juanparty

08-25-2011, 10:04 AM

what the hell happens with the ATP? could someone explain me? This is getting pathetic, i would like to see Nadal-Federer at the same draw, i think that will never happen. that drawing was fixed again.:evil:

View Full Version : Federer-Djokovic in the same draw again!

juanparty

08-25-2011, 10:04 AM

what the hell happens with the ATP? could someone explain me? This is getting pathetic, i would like to see Nadal-Federer at the same draw, i think that will never happen. that drawing was fixed again.:evil:

Telepatic

08-25-2011, 10:10 AM

Meh, I won't even bother watching draws in future.

ALL IN

08-25-2011, 10:15 AM

One has to wonder how much influence sponsor money has. They calculate the potential viewership of a Nadal vs Federer final vs otherwise and run with the numbers. Political type influence.

GOAT BAAH!!!

08-25-2011, 10:22 AM

Of course the ATP makes this happen...

Noel may be number 1 but he has not transcended the sport and reached "ambassador" status like Fedal have.

A Fedal final final gets *****e$ in the seats guys....

Noel may be number 1 but he has not transcended the sport and reached "ambassador" status like Fedal have.

A Fedal final final gets *****e$ in the seats guys....

ledwix

08-25-2011, 10:24 AM

God dangit.....I hate this.

juanparty

08-25-2011, 10:31 AM

Of course the ATP makes this happen...

Noel may be number 1 but he has not transcended the sport and reached "ambassador" status like Fedal have.

A Fedal final final gets *****e$ in the seats guys....

that's no matter to me, the ATP starts losing credibility, this is a lack of respect to Djokovic,Murray, other players and truly fans around the world.

Noel may be number 1 but he has not transcended the sport and reached "ambassador" status like Fedal have.

A Fedal final final gets *****e$ in the seats guys....

that's no matter to me, the ATP starts losing credibility, this is a lack of respect to Djokovic,Murray, other players and truly fans around the world.

8PAQ

08-25-2011, 10:42 AM

I want Fed to be in the same half as Novak because for once I dont think he will be reaching the semis. So it's only easier for Novak. Murray will be in the final on the other side anyway. So it's all good.

Ripster

08-25-2011, 10:42 AM

Isn't it supposed to be random? It seems to me that #1 and #4 should be in the same section but lately it's been the opposite with Djokovic/Fed, Nadal/Murray every time.

8PAQ

08-25-2011, 10:45 AM

Relax everyone. Fed isn't gonna make the semi anyway.

djones

08-25-2011, 11:02 AM

Hilarious :-D !!

Bud

08-25-2011, 11:08 AM

The ITF controls Grand Slam tournaments, not the ATP ;)

Mustard

08-25-2011, 11:11 AM

There's only an 8.33% chance that random draws would put Federer/Djokovic and Nadal/Murray together in 6 consecutive majors.

juanparty

08-25-2011, 11:15 AM

There's only an 8.33% chance that random draws would put Federer/Djokovic and Nadal/Murray together in 6 consecutive majors.

that makes me think than the draws are fixed. captain obvious!

that makes me think than the draws are fixed. captain obvious!

Raistlin

08-25-2011, 11:17 AM

Relax everyone. Fed isn't gonna make the semi anyway.

If you are Djokovic that will be your dying wish lol

If you are Djokovic that will be your dying wish lol

Totai

08-25-2011, 11:21 AM

what the hell happens with the ATP? could someone explain me? This is getting pathetic, i would like to see Nadal-Federer at the same draw, i think that will never happen. that drawing was fixed again.:evil:

I dont see why this is upsetting you, rent #1 and #2 supposed to be in opposite side of the draw? #3 and 4 get the other corners

I dont see why this is upsetting you, rent #1 and #2 supposed to be in opposite side of the draw? #3 and 4 get the other corners

OrangePower

08-25-2011, 11:23 AM

There's only an 8.33% chance that random draws would put Federer/Djokovic and Nadal/Murray together in 6 consecutive majors.

Not sure how you are doing the math but actually the chance is approximately 1.5% (1 / 2^6)

that makes me think than the draws are fixed. captain obvious!

Still does not mean the draws are fixed. For example, odds of any person winning the lottery is like 0.0001%. But yet someone will win it. Does that mean the lottery was fixed?

Not sure how you are doing the math but actually the chance is approximately 1.5% (1 / 2^6)

that makes me think than the draws are fixed. captain obvious!

Still does not mean the draws are fixed. For example, odds of any person winning the lottery is like 0.0001%. But yet someone will win it. Does that mean the lottery was fixed?

Max G.

08-25-2011, 11:26 AM

It's almost comical at this point.

ledwix

08-25-2011, 11:32 AM

Not sure how you are doing the math but actually the chance is approximately 1.5% (1 / 2^6)

Still does not mean the draws are fixed. For example, odds of any person winning the lottery is like 0.0001%. But yet someone will win it. Does that mean the lottery was fixed?

No, but the odds of someone in existence winning the lottery are pretty high eventually. You just can't predict it for any particular person. Here, we're talking about a particular foursome and being able to predict the draw based on that. And so they are running a 1/1000 or lower type streak right now, for which I would rule out chance at this point.

Still does not mean the draws are fixed. For example, odds of any person winning the lottery is like 0.0001%. But yet someone will win it. Does that mean the lottery was fixed?

No, but the odds of someone in existence winning the lottery are pretty high eventually. You just can't predict it for any particular person. Here, we're talking about a particular foursome and being able to predict the draw based on that. And so they are running a 1/1000 or lower type streak right now, for which I would rule out chance at this point.

Mustard

08-25-2011, 11:35 AM

Not sure how you are doing the math but actually the chance is approximately 1.5% (1 / 2^6)

1 out of 2 in one draw, which is 50%. Divide 50% by 6, and you get 8.33%.

1 out of 2 in one draw, which is 50%. Divide 50% by 6, and you get 8.33%.

ledwix

08-25-2011, 11:37 AM

1 out of 2 in one draw, which is 50%. Divide 50% by 6, and you get 8.33%.

It's (1/2)^6 = 1/64. There is no reason to divide by 6 unless an event has a 1/6 chance of happening.

It's (1/2)^6 = 1/64. There is no reason to divide by 6 unless an event has a 1/6 chance of happening.

Ico

08-25-2011, 11:41 AM

1 out of 2 in one draw, which is 50%. Divide 50% by 6, and you get 8.33%.

What the hell? That isn't even close.

What the hell? That isn't even close.

FuriousYellow

08-25-2011, 11:44 AM

It seems like all the guys having a good summer hardcourt season are in the top half of the draw: Nole, Fish, Monfils, Stepanek, Tsonga.

sdont

08-25-2011, 11:48 AM

1 out of 2 in one draw, which is 50%. Divide 50% by 6, and you get 8.33%.

Wow. You shouldn't be talking about probability, man, you're embarassing yourself.

Wow. You shouldn't be talking about probability, man, you're embarassing yourself.

CDestroyer

08-25-2011, 11:50 AM

Wow. You shouldn't be talking about probability, man, you're embarassing yourself.

If he can't copy and paste it from Wikipedia or Google he can't help ya.

If he can't copy and paste it from Wikipedia or Google he can't help ya.

Fate Archer

08-25-2011, 12:01 PM

Random generated my ***. This draw is hand-picked.

Besides, Wawrinka in the same quarter with Murray again. Me thinks USTA wants Murray to fail.

Besides, Wawrinka in the same quarter with Murray again. Me thinks USTA wants Murray to fail.

Larrysümmers

08-25-2011, 12:07 PM

djok is seed 1 and fed is seed 3...i dont get the fuss. i really dont. would you rather them fix it so that they meet in the 2nd round?

Ico

08-25-2011, 12:09 PM

djok is seed 1 and fed is seed 3...i dont get the fuss. i really dont. would you rather them fix it so that they meet in the 2nd round?

How about they meet in the final?

How about they meet in the final?

Larrysümmers

08-25-2011, 12:14 PM

How about they meet in the final?

well fed should step up his game or novak should have tanked and lost some matches so nadal would be 1

well fed should step up his game or novak should have tanked and lost some matches so nadal would be 1

Mustard

08-25-2011, 12:17 PM

It's (1/2)^6 = 1/64. There is no reason to divide by 6 unless an event has a 1/6 chance of happening.

I divided 50% by 6 because there's a 50% chance "6 times in a row".

I divided 50% by 6 because there's a 50% chance "6 times in a row".

Omega_7000

08-25-2011, 12:30 PM

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=383263

Add USO 2011 to this list,

2008 AO

2008 Wimbledon

2008 USO

2009 AO

2009 FO

2009 Wimbledon

2009 USO

2010 AO

2010 Wimbledon

2010 USO

2011 AO

2011 FO

2011 Wimbledon

2011 USO

(Since Djokovic made his first final in USO 2007)

Add USO 2011 to this list,

2008 AO

2008 Wimbledon

2008 USO

2009 AO

2009 FO

2009 Wimbledon

2009 USO

2010 AO

2010 Wimbledon

2010 USO

2011 AO

2011 FO

2011 Wimbledon

2011 USO

(Since Djokovic made his first final in USO 2007)

jbpick920

08-25-2011, 12:33 PM

Mustard, your math is a little skewed. I will use flipping a coin for my example because that 50/50 odds. T

Hitting heads in a row

1: 50%

2:25%

3:12.5%

4:6.25%

5:3.125%

6:1.5625%

What ever the odds are you simply multiply it by itself for each consecutive time or take the probabilty to power of the number of consecutive hits. (whichever way makes more sense)

Hitting heads in a row

1: 50%

2:25%

3:12.5%

4:6.25%

5:3.125%

6:1.5625%

What ever the odds are you simply multiply it by itself for each consecutive time or take the probabilty to power of the number of consecutive hits. (whichever way makes more sense)

Ico

08-25-2011, 12:33 PM

I divided 50% by 6 because there's a 50% chance "6 times in a row".

That's embarrassingly wrong. For it to happen 6 times in a row would be represented by .5^6.

That's embarrassingly wrong. For it to happen 6 times in a row would be represented by .5^6.

tennis_pro

08-25-2011, 12:34 PM

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=383263

Add USO 2011 to this list,

2008 AO

2008 Wimbledon

2008 USO

2009 AO

2009 FO

2009 Wimbledon

2009 USO

2010 AO

2010 Wimbledon

2010 USO

2011 AO

2011 FO

2011 Wimbledon

2011 USO

(Since Djokovic made his first final in USO 2007)

It's not like they both make the semi every time cause they've only played 6 out of 14. Funny how half of those meeting took place in the last 12 months, tho.

Add USO 2011 to this list,

2008 AO

2008 Wimbledon

2008 USO

2009 AO

2009 FO

2009 Wimbledon

2009 USO

2010 AO

2010 Wimbledon

2010 USO

2011 AO

2011 FO

2011 Wimbledon

2011 USO

(Since Djokovic made his first final in USO 2007)

It's not like they both make the semi every time cause they've only played 6 out of 14. Funny how half of those meeting took place in the last 12 months, tho.

tennis_pro

08-25-2011, 12:37 PM

That's embarrassingly wrong. For it to happen 6 times in a row would be represented by .5^6.

I wonder what are the odds that Fed and Djoker end up in the same draw in 21 out of 24 majors. That must be something under 0,1 %.

I wonder what are the odds that Fed and Djoker end up in the same draw in 21 out of 24 majors. That must be something under 0,1 %.

sdont

08-25-2011, 12:41 PM

I divided 50% by 6 because there's a 50% chance "6 times in a row".

I have a small test for you:

1) What is the probability of having a 6 with a six-face die?

2) What is the probability of having a 6 with a six-face die two times in a row?

3) What is the probability of having a double 6 with two dice?

Maybe it'll help you understand.

I have a small test for you:

1) What is the probability of having a 6 with a six-face die?

2) What is the probability of having a 6 with a six-face die two times in a row?

3) What is the probability of having a double 6 with two dice?

Maybe it'll help you understand.

Laurie

08-25-2011, 12:45 PM

Of course the ATP makes this happen...

Noel may be number 1 but he has not transcended the sport and reached "ambassador" status like Fedal have.

A Fedal final final gets *****e$ in the seats guys....

Even so, this final in New York they've tried so hard to materilaise has yet to happen.

It's disappointing that this draw has worked out this way yet again.

Noel may be number 1 but he has not transcended the sport and reached "ambassador" status like Fedal have.

A Fedal final final gets *****e$ in the seats guys....

Even so, this final in New York they've tried so hard to materilaise has yet to happen.

It's disappointing that this draw has worked out this way yet again.

spiderman123

08-25-2011, 12:46 PM

Forget going long back in history.

Just the odds of Federer and Nadal being in the opposite halves of the draw for French Open'11, Wimbledon'11, Montreal'11, Cincinnati'11 AND USOpen'11 were 1/32

This is very interesting.

Just the odds of Federer and Nadal being in the opposite halves of the draw for French Open'11, Wimbledon'11, Montreal'11, Cincinnati'11 AND USOpen'11 were 1/32

This is very interesting.

PSNELKE

08-25-2011, 12:49 PM

Seriously what the f´ck is your problem.

Nole got lucky with Fed in his half, I would be more concerned about Muzz if I was him.

Fed is not playing at the level he used to.

Nole got lucky with Fed in his half, I would be more concerned about Muzz if I was him.

Fed is not playing at the level he used to.

