Draw Fixing: An Official Study

First topic message reminder :

The link below shows a talk by an Estionian researcher Katarina Pijetlovic, giving an exposition on draw fixing at a Corruption in Sport Symposium in Koln.


Katarina's talk starts at around 13 minutes:

http://www.livestream.com/playthegame_dshs/video?clipId=pla_44809e94-aa04-46c7-9f1e-35b212ba9d46


She examines the pattern of draws at slam tournaments (French Open was not part of the study) between 2007-2011, drawing the conclusion that ITF organised draw fixing on behalf of Nike seeing that Djokovic fell in Federer's half of the draw statistically virtually impossible 12 out of 12 times.

Roland Garros was not taken into the study as it showed a healthy 50/50 pattern.



Interesting facts, e.g. I didn't know that seeds 3 and 4 are drawn by hand unlike all the other seeds/players that are computer drawn.
Draws are apparently public and televised, but not really accessible anywhere on Youtube.

To me, the most blatant example of draw fixing was the Isner Mahut match played in the first round last year ON COURT 18, just like at the record breaking match the year before!!!


Katarina did the research hoping it would interest sports journalists and encourage them to contact the players and ITF.


So far nothing came out of it.

Have a look with an open mind and share your thoughts.

barrystar wrote:

Tenez wrote:
That I agree. Essentially cause it's a tester for logic, honesty and humility.

So to disagree with your analysis is to be illogical, dishonest, and proud?

I would add ... your flawed analysis to that sentence.

If Tenez leaves this forum is really gonna go downhill. Pitty, it used to be good, I don't know what happened.

Henman Bill wrote:
You were not reinforcing. You began by stating "This entire calculation is flawed" made some further criticism and then concluded "The above at the best is an approximation." with "at the best" implying it could be not even worthy as an approximation. The overall tone was to criticise not reinforce and if your comment on approximation was intended to reinforce it did not read like that following on from the criticism.

An approximation is as such one.

I have raised objections to the linear ranking scale used by ESPN, which does not reflect the real world, It does not reflect on a qualifier playing an outstanding set of 3 matches to get to the main draw.

SBs calculations are valid for a generalised scenario.

The ESPN example of Scoville Jenkins (a wildcard) used to illustrate so-called 'flaws' in USO are invalid. Many have chosen to multiply the Womens and Mens probablities, even though the draws are completely independent and do not even have the same players, for obvious reasons.

The 1/4096 calculations are not useful either because each slam is a discrete event, because each slam has a draw independent of the previous year, because you do not have the 'same' exact player pool every year. Yet this thread is propagating the myth of multiplying of 1/4 ^ n or 1/1000 and 3/1000 from a 'flawed' study to come up with some arbitrary number like 330k.

Central Limit Theorem has been used on a finite series, which is of limited value for a 80-number sequence (128 - 32 - 16 = 80). I have also clearly stated the limitations of the what has been posted here.

You are correct that we are going around in circles.

Chydremion wrote:If Tenez leaves this forum is really gonna go downhill. Pitty, it used to be good, I don't know what happened.

...what about others who have already left this forum?

Posters need to give up their pet 'monomania' and look at the sport as a source of joy and entertainment. Yet the 'acrimony' in petty 'my-dad-is-bigger-than-yours' juvenile debate continues.

Don't worry Tenez fans, he seems happy here at the moment.

I am really sorry to hear Tenez has been banned. Yes he had controversial views but he was courteous to other posters.

What others who have left laver? Lydian is one of my favourite posters but he often takes himself off for 'time out' - would hate to think he wouldn't be back.

I think it is such a shame - surely one could remove posts if they cross a line but to lose someone like Tenez will actually mean that a lot of fun will go out of the forum and a lot of thought provoking articles. Lose some controversy and lose a lot of the life imvho. People responded to Tenez. I will hazard a bet that whoever has complained has probably added very little in terms of adding new articles to the forum.

Just my take - but I'm very sad about this.

Henman Bill wrote:Don't worry Tenez fans, he seems happy here at the moment.

Has he won 12-in-a-row or is there a conspiracy afoot to send him to the Bull? We need to wait for ESPN and University of Talinn to uncover such a nefarious plot.

laverfan wrote:

Chydremion wrote:If Tenez leaves this forum is really gonna go downhill. Pitty, it used to be good, I don't know what happened.

...what about others who have already left this forum?

