Draw fixing (hypothesis) at grand slams (2008-2012)

Recently a lot of talk has been done about the possibility of draw fixing at the slams in tennis. It was not only the subject of debate on this site, but also others. The thoughts of the so-called 'conspiracy theorists' were reflected in an interesting study by the Estonian researcher Katarina Pijetlovic in october 2011. Here's the link for who hasn't seen it yet.

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

She noticed a strange pattern of Djokovic always landing in Federer's half of the draw at the slams during 2008-2011, with the exception of the French Open (something many posters on this forum had already noticed). Because the French Open showed a healthy pattern she decided to not include it in her study. Her opinion is that the ITF (stimulated by Nike) might fix the draw to increase the chances of getting a Federer-Nadal final. After all those are by far the most popular tennis players in the world. Both sponsored by Nike, who would like a final between the two, as this would mean a lot of advertising.

The omission of the French Open was the main bullet for the opponents of the study to shoot it down and classify it as unstatistical, meaningless, prejudiced. In this article I will try to demonstrate that there was actually no reason to omit the French Open. In my research all slams will be included. Instead of purily looking from a statistical perspective like Katarina Pijetlovic, insight in the dynamics of the recent tennis world will be applied. Our basis assumption is that the ITF and Nike wanted Federer-Nadal finals at the slams. It are the slams that attracts the wider audience. Tennis hadn't always had a wide audience. Many will remember the dark years of the early 2000's, even till 2004, with lot of empty seats at the slams, even in big matches. Tennis wasn't very popular. It was the Federer-Nadal rivalry, hyped into heaven, that really started to attract lots of people. A rivalry that really bursted out in 2006/2007 with consecutive finals the French Open and Wimbledon. There wasn't really much of a problem to get a final back then, with Federer and Nadal at number one and two respectively, so automitically in opposite sides of the draw. There wasn't a single player who could really rival the two. Only at hardcourt slams there was the problem of Nadal not getting to the final, losing to lower players, but this couldn't be helped.

2007 "unfortunately" saw the rise of Novak Djokovic. During the year he got a few wins over Federer and Nadal (all on hardcourts). On clay and at the slams, they still had him very much under control. But he had proven to be the biggest threat so far to their duopoly. The last thing the ITF and Nike wanted, after putting so much effort in promoting Federer and Nadal, was this guy to spoil the party. After all he came from a country that most of the rest of the world looked negatively upon because of what happened there in the 90's, he had a bad haircut, and wore even worse Addidas clothes. They didn't want this guy in the finals instead of the more glamourous looking Federer and Nadal, with the great Nike clothes. What would the fate of tennis be if this guy ever became the top dog.

Djokovic had already made the 2007 US Open final and something had to be done. So from 2008 onwards they started to fix the draw to increase the possibility of a Federer-Nadal final. In the tabel below the slams at which the favourable draw was achieved are marked with a +, when the less favourable draw was achieved there stands a - .

****AO RG W USO

2008 + + + +

2009 + - / +

2010 + + + +

2011 + + + +

2012 - + + ?


This of course needs some explanation. I'll discuss the slams in chronological order.

Period 1: AO08-W09: Djokovic at number three, put in either Federer's or Nadal's half. Federer and Nadal taking number one and two position (not necessarily in this order), automatically in opposite sides of the draw.

AO08: It had been three years ago since Federer last failed to make the final of a hardcourt slams. Nadal still hadn't gone beyond the quarters. It was better to not make life even more difficult for Nadal and to put Djokovic in the opposite (Federer's) half. This was successfully done.
RG08: Nadal was practically unbeatable on clay, so better to put Djokovic in his half, as the Serb would certainly get beaten. Again successful.
W08: At this time Federer was still the king of grass and five time defending champion, while Nadal hadn't won a Wimbledon titel yet. Djokovic in Federer's draw. Successful draw.
USO08: Again Djokovic had to be put in Federer's half, as Nadal still hadn't reached a HC slam final yet, and was beaten twice by Djokovic on HC during 2008. Successful.
AO09: Same stuff as in previous hardcourt slams. Successful draw.
RG09: Best would have been Djokovic in Nadal's half like the year before. This time though the opposite happened, first unsuccessful draw.
W09: Makes no part of the study as Nadal didn't play.

