# US Open is rigged...

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by BigForehand, Aug 27, 2011.

1. ### BigForehandSemi-Pro

Joined:
Feb 7, 2009
Messages:
628
Federer having Djokovic for SF 5 years in a row is NOT a coincidence. The probability of that happening, if it was "ramdom" (my @\$\$) is exactly .5^5=0.03125.

And this has been happening for EVERY slam too, including this year Wimby, FO, AO, etc. Complete horses#!t you can't argue...

2. ### PSNELKELegend

Joined:
Dec 22, 2009
Messages:
6,131
You are a mug..
It took you almost 3 days to make this thread or what?
I bet they wont even meet in the SF.

Ralph has by far the tougher SF opponent with Muzz, if they meet.

3. ### BigForehandSemi-Pro

Joined:
Feb 7, 2009
Messages:
628
Doesn't matter who's harder, or if they meet or not, or whatever. You can't argue with the mathematics, the probability of it happening "randomly" is unreal. Just a proof that draws are man-made, aka RIGGED.

And yes it took me 3 days to write this because I have things to do, got 2 jobs. Sick day today or else I wouldn't have time to make this either.

4. ### PSNELKELegend

Joined:
Dec 22, 2009
Messages:
6,131
Sorry to hear that you dont have anything better to do, than making hate threads after 2 days of hard work..
Seriously man, who gives a sh´t if they´re rigged or not, the players have to do their work on the court equally who they have to face.

5. ### tacouLegend

Joined:
Jun 30, 2007
Messages:
8,242
what kinda math did youdo? you realize Novak and Roger were seeded differently each of those 5 years

6. ### Tony48Legend

Joined:
Sep 1, 2008
Messages:
7,128
Fed & Djoker on the same side (2007-present):

Australian Open: last 5 years (2007-2011)
French Open: 2 times (2009 & 2011)
Wimbledon: last 4 years (2008-2011)
U.S. Open: last 4 years (2008-2011)

7. ### ben123Professional

Joined:
May 6, 2011
Messages:
1,163
oh yes ralf has strong seeded spaniard knights as his enemies + the mighty golubev lets pray for him

8. ### BigForehandSemi-Pro

Joined:
Feb 7, 2009
Messages:
628
rolf yeah

"Ralph has by far the tougher SF opponent with Muzz, if they meet. "

LMFAO... yep, mugrray is BY FAR a better player than Djokovic this year. NO COMPARISON...

ROFL, countless 1st-2nd round losses this year while Novak lost 1 match (other than his shoulder). LOL, you're a loser, grow up.

Joined:
Dec 22, 2009
Messages:
6,131

10. ### jakemcclain32Banned

Joined:
Nov 5, 2010
Messages:
4,227
BigForehand, it is rigged...for TV.

TV wants money matches, and the possibility of Fed-Djokovic is more of a money match than Del Potro and Murray, or whatever other semi could happen.

11. ### BigForehandSemi-Pro

Joined:
Feb 7, 2009
Messages:
628
that's got to be it...

they should at least be open about it, not give us this BS about "random draws"

12. ### ZilditeHall of Fame

Joined:
Jan 27, 2011
Messages:
1,923
It's impossible for Nadal and Djokovic to meet in the SF. Anyway...

13. ### MustardTalk Tennis Guru

Joined:
Nov 12, 2009
Messages:
25,389
Location:
Cwmbran, Wales
In the 14 majors there have been from 2008 Wimbledon to the 2011 US Open, there's been 6 occassions of seeds 1 and 3 in the top half and seeds 2 and 4 in bottom half, and there's been 8 occasions of seeds 1 and 4 in the top half and seeds 2 and 3 in the bottom half. See below:

2008 Wimbledon
Seed 1: Roger Federer (Top half)
Seed 2: Rafael Nadal (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Novak Djokovic (Top half)
Seed 4: Nikolay Davydenko (Bottom half)

1/3 in top half, 2/4 in bottom half.

2008 US Open
Seed 1: Rafael Nadal (Top half)
Seed 2: Roger Federer (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Novak Djokovic (Bottom half)
Seed 4: David Ferrer (Top half)

1/4 in top half, 2/3 in bottom half.