Posters need to give up their pet 'monomania' and look at the sport as a source of joy and entertainment. Yet the 'acrimony' in petty 'my-dad-is-bigger-than-yours' juvenile debate continues.

If anyone's juvenile here it's those who couldn't bear the fact that somebody disagreed with them. And then they moaned about the person they couldn't agree with. One word to describe it: pathetic.

Each to his own.

I'll be on tennis.com & ja 606. Ciao tutti

time please wrote:I am really sorry to hear Tenez has been banned. Yes he had controversial views but he was courteous to other posters.

What others who have left laver? Lydian is one of my favourite posters but he often takes himself off for 'time out' - would hate to think he wouldn't be back.

I think it is such a shame - surely one could remove posts if they cross a line but to lose someone like Tenez will actually mean that a lot of fun will go out of the forum and a lot of thought provoking articles. Lose some controversy and lose a lot of the life imvho. People responded to Tenez. I will hazard a bet that whoever has complained has probably added very little in terms of adding new articles to the forum.

Just my take - but I'm very sad about this.

Anyone leaving the forum is a sad day for the forum, whether it is voluntary or involuntary. Whether it is Tenez, or Lydian, NiTB or LK, each poster brings what is unique to the forum, like each tennis player to the sport.

As the uniqueness of a poster is lost, the forum suffers.

As far as disagreements, they are part of any debate.

There is a long list of posters (not beginning with 'W' ) who have left. Some did come back, some may or may not.

laverfan wrote:

time please wrote:I am really sorry to hear Tenez has been banned. Yes he had controversial views but he was courteous to other posters.

What others who have left laver? Lydian is one of my favourite posters but he often takes himself off for 'time out' - would hate to think he wouldn't be back.

I think it is such a shame - surely one could remove posts if they cross a line but to lose someone like Tenez will actually mean that a lot of fun will go out of the forum and a lot of thought provoking articles. Lose some controversy and lose a lot of the life imvho. People responded to Tenez. I will hazard a bet that whoever has complained has probably added very little in terms of adding new articles to the forum.

Just my take - but I'm very sad about this.

Anyone leaving the forum is a sad day for the forum, whether it is voluntary or involuntary. Whether it is Tenez, or Lydian, NiTB or LK, each poster brings what is unique to the forum, like each tennis player to the sport.

As the uniqueness of a poster is lost, the forum suffers.

As far as disagreements, they are part of any debate.

There is a long list of posters (not beginning with 'W' ) who have left. Some did come back, some may or may not.

Tenez didn't leave he was booted out by Rafalitas.

I'm very surprised to hear this.

Although Tenez's views could wind me up occasionally I certainly wouldn't wish a life long ban on him or indeed anyone! Right or wrong, agree or disagree he did spend a lot of time on here and contributed a great deal to the debate on this forum.

As you say laverfan every time we lose a voice it does weaken the forum.

I don't know the full facts of the matter but a life sentence sounds a little too harsh - is it too late to explore some sort of compromise?

T!

I've been posting with Tenez since 2006. A shame he's banned. I've seen him disappear from a few boards but somehow our paths always cross again, i'm sure it will again.

Here's to my favorite civilized rebel

BTW: it's kinda my OCD to leave boards where Tenez has been banned so bye everyone

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez didn't leave he was booted out by Rafalitas.

I need to check with Gav and other Mods when 'Rafalitas' was made an admin with power to ban posters.

reckoner wrote:I don't know the full facts of the matter but a life sentence sounds a little too harsh - is it too late to explore some sort of compromise?

No it is not, but parties involved need to sit across the table and talk.

If I was less busy I'd don the blue helmet and reach out.

reckoner wrote:If I was less busy I'd don the blue helmet and reach out.

Perhaps you should. You will have to mediate between the Admins and Tenez.

laverfan wrote:

time please wrote:I am really sorry to hear Tenez has been banned. Yes he had controversial views but he was courteous to other posters.

What others who have left laver? Lydian is one of my favourite posters but he often takes himself off for 'time out' - would hate to think he wouldn't be back.

I think it is such a shame - surely one could remove posts if they cross a line but to lose someone like Tenez will actually mean that a lot of fun will go out of the forum and a lot of thought provoking articles. Lose some controversy and lose a lot of the life imvho. People responded to Tenez. I will hazard a bet that whoever has complained has probably added very little in terms of adding new articles to the forum.

Just my take - but I'm very sad about this.