Period 2: USO09: Federer number one, Murray number two. Nadal three, Djokovic four.

US09: The only way to get a Federer-Nadal final was to put Nadal in Murray's half, and Djokovic' in Federer's as a consequence of that. Again the draw was successful.

Period 3: AO10-AO11: Djokovic at number three, put in either Federer's or Nadal's half. Federer and Nadal taking number one and two position (not necessarily in this order), automatically in opposite sides of the draw.

AO10: Nadal had been in very bad form for the last six months, losing to most top ten players he faced in that period. Better to make his work a bit easier and put Djokovic in Federer's half. Djokovic had spanked Nadal recently three times in a row and was too dangerous for the Spaniard. Again success.
RG10: Better to put Djokovic in the draw of the unbeatable (on clay) King of Clay Nadal. Success.
W10: Now this was a hard one. Federer hadn't been playing well since the AO that year, while Nadal had cleaned up the clay season. In which half to put Djokovic? Nadal though for the last year hadn't enjoyed success outside of the clay, and had a very poor showing at Queens in 2010. The Bookies made Federer slight favourite for the title, so Djokovic should be in his half. The draw was succesful.
USO10: Federer had showed great form during the US HC summer, in strong contrast with Nadal, and was the big favourite for the title. Djokovic in Federer's half? Yup, achieved.
AO11: While Nadal had been the strongman of 2010, unfortunately just before AO11 he became ill and got bagled by Lacko and spanked by Davydenko in Doha. So Djokovic had to be in Federer's half. Successfully.

Period 4: RG11-RG12: Federer at number three, put in either Djokovic's or Nadal's half. Djokovic and Nadal taking number one and two position (not necessarily in this order), automatically in opposite sides of the draw.

RG11: The only way to get a Federer-Nadal final was to put Federer in Djokovic' half. Success.
W11: Same story.
USO11: Same story.
AO12: The only way to get a Federer-Nadal final was to put Federer in Djokovic' half. This is the second time though the draw was unsuccesful, as Federer was put in Nadal's half.
RG12: The only way to get a Federer-Nadal final was to put Federer in Djokovic' half. Success.


Conclusion:

In 17 slams 15 times the favourable draw was achieved. Only twice the unfavourable. Each time the statistical chance to get a certain draw was 50% each for the favourable and the unfavourable. So you would expect a more even division between favourable and unfavourable draws, something like 8/9 or 7/10 or even 6/11. 2/15 looks very suspect. Probably the ITF decided to do twice the unfavourable draw. 17 times the favourable ones would even make the die-hard naysayers grow suspicious. Maybe not accidently the unfavourable AO12 draw was only a few months after Katarina Pijetlovic had proposed her study, when suspicion grew.

Now remains the question of how did they actually fix the draw? It's impossible to find hard proof for this. The number three and four seeds are picked by hand by the defending champion. No video material of this can be found on the internet, which is not the case for lots of other occasions involving tennis. I remember though seeing video material of the draw picking during the news report on TV. I remember for this year's AO seeing Djokovic pick one piece of paper out of (wherever they put it in) to decide which player goes in a certain half of the draw. Now is the question, do they really pick a second time? There are only two players, number 3 and 4 to be handpicked. As soon if one is picked, they know in which half the other has to be. There is no need to pick the second player, and my guess is they don't do it. This though gives the chance to put twice the same number (3 or 4) on the two pieces of paper, without anyone noticing. This way they can choose which player to put in which half of the draw. This corruption can happen without the necessity of the defending champion being part of the fraud.

Chydremion wrote:Now remains the question of how did they actually fix the draw? It's impossible to find hard proof for this.

Hence I would consider this a 'conspiracy' theory.

"Chydremion wrote:

This though gives the chance to put twice the same number (3 or 4) on the two pieces of paper, without anyone noticing. This way they can choose which player to put in which half of the draw. This corruption can happen without the necessity of the defending champion being part of the fraud.

... and this needs to happen at all slams, with collusion of cameras and officials. And there is no whistle-blower to make this completely obvious and go public with this type of 'sleight'.

Where's the seedings??

This is just poor. Again going by names.

Provide seedings and we might by into draw rigging!!

