Socal's conspiracy corner: PHD statistician proves the draws aren't random!

Clearly, the level of statistical improbability that is taking place at the grandslams bears some mentioning of the financial and pecuniary interest( god I love using those law school words) in protecting the possibility of a fedal final and the ratings boon that would follow is just overwhelming. For the sixth consecutive slam Novak gets Roger and not Andy, this should only be a 50 percent probabiltiy and the odds of Novak getting Roger six straight times is 64 to 1. I have been roundly criticized in the past for my cynical and conspiratorial nature, being a middle eastern man raised in George Bush's America I am powerless to be anything but what my nature dictates. I am calling the fix. Not only does Novak get Roger for the umpteenth time, but he will most likely draw the shortest straw on stupid saturday by having the late match again. Stupid Saturday magnifies the importance of the semi draw, the feature semi (most likely Roger and Novak) will be greatly disadvantaged in the one day turnaround of Stupid Saturday. Now Novak most likely with a bum shoulder, will be required to defeat Roger federer in a night match, then comeback the next day and defeat the winner of the Nadal/Murray semi that took place earlier in the day. In short, Djokovic as the least marketable of the top four is getting jobbed by the tournament committee that is doing their best to protect their superbowl of ratings if Roger and Rafa happen to play in the final.



The brits should be happy as this configuration presents both Andy and Rafa with a wonderful opportunity to steal one from Novak who might as well be rated as the 32 seed as opposed to the number 1 seed with the draw he is getting. Roger also is done no favors with this draw as most likely if he wins out he will get the deathmatch on saturday night. In light of Djoko's shoulder injury and the quick turnaround in the final this grandslam has been decided at the outset by the tournament commitee to be a victory for either Rafa or Andy. So if you got any money right now bet those two to win the tournament, they have all the possible benefits of scheduling and draw imaginable at this point. It is a shame that the second biggest slam has to taint the sport with such a ridiculous fix and its even more ridiculous stupid saturday event that unfairly discriminates against the second semi.

To be honest, is it really that big a deal any more? I doubt Federer's going to get anywhere near the semi-finals, sadly enough.

Well Chazz i disagree, it matters greatly in this tournament who gets the night match at stupid saturday and looks like its nole again, just like last year. Is it too much to ask to have the tournament give all the fair seeds an even shake when it comes to scheduling and the draws?

Socal, do you really think that the people on 606v2 are the only people that will have noticed this trend? Do you not think that if there was a suspicion of foul play then someone would have done something about it by now? I haven't seen a single news article on the subject. The idea that the tournament organisers are tampering the draws and getting away with it without anyone batting an eyelid is somewhat difficult for me to believe.

..... Does anyone know what type of draw machine this "committee" is using?

They have been the top 4 for so long that there ought to be a rule stopping them from being the same half twice in a row, never mind SIXTH time straight

It's really hard for me to doubt an ulterior motive of them trying to split Federer-Nadal for viewing figures. I hate conspiracies but it doesn't add up... 6 in a rowwwwwwwwwww!!

Chazz, why is it that no one in the media is mentioning it? Well for one thing many of them work for the same organizations that broadcast and cover the tournament they are hardly going to call the tournament rigged and expect anymore work in covering the event or a gracious reception by the ATP. Secondly, the modern corporatized media is not the watchdog the independent media used to be, and in terms of sports reporting they never have been. In fact, I think it is quite odd how very few major media outlets comment on this statistical anomaly. Bankers just stole a few trillion dollars from billions of people around the world, do you believe that unchecked financial interests regulate themselves based on the honor system? What is hard to believe that tennis tournament committees with no oversight, and no transparency wouldn't tinker with the system to maximize their own financial gain? It isn't much of a conspiracy to acknowledge that businessman are greedy and even greedier if no one is watching the store.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:..... Does anyone know what type of draw machine this "committee" is using?

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/54828000/jpg/_54828763_54828762.jpg

Seriously conspiracy theorists, get a coin and toss it ten times. Preferably a £2 coin or the coin of greatest value in your currency.

If the results are not:

Heads / Tails / Heads / Tails / Heads / Tails / Heads / Tails / Heads / Tails

or

Tails / Heads / Tails / Heads / Tails / Heads / Tails / Heads / Tails / Heads

then send the counterfeit coin to me and I will gladly dispose of it for you. Out of the goodness of my heart. Free of charge!

