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

First topic message reminder :

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.

Y I Man wrote:Am I right in that Nadal and Murray have now been on the same side of the draw 13 times of the last 14 slams?

If so, and if it's rigged and pre-planned, don't you think they would have 'rigged' them being in opposite sides of the draws a couple of times so as not to make it look suspicious?

Why do that when the fawning media and fans want to do their best at burying their heads in the sand and pretending that nothing is odd here? I don't see any outcry in the media, i guarantee you if they got called on it in a big way and it resulted in bad publicity and a loss of credibility we would stop seeing this kind of draw manipulation. But regardless of the evidence provided most people just prefer to believe that everything is above board and its just luck of the draw. I mean mathematically speaking even a one billion shot comes in once every billion times, and all they really need is a very thin veil of believability. Out of the tens of thousands of news sites I am about the only one who has even looked at this issue, the media types just say oh Djokovic has been drawn against fed 6 times in a row, how odd and then they move on without rocking the boat.

I saw a statistical study that catagorically proved that a significant number of tennis 'fans' were whiny little mugs.

Just enjoy the tennis.

http://2010.usopen.org/en_US/scores/draws/ms/msdraw.pdf
http://2011.usopen.org/en_US/scores/draws/ms/msdraw.pdf

1. The draw is made by placing unseeded players and qualifying slots first. (Computer-generated).
2. Then #1 and #2 are placed on lines 1 and 128 respectively. (Always)
3. Then #3 and #4 are drawn and placed on line 33 and 96. (Publicly televised from this point on)
4. Then seeds #5, #6, #7 and #8 are drawn and placed on lines 32, 64, 65 and 97.
5. So on on and so forth....

The current scenario is that Step #1 (supplied by IDS) has perceived transparency issues and can be rigged.

Socal is suggesting that the problem is step #3, but there is no possibility of rigging here, unless mass hypnosis has been pioneered or we are all part of the Matrix.

Socal... can you help solve this mystery?

To further increase randomness from Step 4 onwards, perhaps the line numbers and seed numbers can be drawn randomly from two separate containers. It does not address step 3, though.

socal1976 wrote:Yes, they want a fedal final no doubt about it just compare the ratings of the RG final 2011 to what the abysmal ratings were for the Novak/Andy final in melbourne. Tennis is entertainment and box office just like any other media driven activity. Names and brands matter in this modern commercial world and the organizers know that if Fed and Nadal happen to both fall into the final that even a great deal of casual fans who don't care much about tennis and barely even understand the basics of the game are just going to watch because of the names and the historical significance of the matchup. Do you think advertisers and sponsors want to see the best technical tennis or just get the highest ratings? In the past the fedal matches were both the best tennis matches and the biggest name matches, unfortunately that isn't the case anymore. You couldn't pay me to watch a replay of the miami semi this year with Fed and Nadal, it was an awful match.

I agree with a lot of what you say here. Advertisers, sponsers in fact anyone who wants to make money out of tennis will be hoping for a Federer Nadal final.

However I do think your being a dismissive of Federer. He is still playing great tennis especially when he's motivated. I thought the Miami semi was OK although not as good as Madrid. Its not really fair to use either match as an example of how a GS final would go. 5 set matches involving top players are a different thing. Federer and Nadals classic 2008 Wimbledon final would have been a "boring" 6-4 6-4 win to Nadal if it had been best of three.

The two highest quality matches this year IMO have both involved Federer. His FO semi and the FO final. All three GS finals this year have involved the top 4 but as you say the AO with Djokovic and Murray had abysmal ratings (for good reason it was a poor match) and the Wimbledon final with Djokovic and Nadal was disappointing. The best GS final this year by a long way was the FO final with Federer and Nadal not just for historical reasons but for the high quality of play. There is no reason to expect anything less than a great match if Federer and Nadal both make it to the final.

If Federer gets to the final this year he will probably have beaten Djokovic on the way and will be feeling very confident. As a tennis fan I'm hoping that both Federer and Djokovic get to the semi's as this has the potential to be a great match also. I wonder who the favourite would be?

Thank you LF.
Step 3, which is how seeds 3 and 4 are drawn against seeds 1 and 2 is publicly televised, and watched by an audience in the room I believe. Seeds 3 and 4 are drawn out of a cup/hat/bag - I'm pretty sure that's how it works.
If David Blaine or Derren Brown were making the draw I would be suspicious.
As it stands, I agree - there is no possibility of rigging.
And there is no evidence of rigging either.
Socal won't believe that of course, which probably says a lot more about him/her than it does about the draw process.

djlovesyou wrote:I saw a statistical study that catagorically proved that a significant number of tennis 'fans' were whiny little mugs.

Just enjoy the tennis.

I'd enjoy the tennis a lot more if there was an even playing field with the draws which didn't result in manufactured results at the end of grandslams like RG 2011.