Lazy. Just pure laziness.

Legend there is a way to suggest draw rigging without seedings. Not to say I believe in draw rigging.

This article is quite detailed but I feel has an agenda, meanwhile Laverfan's Masters article was also detailed but didn't actually suggest that in Slams, where the likes of Nike would be more interested, there isn't draw rigging.

Overall I believe that unless we have a revealing investigation like NewsOfTheWorld we can't really say anything.

I did this on a different thread ( https://www.606v2.com/t28203-draw-fixing-a-real-world-analysis-part-1-the-12-vs-12-question ) , but for sake of clarity, repeat it here...

a. Djokovic is not in Top 4 in 2007, so we should consider this a bit different than the regular Top 4 scenario...

2007 AO Federer #1 - Djokovic #14 (R16 meeting) 1-4, 2-3
2007 FO Federer #1 - Djokovic #6 (Djokovic in Nadal's half) 1-4, 2-3
2007 W Federer #1 - Djokovic #4 (Djokovic in Nadal's half) 1-3, 2-4 Corrected. Roddick was #3.
2007 USO Federer #1 - Djokovic #3 (Djokovic in Nadal's half) 1-4, 2-3

b. 50% split in 2008 for the numbers... 2x 1-4, 2-3 and 2x 1-3, 2-4

2008 AO Federer #1 - Djokovic #3 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-3, 2-4
2008 FO Federer #1 - Djokovic #3 (Djokovic in Nadal's half) 1-4, 2-3
2008 W Federer #1 - Djokovic #3 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-3, 2-4
2008 USO Federer #2 - Djokovic #3 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-4, 2-3

c. 50% split here in 2009. 2x 1-4, 2-3 and 2x 1-3, 2-4. Also, Djokovic and Federer change rankings here.

2009 AO Federer #2 - Djokovic #3 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-4, 2-3
2009 FO Federer #2 - Djokovic #4 (Djokovic in Federer's half ) 1-3, 2-4
2009 W Federer #2 - Djokovic #4 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-3, 2-4
2009 USO Federer #1 - Djokovic #4 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-4, 2-3

d. 75-25 split here. 3x 1-3,2-4, 1x 1-4, 2-3. Federer and Djokovic change rankings.

2010 AO Federer #1 - Djokovic #3 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-3, 2-4
2010 FO Federer #2 - Djokovic #4 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-3, 2-4
2010 W Federer #1 - Djokovic #3 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-3, 2-4
2010 USO Federer #2 - Djokovic #3 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-4, 2-3

e. 25-75 compared to 2d. 3x 1-4, 2-3 and 1x 1-3, 2-4. Federer (2,3) and Djokovic (1,2,3) change rankings.

2011 AO Federer #2 - Djokovic #3 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-4, 2-3
2011 FO Federer #3 - Djokovic #2 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-4, 2-3
2011 W Federer #3 - Djokovic #2 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-4, 2-3
2011 USO Federer #3 - Djokovic #1 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-3, 2-4


1-4, 2-3 = 11
1-3, 2-4 = 9

Laverfan the seedings stats don't help your case I'm afraid
They just add fuel to the fire of the people who believe in draw rigging.

I would explain why now, but I'm a bit tired. Maybe later today or tomorrow I can have a detailed look at this.

It Must Be Love wrote:Laverfan the seedings stats don't help your case I'm afraid
They just add fuel to the fire of the people who believe in draw rigging.

I would explain why now, but I'm a bit tired. Maybe later today or tomorrow I can have a detailed look at this.

Seeds are how they drawn. Don't be so silly!

No you'll see when I explain it further detail.
The whole point of the 'conspiracy theory' is that the riggers do not leave it to the chance of the seeds (which are unbiased) but take it in their own hands and fix certain players together.

As I have said I do not believe in this, but the seeds argument is simply not a valid counter-argument to what the conspiracy theory in any way.
If the likes of SoCal and Chyde were saying that Nike liked having Seeds 1vs 3 together for Slams or something it would be a valid counter point.

Anyway it's complicated- I'll present a detailed analysis in the near future and you will see for yourself.

It Must Be Love wrote:Laverfan the seedings stats don't help your case I'm afraid
They just add fuel to the fire of the people who believe in draw rigging.