Icecold, why don't you go get a coin and call either heads or tails and see how long it takes to flip heads 6 times in a row or tails 6 times in a row. Pretty convenient how this anomaly is the exact configuration that would facilitate higher tv ratings, I mean why isn't the anomaly Novak getting Andy 6 times in a row. Why does the anomaly result in Roger and Rafa getting put on opposite sides of the draw preserving the possibility of a mega ratings boon with a fedal final?



If you give me any situation with money involved, little to no transparency, and the people who stand to make the money are the ones controlling the process and I'll show you corruption at some level.

Socal its yours and "SuperNovak's lucky day.

A hurricane is heading towards New York and we all know what Andys serve is like when its windy!

So one down - unfortunately Rafa is very good in windy conditions

Chazfazzer. Further to my post on the US Draw section (see items below), Neil Harman in The Times today has a piece about draw fixing at the Slams, but -strangely -doesn't mention the Fed/Djoko constant pairing

sirfredperry wrote:Chazfazzer. Further to my post on the US Draw section (see items below), Neil Harman in The Times today has a piece about draw fixing at the Slams, but -strangely -doesn't mention the Fed/Djoko constant pairing

I wonder who has gotten to Neil Harman? Is it murdoch, is it CBS, the free masons, Uncle Toni, or Guy Forget? sirfred I read your post on the other thread, it isn't a conspiracy top seeds getting weaker players, that is the nature of seeding.

PS could you provide the link Sir fred?

legendkillar wrote:

Nice of you to contribute legend to another edition of the conspiracy corner.

You can't get The Times on line and I'm not clever enough to scan it from the paper but perhaps someone can do so, so people can see this article.

Don't worry sirfred I'll find it thanks for bringing it to our attention. I will have to turn up my conspiracy meter and to look it over.

<p>Dr. Andrew Swift, past chairman of the American Statistical Association's Section on Statistics in Sports and an assistant mathematics professor at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, said the analysis and its methodology were sound.




"Any way you want to look at these, there is significant evidence here that these did not come from a random draw," he said.



http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/6850893/espn-analysis-finds-top-seeds-tennis-us-open-had-easier-draw-statistically-likely



Here it is ladies and gentleman according Dr. Swift his analysis of US open draws determines that the DRAW IS NOT RANDOM! His analysis centered around the top seeds getting easier first round matches than statistically random results would lead us to believe. But once the draw is shown not to be random then it isn't random, therefore it is fixed. And if they fix the first two rounds why can't they fix the semi draws.



I think this was the basis of the harman article as well Sirfred, this is precisely what you are talking about. Once a phd statistician analyzes the draw over 10 years and finds that it isn't random, then it means it is rigged and my argument about semi final rigging fits in with this. Either the draw is random or it isn't, this guy has proved it isn't random. If they can fix round 1 and 2 why wouldn't they fix the semi draws to suit them?

Possible parallel is the way that, in football, Rangers and Celtic so rarely meet before the final in the Scottish Cup. (warmed up balls going into the bag?)
You'd think if they were in the draw for the semis together so often they would occasionally meet at the semi-final stage.

I am not the greatest fan of conspiracies theory, but just for this one time I am prepared to make an exception. The probability of getting 6 times in a row the same side of the coin are meagre: close to 1.5 %.

I wander if anybody has any ideas of what are the rules applied by the grand slam organization in making the draws. The whole thing look a bit shady. In fact I am, personally, not even aware whether the random rule is "set in stone" or they just follow weaker criteria like: ensuring the overall fairness of the draw. In the latter case there would be the legal space for every kind of fancy manipulation.

Happy that at least delpo is not in the same half though

Doesn't surprise me if Federer has input into how the draw is made

Think about it, he doesn't like Novak too much as you can tell by his celebration at the FO, he would also have some hope that Murray can do his dirty work and stop Nadal going further.

TELL ME I'M WRONG

If we bear in mind that the draw is supposedly random based on ranking rather than player, it's not quite the conspiracy it seems.
Although it is the sixth GS in a row that Federer and Novak are in the same half, the rankings match up has been as follows:

US11 1v3
W11 2v3
RG11 2v3
AO11 2v3
US10 2v3
W10 1v3

So, still a bit odd, but not really six in a row. I do though think it is a very good point made above - if it is statistically shown that the early rounds are not random then there is no reason to believe any of it is random.