Mustard

08-25-2011, 12:54 PM

Mustard, your math is a little skewed. I will use flipping a coin for my example because that 50/50 odds. T

Hitting heads in a row

1: 50%

2:25%

3:12.5%

4:6.25%

5:3.125%

6:1.5625%

What ever the odds are you simply multiply it by itself for each consecutive time or take the probabilty to power of the number of consecutive hits. (whichever way makes more sense)

I see what you're doing, thinking that if you get heads twice in a row (25% chance), getting it a third time would halve 25% into 12.5%, but doesn't individual coin toss have a 50% chance of landing on heads, so surely it's 50 divided by 1, 2, 3 and so on.

I have a small test for you:

1) What is the probability of having a 6 with a six-face die?

2) What is the probability of having a 6 with a six-face die two times in a row?

3) What is the probability of having a double 6 with two dice?

Maybe it'll help you understand.

1. 16.67%

2. 2.78%

3. 8.34%

Hitting heads in a row

1: 50%

2:25%

3:12.5%

4:6.25%

5:3.125%

6:1.5625%

What ever the odds are you simply multiply it by itself for each consecutive time or take the probabilty to power of the number of consecutive hits. (whichever way makes more sense)

I see what you're doing, thinking that if you get heads twice in a row (25% chance), getting it a third time would halve 25% into 12.5%, but doesn't individual coin toss have a 50% chance of landing on heads, so surely it's 50 divided by 1, 2, 3 and so on.

I have a small test for you:

1) What is the probability of having a 6 with a six-face die?

2) What is the probability of having a 6 with a six-face die two times in a row?

3) What is the probability of having a double 6 with two dice?

Maybe it'll help you understand.

1. 16.67%

2. 2.78%

3. 8.34%

jbpick920

08-25-2011, 01:00 PM

Maybe itll help you to see it this way:

I flip a coin once there are two options:h,t

I flip it twice there are 4 possible sequences hh, ht, th,tt

I flip it three times there are 8: hhh,hht,htt,hth,thh,tth,tht,ttt

and so on...

Does that make sense?

I flip a coin once there are two options:h,t

I flip it twice there are 4 possible sequences hh, ht, th,tt

I flip it three times there are 8: hhh,hht,htt,hth,thh,tth,tht,ttt

and so on...

Does that make sense?

stringertom

08-25-2011, 01:04 PM

Didn't you guys get enough arguing about probability theory prior to Wimbledon????

The draw is what it is...let it go! I'm not privy to what went on in the room but it's quite possible randomness does not have a total control over the outcome. It's funny that when ND/Fed were #2/3 they wound up in the same half. Now that it's #1/3, they still link up. It's more reasonable when you look at it that way instead of the "personalization".

Re: who the culprits are to accuse...not ATP, not ITF...it's a USTA event.

Re:Fed early demise...weren't the same things being said during Euroclay after unexpected losses to Melzer & Gasquet? What was the RG result? The man knows how and when to peak. I'm not confident he wins it all but I am expecting a Super Saturday appearance.

The draw is what it is...let it go! I'm not privy to what went on in the room but it's quite possible randomness does not have a total control over the outcome. It's funny that when ND/Fed were #2/3 they wound up in the same half. Now that it's #1/3, they still link up. It's more reasonable when you look at it that way instead of the "personalization".

Re: who the culprits are to accuse...not ATP, not ITF...it's a USTA event.

Re:Fed early demise...weren't the same things being said during Euroclay after unexpected losses to Melzer & Gasquet? What was the RG result? The man knows how and when to peak. I'm not confident he wins it all but I am expecting a Super Saturday appearance.

Mustard

08-25-2011, 01:10 PM

Maybe itll help you to see it this way:

I flip a coin once there are two options:h,t

I flip it twice there are 4 possible sequences hh, ht, th,tt

I flip it three times there are 8: hhh,hht,htt,hth,thh,tth,tht,ttt

and so on...

Does that make sense?

*Brain explodes*

I flip a coin once there are two options:h,t

I flip it twice there are 4 possible sequences hh, ht, th,tt

I flip it three times there are 8: hhh,hht,htt,hth,thh,tth,tht,ttt

and so on...

Does that make sense?

*Brain explodes*

spiderman123

08-25-2011, 01:11 PM

Maybe itll help you to see it this way:

I flip a coin once there are two options:h,t

I flip it twice there are 4 possible sequences hh, ht, th,tt

I flip it three times there are 8: hhh,hht,htt,hth,thh,tth,tht,ttt

and so on...

Does that make sense?

or in two torunaments the options are

N: Novak, R: Rafa F:Federer M:Murray

[NF MR][NF MR], [NF MR][NM FR], [NM FR][NF MR], [NM FR][NM FR]

So the probability of Novak and Roger being in the same half for both tournaments is 1/4.

The probability of them being in the same half for one tournament is 1/2.

"AND" is multiplication.

So the probability of them being in the same half for first tournament AND the second tournament is 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/4.

I flip a coin once there are two options:h,t

I flip it twice there are 4 possible sequences hh, ht, th,tt

I flip it three times there are 8: hhh,hht,htt,hth,thh,tth,tht,ttt

and so on...

Does that make sense?

or in two torunaments the options are

N: Novak, R: Rafa F:Federer M:Murray

[NF MR][NF MR], [NF MR][NM FR], [NM FR][NF MR], [NM FR][NM FR]

So the probability of Novak and Roger being in the same half for both tournaments is 1/4.

The probability of them being in the same half for one tournament is 1/2.

"AND" is multiplication.

So the probability of them being in the same half for first tournament AND the second tournament is 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/4.

Cosmic_Colin

08-25-2011, 01:11 PM

I see what you're doing, thinking that if you get heads twice in a row (25% chance), getting it a third time would halve 25% into 12.5%, but doesn't individual coin toss have a 50% chance of landing on heads, so surely it's 50 divided by 1, 2, 3 and so on.

Try imagining it as a branching path. Each time you flip a coin there are two possible outcomes. Each subsequent flip will split into another two outcomes.

After 6 flips there are 64 possible outcomes. Only one of these is h-h-h-h-h-h, so the chance is 1/64, or about 1.5%.

However, the point where a lot of people fall over is predicting the next flip. Many think that after 6 consecutive heads a tails is 'Due'. In reality heads and tails have an equal chance - 50%.

Try imagining it as a branching path. Each time you flip a coin there are two possible outcomes. Each subsequent flip will split into another two outcomes.

After 6 flips there are 64 possible outcomes. Only one of these is h-h-h-h-h-h, so the chance is 1/64, or about 1.5%.

However, the point where a lot of people fall over is predicting the next flip. Many think that after 6 consecutive heads a tails is 'Due'. In reality heads and tails have an equal chance - 50%.

jbpick920

08-25-2011, 01:14 PM

However, the point where a lot of people fall over is predicting the next flip. Many think that after 6 consecutive heads a tails is 'Due'. In reality heads and tails have an equal chance - 50%.

Yeah, I thought about saying this, but I was trying to take it one concept at a time.

Yeah, I thought about saying this, but I was trying to take it one concept at a time.

sdont

08-25-2011, 01:15 PM

1. 16.67%

2. 2.78%

3. 8.34%

Now imagine you want to have a double 6 with two successive throws of the same die (because you only have one)... See where I'm getting at ?

The probability of having N consecutive "heads" with a coin is the same as having "heads" on all of N different coins.

You got it right on answer 2: 1/6*1/6=2.78%

You got it wrong on answer 3. It's the same as answer 2.

2. 2.78%

3. 8.34%

Now imagine you want to have a double 6 with two successive throws of the same die (because you only have one)... See where I'm getting at ?

The probability of having N consecutive "heads" with a coin is the same as having "heads" on all of N different coins.

You got it right on answer 2: 1/6*1/6=2.78%

You got it wrong on answer 3. It's the same as answer 2.

PCXL-Fan

08-25-2011, 01:18 PM

Actually its been 13 of the past 14 grand slams.

2011

USO: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko (order of seeding does not matter, this is simply to show draw placement relative to one another)

WB: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

RG: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

AO: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

2010:

US: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

WB: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

RG: Nadal/Djoko - Fed/Murray

AO: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

2009:

US: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

WB: X/Murray - Fed/Djoko

RG: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

AO: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

2008:

US: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

WB: Nadal/Davydenko - Fed/Djoko *(Murray was in Nadals Qtr ranked 12th had not yet established himself...which he does in this with the epic win over Gasquet in R16, winning Cinci Open MS1000, and reaching final of USO)

What is the mathematics formula to calculate odds for 13 of the past 14 slams, and what are the odds?

2011

USO: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko (order of seeding does not matter, this is simply to show draw placement relative to one another)

WB: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

RG: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

AO: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

2010:

US: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

WB: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

RG: Nadal/Djoko - Fed/Murray

AO: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

2009:

US: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

WB: X/Murray - Fed/Djoko

RG: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

AO: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

2008:

US: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

WB: Nadal/Davydenko - Fed/Djoko *(Murray was in Nadals Qtr ranked 12th had not yet established himself...which he does in this with the epic win over Gasquet in R16, winning Cinci Open MS1000, and reaching final of USO)

What is the mathematics formula to calculate odds for 13 of the past 14 slams, and what are the odds?

jbpick920

08-25-2011, 01:18 PM

impressive sdont. You should have been a math teacher. ha

sdont

08-25-2011, 01:22 PM

impressive sdont. You should have been a math teacher. ha

Guess what? ;)

Guess what? ;)

jbpick920

08-25-2011, 01:24 PM

Haha well that makes sense.

Larrysümmers

08-25-2011, 01:24 PM

my brain hurts

jbpick920

08-25-2011, 01:26 PM

I put myself through college playing poker so probability became a necessary hobby.

Andres

08-25-2011, 01:28 PM

It's because the sponsors win with either Nadal vs. Fed or Nadal vs. Nole in the finals. No one wants to see Murray in a slam final anyway! :D

woodrow1029

08-25-2011, 01:31 PM

what the hell happens with the ATP? could someone explain me? This is getting pathetic, i would like to see Nadal-Federer at the same draw, i think that will never happen. that drawing was fixed again.:evil:

First of all, ATP has nothing to do with it. Secondly, Federer, Djokovic and Nadal are all in the same draw.

Finally, you create a lot of stupid threads.

First of all, ATP has nothing to do with it. Secondly, Federer, Djokovic and Nadal are all in the same draw.

Finally, you create a lot of stupid threads.

Mustard

08-25-2011, 01:32 PM

History and English were always my best subjects at school. Mathematics became a pain.

sdont

08-25-2011, 01:38 PM

What is the mathematics formula to calculate odds for 13 of the past 14 slams, and what are the odds?

The general formula for something with a probability p of happening once to happen exactly K times out of N tries is:

N!/(K!*(N-K)!)*p^K*(1-p)^(N-K)

It is called the binomial distribution.

So, the odds for drawing heads exactly 13 times out of 14 tries are:

14!/(13!*(14-13)!)*1/2^13*1/2^(14-13) = 0.085%.

The general formula for something with a probability p of happening once to happen exactly K times out of N tries is:

N!/(K!*(N-K)!)*p^K*(1-p)^(N-K)

It is called the binomial distribution.

So, the odds for drawing heads exactly 13 times out of 14 tries are:

14!/(13!*(14-13)!)*1/2^13*1/2^(14-13) = 0.085%.

8PAQ

08-25-2011, 01:39 PM

History and English were always my best subjects at school. Mathematics became a pain.

You do have a great memory for important matches and statistics. So its all good :)

You do have a great memory for important matches and statistics. So its all good :)

8PAQ

08-25-2011, 01:40 PM

The general formula for something with a probability p of happening once to happen K times out of N tries is:

N!/(K!*(N-K)!)*p^K*(1-p)^(N-K)

It is called the binomial distribution.

So, the odds for drawing heads 13 out of 14 times are:

14!/(13!*(14-13)!)*1/2^13 = 0.17%.

Ok I think it is safe to assume the draw is rigged to some extent.

N!/(K!*(N-K)!)*p^K*(1-p)^(N-K)

It is called the binomial distribution.

So, the odds for drawing heads 13 out of 14 times are:

14!/(13!*(14-13)!)*1/2^13 = 0.17%.

Ok I think it is safe to assume the draw is rigged to some extent.

sdont

08-25-2011, 01:42 PM

Ok I think it is safe to assume the draw is rigged to some extent.

I even made a small mistake in the application of the formula, so the actual probability is 14/2^14 = 0.085%

I even made a small mistake in the application of the formula, so the actual probability is 14/2^14 = 0.085%

Telepatic

08-25-2011, 01:44 PM

I even made a small mistake in the application of the formula, so the actual probability is 14/2^14 = 0.085%

Draw is not rigged.

lol.

Draw is not rigged.

lol.

jackson vile

08-25-2011, 01:44 PM

It would be best for Nadal to have Federer in his draw. He would defeat Federer easily at this point IMO, and Murray will do more damage to Novak and Federer would.

At this point I really don't know what Federer's game plan is. I am not sure if he is just saving himself or what?

At this point I really don't know what Federer's game plan is. I am not sure if he is just saving himself or what?

ledwix

08-25-2011, 01:48 PM

I see what you're doing, thinking that if you get heads twice in a row (25% chance), getting it a third time would halve 25% into 12.5%, but doesn't individual coin toss have a 50% chance of landing on heads, so surely it's 50 divided by 1, 2, 3 and so on.

1. 16.67%

2. 2.78%

3. 8.34%

Surely you are extremely wrong. Just add up the total probabilities of all events for that number of iterations, using your reasoning, and you will get far more than 100%.

(2) and (3) should be the same. That there are two separate dice rather than one die rolled twice in a row does not affect the recorded outcome at all. They are separate, independent events.