Laverfan, you mean having a televised show prevents malfeasance and tampering with the selection? You must work for the Qatar world cup committee, didn't they have televised draw for the wc? Wasn't it later found out that literally hundreds of millions in bribes were passed around to get Qatar the World Cup? The problem with conspiracy theories are that sometimes they are right. 1000 computer simulations run Laverfan and the result a whopping .3 percent chance that the USO first two rounds was random, 3 out of a 1000. What is funny is that the french also showed some problems especially on the women's side. But the USO was practically running laps around the other slams in how far their numbers skewed from DR. Swift's randomness results.

The veil of randomness and the BS luck of the draw arguments have been completely wiped out, the findings here are not being reported by the media but this is a huge story with huge implications for the sport.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Thank you LF.
Step 3, which is how seeds 3 and 4 are drawn against seeds 1 and 2 is publicly televised, and watched by an audience in the room I believe. Seeds 3 and 4 are drawn out of a cup/hat/bag - I'm pretty sure that's how it works.
If David Blaine or Derren Brown were making the draw I would be suspicious.
As it stands, I agree - there is no possibility of rigging.
And there is no evidence of rigging either.
Socal won't believe that of course, which probably says a lot more about him/her than it does about the draw process.

Of course, you would have to be 9 years old to believe that you couldn't fake the process detailed above. And the only thing that it says about me as you condescendingly imply is that I have the ability to weigh different types of evidence. Someone pulling something out of a hat on tv is not evidence of anything, especially in light of the bizarre statistical anomalies that I have pointed and that Dr. Swift has painstakingly researched.



Frankly, i am a bit surprised at how the fans and media aren't more up in arms. This is a huge story and huge accusation leveled at the USO committee with a lot of real evidence behind it. Have we become so flippant towards corruption and white collar fraud that our first instinct is to hush up or downplay evidence of wrongdoing and gerrymandering of the system?

socal1976 wrote:Laverfan, you mean having a televised show prevents malfeasance and tampering with the selection? You must work for the Qatar world cup committee, didn't they have televised draw for the wc? Wasn't it later found out that literally hundreds of millions in bribes were passed around to get Qatar the World Cup?

... with delegates who were bribed to vote. What you saw televised was a group of people who had already cast their votes.

socal1976 wrote:The problem with conspiracy theories are that sometimes they are right. 1000 computer simulations run Laverfan and the result a whopping .3 percent chance that the USO first two rounds was random, 3 out of a 1000. What is funny is that the french also showed some problems especially on the women's side. But the USO was practically running laps around the other slams in how far their numbers skewed from DR. Swift's randomness results.

When you question, the same questions are equally applicable to the simulation (limited to a 1000 times). What happens if the same simulation is run 10000 times? Is Dr. Swift's research in the public domain? You are using selective facts to prove your conspiracy?

socal1976 wrote:The veil of randomness and the BS luck of the draw arguments have been completely wiped out, the findings here are not being reported by the media but this is a huge story with huge implications for the sport.

True randomness does not exist on a given computer, it is pseudo-random. The Draw algorithm is clearly fixed as indicated, it is not a random algorithm.

On a computer calling a rand function 1000 times will yield different results than 10000 times, than 100000 times. It is essentially a matter of 'trust'. Distrust is easy to sow, but difficult to prove. The reverse is also true.

Do you realise that draws were made by humans before the advent of computers? Should I consider the 1969 Laver slam draws rigged (or the 1962) to let him win a GS?

BTW, do you have any financial clients in your role as an attorney?

When you question, the same questions are equally applicable to the simulation (limited to a 1000 times). What happens if the same simulation is run 10000 times? Is Dr. Swift's research in the public domain? You are using selective facts to prove your conspiracy?



Laverfan



Ok so your criticism is that he should of run the results of his simulations more to get a better sample. 10 years of results over 1000 simulations for each grandslam draw is a good sample. I am not a statistician, but from how the methodology has been described to me I don't see it as in anyway biased. And your criticism that I selectively pull facts to prove my theory isn't much of a criticism, that is what everyone does in a debate they highlight facts that further their argument. I have yet to see the other side of this debate produce a 10th of the evidence I have.



And since I wasn't alive during Laver's grandslam run I really don't have any idea, I don't assume it was corrupt because I have not seen overwhelming evidence of tampering that I am witnessing today.



As to my legal clients, I practiced criminal law for 5 years and then went into my family manufacturing and construction business which has unfortunately required me to live in Iran most of the time for the last 2 years to help my father wrap up his business affairs. So I am a non-practicing attorney, the only type of financial cases I handled was defense of white collar crimes. Phoney travel agents, identity theft, conartists a little bit of that. Mostly drunks and drug addicts though.

The randomness simulation was also limited to the first two rounds of the USO.

Would it make more sense to continue and show measures of randomness for each round over the 10-year period?

Hawkeye, I am not underestimating Roger, I think Roger can still play etheral tennis like he did against Del Po at Cincy, like he did at RG against Nole. But Nadal was a bad matchup for him in his prime, and right now I just feel like I have seen the best that this rivalry has to offer and that it is too one-sided. At his best Fed was troubled by Nadal's style now it is almost a foregone conclusion.