I would explain why now, but I'm a bit tired. Maybe later today or tomorrow I can have a detailed look at this.

Chydremion wrote:There are only two players, number 3 and 4 to be handpicked.

IMBL,

I'll take LF's analysis.

Why?

Because it proves that it is done by seedings.

Now unless someone has documents to prove otherwise, I won't change my view.

Well I believe it is done by seedings as well, as I have said before.

But what I'm saying is that this does not counter the conspiracy theorists point. At 9:38 Laverfan bolded the word 'handpicked.' If this is the case it is definitely done on seedings.

But the theorists are trying to say that this is not how it is done, Chyde has provided a potential way for rigging to still occur, and there are many other people on other forums who have suggested other ways it still can occur.
If this is the case, and frankly I'm not buying it unless there is some real evidence (some random vague Nike conspiracy doesn't cut it for me) then seedings are irrelevant as the riggers would take their pick on the players how they choose.

There is nothing in the thread that convinces me of any rigging.

Like I said LF's analysis has crapped on any theory that suggests otherwise. The seedings have changed over the years. Djokovic being 3, 2 and 1. Nadal has been 1,2,3 and Federer has been 1,2,3. So unless they plummet down the rankings, draws remain very similair

Chrydemion raises a very significant point, why, does Federer have to play 7 matches to win a slam? He should be a given a slam for every match he wins, or he will lose the motivation to carry on with not getting his trophies that his play deserves.

Furthermore Nadal and Djokovic should have to win 15 rounds before they earn a slam.

I have a video recording of the last USO 2011 draw as shown by ESPN.

I will check, but this is what I recall.

There are two numbers (assuming an unbiased scenario) in the urn/pouch, one of them is drawn, as well as the line number where it is placed is read by the person recording the draw before the pick.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Chrydemion raises a very significant point, why, does Federer have to play 7 matches to win a slam? He should be a given a slam for every match he wins, or he will lose the motivation to carry on with not getting his trophies that his play deserves.

The return of the Challenge Round.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Furthermore Nadal and Djokovic should have to win 15 rounds before they earn a slam.

... playing each other 15 times without the benefit of any tiebreaks.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Where's the seedings??

This is just poor. Again going by names.

Provide seedings and we might by into draw rigging!!

Lazy. Just pure laziness.

Maybe that is because the seeds mean absolutely nothing it is the matchups the tournament directors are playihg to their advantage. Regardless over a 5 year period Novak has had at least a 3 ranking. Which means that over this period of time regardless of whether he is the 1,2, or 3 ranked player he gets federer. It certainly is no where within any reasonable standard deviation. That is what makes this "theory" not so theoretical. The reason no one mentions the seeding but the players name is because that is the determinative characteristic. The seeding means nothing since during this whole period the 3 players in question have held the top 3 rankings and therefore should at maximum have a 50 percent chance of drawing fed.

chycremion, I must say this is a brilliant post and succinctly makes many of the posts that I have struggled to get people to comprehend. A wonderful post, thorough, well thought, and well researched. I hope people read it with an open mind frankly.

The part I found especially illuminating as it took a while for me to digest this long but very important piece is that in 17 slams the ideal scenario was arranged or occurred in 15 of those 17 events. This fact in isolation is not all that provactive, but when you consider that the people organizing the event have a financial stake in the outcome and are the ones controlling the process with little to no oversight then these facts take on a more sinister meaning.

socal1976 wrote:chycremion, I must say this is a brilliant post and succinctly makes many of the posts that I have struggled to get people to comprehend. A wonderful post, thorough, well thought, and well researched. I hope people read it with an open mind frankly.

If people don't believe in draw-rigging does that mean they are not open-minded? Or would you accept that they read it with an open mind and rejected it?

SoCal, do you have any ideas of how it was rigged?

As Chyde and Laverfan said:
Here are only two players, number 3 and 4 to be handpicked.
There are two numbers (assuming an unbiased scenario) in the urn/pouch, one of them is drawn, as well as the line number where it is placed is read by the person recording the draw before the pick.

laverfan wrote:I did this on a different thread ( https://www.606v2.com/t28203-draw-fixing-a-real-world-analysis-part-1-the-12-vs-12-question ) , but for sake of clarity, repeat it here...

a. Djokovic is not in Top 4 in 2007, so we should consider this a bit different than the regular Top 4 scenario...