1. 16.67%

2. 2.78%

3. 8.34%

Surely you are extremely wrong. Just add up the total probabilities of all events for that number of iterations, using your reasoning, and you will get far more than 100%.

(2) and (3) should be the same. That there are two separate dice rather than one die rolled twice in a row does not affect the recorded outcome at all. They are separate, independent events.

PCXL-Fan

08-25-2011, 01:48 PM

The general formula for something with a probability p of happening once to happen K times out of N tries is:

N!/(K!*(N-K)!)*p^K*(1-p)^(N-K)

It is called the binomial distribution.

So, the odds for drawing heads 13 out of 14 times are:

14!/(13!*(14-13)!)*1/2^13*1/2^(14-13) = 0.085%.

Thanks sdont. :)

N!/(K!*(N-K)!)*p^K*(1-p)^(N-K)

It is called the binomial distribution.

So, the odds for drawing heads 13 out of 14 times are:

14!/(13!*(14-13)!)*1/2^13*1/2^(14-13) = 0.085%.

Thanks sdont. :)

Mustard

08-25-2011, 01:52 PM

I even made a small mistake in the application of the formula, so the actual probability is 14/2^14 = 0.085%

So there's just a 0.085% chance that Nadal/Murray and Federer/Djokovic being in the same halves of the draw for 6 majors in a row, if it's all random and above board? The odds are starting to look overwhelmingly in favour of those saying it's a fix.

So there's just a 0.085% chance that Nadal/Murray and Federer/Djokovic being in the same halves of the draw for 6 majors in a row, if it's all random and above board? The odds are starting to look overwhelmingly in favour of those saying it's a fix.

juanparty

08-25-2011, 01:52 PM

First of all, ATP has nothing to do with it. Secondly, Federer, Djokovic and Nadal are all in the same draw.

Finally, you create a lot of stupid threads.

yeah but you have an obsession with the chair umpires! :twisted: and this thread has 5 stars!

Finally, you create a lot of stupid threads.

yeah but you have an obsession with the chair umpires! :twisted: and this thread has 5 stars!

sdont

08-25-2011, 01:54 PM

So there's just a 0.085% chance that Nadal/Murray and Federer/Djokovic being in the same halves of the draw for 6 majors in a row, if it's all random and above board? The odds are starting to look overwhelmingly in favour of those saying it's a fix.

No that was the answer to a different question.

The odds for 6 times out of 6 are 1/2^6 = 1.6%

No that was the answer to a different question.

The odds for 6 times out of 6 are 1/2^6 = 1.6%

GOAT BAAH!!!

08-25-2011, 01:57 PM

It doesn't matter we are all going to die anyway....

and

Dudi Sela will win the Open irrespective of this shameful draw rigging...

and

Dudi Sela will win the Open irrespective of this shameful draw rigging...

sdont

08-25-2011, 02:00 PM

delete post

mathieu

08-25-2011, 02:00 PM

No that was the answer to a different question.

The odds for 6 times out of 6 are 1/2^6 = 1.6%

However, you must remember that this kind of probability is always independent. Just because butt monkey and murray have been in the same half 13/14 times doesn't mean there isn't a 50% chance they will be in the same half again on the next draw.

It's like having children. If you had 4 girls in a row, surely you would think the next would be a boy (assuming it was a 50/50 chance). However, the 5th child still has a 50% chance of being a girl.

Thus, to the statistically-educated, this is not surprising.

The odds for 6 times out of 6 are 1/2^6 = 1.6%

However, you must remember that this kind of probability is always independent. Just because butt monkey and murray have been in the same half 13/14 times doesn't mean there isn't a 50% chance they will be in the same half again on the next draw.

It's like having children. If you had 4 girls in a row, surely you would think the next would be a boy (assuming it was a 50/50 chance). However, the 5th child still has a 50% chance of being a girl.

Thus, to the statistically-educated, this is not surprising.

Mustard

08-25-2011, 02:01 PM

Well, now that I think about it, I should be able to compute the probability that the draws are rigged given the history. But I'm lazy right now. Stay tuned.

Please do :razz:

Please do :razz:

sdont

08-25-2011, 02:03 PM

However, you must remember that this kind of probability is always independent. Just because butt monkey and murray have been in the same half 13/14 times doesn't mean there isn't a 50% chance they will be in the same half again on the next draw.

It's like having children. If you had 4 girls in a row, surely you would think the next would be a boy (assuming it was a 50/50 chance). However, the 5th child still has a 50% chance of being a girl.

Thus, to the statistically-educated, this is not surprising.

Yes I know, but apparently people don't want to hear about that.

It's like having children. If you had 4 girls in a row, surely you would think the next would be a boy (assuming it was a 50/50 chance). However, the 5th child still has a 50% chance of being a girl.

Thus, to the statistically-educated, this is not surprising.

Yes I know, but apparently people don't want to hear about that.

sdont

08-25-2011, 02:04 PM

Please do :razz:

Ah you caught it. ;)

Ah you caught it. ;)

ledwix

08-25-2011, 02:06 PM

So there's just a 0.085% chance that Nadal/Murray and Federer/Djokovic being in the same halves of the draw for 6 majors in a row, if it's all random and above board? The odds are starting to look overwhelmingly in favour of those saying it's a fix.

No, that's not 6 in a row. That's 12 of 14 or 13 of 14 or something like that, using the Binomial series.

No, that's not 6 in a row. That's 12 of 14 or 13 of 14 or something like that, using the Binomial series.

8PAQ

08-25-2011, 02:07 PM

I even made a small mistake in the application of the formula, so the actual probability is 14/2^14 = 0.085%

So the question is why did they do it? Do they want to increase the chance of Nadal being in the final to improve the ratings? But then how do they know that Nadal would do better against Murray than vs Novak as far back as 2009? Murray already beat him at USO semi at that point. Also if it's Federer getting to the final that they worry about then again they saw Fed beat Murray in straights twice at a slam final by now so how is playing Novak who beat him 3 times in hard court slams a better deal. I still don't see why would they mess with the draw as far back as 2009 or even 2008. Only recently Fed and Nadal are not in #1 and #2 spots which means they couldn't play in a semi anyway until 2011 FO.

So the question is why did they do it? Do they want to increase the chance of Nadal being in the final to improve the ratings? But then how do they know that Nadal would do better against Murray than vs Novak as far back as 2009? Murray already beat him at USO semi at that point. Also if it's Federer getting to the final that they worry about then again they saw Fed beat Murray in straights twice at a slam final by now so how is playing Novak who beat him 3 times in hard court slams a better deal. I still don't see why would they mess with the draw as far back as 2009 or even 2008. Only recently Fed and Nadal are not in #1 and #2 spots which means they couldn't play in a semi anyway until 2011 FO.

Polaris

08-25-2011, 02:17 PM

1 out of 2 in one draw, which is 50%. Divide 50% by 6, and you get 8.33%.

This is worth one gigantic facepalm. :)

This is worth one gigantic facepalm. :)

Mustard

08-25-2011, 02:21 PM

This is worth one gigantic facepalm. :)

It has been mentioned :oops:

It has been mentioned :oops:

LanceStern

08-25-2011, 03:12 PM

I'm not sure you guys are taking into account that Federer and djokovic keep changing rankings.

Fed nadal semis never happened before because fed was #1 and nadal was #2. As a result a lot of the times fed played djokovic or some loser cause Murray dropped out early.

Then nadal came #1 and fed #2 so that restarts the randomness again. Still fed and nadal couldn't meet.

Then fed became #3 and djokovic #2. Still random chance fed plays djokovic even with odds of playing him in the same side of the draw 3 consecutive slams.

Then djokovic came #1 so now fed could theoretically play him again

Fed nadal semis never happened before because fed was #1 and nadal was #2. As a result a lot of the times fed played djokovic or some loser cause Murray dropped out early.

Then nadal came #1 and fed #2 so that restarts the randomness again. Still fed and nadal couldn't meet.

Then fed became #3 and djokovic #2. Still random chance fed plays djokovic even with odds of playing him in the same side of the draw 3 consecutive slams.

Then djokovic came #1 so now fed could theoretically play him again

CocaCola

08-25-2011, 03:59 PM

Haha NID draw once again. What can I say - rigged!

danb

08-25-2011, 04:16 PM

Maybe itll help you to see it this way:

I flip a coin once there are two options:h,t

I flip it twice there are 4 possible sequences hh, ht, th,tt

I flip it three times there are 8: hhh,hht,htt,hth,thh,tth,tht,ttt

and so on...

Does that make sense?

:) At this point it should (even without a math degree).

Yes - your (elementary) math is correct.

P(A and B and C and D...) = P(A) * P(B) * P(C) * P(D) * ...

when A,B,C,D,... are independent events.

That's why you multiply 1/2 * 1/2 *1/2 ....

I flip a coin once there are two options:h,t

I flip it twice there are 4 possible sequences hh, ht, th,tt

I flip it three times there are 8: hhh,hht,htt,hth,thh,tth,tht,ttt

and so on...

Does that make sense?

:) At this point it should (even without a math degree).

Yes - your (elementary) math is correct.

P(A and B and C and D...) = P(A) * P(B) * P(C) * P(D) * ...

when A,B,C,D,... are independent events.

That's why you multiply 1/2 * 1/2 *1/2 ....

veroniquem

08-25-2011, 04:28 PM

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=383263

Add USO 2011 to this list,

2008 AO

2008 Wimbledon

2008 USO

2009 AO

2009 FO

2009 Wimbledon

2009 USO

2010 AO

2010 Wimbledon

2010 USO

2011 AO

2011 FO

2011 Wimbledon

2011 USO

(Since Djokovic made his first final in USO 2007)

So out of the last 14 slams, Djoko and Fed have been on opposite sides of the draw only once?? Lol that's ridiculous.

Add USO 2011 to this list,

2008 AO

2008 Wimbledon

2008 USO

2009 AO

2009 FO

2009 Wimbledon

2009 USO

2010 AO

2010 Wimbledon

2010 USO

2011 AO

2011 FO

2011 Wimbledon

2011 USO

(Since Djokovic made his first final in USO 2007)

So out of the last 14 slams, Djoko and Fed have been on opposite sides of the draw only once?? Lol that's ridiculous.

JustBob

08-25-2011, 04:32 PM

Federer-Djokovic in the same draw again!

Imagine that! Two players playing the same tournament being in the same draw! What are the odds of that! ;)

Imagine that! Two players playing the same tournament being in the same draw! What are the odds of that! ;)

veroniquem

08-25-2011, 04:38 PM

He means in the same half. No need to humiliate him because he used the wrong word. We all know what he means.

MichaelNadal

08-25-2011, 04:53 PM

Actually its been 13 of the past 14 grand slams.

2011

USO: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko (order of seeding does not matter, this is simply to show draw placement relative to one another)

WB: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

RG: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

AO: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

2010:

US: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

WB: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

RG: Nadal/Djoko - Fed/Murray

AO: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

2009:

US: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

WB: X/Murray - Fed/Djoko

RG: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

AO: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

2008:

US: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

WB: Nadal/Davydenko - Fed/Djoko *(Murray was in Nadals Qtr ranked 12th had not yet established himself...which he does in this with the epic win over Gasquet in R16, winning Cinci Open MS1000, and reaching final of USO)

What is the mathematics formula to calculate odds for 13 of the past 14 slams, and what are the odds?

Blatantly rigged, and it's a slap in the face to the players.

2011

USO: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko (order of seeding does not matter, this is simply to show draw placement relative to one another)

WB: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

RG: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

AO: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

2010:

US: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

WB: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

RG: Nadal/Djoko - Fed/Murray

AO: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

2009:

US: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

WB: X/Murray - Fed/Djoko

RG: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

AO: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

2008:

US: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

WB: Nadal/Davydenko - Fed/Djoko *(Murray was in Nadals Qtr ranked 12th had not yet established himself...which he does in this with the epic win over Gasquet in R16, winning Cinci Open MS1000, and reaching final of USO)

What is the mathematics formula to calculate odds for 13 of the past 14 slams, and what are the odds?

Blatantly rigged, and it's a slap in the face to the players.

Tony48

08-25-2011, 04:54 PM

Simply ridiculous. An independent verifier needs to make sure that this is actually random. 6 slams in a row (and 12 of the last 13, with the other one happening on CLAY) is beyond absurd.

Mustard

08-25-2011, 04:57 PM

Blatantly rigged, and it's a slap in the face to the players.

Now the question is, why rig the draw? Are they really that desperate for a Nadal vs. Federer final if one of them is seeded outside of the top two?

Now the question is, why rig the draw? Are they really that desperate for a Nadal vs. Federer final if one of them is seeded outside of the top two?

MichaelNadal

08-25-2011, 05:04 PM

Now the question is, why rig the draw? Are they really that desperate for a Nadal vs. Federer final if one of them is seeded outside of the top two?

Exactly, it happens SOOOOOOOOOOOOO often (almost ALWAYS obviously), there's hardly any tennis fans that wouldn't rather see Djoker-Murray and Fed-Nadal in the semi's. It's not 2008 anymore no matter how much they wish it was.

Exactly, it happens SOOOOOOOOOOOOO often (almost ALWAYS obviously), there's hardly any tennis fans that wouldn't rather see Djoker-Murray and Fed-Nadal in the semi's. It's not 2008 anymore no matter how much they wish it was.

Eternity

08-25-2011, 05:10 PM

They would have more luck actually gettting a Fedal match at the US Open if Rafa and Fed were iin the same half.

courtking

08-25-2011, 05:20 PM

Federer can always count on Fish that will get an upset in 2nd or 3rd round.. Somehow, Fish has never done well in the slams..

celoft

08-25-2011, 06:18 PM

The final will most likely be Murray-Djoko. Fixing or no fixing...

aprilfool

08-25-2011, 08:08 PM

Seriously what the f´ck is your problem.

