the draw thread.

Then Marius Hancu said that some "f**ers lied" since it had been changed by then.

Then i found that page and posted a screenshot just to tell Marius and others that I/we were not lying.

To which you said it was a typo. And i reacted to that sarcastically saying "what a typo it was. etc etc" Nowhere did i post that image to prove the draw was rigged.

If you were here during the excitement of the draw being announced, and different people saying different things on this forum, it certainly was odd that it should change. One was totally perplexed and searching for the right answer, and it changed in between.

Anyway, it was silly of me to react to you about the typo thing. Otherwise i really have no idea how a public draw can be rigged.

p.s. my original post. no claim of rigged draw. http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=5752009&postcount=164

OK, sorry if I misunderstood. I was under the impression you were trying to claim the draw was rigged.

Sentinel

06-17-2011, 09:59 AM

Peace guys. We were excited.

Nowhere did you accuse me, batz. You da man, batz.

:D

jackson vile

06-17-2011, 10:17 AM

No seriously. Every doubt I had about draws being rigged at slams have now vanished.

ESPN.com has doing a Isner-Mahut rewind special for the last couple of days (part 1 (http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/wimbledon11/columns/story?columnist=garber_greg&id=6657026)). Now I see why. It was the prelude to the actual match. :rolleyes:

And watch them go 5 sets, too.

You have to wonder, will we have the "Iron Man" match again. And perhaps that is what they are going for?

_maxi

06-17-2011, 10:25 AM

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4KnCE5okB7k/TKm4dlHea8I/AAAAAAAABio/5tGxYfCq_HY/s400/nadal+face.jpg

Rafa.... is not sure.

..

Batz ... this is all too confusing. But since Sentinel himself says he didn't accuse anyone of rigging, I'll let this go.

But 8PAQ calling Sunny Deol an ugly actor in the other thread is just not cool. Now that, I won't let go! :)

Yes, but is the wimbledon blog - the only place where it was stated that fedal had been drawn in the semis. There were loads of journos at the draw - many of them tweeting - nobody tweeted that fedal had been drawn to meet in the semis. The draw was also broadcast live on internet radio - if fedal had actually been drawn together and then been separated lots of people would have heard it.

Face it - the guy who does the Wimby blog got it wrong. Fedal were never drawn to play in the semis.

PS for the record - at no point have I accused Senti of doing anything untoward. He's a top man.,

mellowyellow

06-17-2011, 10:54 AM

So if its a mistake, where is the official retraction?

shmolex

06-17-2011, 10:59 AM

OK mate - no worries. Have a think about how the odds would reduce if you were right - by what mechanism would you transfer the 'knowledge' about your previous draws to future draws in order for the odds to reduce?

Re the bold above - your first contention is correct in as much that a person who has played the pottery 100 times clearly has more chance of winning than a person who has played the lottery only once - but the odds of getting 6 numbers correct on any given week are always 14 million to 1 - for the person who did it for 1 week and for the person who did it 100 weeks. They had not reduced 1 iota by the hundredth attempt and they don't reduce 1 iota by the infinite attempt.

Fedex is saying that given a person lives for an infinite number of years and continues to play the lottery, his chances to win the lottery are 1.

What you are arguing is that your chances of winning the lottery are not improved each time you lose.

These arguments are not mutually exclusive and both are true.

darrinbaker00

06-17-2011, 11:06 AM

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4KnCE5okB7k/TKm4dlHea8I/AAAAAAAABio/5tGxYfCq_HY/s400/nadal+face.jpg

ATP Tennis. So easy, a caveman can do it.

Fedex is saying that given a person lives for an infinite number of years and continues to play the lottery, his chances to win the lottery are 1.

What you are arguing is that your chances of winning the lottery are not improved each time you lose.

These arguments are not mutually exclusive and both are true.

How can they both be true? In order to tend toward a probability of 1 , the odds of winning the jackpot would have to improve over time - and that doesn't happen.

mellowyellow

06-17-2011, 11:41 AM

So you are saying if a certain sequence of numbers is already picked that the probability of those numbers being picked "again" are the same as the numbers you are playing????????

shmolex

06-17-2011, 12:22 PM

How can they both be true? In order to tend toward a probability of 1 , the odds of winning the jackpot would have to improve over time - and that doesn't happen.

You're confusing his argument. He's saying that the probability of EVENTUALLY winning the lottery is 1. You're saying that the probability of winning individual lotteries is the same, which is also true.

To put it more simply, say you are trying to flip a coin to get heads, and you flip the coin twice. With each flip of the coin, you have a 50% chance of getting heads. However, by flipping the coin twice, you have a 75% chance of getting at least 1 head (the outcomes being T-T, H-T, T-H, and H-H). By flipping 3 times, your odds improve to 87.5, etc... Eventually, if you flip enough coins, your probability of eventually flipping a head is 1 even though the individual probability of a single coin getting a head is %50.

Get it?

sjam316

06-17-2011, 12:44 PM

This match is going to be so anti-climatic...ESPN will promote the crap out of it, do specials on last years match, try to get non-tennis fans to watch (and some will) but in the end i truly believe it will be a boring 3 set match, probably high unforced errors and just ugly tennis. Call me pessimistic, but there's no way either guy can come close to repeating what they did last year. Unless of course this whole thing is fixed :P

You're confusing his argument. He's saying that the probability of EVENTUALLY winning the lottery is 1. You're saying that the probability of winning individual lotteries is the same, which is also true.

To put it more simply, say you are trying to flip a coin to get heads, and you flip the coin twice. With each flip of the coin, you have a 50% chance of getting heads. However, by flipping the coin twice, you have a 75% chance of getting at least 1 head (the outcomes being T-T, H-T, T-H, and H-H). By flipping 3 times, your odds improve to 87.5, etc... Eventually, if you flip enough coins, your probability of eventually flipping a head is 1 even though the individual probability of a single coin getting a head is %50.

Get it?

I really don't think this is correct. If you're correct - how many flips would it be before you are very close to a probability of 1? 10 flips? 20 flips? Are you saying it is nearly impossible to flip 20 heads in a row?

The first time you flipped, your chances of getting of head were 0.5. The next time you flipped, your chances of getting a head were 0.5. The next time you flipped, your chances of getting a head were 0.5. Your chances of getting a head do not increase the more times you flip the coin. You are saying that previous flips influence future flips (by increasing the probability of a head turning up). By what mechanism is this influence felt? How does the coin know that on the second occasion it is flipped it should favour heads 75:25? Why does it favour heads and not tails?

Is there a mathematical/physical law that precludes an infinite number of coin flips all resulting in tails? Why must heads eventually turn up?

Does the same law stop an infinite number of lottery draws all resulting with numbers that don't match your 6 numbers? It does not follow that an infinite number of draws will result in every possible combination of numbers being drawn - it is possible for the same numbers to be drawn an infinite number of times - why is this possible? Because previous draws have no influence on future draws.

i don't mind the are playing each again but i sure hope espn2/nbc won't re-broadcast their re-match match over and over again like they did last year.

shmolex

06-17-2011, 01:22 PM

I really don't think this is correct. If you're correct - how many flips would it be before you are very close to a probability of 1? 10 flips? 20 flips? Are you saying it is nearly impossible to flip 20 heads in a row?

The first time you flipped, your chances of getting of head were 0.5. The next time you flipped, your chances of getting a head were 0.5. The next time you flipped, your chances of getting a head were 0.5. Your chances of getting a head do not increase the more times you flip the coin. You are saying that previous flips influence future flips (by increasing the probability of a head turning up). By what mechanism is this influence felt?

You're still confusing what I'm trying to saying.

I'm not saying that the 2nd or 3rd flip has an increased probability of getting heads. INDIVIDUAL flips remain a 50% chance of getting heads no matter how many times you flip. But the OVERALL probability of getting at least 1 head increases the more times you flip the coin.

If I flip a coin 20 times, and you flip a coin once, who do you think is more likely to have at least 1 head?

tacou

06-17-2011, 01:24 PM

This match is going to be so anti-climatic...ESPN will promote the crap out of it, do specials on last years match, try to get non-tennis fans to watch (and some will) but in the end i truly believe it will be a boring 3 set match, probably high unforced errors and just ugly tennis. Call me pessimistic, but there's no way either guy can come close to repeating what they did last year. Unless of course this whole thing is fixed :P

obviously theres no way they can match last year, that will never be matched again ever. it will be exactly what it was though, lots of aces, points ended at net, classic grass stuff...Isner hasn't been playing well I don't think Mahut has either but hopefully this will inspire them to play better and get the winner some mojo for the tournament

Tony48

06-17-2011, 01:26 PM

obviously theres no way they can match last year, that will never be matched again ever. it will be exactly what it was though, lots of aces, points ended at net, classic grass stuff...Isner hasn't been playing well I don't think Mahut has either but hopefully this will inspire them to play better and get the winner some mojo for the tournament

The match WILL be played in 5 sets. I would put money on it.

djokovicgonzalez2010

06-17-2011, 01:39 PM

Can the math and statistical whizzes explain the odds that these two players have met again ?

1/16129 I do believe :rolleyes:

Fedex

06-17-2011, 01:43 PM

You're still confusing what I'm trying to saying.

I'm not saying that the 2nd or 3rd flip has an increased probability of getting heads. INDIVIDUAL flips remain a 50% chance of getting heads no matter how many times you flip. But the OVERALL probability of getting at least 1 head increases the more times you flip the coin.

If I flip a coin 20 times, and you flip a coin once, who do you think is more likely to have at least 1 head?

And if you have a theoretical coin or dice with 14 million sides (analogous to the lottery) and if you threw it enough times, your chances of landing on the chosen side would increase with each throw..