I disagree that the best matches this year have featured Fed, RG semi against Nole was a very good mathc 4 sets two tbs, and novak even served for the 4th set. But his final against Nadal was dull, dull, and dull. It was interesting for about 40 minutes till he lost his break lead in the 1st set and from there on out it was pretty much a foregone conclusion. The wimby final with Djokovic, and obviously I am a Novak fan was more watchable. Especially, the first two sets. Set one was very high quality. And set 2 Djokovic hit a level of tennis that frankly even I was just scratching my head about. He was just peppering forehand winners all over the court and Nadal seemingly had no answer.



And the miami semi against Nadal was an awful match. Federer hit more errors than a fall down drunk would have. Nadal just played average and wiped the floor with Rog. On match point Roger tanked a hospital ball forehand that barely got over the net right back into the net. I am not kidding you I would hit that shot for a winner or end the point on that ball 98 out of 100 times, and I don't care if usain bolt is across the net from me.

laverfan wrote:The randomness simulation was also limited to the first two rounds of the USO.

Would it make more sense to continue and show measures of randomness for each round over the 10-year period?

The focus of the study was narrow laverfan, but the implications are massive for the sport and no one seems to even understand the significance. It is as if we have become so accustomed to fraud and corruption that our reaction is to ho hum the evidence instead of demanding more accountability and transparency. It is almost like we turn over for the powers that be and say "thank you sir may I have another".



The fact is this if the draw for the first two rounds isn't random, then the whole draw isn't random (even taking into account the seeding structure of grandslam tennis). If the draw isn't random then on some level it is fixed. Back to my analogy either you are a virgin or you aren't, once the draw is proven to be a non-virgin draw (ie non-random) all manner of malfeasance not only becomes possible it becomes highly probable. The statistical results looked at one narrow issue of randomness of the first two round opponents for the top seeds. Their focus was not on every possible type of statistical irregularity or possible draw rigging.



This analysis caught one grandslam redheaded for a very specific type of draw fixing. It doesn't exonerate the other slams. It just proves that on this particular metric and measure the US open fails miserably. WHAT CAN NOT BE LOST IN ALL THIS IS THAT ONE SLAM HAS BEEN CAUGHT REDHANDED TAMPERING WITH THE DRAW, THAT IS WHAT PEOPLE SHOULD BE UP IN ARMS ABOUT.

socal1976 wrote:
The focus of the study was narrow.

No - the published results were narrow - you have no idea what the focus of the study by ESPN (not Dr Swift, who wasn't part of the initial study) was because it wasn't mentioned. Do you really think that what the only thing they tried to find?

socal1976 wrote:It doesn't exonerate the other slams.

It provides no evidence whatsover of draw fixing in other slams - where is a shred of evidence that Wimbledon fixes the draw? Seriously, where? As a legal eagle, what evidence would offer in court as proof? That odds of 64 to 1 are so outrageously bizarre that they cannot possibly be random?

Perhaps the lack of media interest is because statistical analyses by themsleves aren't, in fact, a huge story.

Frankly, anyone who keeps referring to as this year's FO as 'tainted' is just either daft or paranoid. What evidence do you have that the FO draw was rigged this year? Not speculation, or gut feeling, or theories - evidence. Perhaps Fognini was bribed to withdraw - after all, he was never exonerated from that.

No - the published results were narrow - you have no idea what the focus of the study by ESPN (not Dr Swift, who wasn't part of the initial study) was because it wasn't mentioned. Do you really think that what the only thing they tried to find? Julius



You are correct, another statistician is the one that came up with the initial analysis, Swift just verified the sound methodolgy and looked at their results. As to was this the only thing they were trying to find, no mention of that was made in their own article, and neither you or I have any info as to whether they analyzed other factors.


No what I have stated is that one grandslam has gotten caught red headed, and other than the randomness issue for the first two rounds it doesn't exonerate the other slams. It is a narrow focused result that has huge impact across the board. The same problems of transparency and lack of accountability along with the same financial incentives exist for the other slams. And I am sorry a 1/64 longshot coming in to produce the one semi configuration that favors a fedal final is a bit too much good fortune on the part of the slams for me to just blindly believe everything is random and fair. Especially, because we now know that not every grandslam draw is random.


Frankly, anyone who keeps referring to as this year's FO as 'tainted' is just either daft or paranoid. What evidence do you have that the FO draw was rigged this year? Not speculation, or gut feeling, or theories - evidence. Perhaps Fognini was bribed to withdraw - after all, he was never exonerated from that.



Never accused Fogi of bribery so just a straw man there. Statistics are evidence Julius, frankly much more evidence than what the other side has produced. The other sides argument is basically longshots sometimes happen, and my answer to that is yes of course this argument isn't much of an argument and isn't evidence that the draws are fair. I just find it amusing that the longshot that comes in is the one that favors the pocketbooks of those controlling the process, and that said process has really no accountability other than the honor system.



Let me ask you a question how many times does this odd trend have to play out before you start thinking something is fishy? 1/64 longshot is a big freaking longshot, it is like betting on the weakest horse in the field to win. So lets say that 1/64 becomes 1/128 or 1/256 or 1/512, at what point will you stop blindly giving the benefit of the doubt to the powers at be?

The sample size here just isn't big enough to draw anything meaningful from the data. Let's just wait until Federer and Djokovic compete in a hundred more slams and see if the pattern is still present. If it is, well, then maybe I'll agree with your theory.