Putting it in tennis terms, I don't think this is a huge issue. When Djokovic was ranked 3, he would have had to beat Federer and Nadal (according to ranking) to win a title anyway. I don't think it would have made much difference which order he played them in.

Now that Novak is number 1, I think you can make a good case that Murray may have been a tougher draw than Federer. Federer was superb in the RG semi but the rest of the year has been rather mediocre. Yes, there is always the chance he may roll back the years and deliver an excellent performance but if Novak can't beat a 30 year old Federer, whilst he (Novak) is in his prime, then you can't really say he deserves the win the title.

The one thing that will indisputedly stink is if Nadal gets the earlier semi final for the third year in a row. This can make a real difference and we know that the scheduling for Stupid Saturday is not random.

JM:Nice one!

Seriously I can't see the Fedexpress doing anything like that. it's much more a tournament organization interest in gathering excitement for a much anticipated Fed – Nadal final.

I can actually see it the other way around: Fed to prefer meeting Nadal in the semis, doing the dirty job sooner rather than later and having a reasonably easy final as a consequence

I would like Dr. Swift to start predicting earthquakes and tsunamis rather than wasting his prodigious talent on Tennis draw randomness questions.

Also, I like IceCold's idea, if the 'coin' does not produce alternative HT or TH, I am willing to share 50% of what IceCold gets.

The question of 'randomness' where seed #1 does not meet seed #33 in the first round has to do with the weightage assigned to seeds rather than randomness of the draw.

The #1, and #2 are fixed. #3 and #4 are sort of fixed. They can either land on line 33 or line 97. The fixing of specific line numbers getting a specific range of seeds is where the randomness can be questioned, but that is used in all tournaments.

To be honest coin tosses do not always land the way you want - didn't ex-England cricket captain Michael Vaughan have a remarkable run of losing tossers at the start of Test matches?

The analysis linked by social is about easy first round opponants for the top seeds and nothing to do with the pairings of Federer Djokovic and Nadal Murray.

As icecold pointed out if these pairings were simply a result of a coin toss when looking at such a small number of events predicting 8 heads in a row, 8 tails in a row, HTHTHTHT or indeed any sequence has the same probability. Nothing to suggest any of these outcomes are not random.

However the draws are not quite like a coin toss. Numbers are drawn and a player is linked to that number by their seeding. The number linked to a player is not constant. Looking at the slams over the past 2 years Djokovic, Nadal and Federer have always been in the top 4 but not in the same position. Apart from 2 slams so has Murray but again not in the same position.

The top 4 seeds in the slams have been drawn like this -

AO 2010
(1)F (3)D
(2)N (4)Del Potro

FO 2010
(1)F (4)M
(2)N (3)D

Wim 2010
(1)N (4)M
(2)F ((3)D

US 2010
(1)N (4)M
(2)F (3)D

AO 2011
(1)N (4)Soderling
(2)F (3)D

FO 2011
(1)N (4)M
(2)D (3)F

Wim 2011
(1)N (4)M
(2)D (3)F

US 2011
(1)D (3)F
(2)N (M)

Were both players met in the semi's I've given them a
I know Murray was in the same half as Nadal in both AO's but as he wasn't in the top 4 I don't think it can be seen as part of the same "conspiricy".

In 8 slams Federer and Djokovic have been drawn in the same half 7 times. It feels like a lot but breaking it down they've arrived there in different ways.

Once when F was 1 and D 3
Three times when F was 2 and D 3
Twice when D was 2 and F 3
Once when D was 1 and F 3

In 8 slams Nadal and Murray have been drawn in the same half 5 times (not counting the AO's)

4 times when N was 1 and M 4
Once when N was 2 and M 4

To me this looks random. It would be nice if there are any PHD statisticians out there that could prove it...

hawkeye wrote:To me this looks random. It would be nice if there are any PHD statisticians out there that could prove it...

Perhaps Dr. Swift (or Socal can volunteer).

It is difficult to prove randomness, after the fact, when the outcomes are known a priori. You also need an infinite series of outcomes to prove randomness.

Computers use pseudo-random generators using a seed which is derived from a large prime and some type of a monotonic clock. The slam draws have a set of finite permutations (not infinite), so the probability is finite that a draw of players (if they were fixed) would be repeated if tried a couple of times.

The other factor to consider is that if you took 1,2,3,4 (1,2 being fixed) and put 3/4 in opposite halves randomly, there are not that many distinct possibilities. Ignoring F/D/M/N for this discussion, if one took all draws of the Open Era slams, it may seem like patterns repeat, and they do.