Nole got lucky with Fed in his half, I would be more concerned about Muzz if I was him.

Fed is not playing at the level he used to.

He wasn't going int the French open, neither....Nor was Nadal.

Nole got lucky with Fed in his half, I would be more concerned about Muzz if I was him.

Fed is not playing at the level he used to.

He wasn't going int the French open, neither....Nor was Nadal.

Pwned

08-25-2011, 08:12 PM

He wasn't going int the French open, neither....Nor was Nadal.

Ding!

Lost to Melzer O_o.

Ding!

Lost to Melzer O_o.

juanparty

08-25-2011, 08:16 PM

He means in the same half. No need to humiliate him because he used the wrong word. We all know what he means.

probably he is a ******* and only speaks one language. thanks dude.

probably he is a ******* and only speaks one language. thanks dude.

Pwned

08-25-2011, 08:18 PM

probably he is a ******* and only speaks one language. thanks dude.

Takes juan to know juan.

Takes juan to know juan.

Weathered33

08-25-2011, 08:35 PM

Isn't it obvious?

The aliens use the cow eyeballs they harvest to infect the water supply via chemtrails on jets, this allows them to control the minds of the people who make the draw and force them to rig it for them. They do this becuase they have a secret betting syndicate alongside the Illuminati, George Bush and Elvis Presley in order to raise money for the fake Mars landing they're planning for a few years time. Makes perfect sense!

http://www.itulip.com/images/tinfoilhat300.jpg

The aliens use the cow eyeballs they harvest to infect the water supply via chemtrails on jets, this allows them to control the minds of the people who make the draw and force them to rig it for them. They do this becuase they have a secret betting syndicate alongside the Illuminati, George Bush and Elvis Presley in order to raise money for the fake Mars landing they're planning for a few years time. Makes perfect sense!

http://www.itulip.com/images/tinfoilhat300.jpg

Tennis_Monk

08-25-2011, 08:49 PM

I dont see the big deal here. Federer vascillated across 1,2,3 rankings. Djoker operated 4,3,2,1. Nadal was mostly 1 and 2.

Draws are based on rankings and so even when the draw changed, probably their ranking was such, that Fed-Djo faced each other more often than not.

I would be lying if i say i am not suspecting some sort of rigging. I actually do but i still give some benefit of doubt to ATP.

Draws are based on rankings and so even when the draw changed, probably their ranking was such, that Fed-Djo faced each other more often than not.

I would be lying if i say i am not suspecting some sort of rigging. I actually do but i still give some benefit of doubt to ATP.

devila

08-25-2011, 11:20 PM

djoko should've been number 2 in rome 2009 but he panicked and lost the match with nadal.

OrangePower

08-25-2011, 11:36 PM

However, you must remember that this kind of probability is always independent. Just because butt monkey and murray have been in the same half 13/14 times doesn't mean there isn't a 50% chance they will be in the same half again on the next draw.

It's like having children. If you had 4 girls in a row, surely you would think the next would be a boy (assuming it was a 50/50 chance). However, the 5th child still has a 50% chance of being a girl.

Thus, to the statistically-educated, this is not surprising.

[theoretical versus analytical probability lecture]

Actually, the example with having children is a bad one. After having four girls in a row, the chance of the next child being a boy is actually < 50%.

Studies have proven that we each have a slightly higher probability of having children of one sex versus of the other sex (based on genetics and hormone balance). Once a couple has had four girls and no boys, this is statistically significant enough to suggest that this couple has always had a predisposition to produce girls, meaning that the chance of any individual child of theirs being a boy, past or future, is < 50%.

The same applies to coins. In the theoretical world, each coin toss has a 50/50 chance of being heads or tails. In the real world, no coin is exactly symmetrical, and so every coin has a (very slight) leaning towards coming up heads or tails. If you toss a coin enough times and notice a statistically significant difference in the number of heads versus tails, this is an indication that the coin has a probable bias for that side. The chance of the more popular side coming up again in the next toss is therefore (very very slightly) > 50%.

[/theoretical versus analytical probability lecture]

It's like having children. If you had 4 girls in a row, surely you would think the next would be a boy (assuming it was a 50/50 chance). However, the 5th child still has a 50% chance of being a girl.

Thus, to the statistically-educated, this is not surprising.

[theoretical versus analytical probability lecture]

Actually, the example with having children is a bad one. After having four girls in a row, the chance of the next child being a boy is actually < 50%.

Studies have proven that we each have a slightly higher probability of having children of one sex versus of the other sex (based on genetics and hormone balance). Once a couple has had four girls and no boys, this is statistically significant enough to suggest that this couple has always had a predisposition to produce girls, meaning that the chance of any individual child of theirs being a boy, past or future, is < 50%.

The same applies to coins. In the theoretical world, each coin toss has a 50/50 chance of being heads or tails. In the real world, no coin is exactly symmetrical, and so every coin has a (very slight) leaning towards coming up heads or tails. If you toss a coin enough times and notice a statistically significant difference in the number of heads versus tails, this is an indication that the coin has a probable bias for that side. The chance of the more popular side coming up again in the next toss is therefore (very very slightly) > 50%.

[/theoretical versus analytical probability lecture]

NadalAgassi

08-25-2011, 11:45 PM

I am now thinking that they are fixing the draws. There is no way for Federer and Djokovic to keep always ending up in the same half. As a Nadal fan it is dissapointing too as Nadal is being denied further victories over Federer by this as well, since the odds of Federer surviving to the final with Djokovic in his half are now next to nothing. Nadal also ends up with the tougher opponent (Murray) in his half each day.

The belief putting Nadal and Federer in different halves will likely lead to a Fedal final is delusional at this point, but unfortunately the FO fluke this year will probably keep them praying and fixing the draws for a couple more years (if Federer doesnt retire).

The belief putting Nadal and Federer in different halves will likely lead to a Fedal final is delusional at this point, but unfortunately the FO fluke this year will probably keep them praying and fixing the draws for a couple more years (if Federer doesnt retire).

NadalAgassi

08-25-2011, 11:50 PM

So out of the last 14 slams, Djoko and Fed have been on opposite sides of the draw only once?? Lol that's ridiculous.

While Federer was ranked in the top 2 this was actually worse for Federer and better for Nadal. Even though Federer was usually beating Djokovic in slams until the 2010 U.S Open, Djokovic was still a tougher slam semi opponent for Federer than Murray by far. Likewise Djokovic was a bigger threat to Nadal than Murray.

Now it actually works out worse for Nadal and better for Djokovic. Djokovic gets the now weakest of the top 4 (Federer), while Nadal gets a tougher projected semifinal opponent than Federer (Murray).

While Federer was ranked in the top 2 this was actually worse for Federer and better for Nadal. Even though Federer was usually beating Djokovic in slams until the 2010 U.S Open, Djokovic was still a tougher slam semi opponent for Federer than Murray by far. Likewise Djokovic was a bigger threat to Nadal than Murray.

Now it actually works out worse for Nadal and better for Djokovic. Djokovic gets the now weakest of the top 4 (Federer), while Nadal gets a tougher projected semifinal opponent than Federer (Murray).

TennisFan3

08-26-2011, 12:12 AM

Blatantly rigged, and it's a slap in the face to the players.

That's a load of CRAP.

The draw is NOT rigged. Each draw event is "mutually exclusive" and independent from the previous one. What happened previously does not matter. The probability of Fed/Djoker being together is always 50%.

The analogy of flipping 11 consecutive tails or heads is also not correct. Because these draws happen after 3 months, four times a year - not in one go.

That is not to say that this is not unusual; nonetheless it is possible, and doesn't mean the draws are rigged..

That's a load of CRAP.

The draw is NOT rigged. Each draw event is "mutually exclusive" and independent from the previous one. What happened previously does not matter. The probability of Fed/Djoker being together is always 50%.

The analogy of flipping 11 consecutive tails or heads is also not correct. Because these draws happen after 3 months, four times a year - not in one go.

That is not to say that this is not unusual; nonetheless it is possible, and doesn't mean the draws are rigged..

MixieP

08-26-2011, 12:35 AM

what the hell happens with the ATP? could someone explain me? This is getting pathetic, i would like to see Nadal-Federer at the same draw, i think that will never happen. that drawing was fixed again.:evil:

They should be in the same quarter. It's the only way we have a chance to see them play each other.

They should be in the same quarter. It's the only way we have a chance to see them play each other.

devila

08-26-2011, 12:59 AM

why is it sooo tough to accept that federer can't get away with

predictable carelessness, no strategy and a smug attitude about how relaxed he is after beating chokers like roddick 2-6 years ago?

predictable carelessness, no strategy and a smug attitude about how relaxed he is after beating chokers like roddick 2-6 years ago?

Clay lover

08-26-2011, 01:00 AM

It's a scandal, a conspiracy, an outrage!!!

DeShaun

08-26-2011, 01:03 AM

Is this too surprising?

Rafa is second best overall and defending champion, but Roger is five-time champ and arguably better on this surface on any given day than Rafa, particularly at the moment w/Rafa not necessarily peaking.

Rafa is second best overall and defending champion, but Roger is five-time champ and arguably better on this surface on any given day than Rafa, particularly at the moment w/Rafa not necessarily peaking.

Tony48

08-26-2011, 01:03 AM

Just for fun, I did 20 sets of 4 coin flips (80 flips) to represent the 50/50 chance in the 4 slams this year. Only 3 times did I get 4 straight heads/tails (in set 5 I got 4 heads which was immediately followed by 4 tails in set 6, lol. Set 15 was all heads). So there was a 15% chance that I would get all heads/tails.

And that's just for FOUR slams. Fed & Djoker have been in the same half for SIX slams. Maybe I should do 20 sets of 6 to see how unlikely this is.

And that's just for FOUR slams. Fed & Djoker have been in the same half for SIX slams. Maybe I should do 20 sets of 6 to see how unlikely this is.

frunk

08-26-2011, 01:07 AM

http://i54.tinypic.com/35i23he.png

madmanfool

08-26-2011, 01:13 AM

However, you must remember that this kind of probability is always independent. Just because butt monkey and murray have been in the same half 13/14 times doesn't mean there isn't a 50% chance they will be in the same half again on the next draw.

It's like having children. If you had 4 girls in a row, surely you would think the next would be a boy (assuming it was a 50/50 chance). However, the 5th child still has a 50% chance of being a girl.

Thus, to the statistically-educated, this is not surprising.

I don't see how this has any importance apart from the 2011 US Open draw (or the 2012 Australian Open draw if you want to look already one ahead). Yes, we shouldn't asume that draw has to be different more than 50% chance because of what happened in the past. I don't see how this takes away from the unlikeliness of the Federer/Djokovic 'SF-event' so many times in a row though. The chances of it happening like 14 times in a row again in the future aren't going to be lower because it already happend 14 times in row in the past, but that doesn't take away that the chance is already very low on it's own.

I dont see the big deal here. Federer vascillated across 1,2,3 rankings. Djoker operated 4,3,2,1. Nadal was mostly 1 and 2.

Draws are based on rankings and so even when the draw changed, probably their ranking was such, that Fed-Djo faced each other more often than not.

I would be lying if i say i am not suspecting some sort of rigging. I actually do but i still give some benefit of doubt to ATP.

Rankings aren't that important. Only 1 and 2 are important in this case, because they can't be in the same half of the draw. Yes, Federer and Djokovic propably have never been 1 and 2 on the same time. However, if they aren't 1 or 2 they could still end up in either half of the draw. Meaning them being in the same half of the draw so many times in a row is very unlikely.

On another note, let's see who gaines or loses by this (right now and simplyfied a bit assuming it's only between them):

Nadal: Fed is his pigeon, so for him it's best to have Federer in his SF on first sight. Best chance of getting to the final. Now he might have to beat both Murray and Djokovic to win, if Federer was in his draw he would only have to beat one of them in the final. He's screwed on first sight. However it's also hugely important for him not to play Djokovic, but then Murray or Federer will have to beat Djokovic. So it's either Federer SF and then play Murray in final or Murray SF and then play Federer in final (assuming Djokovic loses). Only the order changes, he will have to beat Murray anyway. I would say Federer has the best chance of taking out Murray. It's what happened in the French after all.So it just comes down to whatever you find more important. Being certain to play Federer in SF and play only winner of Djokovic/Murray or having the best chance of not having to play Djokovic. Though call.

Federer: Main thing is avoiding Nadal in SF. He might not even face Nadal if Nadal loses to Murray. That's a plus. No chance of avoiding Djokovic now however. There is no chance of him avoiding Djokovic and Nadal both though and I would say avoiding Nadal is more important. He gaines.

Murray: He's such a tough call. Out of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, I think he prefers Nadal. Now he plays Nadal SF and only winner Djokovic/Federer. He gaines a bit.

Djokovic: Since he is always on the other side of Nadal, I would say it's best for him to have Federer/Nadal SF, with probably Nadal in final then which he has owned this year. Now he has to play Federer in SF, the last player to whom he lost to in a slam and he might miss Nadal. He's screwed.

There, I hope I didn't contradict myself :) Maybe it's better the draw just opens up a bit and little of this still holds true. Anyone up for a Fish-Roddick final? :)

It's like having children. If you had 4 girls in a row, surely you would think the next would be a boy (assuming it was a 50/50 chance). However, the 5th child still has a 50% chance of being a girl.

Thus, to the statistically-educated, this is not surprising.