If you throw it enough times, eventually you'll hit the jackpot.

If 100 billion throws doesn't win then infinity will do the trick.

You're still confusing what I'm trying to saying.

I'm not saying that the 2nd or 3rd flip has an increased probability of getting heads.INDIVIDUAL flips remain a 50% chance of getting heads no matter how many times you flip. But the OVERALL probability of getting at least 1 head increases the more times you flip the coin.

If I flip a coin 20 times, and you flip a coin once, who do you think is more likely to have at least 1 head?

That's a completely different question and has no bearing on the likelyhood of a head turning up. That's the same as asking which lottery player has the greater chance of winning the jackpot - the guy who plays for 1 week or the guy who plays for 10 weeks - obviously it's the guy who plays for 10 weeks. But that doesn't mean the probability of him winning the jackpot has increased - that stays the same at just under 14 million to 1 every single time he plays no matter how many times he plays - it just means he has more chances than the guy who plays once.

The probability of the guy winning the jackpot who plays for 1 week is 14 million to 1. The probability of the guy who plays for 10 weeks winning the jackpot is also 14 million to 1. The probability of a guy who plays for 1000 weeks is 14 million to 1.

Each has more chance than the other - but each have the same probability of winning the jackpot - that is a constant, no matter how many draws are performed.

The only way to have a probability of 1 of winning the lottery is to buy 14 million tickets for a given week.

And if you have a theoretical coin or dice with 14 million sides (analogous to the lottery) and if you threw it enough times, your chances of landing on the chosen side would increase with each throw..

If you throw it enough times, eventually you'll hit the jackpot.

If 100 billion throws doesn't win then infinity will do the trick.

Mate - why do you think that past random events influence future random events? They don't buddy. They can't.

What physical law stops an infinite number of coin tosses all resulting in tails?

What physical law stops an infinite number of lottery draws all resulting with your six numbers not matching the six that were drawn?

I think I'm starting to understand the source of the confusion and it's the use of infinity. The leap you are making is that an infinite number of draws (or coin tosses) will result in every one of the possible combination of lottery numbers (or heads or tails) appearing at some point, but one does not follow from the other - hence my point above. There is nothing to stop an infinte number of coin tosses all resulting in tails, just as there is nothing to stop an infinite number of draws resulting in 'losing' tickets - in fact there is nothing to stop an infinite number of draws all resulting in the same losing set of numbers! As improbable as these events are, they are still possible and therefore refute the contention that at some point the probability, of getting a head or winning the lottery is 1.

shmolex

06-17-2011, 02:18 PM

That's a completely different question and has no bearing on the likelyhood of a head turning up.

.

Which is why I originally said that you guys were arguing two different non-mutually exclusive points.

But based on Fedex's latest post, perhaps he really does think individual probabilities increase.

Each has more chance than the other - but each have the same probability of winning the jackpot - that is a constant, no matter how many draws are performed.

.

My only contention is your use of chance and probability, which mean the same thing. But now we're just arguing semantics.

Fedex

06-17-2011, 02:21 PM

Mate - why do you think that past random events influence future random events? They don't buddy. They can't.

What physical law stops an infinite number of coin tosses all resulting in tails?

What physical law stops an infinite number of lottery draws all resulting with your six numbers not matching the six that were drawn?

The answer to the bold is infinity.

Fedex

06-17-2011, 02:24 PM

But based on Fedex's latest post, perhaps he really does think individual probabilities increase.

No that's definitely not what I mean.

The overall probability increases.

The answer to the bold is infinity.

How does the abstract mathematical concept called infinity influence the coin in order to 'make it' land on heads?

No that's definitely not what I mean.

The overall probability increases.

How does this happen? How does the coin know the outcome you are looking for and that it is now more likely to fall on that side rather than the other?

The probability of a random event happening cannot have two values. It cannot be 0.5 for each side of a coin on the first flip and then change from that point forward depending on what some **** sapien has said or is 'looking for' - that's just mad. The chance of getting a head is always 0.5

Google 'probability of winning the lottery jackpot'. Every site will give an absolute number. They do not give a table showing how the numbers change depending on the number of draws performed. That's because the probability of winning the jackpot doesn't change depending on the number of draws performed.

ledwix

06-17-2011, 02:37 PM

As improbable as these events are, they are still possible and therefore refute the contention that at some point the probability, of getting a head or winning the lottery is 1.

It's a limit. Infinity is a large enough "number" that it kills all negligible terms to zero. So it IS 100% after an "infinite" amount of time. The concept of infinity was invented almost for this precise reason.

It would never converge exactly to zero, but infinity guarantees that it would, since it would get arbitrarily close to zero, which is meaningless other than saying that it actually is zero. Basically 99.99999999....................................... ..................% is arbitrarily close to 100%, so close that it would be useless to call it anything other than 100%.

shmolex

06-17-2011, 02:41 PM

How does this happen? How does the coin know the outcome you are looking for and that it is now more likely to fall on that side rather than the other?

All he is saying is what you said earlier. The man that plays the lottery 1000 weeks in a row has a better chance than the man that plays the lottery 1 week.

You're just distinguishing chance from probability when there is none.

It's a limit. Infinity is a large enough "number" that it kills all negligible terms to zero. So it IS 100% after an "infinite" amount of time. The concept of infinity was invented almost for this precise reason.

It would never converge exactly to zero, but infinity guarantees that it would, since it would get arbitrarily close to zero, which is meaningless other than saying that it actually is zero. Basically 99.99999999....................................... ..................% is arbitrarily close to 100%, so close that it would be useless to call it anything other than 100%.

So it is impossible to flip a coin an infinite number of times without it landing on heads? How does the coin 'know this'? Where is the information about the coin's 'flipping status' stored and updated? What monitors this status and says 'OK - that coin has landed on tails enough times - it's now time for it to land on heads'? By what process is the coin then made to land on heads?

All he is saying is what you said earlier. The man that plays the lottery 1000 weeks in a row has a better chance than the man that plays the lottery 1 week.

You're just distinguishing chance from probability when there is none.

That's not what he is saying. He is saying that the man who plays a 1000 times has a different (higher) probability of winning the jackpot than the guy who plays once - he doesn't; his overall chance of winning the jackpot is still 14 million to 1; same as the one week guy.

Had the 1000 time guy bought 1000 tickets for the same lottery as the one time guy then that would be different - the one time guy would still have a probability of 14 million to 1 but the 1000 time guy, by buying 1000 tickets, would have increased his probability of winning the jackpot to 14,000 to 1.

Past random events have no influence on future random events. Once that is understood and accepted, it becomes obvious that the chances of flipping a head or winning the lottery are not influenced by the flips and draws that have gone before - and if they are not influenced by the draws before, then the probability of getting a head or winning the lottery remains constant.

I'd boil it down to this. Buying many tickets for one lottery increases the probability of winning the jackpot for that draw - by how much depends on the number of tickets you buy.

Buying one ticket for many lotteries does not increase the probability of winning the jackpot - that will always be 14 million to 1 no matter how many times you enter your one ticket.

Anyhoo - thanks for the chat John - hope we're still mates ;)

Fedex

06-17-2011, 03:28 PM

Anyhoo - thanks for the chat John - hope we're still mates ;)

Ha ha of course we are. The thought never crossed my mind.

Really enjoying the discussion in a train spotting kind of way.

Anyway, back to the debate.

You agree that the odds of landing a head or a tail are 50/50 or 1 chance in 2?

Ha ha of course we are. The thought never crossed my mind.

Really enjoying the discussion in a train spotting kind of way.

Anyway, back to the debate.

You agree that the odds of landing a head or a tail are 50/50 or 1 chance in 2?

Cool!

Yes mate - I agree that the probability of head or tail is 0.5 or 50/50 or 1 in 2

Fedex

06-17-2011, 03:48 PM

Cool!

Yes mate - I agree that the probability of head or tail is 0.5 or 50/50 or 1 in 2

And you'll agree that if you throw the dice, say, 10 times that you could throw a head on the first or a tail on the first or a head on the first followed by a tail or a head on the first followed by another head and so on throughout the whole 2 to the power of 10 = 1024 combinations.

You might throw 10 heads in a row but that is unlikely.

That would be a 1 in 1024 chance.

The chances are you'll throw 50% heads and 50% tails in the 10 throws - 5 heads and 5 tails in some sequence but not as much chance as if you throw the coin 1000 times, the accuracy is increased here.

How does the coin know to do this? It doesn't but it's still an irrefutable mathematical and statistical fact.

If you throw the coin 1 million times the number of heads to tails get's closer and closer to 50%.

shmolex

06-17-2011, 03:58 PM

Look, it's pretty simple

Think about it this way. Instead of flipping a coin for heads, I try to guess whether the coin will land heads or tails (this is the basic premise of the lottery - guessing the outcome). I have a 50% chance of guessing right for each flip of the coin. But if I play this lottery twice, are my overall odds of winning 50%? No, because there are 4 possible outcomes here. Either I:

Guess wrong on both flips

Guess right on both

Guess right on the first, wrong on the second

Guess wrong on the first, right on the second.

Each 4 possibilities is equally likely, 3 of which result in me winning the lottery, which is a 75% Overall chance of winning the lottery.

Individual odds of winning the lottery:50%

Overall odds: 75%

Fedex

06-17-2011, 03:58 PM

So it's the same with the lottery.

Ok it's a 1 in 14 million chance but every time you play, you're increasing your chances.

Imagine the lottery was a 1 in 2 chance instead of 1 in 14 million.

Would you agree that if you threw the coin 10 times you'd have a pretty good chance of winning the lottery but if you threw it 1000 times you'd be practically 100% sure of winning the lottery.

Much more than if you threw 10 times.