2007 AO Federer #1 - Djokovic #14 (R16 meeting) 1-4, 2-3
2007 FO Federer #1 - Djokovic #6 (Djokovic in Nadal's half) 1-4, 2-3
2007 W Federer #1 - Djokovic #4 (Djokovic in Nadal's half) 1-3, 2-4 Corrected. Roddick was #3.
2007 USO Federer #1 - Djokovic #3 (Djokovic in Nadal's half) 1-4, 2-3

b. 50% split in 2008 for the numbers... 2x 1-4, 2-3 and 2x 1-3, 2-4

2008 AO Federer #1 - Djokovic #3 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-3, 2-4
2008 FO Federer #1 - Djokovic #3 (Djokovic in Nadal's half) 1-4, 2-3
2008 W Federer #1 - Djokovic #3 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-3, 2-4
2008 USO Federer #2 - Djokovic #3 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-4, 2-3

c. 50% split here in 2009. 2x 1-4, 2-3 and 2x 1-3, 2-4. Also, Djokovic and Federer change rankings here.

2009 AO Federer #2 - Djokovic #3 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-4, 2-3
2009 FO Federer #2 - Djokovic #4 (Djokovic in Federer's half ) 1-3, 2-4
2009 W Federer #2 - Djokovic #4 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-3, 2-4
2009 USO Federer #1 - Djokovic #4 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-4, 2-3

d. 75-25 split here. 3x 1-3,2-4, 1x 1-4, 2-3. Federer and Djokovic change rankings.

2010 AO Federer #1 - Djokovic #3 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-3, 2-4
2010 FO Federer #2 - Djokovic #4 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-3, 2-4
2010 W Federer #1 - Djokovic #3 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-3, 2-4
2010 USO Federer #2 - Djokovic #3 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-4, 2-3

e. 25-75 compared to 2d. 3x 1-4, 2-3 and 1x 1-3, 2-4. Federer (2,3) and Djokovic (1,2,3) change rankings.

2011 AO Federer #2 - Djokovic #3 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-4, 2-3
2011 FO Federer #3 - Djokovic #2 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-4, 2-3
2011 W Federer #3 - Djokovic #2 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-4, 2-3
2011 USO Federer #3 - Djokovic #1 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-3, 2-4


1-4, 2-3 = 11
1-3, 2-4 = 9

Here's a sequence of 16 potential slam draws 2008-2011 where Djokovic could have been in Fed's half exactly 8 of those 16 times - hence putting the conspiracies to bed and no mention would have been made of incredible statistics. Would anyone have even noticed the 1 & 3 seeds being paired 15 out of 16 times?
So with the top 4 staying the same, but changing positions, either a very odd statistical occurence would have occured with Fed-Djoko or it would have occured with 1-3 and 2-4. Either way, the conspiracy theorists win.

2008 AO Federer #1 - Djokovic #3 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-3, 2-4
2008 FO Federer #1 - Djokovic #3 (Djokovic in Nadal's half) 1-4, 2-3
2008 W Federer #1 - Djokovic #3 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-3, 2-4
2008 USO Federer #2 - Djokovic #3 (Djokovic in Nadal's half) 1-3, 2-4

2009 AO Federer #2 - Djokovic #3 (Djokovic in Nadal's half) 1-3, 2-4
2009 FO Federer #2 - Djokovic #4 (Djokovic in Federer's half ) 1-3, 2-4
2009 W Federer #2 - Djokovic #4 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-3, 2-4
2009 USO Federer #1 - Djokovic #4 (Djokovic in Murray's half) 1-3, 2-4

2010 AO Federer #1 - Djokovic #3 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-3, 2-4
2010 FO Federer #2 - Djokovic #4 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-3, 2-4
2010 W Federer #1 - Djokovic #3 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-3, 2-4
2010 USO Federer #2 - Djokovic #3 (Djokovic in Nadal's half) 1-3, 2-4

2011 AO Federer #2 - Djokovic #3 (Djokovic in Nadal's half) 1-3, 2-4
2011 FO Federer #3 - Djokovic #2 (Djokovic in Murray's half) 1-3, 2-4
2011 W Federer #3 - Djokovic #2 (Djokovic in Murray's half) 1-3, 2-4
2011 USO Federer #3 - Djokovic #1 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-3, 2-4

No not really.
It's obvious that if rigging did occur (which I do not believe is the case) they would do it on players.