2009 Australian Open
Seed 1: Rafael Nadal (Top half)
Seed 2: Roger Federer (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Novak Djokovic (Bottom half)
Seed 4: Andy Murray (Top half)

1/4 in top half, 2/3 in bottom half.

2009 French Open
Seed 1: Rafael Nadal (Top half)
Seed 2: Roger Federer (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Andy Murray (Top half)
Seed 4: Novak Djokovic (Bottom half)

1/3 in top half, 2/4 in bottom half.

2009 Wimbledon
Seed 1: Rafael Nadal (Top half - withdrew from tournament)
Seed 2: Roger Federer (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Andy Murray (Top half)
Seed 4: Novak Djokovic (Bottom half)
Seed 5: Juan Martin del Potro (Top half - replaced Nadal at the top of the draw)

1/3 in top half, 2/4 in bottom half.

2009 US Open
Seed 1: Roger Federer (Top half)
Seed 2: Andy Murray (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Rafael Nadal (Bottom half)
Seed 4: Novak Djokovic (Top half)

1/4 in top half, 2/4 in bottom half.

2010 Australian Open
Seed 1: Roger Federer (Top half)
Seed 2: Rafael Nadal (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Novak Djokovic (Top half)
Seed 4: Juan Martin del Potro (Bottom half)

1/3 in top half, 2/4 in bottom half.

2010 French Open
Seed 1: Roger Federer (Top half)
Seed 2: Rafael Nadal (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Novak Djokovic (Bottom half)
Seed 4: Andy Murray (Top half)

1/4 in top half, 2/3 in bottom half.

2010 Wimbledon
Seed 1: Roger Federer (Top half)
Seed 2: Rafael Nadal (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Novak Djokovic (Top half)
Seed 4: Andy Murray (Bottom half)

1/3 in top half, 2/3 in bottom half.

2010 US Open
Seed 1: Rafael Nadal (Top half)
Seed 2: Roger Federer (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Novak Djokovic (Bottom half)
Seed 4: Andy Murray (Top half)

1/4 in top half, 2/3 in bottom half.

2011 Australian Open
Seed 1: Rafael Nadal (Top half)
Seed 2: Roger Federer (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Novak Djokovic (Bottom half)
Seed 4: Robin Soderling (Top half)

1/4 in top half, 2/3 in bottom half.

2011 French Open
Seed 1: Rafael Nadal (Top half)
Seed 2: Novak Djokovic (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Roger Federer (Bottom half)
Seed 4: Andy Murray (Top half)

1/4 in top half, 2/3 in bottom half.

2011 Wimbledon
Seed 1: Rafael Nadal (Top half)
Seed 2: Novak Djokovic (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Roger Federer (Bottom half)
Seed 4: Andy Murray (Top half)

1/4 in top half, 2/3 in bottom half.

2011 US Open
Seed 1: Novak Djokovic (Top half)
Seed 2: Rafael Nadal (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Roger Federer (Top half)
Seed 4: Andy Murray (Bottom half)

1/3 in top half, 2/4 in bottom half.

14. ### TelepaticLegend

Joined:
May 5, 2008
Messages:
7,167
Location:
:lol: I laughed.

15. ### BigForehandSemi-Pro

Joined:
Feb 7, 2009
Messages:
628
ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!

so basically since 2008 Wimbledon there was only ONE instance where djokovic and Federer were on the same half of the draw (2010 FO)

EVEN THOUGH they were always seeded in such a way that they COULD have been on the same side of the draw. Fed and Nole were never no.1 and 2 together, or 3 and 4.

COMPLETE BULLSH**

16. ### West Coast AceG.O.A.T.

Joined:
Feb 11, 2005
Messages:
15,398
Location:
So Cal
Nicely summed up. Another crazy theory blown up. Nothing left to see here. The thread may be closed.

The 'made for TV' comment someone made had me LOL'ing. Like Fed - Rafa finally playing at the USO wouldn't sell.