If you threw 1 million times you'd be even closer to a 100% chance.

How does the dice know? Of course it doesn't but it's the number of throws that determines your overall chances.

Does this make more sense?

Maybe I'm not good at articulating this.

Probability is a funny thing.

stringertom

06-17-2011, 03:59 PM

This deluge of monotony over coin flips is only the least important ****storm facing the tennis world. When will the qualies conclude so we can see the final draw?

I was just reviewing the official Wimby/IBM website drawsheet. Confusion apparently reigns over there as they have 19 qualie positions in the draw. There are only 16 up for grabs in Roehampton. The top 3 quarters have six, five and six=17 and the last quarter has 2. 19 total according to my old school math. What gives and when the blazes will it stop raining in Roehampton?

And you'll agree that if you throw the dice, say, 10 times that you could throw a head on the first or a tail on the first or a head on the first followed by a tail or a head on the first followed by another head and so on throughout the whole 2 to the power of 10 = 1024 combinations.

You might throw 10 heads in a row but that is unlikely.

That would be a 1 in 1024 chance.

The chances are you'll throw 50% heads and 50% tails in the 10 throws - 5 heads and 5 tails in some sequence but not as much chance as if you throw the coin 1000 times, the accuracy is increased here.

How does the coin know to do this? It doesn't but it's still an irrefutable mathematical and statistical fact.

If you throw the coin 1 million times the number of heads to tails get's closer and closer to 50%.

Don't disagree with any of this.

The coin 'knows' to gravitate toward 50% the more flips that are done because the probability is 50:50 for heads or tails - that is its 'normal' state if you like - it doesn't need to be 'told' what normal looks like. What would be odd would be if the coin had any other probability distribution than 50:50 - and that's what would be required if heads was somehow to become a more probable outcome because it hadn't appeared in the previous x number of flips. It's only at that point when the coin is being asked to behave abnormally i.e. to favour heads over tails.

Fedex

06-17-2011, 04:04 PM

Look, it's pretty simple

Think about it this way. Instead of flipping a coin for heads, I try to guess whether the coin will land heads or tails (this is the basic premise of the lottery - guessing the outcome). I have a 50% chance of guessing right for each flip of the coin. But if I play this lottery twice, are my overall odds of winning 50%? No, because there are 4 possible outcomes here. Either I:

Guess wrong on both flips

Guess right on both

Guess right on the first, wrong on the second

Guess wrong on the first, right on the second.

Each 4 possibilities is equally likely, 3 of which result in me winning the lottery, which is a 75% Overall chance of winning the lottery.

Individual odds of winning the lottery:50%

Overall odds: 75%

That's a good way of explaining it Shmolex.

Right comes up 3 times out of 4 when you flip twice.

Fedex

06-17-2011, 04:08 PM

Don't disagree with any of this.

The coin 'knows' to gravitate toward 50% the more flips that are done because the probability is 50:50 for heads or tails - that is its 'normal' state if you like - it doesn't need to be 'told' what normal looks like. What would be odd would be if the coin had any other probability distribution than 50:50 - and that's what would be required if heads was somehow to become a more probable outcome because it hadn't appeared in the previous x number of flips. It's only at that point when the coin is being asked to behave abnormally i.e. to favour heads over tails.

And now see posts 144, 145 and 148.

Walenty

06-17-2011, 04:08 PM

Yup. Not surprised.

Maybe this time the matchplay will actually be high quality.

Shame on you Wimbledon.....

So it's the same with the lottery.

Ok it's a 1 in 14 million chance but every time you play, you're increasing your chances.

Imagine the lottery was a 1 in 2 chance instead of 1 in 14 million.

Would you agree that if you threw the coin 10 times you'd have a pretty good chance of winning the lottery but if you threw it 1000 times you'd be practically 100% sure of winning the lottery.

Much more than if you threw 10 times.

If you threw 1 million times you'd be even closer to a 100% chance.

How does the dice know? Of course it doesn't but it's the number of throws that determines your overall chances.

Does this make more sense?

Maybe I'm not good at articulating this.

Probability is a funny thing.

No! :) The more entries you have for a given draw, the more your chances of winning the jackpot increase. Buy 1 ticket and your chances are 14 million to 1. Buy a million tickets and your chances are 14 to 1.

But if you buy 1 ticket for 1 million weeks then your chances are 14 million to 1 over the entire duration of the 1 million weeks. The odds do not improve as the weeks go by.

Each draw is a new event mate. The reset button is pressed. You can only influence your odds for one draw at a time - you cannot influence your odds over a series of draws; only the individual draws within the series - and each one of those is completely independent of the other.

Fedex

06-17-2011, 04:13 PM

No! :) The more entries you have for a given draw, the more your chances of winning the jackpot increase. Buy 1 ticket and your chances are 14 million to 1. Buy a million tickets and your chances are 14 to 1.

But if you buy 1 ticket for 1 million weeks then your chances are 14 million to 1 over the entire duration of the 1 million weeks. The odds do not improve as the weeks go by.

Each draw is a new event mate. The reset button is pressed. You can only influence your odds for one draw at a time - you cannot influence your odds over a series of draws; only the individual draws within the series - and each one of those is completely independent of the other.

The individual odds don't increase each time you play but the overall odds do increase.

Legend of Borg

06-17-2011, 04:13 PM

Ultimate trollery if they actually beat last year's record and go into a 4th day of play on Center Court with Petros, Borg, Laver, J-Mac and that guy with the cowboy hat watching.

Fedex

06-17-2011, 04:16 PM

Batz, Shmolex maybe we should move this topic to a new section before we bore the pants of other posters.

A section called Trainspotters Anonymous.

Fedex

06-17-2011, 04:21 PM

Batz my girlfiend's really p*d off with me.

I can't tell her I spent all night discussing probability theory on the tennis forum.

She knows it's that time of year and has braced herself but this really takes the biscuit.

How's your lady coping?

Look, it's pretty simple

Think about it this way. Instead of flipping a coin for heads, I try to guess whether the coin will land heads or tails (this is the basic premise of the lottery - guessing the outcome). I have a 50% chance of guessing right for each flip of the coin. But if I play this lottery twice, are my overall odds of winning 50%? No, because there are 4 possible outcomes here. Either I:

Guess wrong on both flips

Guess right on both

Guess right on the first, wrong on the second

Guess wrong on the first, right on the second.

Each 4 possibilities is equally likely, 3 of which result in me winning the lottery, which is a 75% Overall chance of winning the lottery.

Individual odds of winning the lottery:50%

Overall odds: 75%

By flipping the coin twice you have essentially bought two tickets for one lottery - i.e. you have bought 2 chances to win 1 lottery - you've increased the probability of winning that one lottery, just like the guy who bought a million tickets for the 1 lottery in my example previously.

What you haven't done is bought one ticket for 2 lotteries - if you had bought one ticket for two lotteries you'd have once chance for each lottery as opposed to the 2 chances for the 1 lottery above i.e. you would have had one 50:50 chance as your chances of winning over both draws - your probability of winning both draws never gets above 50:50 in any of your draws - unlike in the draw where you bought two tickets/flips.

You are conflating the impact of buying extra chances for one lottery with the impact of playing with one chance over many weeks - because you only ever have one chance per week, your odds never get any better than 14 million to 1 no matter how many times you play.

A simple question if your odds of winning the jackpot are 14 million to 1 but they get better the more times you buy a single ticket for a new draw, what would your odds of winning the jackpot have reduced to by the time you were playing your 1000th ticket?

The individual odds don't increase each time you play but the overall odds do increase.

How can they if the component parts don't change?

Fedex

06-17-2011, 04:27 PM

Read post no.155.

The odds of me getting my *** kicked are now 99 out of 100.

This evening it was 1 in 2!

shmolex

06-17-2011, 04:29 PM

By flipping the coin twice you have essentially bought two tickets for one lottery - i.e. you have bought 2 chances to win 1 lottery - you've increased the probability of winning that one lottery.

What you haven't done is bought one ticket for 2 lotteries - if you had bought one ticket for two lotteries you'd have once chance for each lottery as opposed to the 2 chances for the 1 lottery above i.e. you would have had one 50:50 chance so your chances of winning over both draws - your probability of winning both draws never gets above 50:50.

No, each coin flip is a seperate lottery. If I were to buy two tickets to the same lottery, it would be like calling both heads and tails.

Take roulette for example. Let's ignore the green slot in roulette and assume that red and black are 50:50. You can bet on black, or red, or you can bet on black and red at the same time. Betting on both would be like buying all the tickets, but wouldn't get you any money. But trying to correctly guess red or black for 2 seperate spins would result in the same numbers I showed above for the coin flip - and each spin of the roulette is a new lottery.

Batz my girlfiend's really p*d off with me.

I can't tell her I spent all night discussing probability theory on the tennis forum.

She knows it's that time of year and has braced herself but this really takes the biscuit.

How's your lady coping?

She had an early one tonight mate - she's been a wee bit ill lately - nothing serious.

stringertom

06-17-2011, 04:34 PM

No, each coin flip is a seperate lottery. If I were to buy two tickets to the same lottery, it would be like calling both heads and tails.

Take roulette for example. Let's ignore the green slot in roulette and assume that red and black are 50:50. You can bet on black, or red, or you can bet on black and red at the same time. Betting on both would be like buying all the tickets, but wouldn't get you any money. But trying to correctly guess red or black for 2 seperate spins would result in the same numbers I showed above for the coin flip - and each spin of the roulette is a new lottery.

Put all of us out of our misery having to read your monotonous posts!

Fedex

06-17-2011, 04:39 PM

She had an early one tonight mate - she's been a wee bit ill lately - nothing serious.