There is no conspiracy, unlike Socal would have us believe (or James Bond comments - Once is chance, Twice is happenstance, Thrice is enemy action).

Also people have fixed ideas about what "random" should look like. Random can and does include patterns.

Hawkeye, good assessment, but there are a couple of points that I think affect your analysis.

1) In the explanation of Fed and Djok have met seven times, you have:

"Three times when F was 2 and D 3
Twice when D was 2 and F 3"

These are statistically the same thing - the number 3 seed being paired with number 2 seed. So really what we have is, of the seven times F and D have met, five of those are a result of the draw pairing the 3 seed and 2 seed together.

2) The point on a coin toss and getting 8 heads in a row. Yes, getting 8 in a row has the same probability as any other individual sequence. But the issue here is that we have only one sequence that can create 8 heads in a row, and many sequences that are "not in row".
Say for example you toss a coin three times, possibe results are:
HHH
HHT
HTH
HTT
THH
THT
TTH
TTT
So the there only 2 out of 8 permuations that can be described as "in a row". Only 1 out 8 is heads in a row.

I'm going to try to add a more succinct summary.

- Fed and Djok have met 6 times in row. This is not the same as tossing a coin and getting 6 heads in a row, as the seedings have been different in that time.

- What we actually have is four instances of 2v3 and two instances of 1v3.

- Is this statistically strange? Not really. If you change only one result then you have three instances of 1v3 and three instances of 2v3 - exactly as you would expect.

- The only 'odd' element in this is that the four instances of 2v3 occurred in a row (from US10 to W11). This is a little unusual but, with such a small sample, nothing too outlandish because....

- Sample size is a factor. For example if you toss a coin four times, you might get three heads and one tail. Technically you have thrown 75% heads but because you have only thrown four times, it is not unusual. If you threw a coin 4000 times though and you still got 75% heads, then that would be very unusual indeed!

Hm murdoch, and hawkeye you guys are both wrong. For the entire period in question Fed or Novak have either been rated 1, 2, or 3 in rankings. Either way regardless of whether Fed is rated 1 or Novak is rated three or vice versa they should still only have a 50 percent chance of meeting in the semi. Regardless of their ranking among the top three. So your analysis based on seeds is completely irrelevant. If Novak is rated #2 he gets roger, if he is rated #3 he gets Roger, if he is rated #1 guess what he gets Roger. And his particular ranking within the top 3 doesn't matter. Any of the top 3 positions should only have a 50 percent chance of drawing roger. The only top 3 configuration that doesn't fit this rule is if Novak and Roger are 1 and 2, which they have never been 1 and 2. When Roger was 1 Novak was always three, now that Roger is 3 Novak has always been 1 or 2. Odds in all of these scenarios are 50 percent.



Randomness is a concept like virginity, either you are virgin or you aren't. If the draw has been shown not to be random for the first 2 rounds than it isn't a virgin draw, it has in some way been tampered with and constructed.



And Laverfan the seeding system is of course taken into consideration by Dr. Swift. He has shown that the top seeds get a non-random draw for the first two rounds, that based on over 1000 simulations the chances of the first two seeds getting as easy a draw in the first 2 rounds was less than .3 percent at the US open. Only 3 of his 1000 random simulations was easier than what we have seen in the last 10 years. And even taking into consideration the seeding the top seeds got an easier draw on average over the last decade than 997 of his 1000 random simulations.

HM murdoch your varying seeds argument with Novak and Roger is wrong. Regardless of their seeding OVER THE TIME PERIOD IN QUESTIN REGARDLESS OF dJOKO BEING 3,2,OR 1 HE SHOULD ONLY HAVE A 50 PERCENT CHANCE OF DRAWING ROGER, AND we know that he has now drawn Roger in 6 in a row and 7 of the last 8 slams. STatistically this is way beyond the standard deviation.

hawkeye wrote:The analysis linked by social is about easy first round opponants for the top seeds and nothing to do with the pairings of Federer Djokovic and Nadal Murray.

As icecold pointed out if these pairings were simply a result of a coin toss when looking at such a small number of events predicting 8 heads in a row, 8 tails in a row, HTHTHTHT or indeed any sequence has the same probability. Nothing to suggest any of these outcomes are not random.