Chazfazzer wrote:The sample size here just isn't big enough to draw anything meaningful from the data. Let's just wait until Federer and Djokovic compete in a hundred more slams and see if the pattern is still present. If it is, well, then maybe I'll agree with your theory.

Well considering the life span of a tennis player is way shorter than anything that would provide the sample you are looking for, you basically set your goal posts at impossible. What about the statistical analysis of 10 years of grandslam draws run against 1000 computer simulations, is that sample size too small? Last time I checked 1000 is bigger than a hundred. Doesn't it cause any concern on your part that one slam was caught redhanded doctoring the draw? Do you think that process in terms of transparency and accountability is better at the other slams or that they don't face the same financial motivations?

The number of computer simulations run is irrelevant, since that's all they are - simulations. Not real data.

If you throw a die and it comes up 6 four times in a row, is it random? The odds are 1 in 1296 - yet I've seen it happen and it didn't overly surprise me.

Let's say I accuse Uncle Toni of bribing Fognini to withdraw and Fognini of accepting. Can you exonerate them? If not, shall we assume I'm right?

The other GS draws have no evidence against them - in what way is that 'not exonerated'. Are you assuming guilty until proven innocent?

By the way, do you know who pulled the seeds out the hat this year at the USO draw - Rafa. Hmmm, now I'm suspicious.

Ha your point sounds vaguely similar to religion and the flying spaghetti monster argument there Julius...can't prove that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist? Well, obviously it must do then!

socal1976 wrote:The fact is this if the draw for the first two rounds isn't random, then the whole draw isn't random (even taking into account the seeding structure of grandslam tennis). If the draw isn't random then on some level it is fixed.

Deducing the latter from the former is a big leap. If an analysis of the first two rounds is possible, then it is also possible to analyse the remaining rounds for each slam.

socal1976 wrote:Back to my analogy either you are a virgin or you aren't, once the draw is proven to be a non-virgin draw (ie non-random) all manner of malfeasance not only becomes possible it becomes highly probable.

Have you considered the possibility of the hymen being broken by a sporting accident? Then you have a possible coin standing on it's edge.

socal1976 wrote:The statistical results looked at one narrow issue of randomness of the first two round opponents for the top seeds. Their focus was not on every possible type of statistical irregularity or possible draw rigging.

The Scoville Jenkins/Roddick or Devin Britton/Federer or Vandeweghe/Jankovic has a simpler explanation.

The rest of the draw (Step #2 and further) has not happened yet, but the line numbers where the seeds will be placed is already known and fixed. The computer algorithm can generate the position of qualifiers closer to the seeded line numbers which the algorithm already knows a priori. Does this imply a bias towards elimination of qualifiers? Socal would say yes, but others may call it weighting based on the ranking.

This can be verified based on the links I provided for just 2011/2010.

2010 Qualifiers...

Qualifiers - Closest Seeded players (Seed)
Paire (Line 12) - Line 9 (Lopez 23), Line 16 (Looby 15)
Harrison (Line 15) - Line 16 (Looby 15), Line 9 (Lopez 23)
De Voest (Line 26) - Line 25 (Nalby 31), Line 32 (Verdasco 8)
Mannarino (Line 30) - Line 32 (Verdasco 8), Line 25 (Nalby 31)
Rosol (Line 60) - Line 57 (Stepanek 28), Line 64 (Berdych 7)
Kendrick (Line 74) - Line 73 (Monfils 17), Line 80 (Roddick 9)
Silva (Line 86) - Line 81 (Baghdatis 16), Line 88 (Fish 19)
Polansky (Line 90) - Line 89 (Monaco 30), Line 96 (Djokovic 3)
Lojda (line 94) - Line 96 (Djokovic 3), Line 89 (Monaco 30)
Haider-Maurer (Line 98) - Line 97 (Soderling 5), Line 104 (Gonzalez 27)
Gicquel (Line 102), Dodig (line 103) - Line 104 (Gonzalez 27), Line 97 (Soderling 5)
Raonic (Line 108), Nishikori (Line 109) - Line 105 (Montanes 21), Line 112 (Cilic 11)
Berankis (Line 115), Klizan (Line 119) - Line 113 (Melzer 13), Line 120 (Ferrero 22)

2011 Qualifiers...

Niland (Line 2) - Line 1 (Djokovic 1), Line 8 (Dodig 32)
Jouan (Line 18), Gensse (Line 23) - Line 17 (Berdych 9), Line 24 (Tipsy 20)
Yani (Line 37) - Line 33 (Federer 3), Line 40 (Cilic 27)
De Veigy (Line 46) - Line 41 (Stepanek - 23), Line 48 (Troicki 15)
Bubka (Line 52), Ilhan (Line 53), Dancevic (Line 54) - Line 49 (Tsonga 11), Line 56 (Verdasco 19)
Soeda (Line 60), Jaziri (Line 61) - Line 57 (Llodra 29), Line 64 (Fish 8)
Sorensen (Line 66), Souza (Line 70) - Line 65 (Soderling 6), Line 72 (Isner 28)
Pospisil (Line 91) - Line 89 (Lopez 25), Line 96 (Murray 4)
Huta Galung (Line 100), Lisnard (Line 102) - Line 97 (Ferrer 5), Line 104 (Mayer 26)
Farah (Line 126) - Line 121 (Looby 30), Line 128 (Nadal 2)

So 2010 Qualifiers have numbers of

12, 15, 26, 30, 60, 74, 86, 90, 94, 98, 102, 103, 108, 109, 115, 119

... and 2011 qualifiers have numbers of ...