I don't see how this has any importance apart from the 2011 US Open draw (or the 2012 Australian Open draw if you want to look already one ahead). Yes, we shouldn't asume that draw has to be different more than 50% chance because of what happened in the past. I don't see how this takes away from the unlikeliness of the Federer/Djokovic 'SF-event' so many times in a row though. The chances of it happening like 14 times in a row again in the future aren't going to be lower because it already happend 14 times in row in the past, but that doesn't take away that the chance is already very low on it's own.

I dont see the big deal here. Federer vascillated across 1,2,3 rankings. Djoker operated 4,3,2,1. Nadal was mostly 1 and 2.

Draws are based on rankings and so even when the draw changed, probably their ranking was such, that Fed-Djo faced each other more often than not.

I would be lying if i say i am not suspecting some sort of rigging. I actually do but i still give some benefit of doubt to ATP.

Rankings aren't that important. Only 1 and 2 are important in this case, because they can't be in the same half of the draw. Yes, Federer and Djokovic propably have never been 1 and 2 on the same time. However, if they aren't 1 or 2 they could still end up in either half of the draw. Meaning them being in the same half of the draw so many times in a row is very unlikely.

On another note, let's see who gaines or loses by this (right now and simplyfied a bit assuming it's only between them):

Nadal: Fed is his pigeon, so for him it's best to have Federer in his SF on first sight. Best chance of getting to the final. Now he might have to beat both Murray and Djokovic to win, if Federer was in his draw he would only have to beat one of them in the final. He's screwed on first sight. However it's also hugely important for him not to play Djokovic, but then Murray or Federer will have to beat Djokovic. So it's either Federer SF and then play Murray in final or Murray SF and then play Federer in final (assuming Djokovic loses). Only the order changes, he will have to beat Murray anyway. I would say Federer has the best chance of taking out Murray. It's what happened in the French after all.So it just comes down to whatever you find more important. Being certain to play Federer in SF and play only winner of Djokovic/Murray or having the best chance of not having to play Djokovic. Though call.

Federer: Main thing is avoiding Nadal in SF. He might not even face Nadal if Nadal loses to Murray. That's a plus. No chance of avoiding Djokovic now however. There is no chance of him avoiding Djokovic and Nadal both though and I would say avoiding Nadal is more important. He gaines.

Murray: He's such a tough call. Out of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, I think he prefers Nadal. Now he plays Nadal SF and only winner Djokovic/Federer. He gaines a bit.

Djokovic: Since he is always on the other side of Nadal, I would say it's best for him to have Federer/Nadal SF, with probably Nadal in final then which he has owned this year. Now he has to play Federer in SF, the last player to whom he lost to in a slam and he might miss Nadal. He's screwed.

There, I hope I didn't contradict myself :) Maybe it's better the draw just opens up a bit and little of this still holds true. Anyone up for a Fish-Roddick final? :)

Tony48

08-26-2011, 01:18 AM

Just did 20 sets of 6 flips (damn I'm bored, lol). Only once did I get straight heads or tails, which means there was a 5% chance of that happening.

madmanfool

08-26-2011, 01:22 AM

Just did 20 sets of 6 flips (damn I'm bored, lol). Only once did I get straight heads or tails, which means there was a 5% chance of that happening.

Uhm no, it means it only happened 5% of YOUR trows. To have the chance of it happening you would have to do it till infinity, not 20 times. But since you're bored, ... :)

Uhm no, it means it only happened 5% of YOUR trows. To have the chance of it happening you would have to do it till infinity, not 20 times. But since you're bored, ... :)

Tony48

08-26-2011, 01:31 AM

Well the point I'm trying to illustrate is that the chance of it happening anywhere is clearly extremely low.

Someone should look at past draws and see how often top names land in the same draw despite moving up/down in the rankings.

Someone should look at past draws and see how often top names land in the same draw despite moving up/down in the rankings.

madmanfool

08-26-2011, 01:37 AM

That's a load of CRAP.

The draw is NOT rigged. Each draw event is "mutually exclusive" and independent from the previous one. What happened previously does not matter. The probability of Fed/Djoker being together is always 50%.

The analogy of flipping 11 consecutive tails or heads is also not correct. Because these draws happen after 3 months, four times a year - not in one go.

That is not to say that this is not unusual; nonetheless it is possible, and doesn't mean the draws are rigged..

True, you can't say it's rigged because it happened so many times in row. You can't even say it's rigged when it happens a million times in a row. Highly unlikely but not impossible. It could however, since it's so unlikely, be an indicator that it is rigged in the way that the ATP isn't making a random draw as they should. Then we take the cospiracy road. I don't believe that myself, but I'm just saying.

The draw is NOT rigged. Each draw event is "mutually exclusive" and independent from the previous one. What happened previously does not matter. The probability of Fed/Djoker being together is always 50%.

The analogy of flipping 11 consecutive tails or heads is also not correct. Because these draws happen after 3 months, four times a year - not in one go.

That is not to say that this is not unusual; nonetheless it is possible, and doesn't mean the draws are rigged..

True, you can't say it's rigged because it happened so many times in row. You can't even say it's rigged when it happens a million times in a row. Highly unlikely but not impossible. It could however, since it's so unlikely, be an indicator that it is rigged in the way that the ATP isn't making a random draw as they should. Then we take the cospiracy road. I don't believe that myself, but I'm just saying.

1970CRBase

08-26-2011, 01:46 AM

...................

Colin

08-26-2011, 02:31 AM

I haven't looked at the draw too closely, but I have a feeling Djokovic is going to lose early.

I know it's more likely he's going to beat Nadal or Murray in the final and may not even see Fed in the semis, but I just think it's all catching up to him, and he's going to fall to someone who's unheralded in the first few rounds, which will inspire Nadal and Fed to up their games and make it to the final.

I know it's more likely he's going to beat Nadal or Murray in the final and may not even see Fed in the semis, but I just think it's all catching up to him, and he's going to fall to someone who's unheralded in the first few rounds, which will inspire Nadal and Fed to up their games and make it to the final.

PCXL-Fan

08-26-2011, 03:34 AM

However, you must remember that this kind of probability is always independent. Just because butt monkey and murray have been in the same half 13/14 times doesn't mean there isn't a 50% chance they will be in the same half again on the next draw.

It's like having children. If you had 4 girls in a row, surely you would think the next would be a boy (assuming it was a 50/50 chance). However, the 5th child still has a 50% chance of being a girl.

Thus, to the statistically-educated, this is not surprising.

Although the mainstream medical community has not yet acknowledged it there is alot of evidence that there are numerous biological factors from both human parents which can influence the gender of the offspring.

Women in uncertain unstable relationships or with low status male partners are more likely to give birth to females then males. In the past during previous generations when males benefited from a very male biased western societies, records show high status males and their wives would generally give birth to more males. Its been known that the human male can influence the gender of an offspring, there is evidence mounting and may be unequivocally proven that females may play a roll in gender of offspring as well. X and Y chromosome sperm each have varying conditions inside the vagina which would benefit one type from reaching the egg, something which women may instinctively be able to change.

It's like having children. If you had 4 girls in a row, surely you would think the next would be a boy (assuming it was a 50/50 chance). However, the 5th child still has a 50% chance of being a girl.

Thus, to the statistically-educated, this is not surprising.

Although the mainstream medical community has not yet acknowledged it there is alot of evidence that there are numerous biological factors from both human parents which can influence the gender of the offspring.

Women in uncertain unstable relationships or with low status male partners are more likely to give birth to females then males. In the past during previous generations when males benefited from a very male biased western societies, records show high status males and their wives would generally give birth to more males. Its been known that the human male can influence the gender of an offspring, there is evidence mounting and may be unequivocally proven that females may play a roll in gender of offspring as well. X and Y chromosome sperm each have varying conditions inside the vagina which would benefit one type from reaching the egg, something which women may instinctively be able to change.

JSummers

08-26-2011, 03:41 AM

No offense but this has nothing to do with tennis. Delete?

Not to say I am highly skeptical of this until proven facts.

Although the mainstream medical community has not yet acknowledged it there is alot of evidence that there are numerous biological factors from both human parents which can influence the gender of the offspring.

Women in uncertain unstable relationships or with low status male partners are more likely to give birth to females then males. In the past during previous generations when males benefited from a very male biased western societies, records show high status males and their wives would generally give birth to more males. Its been known that the human male can influence the gender of an offspring, there is evidence mounting and may be unequivocally proven that females may play a roll in gender of offspring as well. X and Y chromosome sperm each have varying conditions inside the vagina which would benefit one type from reaching the egg, something which women may instinctively be able to change.

Not to say I am highly skeptical of this until proven facts.

Although the mainstream medical community has not yet acknowledged it there is alot of evidence that there are numerous biological factors from both human parents which can influence the gender of the offspring.

Women in uncertain unstable relationships or with low status male partners are more likely to give birth to females then males. In the past during previous generations when males benefited from a very male biased western societies, records show high status males and their wives would generally give birth to more males. Its been known that the human male can influence the gender of an offspring, there is evidence mounting and may be unequivocally proven that females may play a roll in gender of offspring as well. X and Y chromosome sperm each have varying conditions inside the vagina which would benefit one type from reaching the egg, something which women may instinctively be able to change.

LuvTheGame

08-26-2011, 06:24 AM

Hey JSummers you mean it's not random, like USTA drawings?

Mahboob Khan

08-26-2011, 06:41 AM

Federer to me is like a crocodile. If the crocodile is not hungry he is not bothered if a prey swims close to his jaws, but when he is hungry he can tear a wilderbeast apart.

If Federer can beat Djokovic in the French Open on clay, he can beat him on the deco-turf surface as he already has. It all depends on Federer's mood and hunger.

If Federer can beat Djokovic in the French Open on clay, he can beat him on the deco-turf surface as he already has. It all depends on Federer's mood and hunger.

Fedace

08-26-2011, 06:43 AM

ALL you Fed Lovers out there,,,,Don't worry about Joker. He is so tired and burned out right now that he may not even get to the semis. Even if he does, Roger should beat him in 4 sets.

+ Joker has #1 ranking Locked up by winning 2 slams this year. So he really doesn't have the motivation.

+ Joker has #1 ranking Locked up by winning 2 slams this year. So he really doesn't have the motivation.

Russeljones

08-26-2011, 07:09 AM

The math part is torture, my condolences to your high school math teacher Mustard :)

celoft

08-26-2011, 07:15 AM

Federer to me is like a crocodile. If the crocodile is not hungry he is not bothered if a prey swims close to his jaws, but when he is hungry he can tear a wilderbeast apart.

If Federer can beat Djokovic in the French Open on clay, he can beat him on the deco-turf surface as he already has. It all depends on Federer's mood and hunger.

I concur. The problem is Fed has to win his QF(Tsonga) BEFORE playing Djoko.

If Federer can beat Djokovic in the French Open on clay, he can beat him on the deco-turf surface as he already has. It all depends on Federer's mood and hunger.

I concur. The problem is Fed has to win his QF(Tsonga) BEFORE playing Djoko.

jbpick920

08-26-2011, 09:58 AM

I think there is a real possibility that 2 or 3 of the top 4 might not make it. I probably feel the most confident about Nadal making it to the semis even though he is a basketcase right now. I think you could have different guys coming from out of nowhere this time.

jbpick920

08-26-2011, 09:59 AM

Which I also think Isner has a good shot at being the longest lasting American so what do I know.

Bhagi Katbamna

08-26-2011, 10:16 AM

Of course the ATP makes this happen...

Noel may be number 1 but he has not transcended the sport and reached "ambassador" status like Fedal have.

A Fedal final final gets *****e$ in the seats guys....

It isn't a matter of getting people in the chairs but TV ratings(I suspect you probably meant them as well).

Noel may be number 1 but he has not transcended the sport and reached "ambassador" status like Fedal have.

A Fedal final final gets *****e$ in the seats guys....

It isn't a matter of getting people in the chairs but TV ratings(I suspect you probably meant them as well).

colonelforbin

08-26-2011, 10:24 AM

On the subject of Djokovic drawing Federer again, technically the #1 seed drew the #3 seed, which is DIFFERENT from the last 3 slams where the #1 seed drew the #4 seed. So seed-wise the draw is not identical.

Tony48

08-26-2011, 10:33 AM

ALL you Fed Lovers out there,,,,Don't worry about Joker. He is so tired and burned out right now that he may not even get to the semis. Even if he does, Roger should beat him in 4 sets.

+ Joker has #1 ranking Locked up by winning 2 slams this year. So he really doesn't have the motivation.

Make no mistake: Djokovic really wants to win the U.S. Open

+ Joker has #1 ranking Locked up by winning 2 slams this year. So he really doesn't have the motivation.

Make no mistake: Djokovic really wants to win the U.S. Open

Ledigs

08-26-2011, 10:38 AM

Ideal would be Fed taking revenge on Djokovic for last year and losing to Nadal in the final.

colonelforbin

08-26-2011, 10:47 AM

Actually its been 13 of the past 14 grand slams.

2011

USO: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko (order of seeding does not matter, this is simply to show draw placement relative to one another)

WB: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

RG: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

AO: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

2010:

US: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

WB: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

RG: Nadal/Djoko - Fed/Murray

AO: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

2009:

US: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

WB: X/Murray - Fed/Djoko

RG: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

AO: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

2008:

US: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

WB: Nadal/Davydenko - Fed/Djoko *(Murray was in Nadals Qtr ranked 12th had not yet established himself...which he does in this with the epic win over Gasquet in R16, winning Cinci Open MS1000, and reaching final of USO)

What is the mathematics formula to calculate odds for 13 of the past 14 slams, and what are the odds?