17. ### BigForehandSemi-Pro

Joined:
Feb 7, 2009
Messages:
628
Are you special? The theory got proven mathematically by Mustard's post. You fail hard. Slam organizers got exposed.

18. ### winstonplumHall of Fame

Joined:
May 14, 2010
Messages:
2,345
Epic Fail thread; again. No conspiracy. Basic understanding of probability completely absent.

19. ### westsideHall of Fame

Joined:
Apr 3, 2005
Messages:
3,771
Location:
Melbourne, Australia

Last edited: Aug 29, 2011
20. ### roysidHall of Fame

Joined:
Nov 15, 2006
Messages:
1,513
It's not 5 years, it's 4. In 2007 they met in the final. For the last 3 years they met in SF.

21. ### BigForehandSemi-Pro

Joined:
Feb 7, 2009
Messages:
628
On your part, yes. Tell me how can you get 13/14 "50-50 random" draws with Fed/Djokovic on both half of the draw?

Hint: Its like flipping 13 heads in 14 tries with a fair coin.
Hint: It's a binomial distribution.
Hint: You suck hard at mathematics.
Hint: Slams are rigged.

22. ### winstonplumHall of Fame

Joined:
May 14, 2010
Messages:
2,345
I'm not horrible at math; I'm not great either. But this isn't about math, this is just about basic critical thinking. Let's just take the last three slams. Follow me here. At the French Novak and Nadal were on opposite sides of the draw, Rafa 1 and Novak 2. Imagine you have a coin with Fed's face on one side and Murray's face on another. The ITF says, Whoever's face is up when we flip this coin goes to theNUmber One's side of the draw. The person whose face is down goes to the number two's side. Well, we know, Murray's face came up. Wimbledon: The seeds are the same, the coin is the same. Murray's face came up again; thus Nadal's side. Now here's what you're not seeing. The seeds flipped at the USO. Now when they flipped the Murray/Fed coin, or pulled the balls out of the hopper, or the pieces of paper out the hat, whatever, there was only a slim chance that it would be Murray for the third time--12.5% chance, in fact. And you know what? Murray didn't come up, Federer did. But because Novak and Rafa had switched seeds Federer again went to Novak because whoever comes up first goes to the number one seed's side of the draw.

23. ### winstonplumHall of Fame

Joined:
May 14, 2010
Messages:
2,345
Thank you. Come on TT, this isn't rocket science.

24. ### Bryan SwartzHall of Fame

Joined:
May 8, 2010
Messages:
1,782
The most important part about this is that it really doesn't matter all that much. From an integrity point of view, yes it does, but practically it doesn't.

The Slams follow the ITF rules, which are pretty confining. 1 and 2 have to be on opposite sides of the draw, same with 3 and 4, etc. there's a narrow box that things have to fit in. 1-8 play 25-32 in the third round ...

It's impossible for them, so long as they follow the requirements, to royally screw with the draw so that there is a big edge for a particular player. All they can do is play with the margins. I think we'd all be better off just enjoying the tournament, because the best players are going to be there at the end no matter what the organizers do.

I actually agree. Djokovic ending up in Nadal's half at the French and Federer's half at the U.S Open all those years is no coincidence. The ATP, ITF, those that own televsion rights, sponsors, all want those Federer-Nadal finals. So Djokovic the main threat for almost 5 years now is placed where he is most likely to be eliminated before the final. Except for now where he as #1 he is placed in Federer's half for the sheer reason that is the only hope of a Federer-Nadal final (which obviously cant happen if Fedal are in the same half).

26. ### cucioLegend

Joined:
May 13, 2007
Messages:
6,922
Location:
Tonginchik
The probability of ANY such sequence is .5^5=0.03125. If Fed had drawn, let's say, DMMDM... would you be claiming also how improbable this particular sequence was? Basic understanding of probability fail sounds about right.

That said, I am not saying the draws aren't actually rigged, and it sucks that we don't get a little bit more variety in prospective semifinals. But your post makes no sense from a purely mathematical point of view.

27. ### ledwixHall of Fame

Joined:
Jun 6, 2010
Messages:
3,152
Yeah, but they were always in the top 4 and never 1-2 or 2-1. So the chances of them being in the same half were always 50%.