2, 18, 23, 37, 46, 52, 53, 54, 60, 61, 66, 70, 91, 100, 102, 126


a total of 16 qualifiers.

socal1976 wrote:You are correct, another statistician is the one that came up with the initial analysis, Swift just verified the sound methodolgy and looked at their results. As to was this the only thing they were trying to find, no mention of that was made in their own article, and neither you or I have any info as to whether they analyzed other factors.

The findings will have more credibility when they appear in a peer-reviewed statistical journal. As a statistician myself I've seen a lot of 'bad stats', and this work could be error-strewn upon closer scrutiny. A PhD does not make someone immune from mistakes or automatically validate their work. You are willing to hail it as it suits your argument, but are skeptical about things that do not.

Positively 4th Street wrote:

socal1976 wrote:You are correct, another statistician is the one that came up with the initial analysis, Swift just verified the sound methodolgy and looked at their results. As to was this the only thing they were trying to find, no mention of that was made in their own article, and neither you or I have any info as to whether they analyzed other factors.

The findings will have more credibility when they appear in a peer-reviewed statistical journal. As a statistician myself I've seen a lot of 'bad stats', and this work could be error-strewn upon closer scrutiny. A PhD does not make someone immune from mistakes or automatically validate their work. You are willing to hail it as it suits your argument, but are skeptical about things that do not.

Good point P4thS...

The famous South Korean professor, Dr Hwang, was indicted for falsifying the cloning research.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4554422.stm

laverfan wrote:Good point P4thS...

The famous South Korean professor, Dr Hwang, was indicted for falsifying the cloning research.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4554422.stm

Thanks LF. Both yourself and Julius have made several quality posts on this thread. Looking forward to the onset of the tennis itself, perhaps it will draw some of socal's ire!

I'm not normally one into conspiracy theories but this is getting ridiculous!

This is how many times Fed & Djoker have been 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)

Positively 4th Street wrote:Looking forward to the onset of the tennis itself, perhaps it will draw some of socal's ire!

If Djokovic, heaven forbid, loses somewhere before the finals, his ire would be completely uncontrolled.

murrayfan wrote:This is how many times Fed & Djoker have been on the same side (2007-present):

Djokovic and Federer have been in the Top 4 for quite sometime, so it is not unusual. They have played each other 8 times out of 15 potential meetings;)

RG 2011 - S Novak Djokovic (SRB) 2 W 7-6(5), 6-3, 3-6, 7-6(5)
AO 2011 - S Novak Djokovic (SRB) 3 L 6-7(3), 5-7, 4-6
US 2011 - S Novak Djokovic (SRB) 3 L 7-5, 1-6, 7-5, 2-6, 5-7
US 2009 - S Novak Djokovic (SRB) 4 W 7-6(3), 7-5, 7-5
US 2008 - S Novak Djokovic (SRB) 3 W 6-3, 5-7, 7-5, 6-2
AO 2008 - S Novak Djokovic (SRB) 3 L 5-7, 3-6, 6-7(5)
US 2007 - W Novak Djokovic (SRB) 3 W 7-6(4), 7-6(2), 6-4
AO 2007 - R16 Novak Djokovic (SRB) 15 W 6-2, 7-5, 6-3

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Roger-Federer.aspx?t=pa&y=0&m=s&e=gs#

murrayfan wrote:I'm not normally one into conspiracy theories but this is getting ridiculous!

This is how many times Fed & Djoker have been 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)

But don't you know murrayfan that this convenient longshot coming in over and over again in the slams over the years is just Novak's luck. Strange how the longshot that against all adds comes in, is the precise configuration that benefits the TV broadcasters and tournament. What a lucky and financial rewarding coincidence.

Positively 4th Street wrote:



The findings will have more credibility when they appear in a peer-reviewed statistical journal. As a statistician myself I've seen a lot of 'bad stats', and this work could be error-strewn upon closer scrutiny. A PhD does not make someone immune from mistakes or automatically validate their work. You are willing to hail it as it suits your argument, but are skeptical about things that do not.

Ok this is really funny, now it is getting ridiculous, to provide any evidence of an argument on this website I must wait for my facts to be peer reviewed. Now I have heard it all, from now on any of you who want me to accept any of your arguments or listen to them must first publish your findings and have them adequately peer reviewed, prefferably by either IVY league leaders in their field. I have produced a link to two different Statisticians looking at the result and coming to the same conclusion. Of course I know there are people with degrees who can't find their own arses. What does that have to do with the argument we are having here and now? But what exactly has the other side of this argument produced as their evidence, nothing, not squat. We have two, not one statisticians looking at 10 years of US open draws and determining non-randomness.