However the draws are not quite like a coin toss. Numbers are drawn and a player is linked to that number by their seeding. The number linked to a player is not constant. Looking at the slams over the past 2 years Djokovic, Nadal and Federer have always been in the top 4 but not in the same position. Apart from 2 slams so has Murray but again not in the same position.

The top 4 seeds in the slams have been drawn like this -

AO 2010
(1)F (3)D
(2)N (4)Del Potro

FO 2010
(1)F (4)M
(2)N (3)D

Wim 2010
(1)N (4)M
(2)F ((3)D

US 2010
(1)N (4)M
(2)F (3)D

AO 2011
(1)N (4)Soderling
(2)F (3)D

FO 2011
(1)N (4)M
(2)D (3)F

Wim 2011
(1)N (4)M
(2)D (3)F

US 2011
(1)D (3)F
(2)N (M)

Were both players met in the semi's I've given them a
I know Murray was in the same half as Nadal in both AO's but as he wasn't in the top 4 I don't think it can be seen as part of the same "conspiricy".

In 8 slams Federer and Djokovic have been drawn in the same half 7 times. It feels like a lot but breaking it down they've arrived there in different ways.

Once when F was 1 and D 3
Three times when F was 2 and D 3
Twice when D was 2 and F 3
Once when D was 1 and F 3

In 8 slams Nadal and Murray have been drawn in the same half 5 times (not counting the AO's)

4 times when N was 1 and M 4
Once when N was 2 and M 4

To me this looks random. It would be nice if there are any PHD statisticians out there that could prove it...

HE you fully deserve the award for the stupidest article ever.

you really believe that the probability of getting 8 heads in a row is the same of obtaining say 3 heads and 5 tails or 4 and 4 ??

That sounds like you discovered a whole new brand of statistic, congrats! If you had bothered to read my post you would have known that the chance to get 6 heads (or tails) in a row is very slim 1.5 % , and that one of getting 8 heads in a row, guess what, is even slimmer: 0.4 %

Never liked too much math in the high school?

Now that Novak is number 1, I think you can make a good case that Murray may have been a tougher draw than Federer. Federer was superb in the RG semi but the rest of the year has been rather mediocre. Yes, there is always the chance he may roll back the years and deliver an excellent performance but if Novak can't beat a 30 year old Federer, whilst he (Novak) is in his prime, then you can't really say he deserves the win the title.
Murdoch



So let me get this straight under your analysis then Rafa's Roland Garros title doesn't count. Why is Novak required to beat 2 goat candidates for him to quote deserve a grandslam. Why is Rafa deserving of his RG title if he doesn't beat both Fed and Novak. So Novak deserves a grandslam only if he has to face both goats, but Rafa can sit back in the final and just play one of the other top 2 players to win a grandslam and he deserves it? Novak has already lost the french open as a result of draw tampering and poor scheduling. No question that Rafa wanted no part of Novak in that final after Madrid and Rome. And he got the ideal draw and the one epic performance from fed in the semi.



So let me get your fairness criteria for Novak to deserve a grandslam he must be drawn against Rafa and Roger, but Rafa deserves a slam as long as he sits back in the final and waits to pick off the winner of Novak and Roger's semi?



Draw tampering has already cost Novak one slam, how many more times does he have to get jobbed by an obviously rigged process.



PS Murray deserves the tougher draw because he is the #4 player in the world and not #1 or #2. As #1 or #2 or #3 Novak should have a 50 percent chance of avoiding Roger, which is obviously not the case in the last 6 grandslams in a row. That is precisely the problem that Novak is not being given the benefit of his higher seed and is being seeded like he is the #4 player in the world as opposed to #1 or #2.

No-one will get to the bottom of this unless it is decided what exactly you are comparing as a statistic.

Odds, Percentages, Probability, Predictability, they are all variations on concepts of chance and randomness.

Betting odds are nothing to do with randomness of draws, and Predictability has nothing to do with Percentages.

If you want to dissect the random statistics of the US Open draw, you will have to go back through all the periods of history in which draws have been made before you can pick out a small section and derive facts from that.

Until then, comparing coin tosses with tokens out of a bag is pointless as is showing evidence that a conspiracy is involved with only a part examination of the statistical record being scrutinised.

The England Football team always "seemed" to get Germany in the knock-out stages of the World Cup, remember that ? what conspiracy could you derive from that other than bad luck or the fact that two years in a row, Isner and Mahut got picked together ???? Conspiracy or chance of randomness?