13 out of 14 times of being in the same half is good evidence of rigging to me. Obviously it is less than 1 in 1000 that they would be paired up that often. You would expect them to be paired up between 6 and 10 times, and that range probably covers over 90% of the odds. Getting 1 or 13, or 0 or 14, covers only about 0.2% of the odds. So that's a pretty statistically significant deviation from what would be expected by chance.

And in terms of looking at only the seeds, so what? It seems that seeding is irrelevant; it seems that the draw always tends to mold itself around whatever seeds they respectively hold at the time.

By this logic, though, all things are random. Nothing is intentional. But we have methods of detecting intention, i.e. design, which involve being able to predict events in a non-random, directed fashion, based on previous outcomes. As our predictions become more and more correct (Federer-Djokovic will be the match-up in one half of the draw), it becomes less and less likely that the particular sequence happened by chance.

Last edited: Aug 31, 2011
28. ### cucioLegend

Joined:
May 13, 2007
Messages:
6,922
Location:
Tonginchik
Calling a 14-sample experiment pretty statistically significant is rather questionable, let alone 5 like the OP did.

Some quick googling will produce information about independence of random experiments, the law of large numbers, etc., including some fancy flash simulators. E.g.:

http://www.problemgambling.ca/en/resourcesforprofessionals/pages/probabilityoddsandrandomchance.aspx

Again, I am not saying there is no rigging, but math alone is not a strong proof of it.

29. ### syc23Professional

Joined:
May 20, 2011
Messages:
1,493
They are also hell bent on making sure Roger gets the advantage playing on day 1 and Murray in day 3 to **** him off not to mention forcing him to play a couple of back-to-back 5 setters most likely during the scorching afternoon.

30. ### BigForehandSemi-Pro

Joined:
Feb 7, 2009
Messages:
628
LOL at you and all the other highschool kids lecturing me on mathematics. Just keep quiet on subjects you got no clue about.
What happened since 2008 Wimbledon is like flipping a fair coin 14 times and coming out with 13-1 ratio. The probability of this happening "randomly", as I said before, is 0.0008545 or 0.08545%. If you believe that happened randomly, then you also believe in the tooth fairy and the boogie man.

I got some readings for you too:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/BinomialDistribution.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CentralLimitTheorem.html

So yes, there IS a mathematical proof that the draws are rigged. Get used to it, and more importantly learn maths or shut up when you're clueless.

31. ### TopFHHall of Fame

Joined:
Aug 15, 2010
Messages:
3,494
Wow, I honestly hadn't noticed that!

32. ### OTMPutHall of Fame

Joined:
Dec 29, 2008
Messages:
2,338
let us not throw around frequentist calculations with a lot of seriousness.

there are a lot more finer points about probability itself before we invoke odds to see whether a particular event "can" occur or not.

33. ### OTMPutHall of Fame

Joined:
Dec 29, 2008
Messages:
2,338
the word "mathematical proof" is getting abused here. i do not like it at all.

suppose an event has a probability of 1/1000000. does it "logically follow" that it "cannot occur" in the next 10 tries? if it occurs, does it still disprove that it has a probability of 1/1000000?

in real life you see one sample path. or perhaps finite number of trials. very little you can say about "veracity" of the trial if a small probability event turns up.

34. ### mellowyellowHall of Fame

Joined:
Jun 5, 2010
Messages:
3,782
Location:
Jimmy Pesto's
This actually is proof, because you have 2 instances of many heads in a row, and many tales in a row, consecutively. Then throw in the Masters draws in too and explain that. With the Masters and the Slams combined what do you have? The only clear thing is that the SEED did not matter, the NAMES did.

35. ### LanceSternProfessional

Joined:
Aug 30, 2008
Messages:
1,329
Do the number crunching with #1 vs #3 and #1 vs #4. And #2 vs #3 and #2 vs #4

Then come back. It's as fair as it should be

36. ### mellowyellowHall of Fame

Joined:
Jun 5, 2010
Messages:
3,782
Location:
Jimmy Pesto's
Real? Fair? Have you looked at the entire year and draws where #1-4 were entered?