Anyone leaving the forum is a sad day for the forum, whether it is voluntary or involuntary. Whether it is Tenez, or Lydian, NiTB or LK, each poster brings what is unique to the forum, like each tennis player to the sport.

As the uniqueness of a poster is lost, the forum suffers.

As far as disagreements, they are part of any debate.

There is a long list of posters (not beginning with 'W' ) who have left. Some did come back, some may or may not.

Lydian said 'au revoir' - to anyone who knows their Mary Poppins (or their French ) it means 'until I return'. Hopefully he is just taking a little time out, as he has done before. Very much hope that everything sorts itself out for legend very quickly and that we all see him back very, very soon. Forum will be much less interesting and fun without the pair of them

That goes for Tenez too and I don't understand why he has been banned and I do hope that somehow it can all be resolved amicably. Hopefully then NITB will reconsider.

time please wrote:
Lydian said 'au revoir' - to anyone who knows their Mary Poppins (or their French ) it means 'until I return'. Hopefully he is just taking a little time out, as he has done before. Very much hope that everything sorts itself out for legend very quickly and that we all see him back very, very soon. Forum will be much less interesting and fun without the pair of them

That goes for Tenez too and I don't understand why he has been banned and I do hope that somehow it can all be resolved amicably. Hopefully then NITB will reconsider.

May I suggest a PM to Gav would probably provide some information that may help alleviate anxiety.

I don't like to see anyone leave so it is a shame. I seem to have missed the prelude to all of this (as usual!) so can't really comment. It does appear that the forum reaches boiling point now and then though and gets a tad heated. Hopefully all concerned will be back at some point.

I would say that a bit more tolerance, and respect for the views of others would help. It sometimes seems that posters are damned by allegiance and judged on this rather than the contents of their posts.

Positively 4th Street wrote:I would say that a bit more tolerance, and respect for the views of others would help. It sometimes seems that posters are damned by allegiance and judged on this rather than the contents of their posts.

I agree.

it's a shame Tenez has been banned I agree, his views could get a bi dull and repetitive at times, but he did bring life to the forum and plenty of decent debate. I for one enjoyed crossing swords (figuratively) with him on this thread.

Positively 4th Street wrote:I don't like to see anyone leave so it is a shame. I seem to have missed the prelude to all of this (as usual!) so can't really comment. It does appear that the forum reaches boiling point now and then though and gets a tad heated. Hopefully all concerned will be back at some point.

I would say that a bit more tolerance, and respect for the views of others would help. It sometimes seems that posters are damned by allegiance and judged on this rather than the contents of their posts.

Brilliant post Positively - I quite agree.

I think between Lydian and Tenez there is a real personality clash and perhaps, while their exchanges have added to the forum and are interesting for the rest of us, it is better for both of them to give each other a wider berth.

Laver - I am not suffering from anxiety.......honest! Will pm Gav to just add my hopes that something may be able to be resolved.

time please wrote:Laver - I am not suffering from anxiety.......honest! Will pm Gav to just add my hopes that something may be able to be resolved.

I am glad to hear that.

laverfan wrote:

reckoner wrote:If I was less busy I'd don the blue helmet and reach out.

Perhaps you should. You will have to mediate between the Admins and Tenez.

Happy to help, just the small matter of an exam to get out of the way first!

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Did/do you study this sort of thing? you got that very quickly...

Yes, this is sort of my home turf. Both my education and my work thereafter have dealt with items of a similar nature. Certainly would not be able to provide similar level of analysis on different subjects. Give me a topic - say impact of nutrition on tennis performance or the relationship between the weight of a tennis ball and its flight and bounce patterns - and I will be happy to have an opinion and to argue it but it will be all very much more amateurish.

Henman Bill wrote:...Continuing with the impure maths, we can expect to see something like 1 in 1,300 probabilities actually occuring approximately once, but we actually have a 1 in 26,000 (or 1 in 150,000, or 1 in >300,000) occurence. So, roughly, there is a one in 20 chance of such as 1 in 26,000 event occuring. (Don't think dividing one by the other is the correct methodology, can anyone correct, but suspect it's broadly similar to the true answer.)

So there is (only) an outside chance that this could have happened just due to random fluctuations. As conspiracy theories go, this is much better than the usual man didn't land on the moon/global warming is a hoax/ CIA caused 9-11 type stupid junk.