Does she happen to get ill round about one week before every Slam?

My partner's looking strangely ill too.

You might find she makes a rapid recovery come the 3rd of July.

Seriously though, hope your lady gets well soon.

Fedex

06-17-2011, 04:42 PM

Put all of us out of our misery having to read your monotonous posts!

Sorry man. I've stopped.

Thanks Batz and Shmolex.

Really enjoyed the discussion.

Another time?

No, each coin flip is a seperate lottery. If I were to buy two tickets to the same lottery, it would be like calling both heads and tails.

Take roulette for example. Let's ignore the green slot in roulette and assume that red and black are 50:50. You can bet on black, or red, or you can bet on black and red at the same time. Betting on both would be like buying all the tickets, but wouldn't get you any money. But trying to correctly guess red or black for 2 seperate spins would result in the same numbers I showed above for the coin flip - and each spin of the roulette is a new lottery.

That's exactly what you'd be doing - buying all the possible combinations in the lottery - heads and tails. Remember - the objective is to (and I'm quoting you here):

try to guess whether the coin will land heads or tails

So I buy all the possible guesses (heads and tails) and I increase the probability of me winning - on this occasion to 1.

If I wanted to achieve the same outcome in a 49 number lottery I could buy all the possible guesses - in this case `14 million of them rather than 2.

We're still talking about increasing the probability of winning the jackpot by buying more tickets for 1 lottery - not about buying 1 ticket for many lotteries - which has zero bearing on the probability of winning the jackpot - only by buying more than 1 ticket for a given lottery can you increase the probability if winning the jackpot. always buying 1 ticket for the lottery will always result in odds of 14 million to 1 - no matter how many time you enter with that 1 ticket.

_maxi

06-17-2011, 04:45 PM

Some people here needs Probability and Statistics lessons.... tip: read about independence of probability.

Probability is not "intuitive" always.

mellowyellow

06-17-2011, 04:48 PM

No, if you play the lottery every week, and keep the same numbers, there then becomes 2 lines of probability. The probability of you winning, and the probability of past numbers being drawn again. If this wasn't true people would be winning all the time with past winning number sequences. Thats not happening.

Some people here needs Probability and Statistics lessons.... tip: read about independence of probability.

Probability is not "intuitive" always.

Am I one of those 'some people'?:oops:

For sure this is a rigged draw.

Fedex

06-17-2011, 04:50 PM

If I wanted to achieve the same outcome in a 49 number lottery I could buy all the possible guesses - in this case `14 million of them rather than 2.

That would be like tossing a coin made with a head on either side.

It's not relevant. You would win every time.

There's no chance involved here.

Sorry Stringertom. I've started again.

It's all Batz's fault.

No, if you play the lottery every week, and keep the same numbers, there then becomes 2 lines of probability. The probability of you winning, and the probability of past numbers being drawn again. If this wasn't true people would be winning all the time with past winning number sequences. Thats not happening.

Yes - they are two separate probabilities of two separate questions - but what on earth do they have to do with each other?

That would be like tossing a coin made with a head on either side.

It's not relevant. You would win every time.

There's no chance involved here.

Of course there is a chance - it's still a 50:50 probability that it will be heads or tails - I haven't changed that by buying all the tickets in the lottery - it's just that one of my two guesses is bound to win. The other guess of course loses, and I lose my money - that's why I don't actually win anything.

Tammo

06-17-2011, 04:57 PM

whats up with people saying fed was in Nadal's half?

Fedex

06-17-2011, 04:58 PM

Batz it's now 2 in the morning.

It's Friday night, Saturday morning.

Whilst most normal men are out having a drink, clubbing, partying, taking their girlfriends for a night out.

You and I have spent the whole time discussing probability theory. On a tennis forum!

You do realise this?

Obviously a hell of a lot of unexpressed emotion and nervous energy the closer we get to Murray's Wimbledon campaign

Batz it's now 2 in the morning.

It's Friday night, Saturday morning.

Whilst most normal men are out having a drink, clubbing, partying, taking their girlfriends for a night out.

You and I have spent the whole time discussing probability theory. On a tennis forum!

You do realise this?

Obviously a hell of a lot of unexpressed emotion and nervous energy the closer we get to Murray's Wimbledon campaign

FPMSL

:)

You're right mate - I'm chucking it. I'll leave you with this thought though - I'd like nothing more than for you to be right - that a player's odds of winning the jackpot increases as the number of separate lotteries he plays increases - I've been a fiver a week for about 20 bloody years now - I'm due the big one any day now if you're right ;)

Cmon Murray.

_maxi

06-17-2011, 05:04 PM

Am I one of those 'some people'?:oops:

No Batz, you got the concept of independence of events right ;)

Fedex

06-17-2011, 05:05 PM

FPMSL

:)

You're right mate - I'm chucking it. I'll leave you with this thought though - I'd like nothing more than for you to be right - that a player's odds of winning the jackpot increases as the number of separate lotteries he plays increases - I've been a fiver a week for about 20 bloody years now - I'm due the big one any day now if you're right ;)

Cmon Murray.

I've just cracked open a Czech beer to feel sane and normal again.

We'll do the prob stuff another time.

Here's to Murray.

Edit: And good luck with the lottery.

Tony48

06-17-2011, 06:50 PM

Isn't this interesting. Even ESPN said that Federer and Nadal were on the same side (as well as Murray and Djokovic being on the same side).

I made a video and YouTubed it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9u5yPGnzzA

stringertom

06-17-2011, 07:02 PM

So you guys are testing out the statistical probability of a thread surviving the equivalent of last year's 70-68 five-set ultramarathon. Trust me, it was much more interesting wondering when one of those warriors was gonna falter. So why don't you get on Skyppe and flip a coin just ONCE to see which of y'all gets to say "Uncle"? Then we could all get back to "Talk TENNIS"!

Sharpshooter

06-17-2011, 07:56 PM

I think it's a little sus, that they're playing each other in the first round, but you have to give the organisers the benefit of the doubt, there's nothing to prove that they actually set it up.

In any case, it won't live up to expectations because I'm pretty sure Isner will be determined to not let a set escape him this time.

Sentinel

06-17-2011, 08:35 PM

Ultimate trollery if they actually beat last year's record and go into a 4th day of play on Center Court with Petros, Borg, Laver, J-Mac and that guy with the cowboy hat watching.

I thought the guy with the cowboy hat was Laver. :confused:

And i thought Shampras said he won't be coming to watch even if Fred makes the final.

martini1

06-17-2011, 08:40 PM

Haha to everybody's surprise this one will be down in straight sets breaking the quickest game record. :lol:

Tennis_Maestro

06-17-2011, 08:54 PM

Oh please batz, don't be so naive, "the draw is done in public", like they don't have their own ways to fix it.

Of course they would rather get tons of money from Fedal final then their man get to yet another final and lose in straights.

I mean it's laughable, Nole in Fed's half in what, last 13 of last 15 times in grand slams, really?? (and oh how surprising, that 2 times Nole was in Rafa's half was both times FO)

Isner/Mahut r1?? Really??

Come on, I'm not an idiot. :roll:

Look.

I agree the Fedal final will be boring but what you need to understand is its a simple toss of a coin.

Heads - Seed 1 plays seed 4 in the Semi's followed by Seed 2 playing seed 3 in the Semi's.

Tails - Seed 1 plays seed 3 in the Semi's followed by Seed 2 plays seed 4 in the Semi's.

It landed heads on this occasion.

I know people don't want to believe it and can't help but draw up conspiracies but they NEVER announced it as Murray vs Djokovic and Federer vs Nadal ... they MISPRINTED IT on their website.

As batz said, the draw is live and if there's one thing the British hate more than anything, its cheating and fixing. Just ask the 2018 World Cup bidding team and the millions of fans across the UK who watch football (Soccer for you yanks) they despise diving...

.... Murray avoiding Federer and playing Nadal in the final would be a better bet for the British as Murray's record vs Federer @ slams is diabolical... and before all the stupid little neeky *********s tell me Murray has lost to Nadal both times @ Wimbledon .. I KNOW ... but he's still recorded two victories over him @ slams which is less than can be said for his record against Federer in the events.

So you see if the organisers wanted to fix things they would have fixed it so Murray would avoid Federer or Nadal for the final... Not undermining Novak or anything but he still has a lot of work to do on grass....

martini1

06-17-2011, 09:20 PM

Look.

I agree the Fedal final will be boring but what you need to understand is its a simple toss of a coin.

Heads - Seed 1 plays seed 4 in the Semi's followed by Seed 2 playing seed 3 in the Semi's.

Tails - Seed 1 plays seed 3 in the Semi's followed by Seed 2 plays seed 4 in the Semi's.

It landed heads on this occasion.

I know people don't want to believe it and can't help but draw up conspiracies but they NEVER announced it as Murray vs Djokovic and Federer vs Nadal ... they MISPRINTED IT on their website.

As batz said, the draw is live and if there's one thing the British hate more than anything, its cheating and fixing. Just ask the 2018 World Cup bidding team and the millions of fans across the UK who watch football (Soccer for you yanks) they despise diving...

.... Murray avoiding Federer and playing Nadal in the final would be a better bet for the British as Murray's record vs Federer @ slams is diabolical... and before all the stupid little neeky *********s tell me Murray has lost to Nadal both times @ Wimbledon .. I KNOW ... but he's still recorded two victories over him @ slams which is less than can be said for his record against Federer in the events.

So you see if the organisers wanted to fix things they would have fixed it so Murray would avoid Federer or Nadal for the final... Not undermining Novak or anything but he still has a lot of work to do on grass....

LOL tell that to people from Hong Kong!!