The rest of the draw (Step #2 and further) has not happened yet, but the line numbers where the seeds will be placed is already known and fixed. The computer algorithm can generate the position of qualifiers closer to the seeded line numbers which the algorithm already knows a priori. Does this imply a bias towards elimination of qualifiers? Socal would say yes, but others may call it weighting based on the ranking. Laverfan



Now I have heard it all, computers, I mean they have never been involved in any type of fraudelent activity, its not as if someone can simply a program a computer to do pretty much exactly what he wants, oh wait they can do that.



Laverfan, I don't know why you don't acknowledge that the draws were analyzed through the prism of the seeding strucutre and under the rules that the grandslams themselves have made public.

socal1976 wrote:

Positively 4th Street wrote:
The findings will have more credibility when they appear in a peer-reviewed statistical journal. As a statistician myself I've seen a lot of 'bad stats', and this work could be error-strewn upon closer scrutiny. A PhD does not make someone immune from mistakes or automatically validate their work. You are willing to hail it as it suits your argument, but are skeptical about things that do not.

Ok this is really funny, now it is getting ridiculous, to provide any evidence of an argument on this website I must wait for my facts to be peer reviewed. I have produced a link at two different Statisticians looking at the result and coming to the same conclusion. Of course I know there are people with degrees who can't find their own arses. But what exactly has the other side of this argument produced as their evidence, nothing, not squat. We have two, not one statisticians looking at 10 years of US open draws and determining non-randomness.

Bit unfair for the people with degrees.

It is random, but within constraints. There has been a clear indication of what the constraints are. To reiterate, ....

Line #1 of the Draw - Seed #1 (fixed)
Line #128 of the Draw - Seed #2 (fixed).

Line 33 and Line 96, fixed for Seeds #3 or #4.

Nadal, Federer, Djokovic and Murray (and Soderling for a short period) have been fixtures for several years in Top 4, hence number of permutations are limited.

If you are referring to 'randomness' of R1 and R2, the qualifiers' placement is random (by just analysing 2010 and 2011 as I have pointed out). Seeds #5-#32 have a fixed number of designated line numbers in the draw. Remaining unseeded 96 players have a computer generated line number assigned.

Qualifiers are placed by a secondary draw into the already designated 'Q' slots on the main draw.

JuliusHMarx wrote:If you throw a die and it comes up 6 four times in a row, is it random? The odds are 1 in 1296 - yet I've seen it happen and it didn't overly surprise me.

The rest of your post is really ridiculous with its level of hyperbole but I will focus on this one argument of yours. Its funny how after 120 some odd posts, the best and really only argument any OF MY OPPONENTS HAVE PRODUCED IS THAT LONGSHOTS DO COME IN. This trueism is not an argument or evidence. Its never even been in dispute. However if you asked some of these people would they bet as much as 10 pounds on a 64 to 1 longshot they would laugh at you, yet they are staking their faith on this particular one being a random event.



Really quite dissappointing, I produce a link with two different statisticians saying the same thing that the draw is not random, and we have the odd statistics of the FEd/djoko and Nadal/murray configuration; my opponents produce "nah uh, but longshots do come in". That isn't evidence of anything my friend, that isn't an argument either.



Summary:





My evidence:



1. The study's initial statistician looks at the USO draw says they are not random and thus manufactured



2. A second one DR. Swift reviews said findings and methodology and finds it valid



3. We have the financial motivations as evidenced by how much more ratings and therefore money is drawn by a fedal final. See RG v AO final 2011.



4. We have the incredible statistical longshot of 64 to 1



5. The nexus of 4 and 3, The 64 to 1 longhsot that comes in is precisely the configuration that maximizes potential tv ratings and fedal finals, and the people who control the process and benefit are the ones who in a non-transparent and non-audited manner do the draw.





My opponents arguments:



1. But they did the draw with a computer and on TV so it must be above board



2. Longshots do come in



My respected opponents in this debate haven't produced a scrap iota of any evidence or argument of real value other then stating a truism that even a one billion longshot comes in. But none of them would bet anything of value on a 64 to 1 longshot coming in, but they fight vociferously that this longshot did come and the event is random.

socal1976 wrote:Now I have heard it all, computers, I mean they have never been involved in any type of fraudelent activity, its not as if someone can simply a program a computer to do pretty much exactly what he wants, oh wait they can do that.

Yes, they can under the supervision and direction of human beings, not by themselves. Turing Test? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test

socal1976 wrote:Laverfan, I don't know why you don't acknowledge that the draws were analyzed through the prism of the seeding strucutre and under the rules that the grandslams themselves have made public.

Yes, they were. The evidence of R1 and R2, cannot be generalised to the 'fixed' permutations that the seeded players have been given. The deduction that favourable draws in later rounds were created, which is the primary premise of your hypothesis, which the referenced article does not address. It clearly states that limitation of the study/analysis.

Chazfazzer wrote:Ha your point sounds vaguely similar to religion and the flying spaghetti monster argument there Julius...can't prove that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist? Well, obviously it must do then!