37. ### veroniquemBionic Poster

Joined:
Jan 27, 2008
Messages:
34,686
Location:
New York

IMO they couldn't care less about Nadal. What they want is Fed in the final, period. Have you seen the # of Fed commercials on American TV (ESPN and Tennis channel) during the USO? We're literally bombarded with them. Fed means money in the US. And who among the top players is the worst matchup for Fed and almost guaranteed to beat him in a best of 5? Yeah right and that's why Fed will NEVER be in Rafa's half of the draw as long as both of them are top players. Never. And it has nothing to do with wanting Nadal in the final. Actually, on hard, Murray's chances vs Nadal are quite good.
(At the time when Fed and Rafa were 1 and 2, then the biggest threat of upset for Fed was Murray (only player with Nadal to lead the h to h vs Fed), so Murray "happened" to never be on Fed's side of the draw. I always thought at the time that for all of Murray's final choking syndrome, he would be quite dangerous to Fed in an earlier round but hey, guess what? We'll never know if I'm right or wrong. Pure chance? Yeah, right- rolleyes)

Last edited: Sep 1, 2011
38. ### TheTruthG.O.A.T.

Joined:
Jun 16, 2006
Messages:
13,693
Agree. It's not just what side of the draw Djokovic ended up, but where. All the time.

39. ### jerriyHall of Fame

Joined:
May 10, 2010
Messages:
2,076
LMAO stop being a kook. Your math is fuzzy.

Players have 50/50 chance of ending up in one or the other semi final.

And if you have ever flipped coins a lot you would have known that it is very well possible for you to flip a coin and the coin falling on only one side 4 times in a row (before dropping on the flip side). This happens a lot (but not all the time). In other words, the fact that a chance is 50/50 does NOT mean that the outcome should be evenly divided in 4 tries (4 being the amount of USOs that has passed since Djoker and Fed met in the final instead of the semi).

40. ### BigForehandSemi-Pro

Joined:
Feb 7, 2009
Messages:
628
It should be more evenly divided in 14 tries... 13-1 is not evenly divided.

ROFL at you losers who tell me about seed switching. Hmmm...... so as soon as the seeds switch, the draws ALSO switch to accommodate Fed vs. Djokovic semifinals. Do you find that coincidence? That is further proof of rigging.

The whole sport is rigged, its a business. You are lying to yourself if you think otherwise.

41. ### LuvTheGameBanned

Joined:
Aug 24, 2011
Messages:
185
"The whole sport is rigged, its a business. You are lying to yourself if you think otherwise."

BigForehand you got that right!

42. ### ChopShotSemi-Pro

Joined:
Jan 29, 2010
Messages:
492
However much I want to believe in the general honesty and fairness of the draw, the math just doesn't lie with regards to probability.
To the poster who correctly stated that coin flips are independent occurrences with no influence on each other, this is entirely correct. However, as BigForehand states, this also makes for a binomial distribution, which is essentially a summation of the probabilities of an amount of independent processes ending with a "success". The probability that BigForehand has calculated is correct, and it seems preposterously small.

However, BigForehand IS being a kook for automatically assuming that lack of deference to mathematical probability means rigging. It might just be the simple fact of humanity making a right mess of simulating stochasticity at work here, in fact, Occam's Razor says it most likely is. Simple screw-up is always going to be a far simpler explanation than "OOOOH, THAR BE CONSPIRACY IN THEM THAR TOURNEYMENTS!" I'll put my faith in the general fallibility of humanity until I see proof otherwise.

43. ### sdontLegend

Joined:
Feb 10, 2009
Messages:
7,441
Location:
Paris, France
Proof that everything is rigged:
Fedal USO final

Not only do they rig the draw, they also know what the score will be in the final between Fed and Nadal: 7-6 3-6 7-6 3-6... and I let you find out what the 5th set score is (don't want to spoil anyone).

44. ### MilanRookie

Joined:
Dec 20, 2007
Messages:
384
(1) seed should play (4) seed and (2) seed should play the (3) seed. I understand they switch it a lot, but generally that's how it works. That's what I think it should be at least...