Jubba, Dr. Swift analyzed the USO draws for 10 years and he looked and he ran over 1000 simulations on the computer, with the seeding requirements worked in. In 997 of those simulations the draw for the top seeds worked out to be easier than the random simulations of his computer. Hence the draw isn't random and in some instances it is manufactured.



Isner Mahut rematch is another very odd fortunate coincidence for the tournament organizing committee. And don't bring football into this, basically world football is run by a international criminal racket similar to the International olympic committee and their version of organized bribery. Hardly, a state I wish tennis to be in.

Mmm. So some posters theories go something like this.

Throwing 8 H in a row cannot be random. (It can!) Federer and Djokovic (or Nadal and Murray) being drawn on same side of draw a few times is the same as throwing 8 H in a row (It isn't). It all proves "they're" all out to get Murray? Djokovic? or someone (not quite sure who) or "they" want a Nadal Federer final (If only it could be arranged so easily...).

Thank goodness there are a few rational posters who are having none of this. Maybe the best course of action when someone insists that "the sky is falling" is to stay well clear...

socal1976 wrote:HM murdoch your varying seeds argument with Novak and Roger is wrong. Regardless of their seeding OVER THE TIME PERIOD IN QUESTIN REGARDLESS OF dJOKO BEING 3,2,OR 1 HE SHOULD ONLY HAVE A 50 PERCENT CHANCE OF DRAWING ROGER, AND we know that he has now drawn Roger in 6 in a row and 7 of the last 8 slams. STatistically this is way beyond the standard deviation.

Sorry Socal, you are wrong on this aspect because the draw is (supposedly!) random on seeding not player. Consider this example.

Player A is ranked 1, player B is ranked 3.

Grandslam W puts 1v3
Grandslam X puts 1v3
Grandslam Y puts 1v4
Grandslam Z puts 1v4

That is exactly as you would expect based on 50/50 chance - seed 1 plays seed 3 twice and seed 4 twice.

If however, player B's ranking dropped to 4 after the second grandslam, then player A and player B have played four times in a row.

So which stat trumps which? The one based on the seedings which is 50/50 and completely as expected or the one based on players which is four in row and seemingly unlikely?

The seedings has to trump the player stat because this what the draw is based on. The computer isn't thinking it is putting "Roger Federer" in line 33, it is thinking it is putting seed 3 in that line.

hawkeye wrote:Mmm. So some posters theories go something like this.

Throwing 8 H in a row cannot be random. (It can!) Federer and Djokovic (or Nadal and Murray) being drawn on same side of draw a few times is the same as throwing 8 H in a row (It isn't). It all proves "they're" all out to get Murray? Djokovic? or someone (not quite sure who) or "they" want a Nadal Federer final (If only it could be arranged so easily...).

Thank goodness there are a few rational posters who are having none of this. Maybe the best course of action when someone insists that "the sky is falling" is to stay well clear...

A few rational posters who are completely ignoring a statistical analysis by a Phd statistician and sticking with their own preconceived notion in light of new facts. This isn't a rational poster this is someone who is willfully blind and living in a pollyanna version of reality. When it comes to the randomness of the USO draw i will take Dr. Swift's word over yours anyday, and that is precisely the rational thing to do.



As to who it benefits it clearly is a benefit to Nadal and a form of discrimination against Novak. Nadal only has to play either Roger or Novak for a grandslam while Novak to win any grandslam has to beat both Nadal and Roger, clear cut discrimination nothing vauge about it.

Murdoch wrong, in every single seeding configuration of the last few years Novak should have a 50 percent chance of meeting Roger, regardless of their seeds. And it is now 6 straight slams that Novak has been so lucky. So whether paul sits in chair one or chair number 3 it remains a 50 percent probability.



Again you are claiming the draw is random and a PHD in statistics is saying that draw isn't random. Sorry, ill take his detailed study over your analysis. The draws are not random, at least it has been shown very clearly for one grandslam. You can keep repeating your unsupported conclusion all you like. I guess we should just assume that 1/64 longshot coming that favors the financial interests of those controlling the process is just good luck for the tv broadcasters? Or we should ignore the 10 years statistical analysis of a PHD in math who say quite clearly that the draw isn't random, and therefore on some level manufactured.

I just flipped a 2p coin 6 times and it came up H,T, T, T, T, H.
What are the odds of that sequence? 1 in 64.