How is this to be confused with an argument that I am making backed by two different statisticians and a wealth of other information. If you can not logically discern between an argument backed by an analysis done by an indepedent expert and checked by another expert and someone telling you that a spaghetti monster exists then I think you may have a real problem in terms of logical analysis.

socal1976 wrote:My respected opponents in this debate haven't produced a scrap iota of any evidence or argument of real value other then stating a truism that even a one billion longshot comes in. But none of them would bet anything of value on a 64 to 1 longshot coming in, but they fight vociferously that this longshot did come and the event is random.

Please read...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_states_of_randomness

Yes, they were. The evidence of R1 and R2, cannot be generalised to the 'fixed' permutations that the seeded players have been given. The deduction that favourable draws in later rounds were created, which is the primary premise of your hypothesis, which the referenced article does not address. It clearly states that limitation of the study/analysis. laverfan



Is that it, you think that they would tinker around a little with first two rounds and then find religion in the later rounds. Once the draw isn't random it isn't random it pollutes the whole process. What it clearly shows is that at least one slam is willing to tinker with the randomness of a draw to a massive degree in order to maximize the results that suit their pocketbooks.

socal1976 wrote:Is that it, you think that they would tinker around a little with first two rounds and then find religion in the later rounds. Once the draw isn't random it isn't random it pollutes the whole process. What it clearly shows is that at least one slam is willing to tinker with the randomness of a draw to a massive degree in order to maximize the results that suit their pocketbooks.

No. that is where we differ. What I am stating is that the randomness that you are alluding to is 'unconstrained' or infinite. Please see Mandelbrot's papers, if you are so inclined.

Let me give you an example. A finite 1m x 1m x 1m hermetically sealed container, with a fixed number of molecules, will show a 'randomness' which is different from the 'randomness' that the Milky Way shows.

Take a look at this link as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_sequence

laverfan wrote:

No. that is where we differ. What I am stating is that the randomness that you are alluding to is 'unconstrained' or infinite. Please see Mandelbrot's papers, if you are so inclined.

Let me give you an example. A finite 1m x 1m x 1m hermetically sealed container, with a fixed number of molecules, will show a 'randomness' which is different from the 'randomness' that the Milky Way shows.

Take a look at this link as well. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_sequence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_sequence[/quote[/url]]



So are you telling me that two different statisticians failed to observe these mathematical principles in their analysis? Obviously, they determine non-randomness based on the applicable standards. This is obviously not the milky way type of randomness or the universe type of randomness scale. Doesn't seem like to big of a hurdle to doing a proper analysis.

socal1976 wrote:

laverfan wrote:

No. that is where we differ. What I am stating is that the randomness that you are alluding to is 'unconstrained' or infinite. Please see Mandelbrot's papers, if you are so inclined.

Let me give you an example. A finite 1m x 1m x 1m hermetically sealed container, with a fixed number of molecules, will show a 'randomness' which is different from the 'randomness' that the Milky Way shows.

Take a look at this link as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_sequence

So are you telling me that two different statisticians failed to observe these mathematical principles in their analysis? Obviously, they determine non-randomness based on the applicable standards. This is obviously not the milky way type of randomness or the universe type of randomness scale. Doesn't seem like to big of a hurdle to doing a proper analysis.

No. What they have observed is a predictability or a pattern, which by the very definition of randomness, are diametrically opposite. As I have stated, there is a fixed and finite algorithm that the draws follow.

0. The sequence of steps of distribution is fixed regarding the 32 seeds.
1. There is a 'fixed' number of 128 players in a draw.
2. The position of seeds #1 and #2 is permanently fixed.
3. The line numbers that seeds #3 and #4 can occupy is also fixed.
4. The line numbers that seeds #5-#32 can occupy is also fixed. The distribution within these lines is a pseudo-random non-overlapping sequence in increasing order of the actual seed number.These 32 seeds will never occupy any other lines than the designated lines in any slam draw.
5. There are a fixed number of 16 qualifiers in every slam.
6. Each slam has a fixed number(8) of wild cards, IIRC.
7. As each player is placed, the number of lines remaining in the draw is reduced. There is no concept of simultaneous distribution of players on the lines of a draw.

To take an analogy, the Milky Way 'randomness' is being fitted into a 1m x 1m x 1m box.

I would approach the problem differently. Define a mathematically rigourous concept of randomness in the context of a slam draw. Once defined, then test draws to see if they fulfill this definition of randomness. Human input can always taint what a finite-state machine can do.

I would also suggest looking at this, if you are inclined. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion

If you care for an experimental proof, take 4 pieces of paper with #1-#4 and throw them up in the air simultaneously. If they land inside a designated space, pair the two closest numbers and do it a few times. The combinations you get will be very predictable. A slam draw given the steps that I have outlined, will also follow similar patterns.

If you care for real adventure, try with #1-#128 on 128 pieces of paper. By very definition, Seed #1 can never play Seed #2-#32 in the very first round.

Chazfazzer wrote:
Ha your point sounds vaguely similar to religion and the flying spaghetti monster argument there Julius...can't prove that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist? Well, obviously it must do then!