Here's another way to look at it, based on seeding. When they make the draw they are basically pulling seed numbers out of a hat, whoever's name is attached to that seed is irrelevant. This means the situation should be assessed by which seeds drew one another in the last 14 slams.

2011

USO: #1/#3 - #2/#4

WB: #1/#4 - #2/#3

RG: #1/#4 - #2/#3

AO: #1/#4 - #2/#3

2010:

US: #1/#4 - #2/#3

WB: #1/#3 - #2/#4

RG: #1/#4 - #2/#3

AO: #1/#3 - #2/#4

2009:

US: #1/#4 - #2/#3

WB: #1/#3 - #2/#4

RG: #1/#3 - #2/#4

AO: #1/#4 - #2/#3

2008:

US: #1/#4 - #2/#3

WB: #1/#3 - #2/#4

Instances of #1/#4 - #2/#3: 8

Instances of #1/#3 - #2/#4: 6

The proper way yo approach the situation is that there is a 50% chance that the #1 seed will draw the #4 seed and the #2 seed will draw the #3 seed, and vice versa. And from this perspective the outcome is not that far off at all.

2011

USO: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko (order of seeding does not matter, this is simply to show draw placement relative to one another)

WB: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

RG: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

AO: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

2010:

US: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

WB: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

RG: Nadal/Djoko - Fed/Murray

AO: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

2009:

US: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

WB: X/Murray - Fed/Djoko

RG: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

AO: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

2008:

US: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

WB: Nadal/Davydenko - Fed/Djoko *(Murray was in Nadals Qtr ranked 12th had not yet established himself...which he does in this with the epic win over Gasquet in R16, winning Cinci Open MS1000, and reaching final of USO)

What is the mathematics formula to calculate odds for 13 of the past 14 slams, and what are the odds?

Here's another way to look at it, based on seeding. When they make the draw they are basically pulling seed numbers out of a hat, whoever's name is attached to that seed is irrelevant. This means the situation should be assessed by which seeds drew one another in the last 14 slams.

2011

USO: #1/#3 - #2/#4

WB: #1/#4 - #2/#3

RG: #1/#4 - #2/#3

AO: #1/#4 - #2/#3

2010:

US: #1/#4 - #2/#3

WB: #1/#3 - #2/#4

RG: #1/#4 - #2/#3

AO: #1/#3 - #2/#4

2009:

US: #1/#4 - #2/#3

WB: #1/#3 - #2/#4

RG: #1/#3 - #2/#4

AO: #1/#4 - #2/#3

2008:

US: #1/#4 - #2/#3

WB: #1/#3 - #2/#4

Instances of #1/#4 - #2/#3: 8

Instances of #1/#3 - #2/#4: 6

The proper way yo approach the situation is that there is a 50% chance that the #1 seed will draw the #4 seed and the #2 seed will draw the #3 seed, and vice versa. And from this perspective the outcome is not that far off at all.

DjokovicForTheWin

08-26-2011, 10:49 AM

Here's another way to look at it, based on seeding. When they make the draw they are basically pulling seed numbers out of a hat, whoever's name is attached to that seed is irrelevant. This means the situation should be assessed by which seeds drew one another in the last 14 slams.

2011

USO: #1/#3 - #2/#4

WB: #1/#4 - #2/#3

RG: #1/#4 - #2/#3

AO: #1/#4 - #2/#3

2010:

US: #1/#4 - #2/#3

WB: #1/#3 - #2/#4

RG: #1/#4 - #2/#3

AO: #1/#3 - #2/#4

2009:

US: #1/#4 - #2/#3

WB: #1/#3 - #2/#4

RG: #1/#3 - #2/#4

AO: #1/#4 - #2/#3

2008:

US: #1/#4 - #2/#3

WB: #1/#3 - #2/#4

Instances of #1/#4 - #2/#3: 8

Instances of #1/#3 - #2/#4: 6

The proper way yo approach the situation is that there is a 50% chance that the #1 seed will draw the #4 seed and the #2 seed will draw the #3 seed, and vice versa. And from this perspective the outcome is not that far off at all.

Excellent post! A voice of reason has finally spoken.

2011

USO: #1/#3 - #2/#4

WB: #1/#4 - #2/#3

RG: #1/#4 - #2/#3

AO: #1/#4 - #2/#3

2010:

US: #1/#4 - #2/#3

WB: #1/#3 - #2/#4

RG: #1/#4 - #2/#3

AO: #1/#3 - #2/#4

2009:

US: #1/#4 - #2/#3

WB: #1/#3 - #2/#4

RG: #1/#3 - #2/#4

AO: #1/#4 - #2/#3

2008:

US: #1/#4 - #2/#3

WB: #1/#3 - #2/#4

Instances of #1/#4 - #2/#3: 8

Instances of #1/#3 - #2/#4: 6

The proper way yo approach the situation is that there is a 50% chance that the #1 seed will draw the #4 seed and the #2 seed will draw the #3 seed, and vice versa. And from this perspective the outcome is not that far off at all.

Excellent post! A voice of reason has finally spoken.

PCXL-Fan

08-26-2011, 11:17 AM

Instances of #1/#4 - #2/#3: 8

Instances of #1/#3 - #2/#4: 6

The proper way yo approach the situation is that there is a 50% chance that the #1 seed will draw the #4 seed and the #2 seed will draw the #3 seed, and vice versa. And from this perspective the outcome is not that far off at all.

Excellent post! A voice of reason has finally spoken.

You guys missed this portion of the thread. Its obvious that there is a 50% chance for the 3rd and 4th seeds to have one draw placement or the other. A coin flip you could say. Below our resident math teacher gives us the odds. Notice the 1/2's in his equation that is the 50% chances you are discussing about.

What is the mathematics formula to calculate odds for 13 of the past 14 slams, and what are the odds?

impressive sdont. You should have been a math teacher. ha

Guess what? ;)

Haha well that makes sense.

The general formula for something with a probability p of happening once to happen exactly K times out of N tries is:

N!/(K!*(N-K)!)*p^K*(1-p)^(N-K)

It is called the binomial distribution.

So, the odds for drawing heads exactly 13 times out of 14 tries are:

14!/(13!*(14-13)!)*1/2^13*1/2^(14-13) = 0.085%.

Instances of #1/#3 - #2/#4: 6

The proper way yo approach the situation is that there is a 50% chance that the #1 seed will draw the #4 seed and the #2 seed will draw the #3 seed, and vice versa. And from this perspective the outcome is not that far off at all.

Excellent post! A voice of reason has finally spoken.

You guys missed this portion of the thread. Its obvious that there is a 50% chance for the 3rd and 4th seeds to have one draw placement or the other. A coin flip you could say. Below our resident math teacher gives us the odds. Notice the 1/2's in his equation that is the 50% chances you are discussing about.

What is the mathematics formula to calculate odds for 13 of the past 14 slams, and what are the odds?

impressive sdont. You should have been a math teacher. ha

Guess what? ;)

Haha well that makes sense.

The general formula for something with a probability p of happening once to happen exactly K times out of N tries is:

N!/(K!*(N-K)!)*p^K*(1-p)^(N-K)

It is called the binomial distribution.

So, the odds for drawing heads exactly 13 times out of 14 tries are:

14!/(13!*(14-13)!)*1/2^13*1/2^(14-13) = 0.085%.

ViscaB

08-26-2011, 11:24 AM

We need more draws before we reject the hypothesis that the draw is not fixed. The sample is too small to get statistically significant results.

Cup8489

08-26-2011, 11:31 AM

Doesn't really matter to me.. I'd rather fed played djokovic than Rafa...

ledwix

08-26-2011, 11:40 AM

Excellent post! A voice of reason has finally spoken.

So you dismiss it instantly based on a comparison of seedings? Notice how no matter what Federer or Djokovic are ranked, 1, 2, or 3, they always seem to find each other in the same half.

So you dismiss it instantly based on a comparison of seedings? Notice how no matter what Federer or Djokovic are ranked, 1, 2, or 3, they always seem to find each other in the same half.

jackson vile

08-26-2011, 11:45 AM

Doesn't really matter to me.. I'd rather fed played djokovic than Rafa...

We all know Murray will take out Nadal and Federer has a better chance beating Novak than Nadal.

I wished Federer in Nadal's draw:(

We all know Murray will take out Nadal and Federer has a better chance beating Novak than Nadal.

I wished Federer in Nadal's draw:(

Rippy

08-26-2011, 11:50 AM

You guys missed this portion of the thread. Its obvious that there is a 50% chance for the 3rd and 4th seeds to have one draw placement or the other. A coin flip you could say. Below our resident math teacher gives us the odds. Notice the 1/2's in his equation that is the 50% chances you are discussing about.

But the resident math teacher, from my quick skim through his post, wasn't approaching it from a "seed" point of view. He was saying "Djokovic in Fed's half = heads". But that isn't really the case, Djokovic in Fed's half has changed between heads and tails depending on the seedings.

That's not to say it isn't odd that Fed and Djokovic have so often been together, but you do need to remember that their seedings have been changing too.

But the resident math teacher, from my quick skim through his post, wasn't approaching it from a "seed" point of view. He was saying "Djokovic in Fed's half = heads". But that isn't really the case, Djokovic in Fed's half has changed between heads and tails depending on the seedings.

That's not to say it isn't odd that Fed and Djokovic have so often been together, but you do need to remember that their seedings have been changing too.

DjokovicForTheWin

08-26-2011, 11:51 AM

So you dismiss it instantly based on a comparison of seedings? Notice how no matter what Federer or Djokovic are ranked, 1, 2, or 3, they always seem to find each other in the same half.

They don't draw names alone, they draw names attached to seed positions. The distribution of 8 times one way and 6 times the other is very plausible for the last 14 slams. With Federer dropping from #1 to #2 and now #3, and Djoker moving up, it's more likely just a coincidence that they happen to be on the same side so often. That said, I'm not saying the draw can't be rigged or tampered with, but the probabilities certainly make sense now, and if it's rigged they've used some other mechanism unbeknownst to us.

They don't draw names alone, they draw names attached to seed positions. The distribution of 8 times one way and 6 times the other is very plausible for the last 14 slams. With Federer dropping from #1 to #2 and now #3, and Djoker moving up, it's more likely just a coincidence that they happen to be on the same side so often. That said, I'm not saying the draw can't be rigged or tampered with, but the probabilities certainly make sense now, and if it's rigged they've used some other mechanism unbeknownst to us.

devila

08-26-2011, 01:41 PM

djoker fooled rogi and rafa

it's no one's fault that rafa and rogi fell down. they can't improve their predictable games..

this time, there's no mercy from djoker as long as rogi keeps his finger down and realizes there's no use in pretending djoker isn't superior to rogi federina.

it's no one's fault that rafa and rogi fell down. they can't improve their predictable games..

this time, there's no mercy from djoker as long as rogi keeps his finger down and realizes there's no use in pretending djoker isn't superior to rogi federina.

LanceStern

08-26-2011, 03:04 PM

I said on page four to look at the seedings!

I'm not sure you guys are taking into account that Federer and djokovic keep changing rankings.

Fed nadal semis never happened before because fed was #1 and nadal was #2. As a result a lot of the times fed played djokovic or some loser cause Murray dropped out early.

Then nadal came #1 and fed #2 so that restarts the randomness again. Still fed and nadal couldn't meet.

Then fed became #3 and djokovic #2. Still random chance fed plays djokovic even with odds of playing him in the same side of the draw 3 consecutive slams.

Then djokovic came #1 so now fed could theoretically play him again

I'm not sure you guys are taking into account that Federer and djokovic keep changing rankings.

Fed nadal semis never happened before because fed was #1 and nadal was #2. As a result a lot of the times fed played djokovic or some loser cause Murray dropped out early.

Then nadal came #1 and fed #2 so that restarts the randomness again. Still fed and nadal couldn't meet.

Then fed became #3 and djokovic #2. Still random chance fed plays djokovic even with odds of playing him in the same side of the draw 3 consecutive slams.

Then djokovic came #1 so now fed could theoretically play him again

mellowyellow

08-26-2011, 06:11 PM

Did Fed actually have Murray in the 2010 French? Wonder what the stats are when this is opened up to Masters Series??? ;)

WhiskeyEE

08-26-2011, 07:17 PM

I wonder what are the odds that Fed and Djoker end up in the same draw in 21 out of 24 majors. That must be something under 0,1 %.

edit: 0.01%

(0.5^24)*(24!)/[(3!)(21!)]*100

edit: 0.01%

(0.5^24)*(24!)/[(3!)(21!)]*100

Rhino

08-26-2011, 07:26 PM

Of course the ATP makes this happen...

.

The US Open isn't even an ATP event.

.

The US Open isn't even an ATP event.

woodrow1029

08-26-2011, 08:32 PM

yeah but you have an obsession with the chair umpires! :twisted: and this thread has 5 stars!

I only see 4 stars and it must be because of its comic value. Are you 12 years old?

I only see 4 stars and it must be because of its comic value. Are you 12 years old?

NLBwell

08-27-2011, 12:18 AM

The schools are failing us.

madmanfool

08-27-2011, 02:56 AM

Here's another way to look at it, based on seeding. When they make the draw they are basically pulling seed numbers out of a hat, whoever's name is attached to that seed is irrelevant. This means the situation should be assessed by which seeds drew one another in the last 14 slams.