Rhino

06-17-2011, 09:54 PM

Why would the draws be rigged? It's not like Wimbledon is unpopular, they have way more people wanting to attend than there are seats. People camp out all night just to get in. TV audiences are massive.

Why does Wimbledon need the Mahut-Isner rematch so badly that it needs to rig the draw?

Answer: it doesn't and they didn't rig it.

BreakPoint

06-17-2011, 11:28 PM

Yeah, I just saw this on the news. What are the odds of them playing again in the first round? Maybe they each should go out and buy a lottery ticket tomorrow? :)

I say this time, Mahut takes it 70-68 in the 5th set. :)

Rippy

06-18-2011, 04:12 AM

Why would the draws be rigged? It's not like Wimbledon is unpopular, they have way more people wanting to attend than there are seats. People camp out all night just to get in. TV audiences are massive.

Why does Wimbledon need the Mahut-Isner rematch so badly that it needs to rig the draw?

Answer: it doesn't and they didn't rig it.

This.

Wimbledon has plenty to lose (its reputation) and practically nothing to gain from rigging the draw.

mellowyellow

06-18-2011, 05:10 AM

Yes - they are two separate probabilities of two separate questions - but what on earth do they have to do with each other?

No, they both converge on the final outcome. If 123456 were drawn, they have less chance of being drawn than a different set of numbers the second time. Their is less probability of that sequence being drawn a second time than a different sequence being drawn. If 1 set odf numbers has been drawn and you know are less likely to be drawn again, doesn't that mean the odds of drawing something different are increased? No law governs this, it is just theory, but their is nothing that is "reset" in your words either.

rovex

06-18-2011, 05:25 AM

Someone managed to sneak out with a few pics of the inconspicous live draw

http://i54.tinypic.com/sg226w.jpg

http://i54.tinypic.com/2nvh5sk.jpg

Friggedined crooks.

No, they both converge on the final outcome. If 123456 were drawn, they have less chance of being drawn than a different set of numbers the second time. Their is less probability of that sequence being drawn a second time than a different sequence being drawn. If 1 set odf numbers has been drawn and you know are less likely to be drawn again, doesn't that mean the odds of drawing something different are increased? No law governs this, it is just theory, but their is nothing that is "reset" in your words either.

LOL - you are just making stuff up! :)

This is so wrong it is untrue. The probability of any given sequence is the same for every draw - no matter whether that number has been drawn previously - each draw is independent from any previous draws or future draws.

Weathered33

06-18-2011, 05:56 AM

This thread reminds me of when someone gets a bad beat on an internet poker site and starts crying and screaming about how they are all rigged.

The problem as shown in this thread is that a lot of people just have a really fundamental misunderstanding of probability.

As long as the chances are above 0%, there’s a chance that it can happen.

LOL - you are just making stuff up! :)

This is so wrong it is untrue. The probability of any given sequence is the same for every draw - no matter whether that number has been drawn previously - each draw is independent from any previous draws or future draws.

yeah, unbelievable how so many don't get this. What is worse is even after explaining, many still don't get it !

callmethedoctor

06-18-2011, 06:43 AM

I don't know if I did my math right, but I think there's a 0.71% chance that that draw would happen again, with Isner/Mahut.

And also, out of 15 tries, there's a 0.45% chance that the Murray-Nadal/Federer-Djokovic thing is not due to a statistical significance.

So yeah, math thinks these things are rigged. But ahaha, math once again proves nothing :/

BreakPoint

06-18-2011, 09:58 AM

LOL - you are just making stuff up! :)

This is so wrong it is untrue. The probability of any given sequence is the same for every draw - no matter whether that number has been drawn previously - each draw is independent from any previous draws or future draws.

Sure, like every time you flip a coin, there's a 50% chance of it coming up heads. But what are the odds that if you flipped the same coin 1,000 times that it will come up with heads all 1,000 times?

mellowyellow

06-18-2011, 10:04 AM

http://www.lotterypost.com/news/222134

"Lottery officials at first pulled Saturday's result, fearing there was a mechanical error or some sort of tampering with the results.

That's understandable as the statistical probability of that six-number combination is normally one-in-2.65 million. But a gaming and mathematics expert interviewed by Israeli website Ynetnews set the chances that the same numbers would hit twice somewhere around four trillion to one."

So the odds of those numbers is reduced your numbers odds must increase right? Its not that it can't happen, its the likelihood of it happening is less.Thats not even the same sequence, its backwards, and happened years apart. The chances of it happening back to back?

shmolex

06-18-2011, 10:34 AM

Man, I really wanted to drop this, but I just keep getting sucked back in lol.

So the odds of those numbers is reduced your numbers odds must increase right? Its not that it can't happen, its the likelihood of it happening is less.Thats not even the same sequence, its backwards, and happened years apart. The chances of it happening back to back?

Mellowyellow, future odds dont change because of previous outcomes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy#Explaining_why_the_probability _is_1.2F2_for_a_fair_coin

Just read the intro section as the rest gets pretty complicated.

Batz, I dont even know what we're discussing anymore. You already stated that:

That's the same as asking which lottery player has the greater chance of winning the jackpot - the guy who plays for 1 week or the guy who plays for 10 weeks - obviously it's the guy who plays for 10 weeks. But that doesn't mean the probability of him winning the jackpot has increased - that stays the same at just under 14 million to 1 every single time he plays no matter how many times he plays - it just means he has more chances than the guy who plays once.

This is what I'm talking about when I say overall probability. You admit that the guy who plays for 10 weeks has a "greater chance" than the guy who plays 1 week. Mathematically, if he has a "greater chance" he must have a higher probability of winning - not of winning individual lotteries, but eventually winning at least 1 lottery.

Put all of us out of our misery having to read your monotonous posts!

I understand that statistics is boring, but no one is forcing you to read my posts pal.

mellowyellow

06-18-2011, 10:46 AM

is 2.65 million greater or smaller than 4 trillion to 1?

Man, I really wanted to drop this, but I just keep getting sucked back in lol.

Mellowyellow, future odds dont change because of previous outcomes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy#Explaining_why_the_probability _is_1.2F2_for_a_fair_coin

Just read the intro section as the rest gets pretty complicated.

Batz, I dont even know what we're discussing anymore. You already stated that:

This is what I'm talking about when I say overall probability. You admit that the guy who plays for 10 weeks has a "greater chance" than the guy who plays 1 week. Mathematically, if he has a "greater chance" he must have a higher probability of winning - not of winning individual lotteries, but eventually winning at least 1 lottery.

I understand that statistics is boring, but no one is forcing you to read my posts pal.

There are 2 two different questions here:

Question 1 is - does a guy who plays the lottery 10 times in a row have a greater chance of winning than a guy who plays once?

This is a relative question. It is asking what the relative chances of one player are in comparison to another. The answer of course is that the guy who plays 10 times has a better chance of winning than the guy who plays once.

Question 2 is - what were the odds of winning the jackpot for the guy who played 1 week and the guy who played for 10 weeks? Were the probabilities different?

This is an absolute question. The answer is ' 1 in 13,983,816 ' - every time a draw was made - whether it was 1` time or 10 times. Because each draw is independent from the other and the odds of getting six numbers right out of 49 is always 1 in 13,983,816.

The mistake you are making is thinking that the 10 week player is improving his odds of winning the jackpot in absolute terms every time he plays - he isn't. He simply has a greater, relative probability of winning than the guy who plays for 1 week - but the probability of him or anybody else winning the jackpot remains constant.

Fedex

06-18-2011, 11:10 AM

There are 2 two different questions here:

Question 1 is - does a guy who plays the lottery 10 times in a row have a greater chance of winning than a guy who plays once?

This is a relative question. It is asking what the relative chances of one player are in comparison to another. The answer of course is that the guy who plays 10 times has a better chance of winning than the guy who plays once.

Question 2 is - what were the odds of winning the jackpot for the guy who played 1 week and the guy who played for 10 weeks? Were the probabilities different?

This is an absolute question. The answer is ' 1 in 13,983,816 ' - every time a draw was made - whether it was 1` time or 10 times. Because each draw is independent from the other and the odds of getting six numbers right out of 49 is always 1 in 13,983,816.

The mistake you are making is thinking that the 10 week player is improving his odds of winning the jackpot in absolute terms every time he plays - he isn't. He simply has a greater, relative probability of winning than the guy who plays for 1 week - but the probability of him or anybody else winning the jackpot remains constant.

You said it there in bold Batz and that's it.

The rest is just semantics.

The 10 week player improves his overall odds compared to the 1 week player.

The chances of landing a head on 1 throw are 50/50.

What are the chances of landing at least one head on 100 throws. A lot greater than 50/50 you'll admit.

But it's still a 50/50 chance on each individual throw.

Counter intuitive maybe but you know it's a fact. Yes?

Edit: Let this be the end of it. Somehow I don't think so. Batz is like a pit bull. Once the teeth go in he won't let go.

If you carry on like this you're going to have us all doubting the theory of probability.

Sure, like every time you flip a coin, there's a 50% chance of it coming up heads. But what are the odds that if you flipped the same coin 1,000 times that it will come up with heads all 1,000 times?

0.5 to the power of 1000 i.e. Very very very slim. But that has the square root of feck all to do with the independence of probability that exists between the coin tosses.

Previous flips have no influence on future flips. How is it possible that they could have? How could it be possible for the probability of coin falling on heads be anything other than 0.5? How could that probability possibly be changed by the fact that the previous 999 flips were also heads? You are arguiing all these things are happening if you think that having flipped 20 heads in a row, you are more likely to flip a head on the 21st flip.