And again - T,H,H,T, T, T - again a 1 in 64 chance of that sequence coming up.

What are the odds of of the last six slams being drawn for the following semis in the following sequence
1. 1st seed v 3rd seed
2. 1st seed v 4th seed
3. 1st seed v 3rd seed
4. 1st seed v 4th seed
5. 1st seed v 3rd seed
6. 1st seed v 4th seed

1 in 64. Yet how many people would suspect a fix in that case?

Wrong, julius, the draw isn't random and evidence has been provided to show that, frankly very overwhelming evidence. If the draw is manufactured for the first 2 rounds what evidence do we have that they don't tamper with semi draws to suit their purposes. Evidence has already shown they mess with the first two rounds, do they all of a sudden find religion when it comes to the semi draws?

HM Murdoch wrote:

socal1976 wrote:HM murdoch your varying seeds argument with Novak and Roger is wrong. Regardless of their seeding OVER THE TIME PERIOD IN QUESTIN REGARDLESS OF dJOKO BEING 3,2,OR 1 HE SHOULD ONLY HAVE A 50 PERCENT CHANCE OF DRAWING ROGER, AND we know that he has now drawn Roger in 6 in a row and 7 of the last 8 slams. STatistically this is way beyond the standard deviation.

Sorry Socal, you are wrong on this aspect because the draw is (supposedly!) random on seeding not player. Consider this example.

Player A is ranked 1, player B is ranked 3.

Grandslam W puts 1v3
Grandslam X puts 1v3
Grandslam Y puts 1v4
Grandslam Z puts 1v4

That is exactly as you would expect based on 50/50 chance - seed 1 plays seed 3 twice and seed 4 twice.

If however, player B's ranking dropped to 4 after the second grandslam, then player A and player B have played four times in a row.

So which stat trumps which? The one based on the seedings which is 50/50 and completely as expected or the one based on players which is four in row and seemingly unlikely?

The seedings has to trump the player stat because this what the draw is based on. The computer isn't thinking it is putting "Roger Federer" in line 33, it is thinking it is putting seed 3 in that line.

You would have got a point only if your hypothesis that the draw is based on a weird computer program, of which nobody knows for sure.#

The rational thing instead is to think that : N1 and N2 are assigned to two different half of the draw.

Number 3 and number 4 are assigned to the two half on the basis of a coin toss, or other statistically equivalent valid method
.

socal1976 wrote:Wrong, julius...

Which bit was wrong in my post?

socal1976 wrote:Murdoch wrong, in every single seeding configuration of the last few years Novak should have a 50 percent chance of meeting Roger, regardless of their seeds. And it is now 6 straight slams that Novak has been so lucky. So whether paul sits in chair one or chair number 3 it remains a 50 percent probability.



Again you are claiming the draw is random and a PHD in statistics is saying that draw isn't random. Sorry, ill take his detailed study over your analysis. The draws are not random, at least it has been shown very clearly for one grandslam. You can keep repeating your unsupported conclusion all you like. I guess we should just assume that 1/64 longshot coming that favors the financial interests of those controlling the process is just good luck for the tv broadcasters? Or we should ignore the 10 years statistical analysis of a PHD in math who say quite clearly that the draw isn't random, and therefore on some level manufactured.

Socal, just restating your original point, does not refute mine! You haven't even attempted to explain why my example is wrong. So tell me - why does the player outcome trump the seed outcome?

And no, I didn't say the draw was random, the article you cited is very interesting and, as you say, if one part of the draw looks rigged then it is not unreasonable to think the whole thing is rigged. This aspect of the argument is persuasive.

But the evidence for this in how often Roger and Novak are together is not as strong as you are making it out to be. It is not 1/64!

You only need to look at the article you posted. Do you think Dr Swift is entering the fact that Nadal played Bjorn Phau in 2008 into the computer or the fact that the number 1 seed played a qualifier? It's all about the seedings!

Jeremy Kyle -yes, you are right, we don't know about a computer! But even if we assume coin toss, I think we are saying the same thing - that the decision on which half a player goes in is based on seeding rather than player.

socal1976 wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Mmm. So some posters theories go something like this.

Throwing 8 H in a row cannot be random. (It can!) Federer and Djokovic (or Nadal and Murray) being drawn on same side of draw a few times is the same as throwing 8 H in a row (It isn't). It all proves "they're" all out to get Murray? Djokovic? or someone (not quite sure who) or "they" want a Nadal Federer final (If only it could be arranged so easily...).