Why would anyone care about the seedings? What could NIKE/ATP/anyone else conspiracy theorists allege gain from rigging the seedings?

The names are not relevant. Seeds are what are pulled from the hat.

And seed placement is approx. 50:50, nothing else matters.

It Must Be Love wrote:No not really.
It's obvious that if rigging did occur (which I do not believe is the case) they would do it on players.

Why would anyone care about the seedings? What could NIKE/ATP/anyone else conspiracy theorists allege gain from rigging the seedings?

Exactly. I think it is clearly rigged to maximise revenue. Most of the time a Federer v Nadal final is the biggest money spinner.

I have no proof or no idea how they would rig it, but it seems strangely odd the draws Djokovic has received down the years.

lydian wrote:The names are not relevant. Seeds are what are pulled from the hat.

And seed placement is approx. 50:50, nothing else matters.

But the names of the seeds are determined before the seeds are pulled from the hat. So they are very relevant.

There is diddly squat evidence that the draws were actually rigged. The outcome on its own does not prove the case for rigging.

We are supposed to believe that fiddling suddenly started happening across 3 slams (but oddly not the French) for 4 years and not a soul squeaked in all that time when the 3 slams took the huge risk of conspiring together with their 100 year reputations on the line had anything broke. There is 0 evidence of it happening...no leaks, no whistleblowers, no rumours, no way of knowing how it actually happened. Nothing.

The other thing is that slams are sellouts anyway...and long before the final takes place. Media contracts are for 14 days not 1 at the end. Plus the rigging would always assume right from the start that top 4 seeds went deep. This was only proved to be an "issue"retrospectively...they couldn't have known from early 2008 when they "decided" to start the rigging, especially since Nadal was not a sure bet for getting to semis in HC slams back then.

It's just pure fantasy stuff.

Maybe they are and maybe they are not. There is certainly nothing any of us could do about it if they are.

It's unlikely we would ever get evidence if any even did exist.

But it does seem a strange coincidence.

You can guarantee that Murray will be in Nadals half and Federer in Djokovic's half later this week at the Wimbledon draw. If they are not then, you know, they have to mix it up sometimes to make it look less obvious.

I once met a master illusionist and he said that fixing the draw was very simple before vanishing in a puff of smoke. I can't remember everything he said but he offered many possibilities, including surface effects (small scratches or indentations or slight sticky patch on the balls), weighted balls, false bottomed pouches, switching pouches etc.

Now look into my eyes

I might look at this tomorrow and show some calcs. However what i will say is that the probability of Djoko and Fed appearing in the same half is 50% except for if/when the two have ever been no.1 and no.2 in the world. This is very similar to a coin flip. It takes over 100 throws and really a few 1000 to really prove a coin is biased or not as the probability tested is 50% (very middle ground). Given that at best we have about 20 slams to test for bias, the chance that there is no bias is high, even if we witness a streak of draws one way or the other. There simply hasn't been enough draws for a mathematically high probability of rigging to exist.

Tom...

You will definitely hear the ESPN analysis argument where they 'simulated' 10,000 draws to prove the draws were rigged. We have discussed this before. Bit surprising (and deja vu) to see the same story repeated before the draw of upcoming slam @W.

The ESPN analysis focussed on 'degree of difficulty' that R1 opponents represented for the seeded players, especially the Top 4.

There is a 2nd-degree link to the ESPN study, in my previous post. You are welcome to read it to provide some more background.

Many posters have argued about subjective aspects of rigging(specific match-ups, broadcast revenues, etc), rather than the statistical aspects of it.

Looking forward to your inputs.

Tom___ wrote:There simply hasn't been enough draws for a mathematically high probability of rigging to exist.

Given an average 15-20 year span of an ATP player at the Top echelons, draw rigging can happen for about 60-80 slams ( http://www.tennis28.com/slams/cons_appearances.html ). Assuming 60 slams, it would not be enough samples to work with, so long runs like Federer-Djokovic are possible.