2011

USO: #1/#3 - #2/#4

WB: #1/#4 - #2/#3

RG: #1/#4 - #2/#3

AO: #1/#4 - #2/#3

2010:

US: #1/#4 - #2/#3

WB: #1/#3 - #2/#4

RG: #1/#4 - #2/#3

AO: #1/#3 - #2/#4

2009:

US: #1/#4 - #2/#3

WB: #1/#3 - #2/#4

RG: #1/#3 - #2/#4

AO: #1/#4 - #2/#3

2008:

US: #1/#4 - #2/#3

WB: #1/#3 - #2/#4

Instances of #1/#4 - #2/#3: 8

Instances of #1/#3 - #2/#4: 6

The proper way yo approach the situation is that there is a 50% chance that the #1 seed will draw the #4 seed and the #2 seed will draw the #3 seed, and vice versa. And from this perspective the outcome is not that far off at all.

I don't agree. Why make a distinction between who is 3 and who is 4? It doesn't matter if a player is 3 or 4, in both cases he can end up in either part of the draw. We are looking into the unlikeliness of Federer and Djokovic being in the same half so many times. We are not looking into the unlikeliness of the nr 1 and 3 seed for example being in the same half. I don't see how the chance of Federer and Djokovic being drawn together, knowing they can constantly switch rankings, will be any different from the chance of Federer and Djokovic being drawn together, disregarding they are switching rankings. In both cases it's very unlikely to happen. The point is that every year there is 50% chance of Federer and Djokovic being together. It doesn't matter if Djokovic is 3 or 4. 1*50% = 1/2*50% + 1/2*50%

You say they make the draw only by looking at the seedings. Who cares? Say I want to rig the draw by putting Djokovic and Federer together all the time. Let's also say I have the power to do so for a second. All the homework I have to do is look up which seed connects to which player that year. Say I rigged the draw last year. I put Federer and Djokovic together. Federer was no 1 seed and Djokovic was no 4 seed. This year I want to do same, but Djokovic is now no 3 seed. All I have to do is keep in mind that this year I want to put 1 and 3 together, whereas last year I put 1 and 4 together. So I just got to keep in mind that I got to do it the other way around this year. Whoever's name is attached to a seed is very relevant if you want to rig the draw.

Edit: I just did the exact math. If you take into account that Federer and Djokovic can't be in the same half when they are 1 and 2 or 3 and 4, it becomes even more unlikely.

It goes like this:

0+1/4*1/3*1/2+1/4*1/3*1/2

+0+1/4*1/3*1/2+1/4*1/3*1/2

+1/4*1/3*1/2+1/4*1/3*1/2+0

+1/4*1/3*1/2+1/4*1/3*1/2+0=

8*(1/4*1/3*1/2) = 1/3 = 33,33 % (instead of the earlier 50%)

It goes like this: Federer can be ranked either 1,2,3 or 4. So 1/4 chance of him being no 1, 1/4 of him being no 2, etc. If Federer is no 1 for example, Djokovic can be 2,3 or 4. So 1/3 chance of him being no 2, 1/3 chance of him being no 3 etc.

So it goes like this: If Federer and Djokovic are 1 and 2 there is 0% chance of them being in the same half. Hence the first "0". If Federer is no 1 (1/4 chance) and Djokovic is no 3 (1/3 chance), there is 1/2 chance of them being drawn together. Hence the 1/4*1/3*1/2. And so forth. If you fill in the zeros as well (disregard 1 and 2, 3 and 4 can't end up together) you get the earlier 50%. Now you have 33% chance.

2011

USO: #1/#3 - #2/#4

WB: #1/#4 - #2/#3

RG: #1/#4 - #2/#3

AO: #1/#4 - #2/#3

2010:

US: #1/#4 - #2/#3

WB: #1/#3 - #2/#4

RG: #1/#4 - #2/#3

AO: #1/#3 - #2/#4

2009:

US: #1/#4 - #2/#3

WB: #1/#3 - #2/#4

RG: #1/#3 - #2/#4

AO: #1/#4 - #2/#3

2008:

US: #1/#4 - #2/#3

WB: #1/#3 - #2/#4

Instances of #1/#4 - #2/#3: 8

Instances of #1/#3 - #2/#4: 6

The proper way yo approach the situation is that there is a 50% chance that the #1 seed will draw the #4 seed and the #2 seed will draw the #3 seed, and vice versa. And from this perspective the outcome is not that far off at all.

I don't agree. Why make a distinction between who is 3 and who is 4? It doesn't matter if a player is 3 or 4, in both cases he can end up in either part of the draw. We are looking into the unlikeliness of Federer and Djokovic being in the same half so many times. We are not looking into the unlikeliness of the nr 1 and 3 seed for example being in the same half. I don't see how the chance of Federer and Djokovic being drawn together, knowing they can constantly switch rankings, will be any different from the chance of Federer and Djokovic being drawn together, disregarding they are switching rankings. In both cases it's very unlikely to happen. The point is that every year there is 50% chance of Federer and Djokovic being together. It doesn't matter if Djokovic is 3 or 4. 1*50% = 1/2*50% + 1/2*50%

You say they make the draw only by looking at the seedings. Who cares? Say I want to rig the draw by putting Djokovic and Federer together all the time. Let's also say I have the power to do so for a second. All the homework I have to do is look up which seed connects to which player that year. Say I rigged the draw last year. I put Federer and Djokovic together. Federer was no 1 seed and Djokovic was no 4 seed. This year I want to do same, but Djokovic is now no 3 seed. All I have to do is keep in mind that this year I want to put 1 and 3 together, whereas last year I put 1 and 4 together. So I just got to keep in mind that I got to do it the other way around this year. Whoever's name is attached to a seed is very relevant if you want to rig the draw.

Edit: I just did the exact math. If you take into account that Federer and Djokovic can't be in the same half when they are 1 and 2 or 3 and 4, it becomes even more unlikely.

It goes like this:

0+1/4*1/3*1/2+1/4*1/3*1/2

+0+1/4*1/3*1/2+1/4*1/3*1/2

+1/4*1/3*1/2+1/4*1/3*1/2+0

+1/4*1/3*1/2+1/4*1/3*1/2+0=

8*(1/4*1/3*1/2) = 1/3 = 33,33 % (instead of the earlier 50%)

It goes like this: Federer can be ranked either 1,2,3 or 4. So 1/4 chance of him being no 1, 1/4 of him being no 2, etc. If Federer is no 1 for example, Djokovic can be 2,3 or 4. So 1/3 chance of him being no 2, 1/3 chance of him being no 3 etc.

So it goes like this: If Federer and Djokovic are 1 and 2 there is 0% chance of them being in the same half. Hence the first "0". If Federer is no 1 (1/4 chance) and Djokovic is no 3 (1/3 chance), there is 1/2 chance of them being drawn together. Hence the 1/4*1/3*1/2. And so forth. If you fill in the zeros as well (disregard 1 and 2, 3 and 4 can't end up together) you get the earlier 50%. Now you have 33% chance.

colonelforbin

08-28-2011, 08:35 PM

I don't agree. Why make a distinction between who is 3 and who is 4? It doesn't matter if a player is 3 or 4, in both cases he can end up in either part of the draw. We are looking into the unlikeliness of Federer and Djokovic being in the same half so many times. We are not looking into the unlikeliness of the nr 1 and 3 seed for example being in the same half. I don't see how the chance of Federer and Djokovic being drawn together, knowing they can constantly switch rankings, will be any different from the chance of Federer and Djokovic being drawn together, disregarding they are switching rankings. In both cases it's very unlikely to happen. The point is that every year there is 50% chance of Federer and Djokovic being together. It doesn't matter if Djokovic is 3 or 4. 1*50% = 1/2*50% + 1/2*50%

You say they make the draw only by looking at the seedings. Who cares? Say I want to rig the draw by putting Djokovic and Federer together all the time. Let's also say I have the power to do so for a second. All the homework I have to do is look up which seed connects to which player that year. Say I rigged the draw last year. I put Federer and Djokovic together. Federer was no 1 seed and Djokovic was no 4 seed. This year I want to do same, but Djokovic is now no 3 seed. All I have to do is keep in mind that this year I want to put 1 and 3 together, whereas last year I put 1 and 4 together. So I just got to keep in mind that I got to do it the other way around this year. Whoever's name is attached to a seed is very relevant if you want to rig the draw.

Edit: I just did the exact math. If you take into account that Federer and Djokovic can't be in the same half when they are 1 and 2 or 3 and 4, it becomes even more unlikely.

It goes like this:

0+1/4*1/3*1/2+1/4*1/3*1/2

+0+1/4*1/3*1/2+1/4*1/3*1/2

+1/4*1/3*1/2+1/4*1/3*1/2+0

+1/4*1/3*1/2+1/4*1/3*1/2+0=

8*(1/4*1/3*1/2) = 1/3 = 33,33 % (instead of the earlier 50%)

It goes like this: Federer can be ranked either 1,2,3 or 4. So 1/4 chance of him being no 1, 1/4 of him being no 2, etc. If Federer is no 1 for example, Djokovic can be 2,3 or 4. So 1/3 chance of him being no 2, 1/3 chance of him being no 3 etc.

So it goes like this: If Federer and Djokovic are 1 and 2 there is 0% chance of them being in the same half. Hence the first "0". If Federer is no 1 (1/4 chance) and Djokovic is no 3 (1/3 chance), there is 1/2 chance of them being drawn together. Hence the 1/4*1/3*1/2. And so forth. If you fill in the zeros as well (disregard 1 and 2, 3 and 4 can't end up together) you get the earlier 50%. Now you have 33% chance.

I wasn't trying to say that the odds of Djokovic/Federer matching up so many times in a row is not tiny--it is. My point is that the odds of Djokovic/Federer having a semifinal matchup in any given draw is not 50%; there is always the chance, albeit small, that one of the them drops out of the top 4 (or they move in some way that would negate a semifinal meeting). This reality (that ranks are always CHANGING), makes the 50% odds assumption moot. In terms of seeding, however, there is ALWAYS a 50% chance that the #1 seed will draw the #3 seed, or #4 seed, etc. Therefore, if you are going to use a simple 50% probability equation, you need to look at seeding, and the seeding results I presented are not skewed.

The bottom line is, because Federer and Djokovic are actively changing ranks, this makes calculating the probability of their meetings much more complex than 0.5^nth power. I realize you did do out a more complex equation (though I don't have time at the moment to check it out), my reply is directed more towards the general assumption in this thread that a Djokovic/Federer matchup is 50% odds.

You say they make the draw only by looking at the seedings. Who cares? Say I want to rig the draw by putting Djokovic and Federer together all the time. Let's also say I have the power to do so for a second. All the homework I have to do is look up which seed connects to which player that year. Say I rigged the draw last year. I put Federer and Djokovic together. Federer was no 1 seed and Djokovic was no 4 seed. This year I want to do same, but Djokovic is now no 3 seed. All I have to do is keep in mind that this year I want to put 1 and 3 together, whereas last year I put 1 and 4 together. So I just got to keep in mind that I got to do it the other way around this year. Whoever's name is attached to a seed is very relevant if you want to rig the draw.

Edit: I just did the exact math. If you take into account that Federer and Djokovic can't be in the same half when they are 1 and 2 or 3 and 4, it becomes even more unlikely.

It goes like this:

0+1/4*1/3*1/2+1/4*1/3*1/2

+0+1/4*1/3*1/2+1/4*1/3*1/2

+1/4*1/3*1/2+1/4*1/3*1/2+0

+1/4*1/3*1/2+1/4*1/3*1/2+0=

8*(1/4*1/3*1/2) = 1/3 = 33,33 % (instead of the earlier 50%)

It goes like this: Federer can be ranked either 1,2,3 or 4. So 1/4 chance of him being no 1, 1/4 of him being no 2, etc. If Federer is no 1 for example, Djokovic can be 2,3 or 4. So 1/3 chance of him being no 2, 1/3 chance of him being no 3 etc.

So it goes like this: If Federer and Djokovic are 1 and 2 there is 0% chance of them being in the same half. Hence the first "0". If Federer is no 1 (1/4 chance) and Djokovic is no 3 (1/3 chance), there is 1/2 chance of them being drawn together. Hence the 1/4*1/3*1/2. And so forth. If you fill in the zeros as well (disregard 1 and 2, 3 and 4 can't end up together) you get the earlier 50%. Now you have 33% chance.

I wasn't trying to say that the odds of Djokovic/Federer matching up so many times in a row is not tiny--it is. My point is that the odds of Djokovic/Federer having a semifinal matchup in any given draw is not 50%; there is always the chance, albeit small, that one of the them drops out of the top 4 (or they move in some way that would negate a semifinal meeting). This reality (that ranks are always CHANGING), makes the 50% odds assumption moot. In terms of seeding, however, there is ALWAYS a 50% chance that the #1 seed will draw the #3 seed, or #4 seed, etc. Therefore, if you are going to use a simple 50% probability equation, you need to look at seeding, and the seeding results I presented are not skewed.

The bottom line is, because Federer and Djokovic are actively changing ranks, this makes calculating the probability of their meetings much more complex than 0.5^nth power. I realize you did do out a more complex equation (though I don't have time at the moment to check it out), my reply is directed more towards the general assumption in this thread that a Djokovic/Federer matchup is 50% odds.

PCXL-Fan

08-28-2011, 09:08 PM

I wasn't trying to say that the odds of Djokovic/Federer matching up so many times in a row is not tiny--it is. My point is that the odds of Djokovic/Federer having a semifinal matchup in any given draw is not 50%; there is always the chance, albeit small, that one of the them drops out of the top 4 (or they move in some way that would negate a semifinal meeting). This reality (that ranks are always CHANGING), makes the 50% odds assumption moot. In terms of seeding, however, there is ALWAYS a 50% chance that the #1 seed will draw the #3 seed, or #4 seed, etc. Therefore, if you are going to use a simple 50% probability equation, you need to look at seeding, and the seeding results I presented are not skewed.