I just cannot understand how people can't see what a bloody stupid proposition this is. You are talking about an inanimate object somehow knowing how many flips it has previously had and adjusting the probaility of landing heads or tails according to this history. People have been carted off to the laughing academy for saying less crazy things!

kishnabe

06-18-2011, 11:29 AM

The draw is damm well rigged....any one belives otherwise is an Idiot.

90 percent of the time 1 and 3 seeded players are in the same half. That never the case for Fedal in slams.

mellowyellow

06-18-2011, 11:36 AM

The draw is damm well rigged....any one belives otherwise is an Idiot.

90 percent of the time 1 and 3 seeded players are in the same half. That never the case for Fedal in slams.

No its totally legit, pulled out of a hat and the sheet couldn't possibly have been filled out before hand and the picks just blanks.......

You said it there in bold Batz and that's it.

The rest is just semantics.

The 10 week player improves his overall odds compared to the 1 week player.

The chances of landing a head on 1 throw are 50/50.

What are the chances of landing at least one head on 100 throws. A lot greater than 50/50 you'll admit.

But it's still a 50/50 chance on each individual throw.

Counter intuitive maybe but you know it's a fact. Yes?

Edit: Let this be the end of it. Somehow I don't think so. Batz is like a pit bull. Once the teeth go in he won't let go.

If you carry on like this you're going to have us all doubting the theory of probability.

No way mate - I'm keeping going until I convince you that your odds of winning the lottery jackpot are always, but always, 13,983,816 to 1 and they do not improve no matter how many weeks you play for. :)

Re the question bold. I think the answer is computed as follows:

First sum the 100 individual probabilities of the event happening (there are 100 opportunities for it to be heads, so add 0.5 to 0.5 100 times).

This gives us value of 50.

Now divide this value by the number events (100) to give us the overall probability of getting heads if a coin is flipped 100 times 50/100=0.5 or 1 in 2 or 50/50.

That's spooky eh. Do the same exercise for 100 lotteries, and the average probability remains at 13,983,816 acroiss those 100 lotteries. Do it for a million lotteries and it's the same, constant number that will pop out.

Have I convinced you yet mate? You're bang on to say it's counter-intuitive BTW.

BreakPoint

06-18-2011, 12:04 PM

0.5 to the power of 1000 i.e. Very very very slim. But that has the square root of feck all to do with the independence of probability that exists between the coin tosses.

Previous flips have no influence on future flips. How is it possible that they could have? How could it be possible for the probability of coin falling on heads be anything other than 0.5? How could that probability possibly be changed by the fact that the previous 999 flips were also heads? You are arguiing all these things are happening if you think that having flipped 20 heads in a row, you are more likely to flip a head on the 21st flip.

I just cannot understand how people can't see what a bloody stupid proposition this is. You are talking about an inanimate object somehow knowing how many flips it has previously had and adjusting the probaility of landing heads or tails according to this history. People have been carted off to the laughing academy for saying less crazy things!

Because the odds of Isner drawing Mahut two years in a row is a lot smaller than the odds of Isner drawing Mahut one year in a row.

In fact, the odds are 1 in 127 the first time. For two years in a row, the odds shoot up astronomically to 1 in 16,129.

Do you really think the odds of Isner drawing Mahut 10 years in a row is the same as Isner drawing Mahut just once in those 10 years?

Fedex

06-18-2011, 12:13 PM

No way mate - I'm keeping going until I convince you that your odds of winning the lottery jackpot are always, but always, 13,983,816 to 1 and they do not improve no matter how many weeks you play for. :)

Re the question bold. I think the answer is computed as follows:

First sum the 100 individual probabilities of the event happening (there are 100 opportunities for it to be heads, so add 0.5 to 0.5 100 times).

This gives us value of 50.

Now divide this value by the number events (100) to give us the overall probability of getting heads if a coin is flipped 100 times 50/100=0.5 or 1 in 2 or 50/50.

That's spooky eh. Do the same exercise for 100 lotteries, and the average probability remains at 13,983,816 acroiss those 100 lotteries. Do it for a million lotteries and it's the same, constant number that will pop out.

Have I convinced you yet mate? You're bang on to say it's counter-intuitive BTW.

No the sum is, if you forget the lottery and use the simple analogy of a toin coss (if it works for the coin, it works for the lottery just simpler numbers for the coin) chance of tossing a head:

1 throw 0.5 meaning 1 chance in 2.

2nd throw 0.75 meaning 3 chances in 4

3rd throw 0.875 meaning 7 chances in 8

4th throw 0.9375 meaning 15 chances in 16

5th throw 0.969 meaning 31 chances in 32

And so on.

On the 10th throw the overall odds are 0.999 meaning 1023 chances in 1024.

What are the chances of not landing one single head in 1024 throws Batz?!

And if you tell me it's still 50/50 then I'll know for sure that you are having one big laugh.

Because the odds of Isner drawing Mahut two years in a row is a lot smaller than the odds of Isner drawing Mahut one year in a row.

In fact, the odds are 1 in 127 the first time. For two years in a row, the odds shoot up astronomically to 1 in 16,129.

Do you really think the odds of Isner drawing Mahut 10 years in a row is the same as Isner drawing Mahut just once in those 10 years?

Where have I said or implied your statement in bold to be true?

You are looking backwards to 2 random events and going 'wow - look at that - who'd have thought that could happen' it's meaningless - the events are independent.

Someone on the 'Why do people think draws are rigged' thread posted that Gimelstob drew the same guy two years in a row a few years ago. I'm sure it's happened a few other times before as well. You're going on as if it is some crazy longshot one in a million event - it isn't. Less likely events will occur thousands of times in lotteries all over the world this weekend.

BreakPoint

06-18-2011, 12:19 PM

Where have I said or implied your statement in bold to be true?

You are looking backwards to 2 random events and going 'wow - look at that - who'd have thought that could happen' it's meaningless - the events are independent.

Someone on the 'Why do people think draws are rigged' thread posted that Gimelstob drew the same guy two years in a row a few years ago. I'm sure it's happened a few other times before as well. You're going on as if it is some crazy longshot one in a million event - it isn't. Less likely events will occur thousands of times in lotteries all over the world this weekend.

When did I say that? In fact, I specifically stated that it's a "1 in 16,129" event. Still pretty slim odds, wouldn't you agree? I mean, would you bet your life savings on a lottery that had 1 in 16,129 odds to win?

mellowyellow

06-18-2011, 12:24 PM

What The.....

Fedex

06-18-2011, 12:24 PM

You know, I've just realised this thread is turning into an Isner/Mahut style marathon debate on probability.

No the sum is, if you forget the lottery and use the simple analogy of a toin coss (if it works for the coin, it works for the lottery just simpler numbers for the coin) chance of tossing a head:

1 throw 0.5 meaning 1 chance in 2.

2nd throw 0.75 meaning 3 chances in 4

3rd throw 0.875 meaning 7 chances in 8

4th throw 0.9375 meaning 15 chances in 16

5th throw 0.969 meaning 31 chances in 32

And so on.

On the 10th throw the overall odds are 0.999 meaning 1023 chances in 1024.

What are the chances of not landing one single head in 1024 throws Batz?!

And if you tell me it's still 50/50 then I'll know for sure that you are having one big laugh.

This is the different question to 'what are the odds of getting 1 head in 100 tosses'. It is the same question as what are the odds of getting 1024 straight tails. The answer is 0.5 to the power of 1024.

Your e.g. is fundamentally flawed mate. How can the second throw have a probability of 0.75 of landing on heads? How can the probability of a two sided coin landing on heads ever be anything other than 0.5?

1st rhow 0.5 meaning 1 chance in 2

2nd throw 0.5 meaning 2 chanes in 4

3th throw 0.5 meaning 3 chances in 6

4th throw 0.5 meaning 4 chances in 8

5th throw 0.5 meaning 5 chances in 10

When did I say that? In fact, I specifically stated that it's a "1 in 16,129" event. Still pretty slim odds, wouldn't you agree? I mean, would you bet your life savings on a lottery that had 1 in 16,129 odds to win?

You do like a strwaman, don't you.

No - I wouldn't bet my life savings on an event with those odds. That doesn't mean it's anything to write home about - given the same thing happened a few years ago. I'be already said - hundreds of less likely events will occur tonight when the lottery is drawn.

mellowyellow

06-18-2011, 12:31 PM

Really, the Roddick/Gimbelstob thing was two different tourneys. If it was exactly one year apart, in the same tourney it has different implications. If that was the 06 USO, and the 07 USO he has a story...... if it was the longest match at the USO. Sorry, unlike the other slams, Wimby 1st rd matches suck, and the interest is lower, their is little middle ground because you are either comfy on grass or not and the results/ quality of matches shows. I think it highly plausible to try to drum up some interest in the borefest beginnings of Wimby without endangering the anticipated quarter and semi matches.

shmolex

06-18-2011, 12:38 PM

The mistake you are making is thinking that the 10 week player is improving his odds of winning the jackpot in absolute terms every time he plays - he isn't. He simply has a greater, relative probability of winning than the guy who plays for 1 week - but the probability of him or anybody else winning the jackpot remains constant.\

geez, how many times do I have to say that individual probabilities are unchanged no matter how many times you play? I've already agreed with you on this many times.

Anyway, it seems like what I've thought was going on has been confirmed. This entire time that I've been talking about increased probability, is what you refer to as "relative probability". I have never disagreed with you about what you call "absolute probability".

shmolex

06-18-2011, 12:40 PM

Your e.g. is fundamentally flawed mate. How can the second throw have a probability of 0.75 of landing on heads? How can the probability of a two sided coin landing on heads ever be anything other than 0.5?

No, what he is saying is that before both coins are flipped, there is a 75% chance that at least one of them will be heads.

Weathered33

06-18-2011, 12:46 PM

You're all forgetting the only other option for when something incredibly unlikely happens:

A divine miracle!