How is this to be confused with an argument that I am making backed by two different statisticians and a wealth of other information. If you can not logically discern between an argument backed by an analysis done by an indepedent expert and checked by another expert and someone telling you that a spaghetti monster exists then I think you may have a real problem in terms of logical analysis.

I wasn't referring to anything you said Socal, I was referring to a point made by Julius, as evidence by my use of the word 'Julius'. And the two things are comparable in my opinion; you've said that while there is no evidence from your sources that any draw other than the US Open has been tampered with, the onus is still on us to prove that the others are still fair. You can't use evidence suggesting that the US Open has been tampered with to back up your argument, and then use the same evidence suggesting that the others have not been to back up the same point.

Has anyone read this link

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/6854000/how-espn-analyzed-us-open-tennis-tournament-draw

which is associated with this whole discussion.

It explains the methodology used to analyse the draws. Important piece of information for mathematicians.

Edit: Video explaining the draw system. http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=6861149&categoryid=2378529

Ironically, Djokovic is playing a qualifier Conor Niland.

It's funny really.
I ask " Where is the evidence that the men's FO draw is rigged" and socal's answer is basically "The FO is not exonerated". ESPN's study found no evidence that the men's FO draw is rigged, yet socal says it is "not exonerated".

The only offering socal gives is that a 1 in 64 occurrance cannot possibly be random - it must be rigged. 1 in 64 is not an 'incredible long-shot'.
I toss a coin 6 times - it comes up HTHTHT - what are the odds? 1 in 64!
I toss a coin 6 times - it comes up HHHHHH - what are the odds? 1 in 64!

Personally I bet £1 every week on a 50-1 long shot - the UK National Lottery (that's just to win £10). Me and millions of others.

I ask again - socal, where is the EVIDENCE that anything other than picking the first round opponents of the top 2 seeds at the USO is rigged?
None of your 5 points actually give such evidence.

I believe the following is correct - the drawing of 1 and 2 seeds against the 3 and 4 seeds is not done by computer, so we can rule out computer fraud. This is done by drawing out of a hat, by a person - this year, at the USO, by Rafa, who read out each number as it came out - in front of a live audience and on TV (clearly that's not transparent enough for socal). I'd like socal to provide evidence, not guesswork, or speculation, or 'hey Julius you must be stupid if you think it's not possible', but evidence that this part of the draw is rigged. Is that so unreasonable?

This whole draw conspiracy theme is fueled by the ATP at present having 3 dominant top seeds. Anyone projected to have a semi with the number 4 seed is thought to have an unfair advantage. It used to be "who's got Djokovic". Now its "who's got Federer". There is no advantage being the number 1 seed compared with being the number 2 seed.

The only fair way to solve this problem is to forget about draws and seeding when placing the number 3 seed. Just alternate the match up at every slam.

Im gatecrashing this thread as it's popular.
No one has any questions for Ken?

https://www.606v2.com/t12499-qa-with-ken-skupski

Can someone please tell me how it has been conspired to bias Nadals fingers in a silver trophy to produce these astounding "facts" of tampering with the tokens to affect the draw in an unsuspicious way to him and the rest of those present including the media and all their cameras ???

JuliusHMarx wrote:It's funny really.
I ask " Where is the evidence that the men's FO draw is rigged" and socal's answer is basically "The FO is not exonerated". ESPN's study found no evidence that the men's FO draw is rigged, yet socal says it is "not exonerated".

The only offering socal gives is that a 1 in 64 occurrance cannot possibly be random - it must be rigged. 1 in 64 is not an 'incredible long-shot'.
I toss a coin 6 times - it comes up HTHTHT - what are the odds? 1 in 64!
I toss a coin 6 times - it comes up HHHHHH - what are the odds? 1 in 64!

Personally I bet £1 every week on a 50-1 long shot - the UK National Lottery (that's just to win £10). Me and millions of others.

I ask again - socal, where is the EVIDENCE that anything other than picking the first round opponents of the top 2 seeds at the USO is rigged?
None of your 5 points actually give such evidence.

I believe the following is correct - the drawing of 1 and 2 seeds against the 3 and 4 seeds is not done by computer, so we can rule out computer fraud. This is done by drawing out of a hat, by a person - this year, at the USO, by Rafa, who read out each number as it came out - in front of a live audience and on TV (clearly that's not transparent enough for socal). I'd like socal to provide evidence, not guesswork, or speculation, or 'hey Julius you must be stupid if you think it's not possible', but evidence that this part of the draw is rigged. Is that so unreasonable?

Hi Julius, well I was present on a roulette table when RED came up 13 times in a row and at a blackjack table when the dealer get 5 BJ's in a row. Both times the house took all the cash, as the odds of that happening are rare. So any talk of 6 or 7, to me is run of the mill for permutations of any given flip of a coin.

The fact that it has happened does not make it impossible, does it ? (I am agreeing with you by the way)

Jubbahey wrote:Can someone please tell me how it has been conspired to bias Nadals fingers in a silver trophy to produce these astounding "facts" of tampering with the tokens to affect the draw in an unsuspicious way to him and the rest of those present including the media and all their cameras ???

Please repeat in English...

Thank you