The bottom line is, because Federer and Djokovic are actively changing ranks, this makes calculating the probability of their meetings much more complex than 0.5^nth power. I realize you did do out a more complex equation (though I don't have time at the moment to check it out), my reply is directed more towards the general assumption in this thread that a Djokovic/Federer matchup is 50% odds.

The thing is it doesn't matter what the seeding are. Mathmatically there could be seeding switchups of whatever combination as long as the conditions Rafa and Fed are on opposite sides and it would not effect the equation of .086% chance of 13 out of 14 past tournaments in a row.

EVERY single seeding combination of the 4 players with the one condition Fed/Nad or conversely Mur/Djok on oppostie sides of the draw has 50% chance of Mur meeting Fed or Djok meeting Fed on same side of draw.

The bottom line is, because Federer and Djokovic are actively changing ranks, this makes calculating the probability of their meetings much more complex than 0.5^nth power. I realize you did do out a more complex equation (though I don't have time at the moment to check it out), my reply is directed more towards the general assumption in this thread that a Djokovic/Federer matchup is 50% odds.

The thing is it doesn't matter what the seeding are. Mathmatically there could be seeding switchups of whatever combination as long as the conditions Rafa and Fed are on opposite sides and it would not effect the equation of .086% chance of 13 out of 14 past tournaments in a row.

EVERY single seeding combination of the 4 players with the one condition Fed/Nad or conversely Mur/Djok on oppostie sides of the draw has 50% chance of Mur meeting Fed or Djok meeting Fed on same side of draw.

winstonplum

08-28-2011, 11:38 PM

This is the third draw in a row where Nadal and Novak were on opposite sides of the draw and got Murray and Fed on their respective sides of the draw. The odds of this happening were 12.5%. Low but not crazy. Starting with the '11 AO, Nadal and Fed were 1 and 2, so this completely changes the variables and thus the probability. Going backwards, this one and two set also had three consectutive slams with Nadal getting Murray and Fed getting Novak. But at the '10 FO, Nadal would have gotten Novak, but Novak lost to Melzner in the quarters. At the '10 AO, Fed was one and Nadal was two, but Murray was five, again totally changing the variables and thus the probability. Remember Delpo was four there. At the '09 USO, Fed was one, but Murray was two. All of the variables keep changing, so it's completely inaccurate to say that the ITF keeps flipping a coin and Fed keep going to Novak and Murray keeps going to Rafa. Now if the current 1 through 4 seeds hold until Melbourne next January the chance and Fed going to Novak again are 6.125%; again very low, but not totally hook, line and sinker conspiracy time.

winstonplum

08-28-2011, 11:42 PM

We need more draws before we reject the hypothesis that the draw is not fixed. The sample is too small to get statistically significant results.

True that.

True that.

Tomxc

05-27-2012, 08:22 PM

Fed/Djoko and Nadal/Murray once again in RG.

ductrung3993

06-22-2012, 05:32 AM

Bumpy bumpa

The-Champ

06-22-2012, 05:59 AM

deleted post

mcenroefan

06-22-2012, 07:26 PM

The question was asked: why fix the draw?

The answer is twofold:

1. Tennis now wants to give Nadal the best chance to reach and surpass 16 GS's becuase that will allow the authorities to, once again, shamelessly promote the concept of a GOAT (just as they did so boorishly with Federer). By allowing Nadal to face Murray instead of Federer in the semis, it increases his chances of ultimately winning the tourney. Fed may be old but he is still a far greater threat to Nole and Nadal than Murray. (Nadal gets the nod over Nole in this situation because he has been around longer and has a larger fanbase--at least currently and even more importantly because he is closer than Nole to 16 GS's)---The ITF doesn't care in the end who might break the record of total GS's---they just want someone to threaten it or break it becuase it fits well into their current model of hyping the sport. I personally believe this model is broken and a sad reflection of the state of tennis today.

2. Perhaps tennis also sees some marquee status in a Fedal final but I think #1 is the real reason.

The answer is twofold:

1. Tennis now wants to give Nadal the best chance to reach and surpass 16 GS's becuase that will allow the authorities to, once again, shamelessly promote the concept of a GOAT (just as they did so boorishly with Federer). By allowing Nadal to face Murray instead of Federer in the semis, it increases his chances of ultimately winning the tourney. Fed may be old but he is still a far greater threat to Nole and Nadal than Murray. (Nadal gets the nod over Nole in this situation because he has been around longer and has a larger fanbase--at least currently and even more importantly because he is closer than Nole to 16 GS's)---The ITF doesn't care in the end who might break the record of total GS's---they just want someone to threaten it or break it becuase it fits well into their current model of hyping the sport. I personally believe this model is broken and a sad reflection of the state of tennis today.

2. Perhaps tennis also sees some marquee status in a Fedal final but I think #1 is the real reason.

tudwell

06-22-2012, 07:47 PM

The question was asked: why fix the draw?

The answer is twofold:

1. Tennis now wants to give Nadal the best chance to reach and surpass 16 GS's becuase that will allow the authorities to, once again, shamelessly promote the concept of a GOAT (just as they did so boorishly with Federer). By allowing Nadal to face Murray instead of Federer in the semis, it increases his chances of ultimately winning the tourney. Fed may be old but he is still a far greater threat to Nole and Nadal than Murray. (Nadal gets the nod over Nole in this situation because he has been around longer and has a larger fanbase--at least currently and even more importantly because he is closer than Nole to 16 GS's)---The ITF doesn't care in the end who might break the record of total GS's---they just want someone to threaten it or break it becuase it fits well into their current model of hyping the sport. I personally believe this model is broken and a sad reflection of the state of tennis today.

2. Perhaps tennis also sees some marquee status in a Fedal final but I think #1 is the real reason.

That only explains the trend from about a year ago until the present. But it's been going on much longer than that. Why would the ITF feel the need to put Djokovic in Federer's half so consistently in 08, 09, and 10?

The answer is twofold:

1. Tennis now wants to give Nadal the best chance to reach and surpass 16 GS's becuase that will allow the authorities to, once again, shamelessly promote the concept of a GOAT (just as they did so boorishly with Federer). By allowing Nadal to face Murray instead of Federer in the semis, it increases his chances of ultimately winning the tourney. Fed may be old but he is still a far greater threat to Nole and Nadal than Murray. (Nadal gets the nod over Nole in this situation because he has been around longer and has a larger fanbase--at least currently and even more importantly because he is closer than Nole to 16 GS's)---The ITF doesn't care in the end who might break the record of total GS's---they just want someone to threaten it or break it becuase it fits well into their current model of hyping the sport. I personally believe this model is broken and a sad reflection of the state of tennis today.

2. Perhaps tennis also sees some marquee status in a Fedal final but I think #1 is the real reason.

That only explains the trend from about a year ago until the present. But it's been going on much longer than that. Why would the ITF feel the need to put Djokovic in Federer's half so consistently in 08, 09, and 10?

mcenroefan

06-22-2012, 08:04 PM

That only explains the trend from about a year ago until the present. But it's been going on much longer than that. Why would the ITF feel the need to put Djokovic in Federer's half so consistently in 08, 09, and 10?

1. It was different issue when Fed was 1 or 2

2. NAdal has always been higher than Nole in GS counts so the rationale remains the same

The answer really is that, at some point in time, the authorities decided that Nadal was the new golden goose. Fed was the previous golden goose.

The result is that Nole is the one who is getting the hose because he earned the #1 ranking and thus at least a fair shot at receiving an easier semi than the #2 ranked player. To be sure, if they were going to be fair about it, the #1 ranked player should always receive the easier semi. Instead, at least in Nole's case, the opposite has been true. He always gets Fed over Murray.

1. It was different issue when Fed was 1 or 2

2. NAdal has always been higher than Nole in GS counts so the rationale remains the same

The answer really is that, at some point in time, the authorities decided that Nadal was the new golden goose. Fed was the previous golden goose.

The result is that Nole is the one who is getting the hose because he earned the #1 ranking and thus at least a fair shot at receiving an easier semi than the #2 ranked player. To be sure, if they were going to be fair about it, the #1 ranked player should always receive the easier semi. Instead, at least in Nole's case, the opposite has been true. He always gets Fed over Murray.

tudwell

06-23-2012, 09:20 AM

I don't buy it, mcenroefan. I don't think tennis authorities would think so far ahead. Giving Nadal a semi with Murray isn't some guarantee that he'll win more slams and contend with Federer's record. And given the match Djokovic and Murray had at the Australian, you'd think, if there were rigging going on, they'd put Murray in Djokovic's half to get more matches like that because not only was there lots of drama but it was actually just a damn good match and they could pull a lot of ratings in with stuff like that. Federer has his U.S. Open battles with Djokovic, too, so I can see a case for deliberately putting him in Djokovic's half on occasion, but he also has moment like at the French where he simply lies down. That's not good for tennis. Close, exciting matches are. Federer-Nadal matches are good for tennis. No matter the draw, Nadal is not guaranteed to win more slams and push for Federer's record, so I think your theory s way off base.

mellowyellow

06-23-2012, 10:10 AM

I don't buy it, mcenroefan. I don't think tennis authorities would think so far ahead. Giving Nadal a semi with Murray isn't some guarantee that he'll win more slams and contend with Federer's record. And given the match Djokovic and Murray had at the Australian, you'd think, if there were rigging going on, they'd put Murray in Djokovic's half to get more matches like that because not only was there lots of drama but it was actually just a damn good match and they could pull a lot of ratings in with stuff like that. Federer has his U.S. Open battles with Djokovic, too, so I can see a case for deliberately putting him in Djokovic's half on occasion, but he also has moment like at the French where he simply lies down. That's not good for tennis. Close, exciting matches are. Federer-Nadal matches are good for tennis. No matter the draw, Nadal is not guaranteed to win more slams and push for Federer's record, so I think your theory s way off base.

That was exactly what happened in the USO 96 draw that was threatened to be boycotted. It kept the Americans from meeting early.

That was exactly what happened in the USO 96 draw that was threatened to be boycotted. It kept the Americans from meeting early.

RoddickAce

06-23-2012, 11:12 AM

I don't agree. Why make a distinction between who is 3 and who is 4? It doesn't matter if a player is 3 or 4, in both cases he can end up in either part of the draw. We are looking into the unlikeliness of Federer and Djokovic being in the same half so many times. We are not looking into the unlikeliness of the nr 1 and 3 seed for example being in the same half. ....

Agreed. First of all, I don't think the draw is rigged but I just want to address some viewpoints in this thread.

Let's say the top 4 rankings are completely volatile and random amongst the group (ie. same 4 players changing rankings within the top 4 spots).

Premise = Federer always draws Djokovic, and it is suspicious because this level of frequency is unlikely to occur based on probabilities.

Certain TW responses = The draw is based on seedings. Based on past history, #1 does not always draw #3, and #2 does not always draw #4. It just happens that Federer and Djokovic change rankings coincidentally when the probability of seeds drawing each other even out and when the draw is made. Therefore it is not suspicious that Federer always draws Djokovic....

?!?!?!?!? Doesn't it make it more suspicious how "coincidental" this is??!?

Does it matter whether Federer is #1 or #2?

Does it matter whether Djokovic is #3 or #4?

The fact that the draw is based on seedings doesn't mitigate the how unlikely it is for Federer and Djokovic to be in the same half so often.

Let's use a more extreme example to isolate the two viewpoints. Let's increase the # of players involved. Let's say the premise is that Federer (#3) always draws Berdych (#7) in the quarterfinals. Let's say Federer's and Berdych's rankings always change within their own group of 4 (Fed within top 4, Berdych within 5-8 ). Is it a logical argument to say that because the draw is based on seedings, it is normal for Fed to draw Berdych all the time because their rankings change?

Agreed. First of all, I don't think the draw is rigged but I just want to address some viewpoints in this thread.

Let's say the top 4 rankings are completely volatile and random amongst the group (ie. same 4 players changing rankings within the top 4 spots).

Premise = Federer always draws Djokovic, and it is suspicious because this level of frequency is unlikely to occur based on probabilities.

Certain TW responses = The draw is based on seedings. Based on past history, #1 does not always draw #3, and #2 does not always draw #4. It just happens that Federer and Djokovic change rankings coincidentally when the probability of seeds drawing each other even out and when the draw is made. Therefore it is not suspicious that Federer always draws Djokovic....

?!?!?!?!? Doesn't it make it more suspicious how "coincidental" this is??!?

Does it matter whether Federer is #1 or #2?

Does it matter whether Djokovic is #3 or #4?

The fact that the draw is based on seedings doesn't mitigate the how unlikely it is for Federer and Djokovic to be in the same half so often.

Let's use a more extreme example to isolate the two viewpoints. Let's increase the # of players involved. Let's say the premise is that Federer (#3) always draws Berdych (#7) in the quarterfinals. Let's say Federer's and Berdych's rankings always change within their own group of 4 (Fed within top 4, Berdych within 5-8 ). Is it a logical argument to say that because the draw is based on seedings, it is normal for Fed to draw Berdych all the time because their rankings change?

mellowyellow

06-23-2012, 12:43 PM

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=6108165&postcount=246 This shows when they changed seeds or rank... This also coincidently shows when the pattern in the draws changed. Also it is argued that each draw resets the probability, just remember that when referencing that the seeds changed over the years. That non argument works both sides...

vBulletin® v3.6.9, Copyright ©2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.