Longevity legend Rosewall was in Top 10 for 12 years, Federer in Top 10 for 10 years (14 Oct 2002), Nadal in Top 10 for 7 years (25 Apr 2005), Djokovic in Top 10 for 5 years (2 Apr 2007), Murray in Top 10 for 4+ years (7 Jul 2008).

Unbelievable that the debate about the (un)likelihood of the actual draw results is still going on!

Simple fact is that the chances of Federer and Djokovic being in the same half has been 50% in each and every one of those Slams (as one was always seeded 1-2 and the other 3-4).

I challenge everyone on this forum to start flipping a coin trying to produce a similar outcome, now that'll be a good test for your patience :-)

good article

I am surprised no-one alluded to JHM's post by where he stated that 1-3 were drawn together 15 out of 16 times!!!

But again so many with this 'feeling' they have for rigging cannot see through the seeding!

legendkillarV2 wrote:I am surprised no-one alluded to JHM's post by where he stated that 1-3 were drawn together 15 out of 16 times!!!

But again so many with this 'feeling' they have for rigging cannot see through the seeding!

I shoud re-interate that my post shows that while the recurring pairing of Fed-Djoko has produced one statistical anomoly that has brought out the conspiracy theorists, keeping them apart as per my example (8 times out of 16) would have produced an equal statistical anomoly, which I doubt anyone would have found particularly worthy of comment.

Nore Staat wrote:I once met a master illusionist and he said that fixing the draw was very simple before vanishing in a puff of smoke. I can't remember everything he said but he offered many possibilities, including surface effects (small scratches or indentations or slight sticky patch on the balls), weighted balls, false bottomed pouches, switching pouches etc.

Now look into my eyes

Well as part of a mis-spent youth I would very often try my luck at the roulette tables ('twas many years ago ....)

Whenever I bet black, red would come up ; and vice versa. Same thing with odds and evens. Couldn't believe it. I mean just what are the chances? (er 50/50 actually, so someone once told me...)

I'm convinced the table and wheel were rigged.

And that master illusionist of yours NS could surely have told me how it was done. If only he hadn't vanished in a puff of smoke .......

On one of Derren Brown's TV shows he showed unedited footage of his spoken introduction, along the lines of "Here's a normal 10p coin, I will now flip it to land on heads 10 times in a row" - and then he did it.
He then explained he had spent all day filming to get it to do that, stopping and re-shooting the intro every time a tails came up. They just didn't show the unsuccessful attempts.

Good one from Derren Brown !

It's just human nature that our most instinctive (though of course not logical) feeling is that if we see even just four or five heads in a row, then the next spin "is bound" to come up tails.

Whereas in fact the odds are of course 50/50. Every time.

prostaff85 wrote:Unbelievable that the debate about the (un)likelihood of the actual draw results is still going on!

Simple fact is that the chances of Federer and Djokovic being in the same half has been 50% in each and every one of those Slams (as one was always seeded 1-2 and the other 3-4).

I challenge everyone on this forum to start flipping a coin trying to produce a similar outcome, now that'll be a good test for your patience :-)

My question is why does it matter, the better player always wins, correct?

lags72 wrote:... It's just human nature that our most instinctive (though of course not logical) feeling is that if we see even just four or five heads in a row, then the next spin "is bound" to come up tails.

Whereas in fact the odds are of course 50/50. Every time.

Indeed, it is human nature to pick out patterns from the external environment as it imparts an evolutionary advantage. If you get the same result after five times then it is human nature to think that it is more likely to produce the same result after a sixth time. Why? ... because you see a pattern forming.

With roulette wheels as in other games of pure chance the odds should always be stacked against the punter, so that in the long run the punter loses his money.

In addition to this for roulette wheels small electromagnets can be used as well as a few other tricks.

laverfan wrote:

prostaff85 wrote:Unbelievable that the debate about the (un)likelihood of the actual draw results is still going on!

Simple fact is that the chances of Federer and Djokovic being in the same half has been 50% in each and every one of those Slams (as one was always seeded 1-2 and the other 3-4).

I challenge everyone on this forum to start flipping a coin trying to produce a similar outcome, now that'll be a good test for your patience :-)

My question is why does it matter, the better player always wins, correct?