Thank goodness there are a few rational posters who are having none of this. Maybe the best course of action when someone insists that "the sky is falling" is to stay well clear...

A few rational posters who are completely ignoring a statistical analysis by a Phd statistician and sticking with their own preconceived notion in light of new facts. This isn't a rational poster this is someone who is willfully blind and living in a pollyanna version of reality. When it comes to the randomness of the USO draw i will take Dr. Swift's word over yours anyday, and that is precisely the rational thing to do.



As to who it benefits it clearly is a benefit to Nadal and a form of discrimination against Novak. Nadal only has to play either Roger or Novak for a grandslam while Novak to win any grandslam has to beat both Nadal and Roger, clear cut discrimination nothing vauge about it.

Did you read what the PHD statistion had to say? This is from the link.

"An "Outside the Lines" analysis of 10 years of men's and women's Grand Slam draws shows the top two men's and women's seeds in the U.S. Open -- on average -- faced easier opponents in the first round than is statistically probable if the draws were truly random.

Not only do both of the men's and women's first-round U.S. Open matchups deviate significantly from true randomness, this skewed pattern was not found at the Australian Open and Wimbledon, which use a similar draw system. At the French Open, the difficulty of opponents for the top two women's players during that time period was significantly more difficult than a random draw should produce, but the men were in line."

It talks about early round opponants of the top 2 seeds at the US Open only.

What has this to do with the how the top 4 seeds fall in relation to each other at all 4 GS?

Hello



Is this nonsense still going on?

I can't believe that Socal is disingenuously trying to pass off that link as evidence to substantiate his far-fetched claims.

The good doctor is not even talking about the likelihood of the top four seeds being drawn together in any particular combination.

He's referring to the first round (where it is impossible for any of the top four seeds to play each other)

I think the truth of the matter with this subject is that no-one has the energy or the inclination to even argue against Socal's outlandish ideas.

I expect most people have not even read this misleading link.

No one agrees with you Socal.

Get it? Must I spell it out?

BOOOOOOOOOOOOO000000000000000ooooooooooo......... ye must saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaave uuuuuuuuuuuuuus.

Oh BOOOOOOOOOO00000000ooooooHooooooooooWoooooooooooooooo

HM Murdoch wrote:Jeremy Kyle -yes, you are right, we don't know about a computer! But even if we assume coin toss, I think we are saying the same thing - that the decision on which half a player goes in is based on seeding rather than player.

Well, yes I too would have thought it was reasonable that the draw of the top 4 was based on seeding: eg

Pair 1 and 4 in one half

Pair 2 and 3 in another half

Yet there are numerous exception to this principle and this is, at least for me, hard to explain

Removing the players from the equation, does anyone know how often the draw matches 1&3 compared to 1&4?

Assuming that the draw isn't fixed (big assumption according to some) then over the last 5 or so years 1v3 should have been drawn roughly as often as 1v4.

If they are massively uneven, then the law of averages would suggest that it is a fishy. If you just analyse the players and not the seed, then you can't objectively call it a fix as the draws are based on numbers not names.

Socal - Up until this year I would have agreed that Djokovic is the least marketable of the top 4. However now, after the year he has had, I would put him above Murray in terms of marketability.

Emancipator it is hard for me to have a conversation with you because so rarely do you say anything that makes sense. A draw is either random or it is constructed, if they fix the first two rounds as Dr. Swift's analysis creates a very high probability for this, then the whole draw is supsect. Bottom line emancipator you are the one who claimed 2 days ago that I had no evidence of draw fixing, i produce a phd doctor who shows the draw isn't random and therefore tinkered with and now you still claim that there is no evidence. What there seems to be overwhelming evidence of at this point is that you have the inability to recognize evidence, you would make a great OJ juror.



As to julius and hawkeye, this study of Dr. Swift's has one thesis, the USO draw as analyzed over the last 10 years by looking at the opponents of the top seeds is not random. If one grandslam is caught gilding the lilly, it doesn't exonerate the other slams. Dr. Swift's analysis was based one specific scenario, he didn't look at all possible issues of draw rigging. He just proved however that the draws of the USO aren't random when looked at from the narrow perspective of first round opponents. He didn't say that wimbeldon, ao, and RG are fair; he just didn't catch them on this particular count. His analysis was narrow in focus but the implications are massive for the credibility of all the grandslams.