Yeah, this is exactly the type of thought process I also go through. First get the hard data (say 1 in 26,000 here) and then do this type of more vague guesswork. Also agree this is not up there with some crazier conspiracy theories. In fact, in my mind this would not really qualify as a conspiracy, more like a bit of cheating, the type that goes on in life more frequently than some care to admit.

I left myself pretty uncommitted yesterday but I should perhaps say that if you gave me even odds to guess whether the draws in slams are always fair or not, I would go with the "not always fair" option.

laverfan wrote:This entire calculation is flawed. This theorem roughly says that if you take an average of a series of independently chosen numbers, this average behaves much like a "normally distributed" random variable.

The 20 numbers are not quite independently chosen, but they are very close to it. - They are not. Also CLT requires significantly large numbers and there is the minor issue of number of samples [n] tending to infinity.

laverfan, not really sure what to make of your contributions on this thread. There are bits of this thread which are really just math/stats and where there really is not that much to argue and there are bits (interpretation of the results, possible motives, etc etc) which are open for argument. You are spending a lot of time poking into the ones which are really not up for debate. On top of that, you are doing it in a rather unfocused and haphazard way. I find it even more puzzling because I do not have you under the posters that are trying to always be right at any cost. So why these attacks in an area where you do not appear to be an expert?

Before I joined here I read at other places that this forum had a tendency to throw people out with little reason. Do not know if this is the case here as I do not know what led to the ban, but it will be pity if the forum loses Tenez. Posters like him add life to the forum and they carry a lot of it on their shoulders. It is not that hard to ignore their posts if one wishes to do so, so no harm done if they push the envelope and occasionally tip-toe on the boundaries.

What a shame.

summerblues wrote:

laverfan wrote:This entire calculation is flawed. This theorem roughly says that if you take an average of a series of independently chosen numbers, this average behaves much like a "normally distributed" random variable.

The 20 numbers are not quite independently chosen, but they are very close to it. - They are not. Also CLT requires significantly large numbers and there is the minor issue of number of samples [n] tending to infinity.

laverfan, not really sure what to make of your contributions on this thread. There are bits of this thread which are really just math/stats and where there really is not that much to argue and there are bits (interpretation of the results, possible motives, etc etc) which are open for argument. You are spending a lot of time poking into the ones which are really not up for debate. On top of that, you are doing it in a rather unfocused and haphazard way. I find it even more puzzling because I do not have you under the posters that are trying to always be right at any cost. So why these attacks in an area where you do not appear to be an expert?

I am not trying to be 'right' at all costs. Arguing about CLT itself makes no sense either, because it is well proven.

It is up for debate whether assigning a linear scale of 1-127 is valid or not to the main draw players, do you agree? Why not use the ATP ranking itself? The degree of difficulty thus assigned is invalid knowing that tennis players do not follow a 'normal' distribution. This is not about probabilities or distributions any more, but using probabilities to assign a degree of difficulty and vice-a-versa. Look at the 'Table A' and 'Table B' in the OTL article. I posted similar tables for W and AO, since FO for some reason is assumed to be clean, I do not know why?

The whole premise and goal of the ESPN study is to show that draws were rigged into R1 to allow easy passage for seeds.

Let us assume that such an argument is valid, does that imply that the 12vs12 premise, by extrapolation, is also valid? IMVHO, no. It is circular and self-fulfilling logic as far as I can tell.

BTW, one omission I see in your posts is that you do not use your mathematical inclinations to comment on 12vs12? Is that too controversial for your taste?

Many have argued dropping samples which do not suit their hypothesis. TA, for example, did not like my idea of Federer-Soderling and Federer-Del Potro h2hs.

Let us see what you think about my arguments.

PS: Socal1976 had posted the ESPN study earlier. I will have to look for that article.

PPS: Found it. https://www.606v2.com/t12476-socal-s-conspiracy-corner-phd-statistician-proves-the-draws-aren-t-random

summerblues wrote:Before I joined here I read at other places that this forum had a tendency to throw people out with little reason.

That is an unfair characterization of the forum. If you read some of the posts today, and feel so inclined, you can see some of the dialogue and then revisit this statement, if you so choose.

summerblues wrote: Do not know if this is the case here as I do not know what led to the ban, but it will be pity if the forum loses Tenez.

It is a pity, if a forum loses a 'member', whether that member is named Tenez, or SummerBlues, or LegendKillarV2, or Lydian, or W...

summerblues wrote:Posters like him add life to the forum and they carry a lot of it on their shoulders. It is not that hard to ignore their posts if one wishes to do so, so no harm done if they push the envelope and occasionally tip-toe on the boundaries.