The Lord truly shines on us this day!

No, what he is saying is that before both coins are flipped, there is a 75% chance that at least one of them will be heads.

I've already shown that not to be the case. There is a 50% chance of one of them being heads. To repeat the method for answering the question 'what is the probability of flipping at least 1 head in n attempts' is :

sum the number of possibilities of the event happening then divide that number by the number of events. In this case the numbers are (0.5 + 0.5)/2 = 0.5

I thought we agreed last night that the probability of an individual coin toss falling on heads was always 0.5? So how can the second toss in Fedex's example have a probability of 0.75? Does the tail side get 50% lighter and the head side get 50% heavier?

EDIT I just noticed you have re-iterated my point above very nicely. So why do you think the second flip has a probability of 0.75 of being heads?

BreakPoint

06-18-2011, 12:56 PM

You do like a strwaman, don't you.

No - I wouldn't bet my life savings on an event with those odds. That doesn't mean it's anything to write home about - given the same thing happened a few years ago. I'be already said - hundreds of less likely events will occur tonight when the lottery is drawn.

I'd bet if you bet your life savings on a lottery in which the odds of winning were 1 in 16,129 and you actually won, you'd be writing home about it. :)

Shmolex

Your posts at 212 and 213 above are mutually exclusive. You have increased the absolute probability of getting heads on the second throw by 50% to 0.75. You are saying the second flip is twice as likely to be heads because it's the second flip. Have a think about that for a minute. Then accept that the probability of getting a head on the second throw is 0.5 (I know you know it is, you've already told me twice the individual probabilities do not change and it is always 0.5). - once you and my good friend Fedex get over this hurdle we can all watch Rory romp the USO :)

I still think this was set up on purpose. Let's have a quick 5-setter, guys.

shmolex

06-18-2011, 01:01 PM

EDIT I just noticed you have re-iterated my point above very nicely. So why do you think the second flip has a probability of 0.75 of being heads?

OMG, I feel like hitting my head against the wall. I am NOT saying the second coin flip has a 75% of being heads.

To use your words, the ABSOLUTE PROBABILITY of any individual coin coming up heads is 50%. The RELATIVE PROBABILITY of at least one of 2 coins being heads is 75%. It's like we're taking one step forward and one step back in this discussion.

I'd bet if you bet your life savings on a lottery in which the odds of winning were 1 in 16,129 and you actually won, you'd be writing home about it. :)

You're bloody right I would be! :)

shmolex

06-18-2011, 01:09 PM

Shmolex

Your posts at 212 and 213 above are mutually exclusive. You have increased the absolute probability of getting heads on the second throw by 50% to 0.75. You are saying the second flip is twice as likely to be heads because it's the second flip. Have a think about that for a minute.

No, I have not. BEFORE the 2 coins are tossed, there is a 75% RELATIVE PROBABILITY that you get at least 1 heads, which is different from the 50% absolute probability because Relative probability factors in how many chances you have and absolute only refers to your next flip.

With each flip of the coin, your RELATIVE probability changes because the number of chances you have changes.

In this case, if you get tails on the first try, your RELATIVE probability will change to 50% because you only have 1 chance left.

OMG, I feel like hitting my head against the wall. I am NOT saying the second coin flip has a 75% of being heads.

To use your words, the ABSOLUTE PROBABILITY of any individual coin coming up heads is 50%. The RELATIVE PROBABILITY of at least one of 2 coins being heads is 75%. It's like we're taking one step forward and one step back in this discussion.

That's exactly what Fedex is saying - and you are agreeing with him. He says that the second toss has a probability of being heads of 0.75 or 3 in 4.

The probability of a head appearing in two coin tosses is 50% or 1 in2 `- not 75% or 3 in 4. I've already shown you my method and the calculation that support this - perhaps you could explain your method and calculation for arriving at 75% or 3 in 4. Good luck with that - because along the way you're going to have to explain how it is possible for heads to appear 3 times after two coin tosses.

The chances of a coin being heads after two tosses can only ever be 2 in 4 - or 50%. it had 1 chance on the first toss and 1 chance on the second toss - where exactly is this 3rd chance coming from?

shmolex

06-18-2011, 01:13 PM

No, you are assuming that we are saying that relative probability stays the same throughout the entire duration of the tosses. Relative probability changes with each toss because the number of remaining tosses changes.

And I have already explained the math twice. Do I really need to do it again?

shmolex

06-18-2011, 01:23 PM

Let me put it this way, if what you say is correct, with 2 coin flips you say I have a 50% of getting at least 1 head. What about 100 coin flips? I still have a 50% of getting at least 1 head? If that is correct, then the opposite must be true. I must have a 50% chance of not getting any heads, because there are only 2 possibilities: getting at least 1 head or getting no heads.

So what you're saying then, is that with 8, 16, or even 100 coin flips, I have a 50% chance of every single one of them coming up tails?

No, you are assuming that we are saying that relative probability stays the same throughout the entire duration of the tosses. Relative probability changes with each toss because the number of remaining tosses changes.

And I have already explained the math twice. Do I really need to do it again?

You haven't posted a single number.

You are saying that on the second coin toss there is a 75% or 3 in 4 probability that the coin will be heads - where is this 3rd chance coming from? How can heads appear 3 times in two tosses?

To repeat - the probability of of getting a head with 2 tosses is 50% or 2 in 4. Why? Think about it:

On the first toss there was a 1 in 2 chance (it could be heads or it could be tails)

On the second toss, (we're using chances 3 and 4 now) and again it could be heads or it could be tails. So in total there have been 4 chances, and two of them could have been heads. 2 in 4. 50%. Not 3 in 4 or 75% - that would be physically impossible as heads would have to appear 3 times in two tosses.

Do you get it yet?

Let me put it this way, if what you say is correct, with 2 coin flips you say I have a 50% of getting at least 1 head. What about 100 coin flips? I still have a 50% of getting at least 1 head? If that is correct, then the opposite must be true. I must have a 50% chance of not getting any heads, because there are only 2 possibilities: getting at least 1 head or getting no heads.

So what you're saying then, is that with 8, 16, or even 100 coin flips, I have a 50% chance of every single one of them coming up tails?

Sigh.

Fedex has already asked this question tonight and I've already answered it.

The opposite of getting 1 head is not getting zero heads - it's getting 1 tail - and spookily enough, the odds of getting 1 tail in 100 flips is also 50% - who'd have thunk it eh. Not getting any heads is the same as getting all tails - if that happened 100 times it would have a probability of 0.5 to the power of 100 a very small number, definitely not 50%.

Rippy

06-18-2011, 01:34 PM

To repeat - the probability of of getting a head with 2 tosses is 50% or 2 in 4.

Is that "exactly one head" or "at least one head"?

Fedex

06-18-2011, 01:39 PM

Batz my girlfriend says to send her regards to your tennis internet geek widow.

That's a warning shot across the bows for us.

She also suspects that I am having internet bromances.

Can't get involved again tonight.

Must have a normal Weekend night re bonding with the lady.

Cheers.

Is that "exactly one head" or "at least one head"?

At least one head. Exactly one head is a different proposition altogether and a far less likely event. Also a far more complex calculation!

Batz my girlfriend says to send her regards to your tennis internet geek widow.

That's a warning shot across the bows for us.

She also suspects that I am having internet bromances.

Can't get involved again tonight.

Must have a normal Weekend night re bonding with the lady.

Cheers.

Go mate :) Give my best to your lady.

But please - if you get the chance - look back at what you posted and see that what you said physically cannot be true.

Rippy

06-18-2011, 01:44 PM

At least one head. Exactly one head is a different proposition altogether and a far less likely event. Also a far more complex calculation!

Wait... surely getting at least one head in 2 tosses is 0.75...

Because it's everything except 2 tails, which the probability of is 0.25

shmolex

06-18-2011, 01:45 PM

You haven't posted a single number.

You are saying that on the second coin toss there is a 75% or 3 in 4 probability that the coin will be heads - where is this 3rd chance coming from? How can heads appear 3 times in two tosses?

To repeat - the probability of of getting a head with 2 tosses is 50% or 2 in 4. Why? Think about it:

On the first toss there was a 1 in 2 chance (it could be heads or it could be tails)

On the second toss, (we're using chances 3 and 4 now) and again it could be heads or it could be tails. So in total there have been 4 chances, and two of them could have been heads. 2 in 4. 50%. Not 3 in 4 or 75% - that would be physically impossible as heads would have to appear 3 times in two tosses.

Do you get it yet?

Here is where your math is wrong. We are not talking about how many heads are flipped. We are talking about how many different possibilities can occur. With 2 coin flips, we are agreed there are 4 different outcomes:

First one tails, second one tails,

First one heads, second one tails

First one tails, second one heads

First one heads, second one heads.

3 out of 4 of these outcomes, result in at least 1 head. I'm not saying you are getting 3 heads, why is this so hard to understand?

Wait... surely getting at least one head in 2 tosses is 0.75...

Because it's everything except 2 tails, which the probability of is 0.25

I'm keeping this in my clipboard :)

On the first toss there was a 1 in 2 chance (it could be heads or it could be tails)

On the second toss, again it could be heads or it could be tails. So in total there have been 4 chances, and two of them could have been heads. 2 in 4. 50%. Not 3 in 4 or 75% - that would be physically impossible as heads would have to appear 3 times in two tosses.

Rippy

06-18-2011, 01:52 PM

Here is where your math is wrong. We are not talking about how many heads are flipped. We are talking about how many different possibilities can occur. With 2 coin flips, we are agreed there are 4 different outcomes:

First one tails, second one tails,

First one heads, second one tails

First one tails, second one heads

First one heads, second one heads.