Well that would be the logical thinking, though some posters dispute victories not convinced the better player won and also some buy into this theory to build up 'Against all odds' legacy.

Nore Staat wrote:

With roulette wheels as in other games of pure chance the odds should always be stacked against the punter, so that in the long run the punter loses his money.

In addition to this for roulette wheels small electromagnets can be used as well as a few other tricks.

If you are Bond, James Bond, then odds are stacked against the roulette wheels.

"I admire your courage"

"And I admire your luck, Mr.....?"

"Bond. James Bond"

Moving back to the real world .....
I might be corrected by others more knowledgeable, but my own understanding is that the 'House advantage' enjoyed by Casinos - ie the factor that ensures that, ultimately, they will always win - is remarkably low, perhaps as low as 2 or 3%. But on such fine margins, allied to large turnover, are profits built.

It would be theoretically possible for a billionaire punter with access to vast resources to virtually guarantee to come out on top at the end of every visit. So the Casino has always needed a way of avoiding this eventuality, and AFAIK the most reliable method is by imposing maximum limits on individual bets. These limits are clearly indicated at each table.

So if a punter places his very first bet on red and loses, he must (at least) double his stake next time in order to win. But if the punter goes for red again and black comes up then he must double up yet again. And so on. If there were no stake limits, the billionaire punter could simply keep doubling up until eventually he got a winning spin - which in time would happen. It is only the limit imposed by the Casino that would prevent him doing this.

Not sure exactly how it works with roulette - I think the odds favour the casino with the green 0 (and 00 in the USA), meaning that all odd/even and all red/black bets lose when it comes up.
With a single 0 that's 1 in 37 - about 3%, as you say. Does that sound right?

I guess that's where my figure comes from JHM. What you say sounds pretty logical.

Two parts of this theory that interest me are:

a. How is the fixing done - presumably some very discrete and fool-proof method is adopted which can only be known of by very few people.

b. How does it go wrong, as at AO this year and RG 09?

Also - Nadal was in the Wimbledon 2009 draw, he pulled out after it had taken place and Del Boy stepped up into his shoes. Djoko was on the other side of the draw, which no doubt fits in with the theory.

barrystar :

Not sure about a. Perhaps the master illusionist mentioned by NS above could help us with that one ?

As for point b. : I guess once you've successfully rigged a system you must also build in a contingency to allow it to fail now & then, thereby dampening suspicion of evil goings-on whilst the conspiracy theories are thrown into doubt & confusion ...........

I'm still not sure who at Wimbledon who gain financially from, say, a Fed-Rafa semi followed by a Fed-Djoko final as opposed to a Fed-Djoko semi followed by Fed-Rafa final.

Not Wimby - the tickets are sold out anyway and TV rights sold years in advance. Not the BBC - no advertising revenue. The ATP/ITF - what extra money would they get and where would it come from?

There is case, where @RG 2011, Tennis Channel got the Nadal v Ferrer SF, while NBC got Federer v Djokovic final. JHM, there is an incentive for the broadcasters, the overall broadcast revenue stream is fixed.

laverfan wrote:There is case, where @RG 2011, Tennis Channel got the Nadal v Ferrer SF, while NBC got Federer v Djokovic final. JHM, there is an incentive for the broadcasters, the overall broadcast revenue stream is fixed.

Is it decided before the draw is made which channel gets which semi?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

laverfan wrote:There is case, where @RG 2011, Tennis Channel got the Nadal v Ferrer SF, while NBC got Federer v Djokovic final. JHM, there is an incentive for the broadcasters, the overall broadcast revenue stream is fixed.

Is it decided before the draw is made which channel gets which semi?

In most cases, the schedule is decided even before the draws are made. For W - http://www.tennischannel.com/schedule/wimbledon.aspx

The modified FO 2011 schedule was http://www.tennischannel.com/roland_garros/schedule.aspx

The FO 2011 Monday final was not shown on NBC, but it's Cable channel.

Exactly...the big proviso for why fixing would occur doesnt really hold much water. If fixing occurred it would be to inflate profits from a dream final...but we've said slams are sellouts and TV rights sold in advance.

So just who is gaining from fixing draws?