There are others, unlike a specific poster. My personal opinion is that, if a 'single' poster (or group of posters) define the character of a forum, they are also the death-knell of such a forum. The Admins feel the need for diversity of views, including one poster's view, but not an ad nauseam ad infinitum monotony and litany of sameness. I have done searches within the forum posts to see similar sound-bytes being repeated across many articles.

summerblues wrote:What a shame.

Very much agree, 'tis a shame. But no forum should have it's identity defined by the contributions of a single individual. Perhaps the Admins feel that NoW-style controversies and fare are not their palate.

SB... the same points were made around Aug 2011 in the link I provided, including the 12vs12. In April 2012, the same topic comes back with a different title.

laverfan wrote:It is up for debate whether assigning a linear scale of 1-127 is valid or not to the main draw players, do you agree?

From the perspective of calculating probabilites in the ESPN study no, it is not up for debate. If they assign the numbers on a linear scale the way did it and then calculate the probabilities, the results they get are valid. Probability that you get the pattern that they found is extremely low.

What is, at least in theory, up for debate is whether this pattern gives you evidence that #1 and #2 players were getting easier opponents because of this pattern. Indeed, it is in principle possible to have a distribution of the "difficulty" of opponents that would not give advantage to players #1 and #2 even with a weird pattern like this.

For example, suppose players #33-#100 in the tournament are always almost identical in strength and players #101-#128 are much much weaker. If we observed a pattern in which #1 and #2 ranked players were always drawing players around #95-#96 then ESPN-type study would conclude that they were drawing opponents that are easier than what you would expect at random while in reality they would be drawing opponents that are more difficult than what you expect at random.

Now as I say this is in theory up for debate and not easily addressed by math/stats, however the difficulty distribution would have to be rather weird and I would still say that you would have to hold a rather extreme view to think that this is what is happening. I think for practical purposes, ESPN study is very reasonable in its conclusions:

(a) that #1 and #2 players were on average getting easier opponents than expected
(b) and that this was happening to the degree that is quite unlikely to happen if the draws are truly random

Beyond this point, the rest is certainly fully up for debate. So it is certainly up for debate to discuss whether this event - with its low porbability - means that the draws were not fair or whether it is just one of those things that do happen - even though very rarely - even in perfectly fair draws.

laverfan wrote:BTW, one omission I see in your posts is that you do not use your mathematical inclinations to comment on 12vs12? Is that too controversial for your taste?

But I did comment on it! I fired a whole battery of posts on this joyous topic back on page 6.

Summerblues- simply awesome. It is wonderful to see someone post on this thread with clear logic.

Laverfan, you are a poster I respect, but looking at your contributions on this particular thread, I am left puzzled. Too many glaring errors. For eg (and I am surprised summerblues didn't pick this one up), you debate the fact that if seed 1 plays x, then seed 2 cannot play x. You use this to conclude that the events are not independent if 40 such numbers are considered for the same draw since the number of possible opponents for the seeds diminishes as we keep picking the numbers due to many unseeded players having been drawn already for the higher seeds.

What you have missed is the following- we are looking at 40 numbers from 20 draws (opponents of top two seeds in each draw) , not 40 from the same draw. Only 2 numbers are considered for each of the 20 draws. Drawing 1 from 96 and then 1 from 95 next in the same draw can easily be treated as independent since the difference due to this approximation will be marginal.

On this thread, you seem to be a non-conspiracy theorist! : ) i e someone who is desperate to prove that nothing is amiss, in spite of evidence being presented. None of your objections are scientifically valid, except one. That is leaving out the FO. This one is a question of judgement. I see no problem with it. You and others might.

But as summerblues has said, the probability part of this, that so many of us have put so much effort to explain, is simply not up for debate. You seem to be debating it repeatedly, with a series of bafflingly inaccurate objections.

laverfan wrote:

summerblues wrote: Do not know if this is the case here as I do not know what led to the ban, but it will be pity if the forum loses Tenez.

It is a pity, if a forum loses a 'member', whether that member is named Tenez, or SummerBlues, or LegendKillarV2, or Lydian, or W...

Well of course when you say it like this it is hard to argue, but I did mean Tenez specifically. Some of the posters form the skeleton of a forum more than others and losing those will hurt more. Tenez is not the only one, there are many others (yourself, NITB, Lydian, etc etc), but he is one of those. I have nothing against Summerblues for example (in fact he is a very fine man indeed), but losing him would not hurt the same. He is not as intergal part of the forum. He will come, enjoy the forum, post some, then maybe find something other to do and disappear for a long time before maybe coming back.