3 out of 4 of these outcomes, result in at least 1 head. I'm not saying you are getting 3 heads, why is this so hard to understand?

Batz, this is exactly what I was saying.

I've even drawn out a little tree diagram beside me. :p

HH = 0.25

HT = 0.25

TH = 0.25

TT = 0.25

At least one head with two tosses = 3(0.25) = 0.75

Exactly one head with two tosses = 0.5

http://www.math-mate.com/chapter41_1_files/image005.gif

Weathered33

06-18-2011, 01:54 PM

Guys...

http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lkchpmFfnq1qdj6vfo1_500.jpg

Tennis_Maestro

06-18-2011, 01:56 PM

This.

Wimbledon has plenty to lose (its reputation) and practically nothing to gain from rigging the draw.

Notice how its all the British people in here being rational and understanding that it was a mistake ... whilst its all the American's that are drawing up conspiracies ... not being anti-American ... but you do love your conspiracy theories .. the World isn't black and white BUT Wimbledon does everything PROPERLY .. its still tradition to wear white and most player's follow ... everything in Wimbledon is done the traditional and fair way. Trust me, I studied Sports Management and for my first year went there on trip ... had to do an assignment ... was taking notes and the one thing that stood out like a saw thumb was the level of professionalism. Its not like the Fench Open, where the umpire can't control the crowd and the organizers schedule matches stupidly .. so that people who pay to see a particular match on a main court end up having to fight to move courts in order to see that match. (I.e, Del Potro vs Djokovic)

Here is where your math is wrong. We are not talking about how many heads are flipped. We are talking about how many different possibilities can occur. With 2 coin flips, we are agreed there are 4 different outcomes:

First one tails, second one tails,

First one heads, second one tails

First one tails, second one heads

First one heads, second one heads.

3 out of 4 of these outcomes, result in at least 1 head. I'm not saying you are getting 3 heads, why is this so hard to understand?

You say the second coin has a probability of 0.75 of being heads. You now say this is because 3 of the outcomes have at least one head, but 3 of the outcomes have at least 1 tail. The outcomes are completely balanced - they don't favour heads over tails so where are you pulling the 75% probability from?

We are talking about the potential number of heads that could appear after two flips. According to you accept there are only four possible outcomes - when a coin is flipped twice - and two of those must be tails. Therefore the potential number of heads that could appear after two tosses is two; 2 in 4.

This really isn't that tough you know.

Tennis_Maestro

06-18-2011, 01:58 PM

Someone needing a lesson in the laws of probability? Probably the only thing I found interesting in maths @ school.

Rippy

06-18-2011, 02:00 PM

You say the second coin has a probability of 0.75 of being heads. You know say this is because 3 of the outcomes have at least one head, but 3 of the outcomes have at least 1 tail. The outcomes are completely balanced - they don't favour heads over tails so where are you pulling the 75% probability from?

We are talking about the potential number of heads that could appear after two flips. According to you accept there are only four possible outcomes - when a coin is flipped twice - and two of those must be tails. Therefore the potential number of heads that could appear after two tosses is two; 2 in 4.

This really isn't that tough you know.

I have jumped into this "debate" rather late, but it seems like you're confusing two things here.

The probability of getting a head on the second toss isn't the same as getting at least one head in two tosses.

The former is 0.5, the latter is 0.75

http://www.math-mate.com/chapter41_1_files/image005.gif

Fedex

06-18-2011, 02:01 PM

Go mate :) Give my best to your lady.

But please - if you get the chance - look back at what you posted and see that what you said physically cannot be true.

My girlfriend is pulling out the internet router as speak!

Goodnight guys.

Have to leave you to it.

shmolex

06-18-2011, 02:08 PM

You now say this is because 3 of the outcomes have at least one head, but 3 of the outcomes have at least 1 tail. The outcomes are completely balanced - they don't favour heads over tails so where are you pulling the 75% probability from?

.

Yes, there are 3 outcomes that result in 1 tail. But now you're asking a completely different question. You're asking what is the probability that you get at least 1 tail, which is also 75%.

Now you're wondering how this is possible. 75% + 75% is more than 100. That's because you are asking probabilities of 2 different questions.

It's clear to me that none of what I'm saying is making sense, so I'm just going to make an appeal to authority and just ask you to read this short website.

http://stattrek.com/Help/Glossary.aspx?Target=Cumulative_probability

I'm going to write this out again.

TWO FLIPS OF A COIN

Flip 1 - two possible outcomes; heads or tails

Flip 2 - two possible outcomes; head or tails

Total possible outcomes 4

Possible combinations: HH,TT,HT,TH

Total possibilities for heads: 2

Total possibilities for tails: 2

Total possibilties: 4

Conclusion - when a coin is flipped twice, there is a 2 in 4 probability that one of those flips will result in heads. This is also true for tails.

Rippy

06-18-2011, 02:11 PM

I despair.

Please look at the simple diagram http://www.math-mate.com/chapter41_1_files/image005.gif

Exactly one head = 0.5

Exactly one tail = 0.5

At least one head = 0.75

At least one tail = 0.75

EDIT: What you've posted above is true for "exactly one head" Batz... but you said earlier you were talking about "at least one head". Surely you can see that for "at least one head" there are THREE possibilities for heads, not two as you wrote in your above post.

got spin?

06-18-2011, 02:14 PM

My prediction: Isner wins in straits 6-3 7-6(4) 6-1. Mahut dosent have the mental game to overcome what happened last year and cant handle the inevitable.

Yes, there are 3 outcomes that result in 1 tail. But now you're asking a completely different question. You're asking what is the probability that you get at least 1 tail, which is also 75%.

Now you're wondering how this is possible. 75% + 75% is more than 100. That's because you are asking probabilities of 2 different questions.

It's clear to me that none of what I'm saying is making sense, so I'm just going to make an appeal to authority and just ask you to read this short website.

http://stattrek.com/Help/Glossary.aspx?Target=Cumulative_probability

I'm literally laughing out loud here.

If the probability of getting a head is 0.75 then (unless you live a parallel universe) it follows that the probability of getting a tail is 0.25. Between the two of them it must add up to 1 because it must be either heads or tails - there are no other possibilities.

If the probability of getting at least 1 tail is 0.75 then it follows that the probability of getting at least 1 head is 0.25 - they cannot both be 0.75:) The sum of probabilities can't be more than 1.

I suspect you are a little out your depth.

Your link is answering the question, what is the probability of getting 1 head or fewer In other words it's asking 'what is the probability of only getting 1 head or all tails'? That is a fundamentally different question to 'what is the probability of getting a head'?

Rippy

06-18-2011, 02:17 PM

I'm literally laughing out loud here.

If the probability of getting a head is 0.75 then (unless you live a parallel universe) it follows that the probability of getting a tail is 0.25. Between the two of them it must add up to 1 because it must be either heads or tails - there are no other possibilities.

.

FFS.

You said you were talking about AT LEAST one head.

The probability of getting AT LEAST one head is 0.75. Therefore, 0.25 is the probability of getting BOTH tails, not "a tail".

The probability of getting AT LEAST one tail is also 0.75

As before, can be easily worked out using the GCSE level tree diagram

http://www.math-mate.com/chapter41_1_files/image005.gif

dcdoorknob

06-18-2011, 02:20 PM

I'm literally laughing out loud here.

If the probability of getting a head is 0.75 then (unless you live a parallel universe) it follows that the probability of getting a tail is 0.25. Between the two of them it must add up to 1 because it must be either heads or tails - there are no other possibilities.

If the probability of getting at least 1 tail is 0.75 then it follows that the probability of getting at least 1 head is 0.25 - they cannot both be 0.75:) The sum of probabilities can't be more than 1.

I suspect you are a little out your depth.

You are wrong, and your lol-ing and saying other people who are right are out of their depth is just making you look worse.

I could try to explain why but other people have already done that and I'd just be repeating them.

I despair.

Please look at the simple diagram http://www.math-mate.com/chapter41_1_files/image005.gif

Exactly one head = 0.5

Exactly one tail = 0.5

At least one head = 0.75

At least one tail = 0.75

EDIT: What you've posted above is true for "exactly one head" Batz... but you said earlier you were talking about "at least one head". Surely you can see that for "at least one head" there are THREE possibilities for heads, not two as you wrote in your above post.

Rippy - does that mean that the probability of getting six numbers on the lottery improves each week that you play?

Rippy

06-18-2011, 02:27 PM

Rippy - does that mean that the probability of getting six numbers on the lottery improves each week that you play?

I honestly have no idea.

All I'm sure of is that if you toss a coin twice, the probability of getting at least one head is 0.75 :p

Your example of the lottery suggests to me you misunderstand though. No, your chance on each individual week doesn't improve, just like the chance on each INDIVIDUAL coin toss of getting a head is 0.5. But when you look at 2 consecutive coin tosses, the probability of getting at least one head is definitely not 0.5, it is 0.75.

Your lottery example is like considering a single coin toss, whereas you have been referring all along to 2 consecutive coin tosses. It's like if you toss a coin 1000 times, it's more likely you'll get at least one head than if you toss it twice. But, the probability of a head on the 1000th toss is still 0.5

With the lottery, your chance each week is the same, but if you play 1000 times, you will have had a greater chance of winning than if you played just once.

You are wrong, and your lol-ing and saying other people who are right are out of their depth is just making you look worse.

I could try to explain why but other people have already done that and I'd just be repeating them.

Am I wrong about the probability of winning the lottery staying the same every week, no matter how many times you play or have I got the method for working out the chances of flipping a head wrong? Both?

I'd be grateful for the education - even if it's just so I know who I need to apologise to.

vBulletin® v3.8.8, Copyright ©2000-2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.