As far as your concerns about one poster taking over the forum; as long as the poster does not cross the line in their posts they should not run the risk of being booted out. So what if they hold one view very strongly and that comes across in many threads? If the forum is healthy enough, it should be able to support such members.

I can well see why Tenez gets up peoples noses, but it's always seemed to me that the best solution to posters like him, and the Wise_Analyst, Dr. Sincere brigade is for other posters:

(a) not to take what an anonymous person on a website says too seriously
(b) not to take on the task of trying to persuade those they disagree with but merely to enjoy discussing and exploring the differences and working out for themselves in a mature fashion when they think they've had enough of a particular debate or whether they want to join it
(c) to recognise that in an unregulated debate nobody can decide authoritatively who the winner or the loser is, and the person who has the doggedness to keep on pressing his/her view when everyone else has lost the will to live is not necessarily by virtue of that the winner.

It may mean that outspoken posters get away with less responsible conduct on a forum than the rest of us, but such is life and far better to gain pleasure by being the responsible person who has pulled back and knows it does not matter than keep on grinding to pursue a vendetta, leave that for others I say.

We also ought before we are over critical of the Admins to recognise that it's a dilemma for the likes of Gav when people start saying 'I'm off because of X'; I don't envy him needing to juggle competing thin-skinned interests to keep together a forum from which we gain pleasure thanks to the time him and others put in.

By the way - I am not saying Tenez is on a par with W_A or the good Dr., he's way way more interesting and constructive than them, I am just pointing out how you can deal with a poster who annoys you, and I know he annoys many - but not including me for the record.

barrystar wrote:I can well see why Tenez gets up peoples noses, but it's always seemed to me that the best solution to posters like him, and the Wise_Analyst, Dr. Sincere brigade is for other posters:

(a) not to take what an anonymous person on a website says too seriously
(b) not to take on the task of trying to persuade those they disagree with but merely to enjoy discussing and exploring the differences and working out for themselves in a mature fashion when they think they've had enough of a particular debate or whether they want to join it
(c) to recognise that in an unregulated debate nobody can decide authoritatively who the winner or the loser is, and the person who has the doggedness to keep on pressing his/her view when everyone else has lost the will to live is not necessarily by virtue of that the winner.

It may mean that outspoken posters get away with less responsible conduct on a forum than the rest of us, but such is life and far better to gain pleasure by being the responsible person who has pulled back and knows it does not matter than keep on grinding to pursue a vendetta, leave that for others I say.

We also ought before we are over critical of the Admins to recognise that it's a dilemma for the likes of Gav when people start saying 'I'm off because of X'; I don't envy him needing to juggle competing thin-skinned interests to keep together a forum from which we gain pleasure thanks to the time him and others put in.

agree with the above... hard call for the mods if there's a stream of complaints about a poster as seems to be the case.

It's a bit weird to complain if someone's opinion upsets you as long as they don't insult you. On this thread, for example, there are many people who have disagreed with me and whose opinions annoy me. AM I going to request for them to be banned? No! What's the point in a forum if you only have people whose views you agree with? The whole idea of communication is to hear what the other person has to say. In some ways, the more different his thinking is from yours, the better!

Definately seems that I'm not in with the gossip here. How did people find out Tenez was banned? Laverfan, is there a thread like on MTL that discusses these things? Or is it the exchange of private messages?

I found Tenez quite helpful on 606 on questions like court speed and conditions and we seemed to get on OK. I don't think he favours me anymore though, as he is keeps making comments questioning my credibility and reasoning. Which I wonder if he would have been less likely to do had I not accused him of bias, or disagreed with some of his views.

For me Tenez has an excessive anti-Nadal hatred and is more reasonable on other topics. While the politness he expressed on 606, even in the face of insulting attacks from the likes of Sobasi for example, was commendable, he does seem to have gotten a little bit more raw this year. Having said that, I personally have seen nothing to approach the level of a warning or a suspension, let alone a permanent ban. I am left to conclude that either the ban has been an excessive response to complainants or is based on deleted comments or other things I am unaware of. Until I hear otherwise, I am edging towards the former.

It seems to me that the people posting here are in favour of Tenez staying as well, although maybe the private messages to the moderators of the site tell a different story.

Henman Bill wrote:Definately seems that I'm not in with the gossip here. How did people find out Tenez was banned? Laverfan, is there a thread like on MTL that discusses these things? Or is it the exchange of private messages?

There is no MFT or a thread for Moderators, but there is a section which is visible only to the Admins and Moderators.

Henman Bill wrote:I found Tenez quite helpful on 606 on questions like court speed and conditions and we seemed to get on OK. I don't think he favours me anymore though, as he is keeps making comments questioning my credibility and reasoning. Which I wonder if he would have been less likely to do had I not accused him of bias, or disagreed with some of his views.

Being helpful is wonderful. I would suggest looking around you and elsewhere to see if your viewpoint is reflected.

Henman Bill wrote:For me Tenez has an excessive anti-Nadal hatred and is more reasonable on other topics. While the politness he expressed on 606, even in the face of insulting attacks from the likes of Sobasi for example, was commendable, he does seem to have gotten a little bit more raw this year. Having said that, I personally have seen nothing to approach the level of a warning or a suspension, let alone a permanent ban. I am left to conclude that either the ban has been an excessive response to complainants or is based on deleted comments or other things I am unaware of. Until I hear otherwise, I am edging towards the former.

I would suggest a PM to Gav, if you need details.

Henman Bill wrote:It seems to me that the people posting here are in favour of Tenez staying as well, although maybe the private messages to the moderators of the site tell a different story.

We could have a public debate, if the Admins want to have one, regarding the fate of a specific poster.

Tennisanorak wrote:

Laverfan, you are a poster I respect, but looking at your contributions on this particular thread, I am left puzzled. Too many glaring errors. For eg (and I am surprised summerblues didn't pick this one up), you debate the fact that if seed 1 plays x, then seed 2 cannot play x. You use this to conclude that the events are not independent if 40 such numbers are considered for the same draw since the number of possible opponents for the seeds diminishes as we keep picking the numbers due to many unseeded players having been drawn already for the higher seeds.

The degree of difficulty is within a slam, not outside a slam. The pattern may or may not repeat itself across slams. For example, Roddick playing Scoville Jenkins (ATP #1433) rather than Nadal (ATP #71) then.

Tennisanorak wrote:What you have missed is the following- we are looking at 40 numbers from 20 draws (opponents of top two seeds in each draw) , not 40 from the same draw. Only 2 numbers are considered for each of the 20 draws. Drawing 1 from 96 and then 1 from 95 next in the same draw can easily be treated as independent since the difference due to this approximation will be marginal.

I posted the R1 opponents from 2001 AO - 2012 AO #1 and #2 seeds faced. Bogdanovic twice faces #1 or #2 in in R1. Should I consider it a conspiracy?

Tennisanorak wrote:On this thread, you seem to be a non-conspiracy theorist! : ) i e someone who is desperate to prove that nothing is amiss, in spite of evidence being presented. None of your objections are scientifically valid, except one. That is leaving out the FO. This one is a question of judgement. I see no problem with it. You and others might.

But as summerblues has said, the probability part of this, that so many of us have put so much effort to explain, is simply not up for debate. You seem to be debating it repeatedly, with a series of bafflingly inaccurate objections.

And you consider that specific objection as invalid, questioning the basis of the whole ESPN study and state that the math/stat are sound? From rigorous analysis to a question of judgement? Is that not the basis of 'conspiracy' theories. I also posted that the same company, IDS, is also using the same software at all Slams. Are you saying that the software gets 'tweaked' for each slam?

We could have a public debate, if the Admins want to have one, regarding the fate of a specific poster.

Tenez has been treated like the Chinese treating Tibetans. FREE him i say!

Not gonna happen.
Sorry

Did he bring up PED's again? Very hostile feelings here.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

We could have a public debate, if the Admins want to have one, regarding the fate of a specific poster.

Tenez has been treated like the Chinese treating Tibetans. FREE him i say!

Did 606v2 take away Tenez's keyboard rights elsewhere?

(Gav I did not know you had so much power. )

barrystar wrote:I can well see why Tenez gets up peoples noses, but it's always seemed to me that the best solution...

Great post, could not put it better.

summerblues wrote:

barrystar wrote:I can well see why Tenez gets up peoples noses, but it's always seemed to me that the best solution...

Great post, could not put it better.

Now that I am rereading my post I think it could be misenterpreted. When I say great post, I mean the whole post not just the part I copied into my response.