|
|
Post by Grarliner on Jun 3, 2006 9:20:44 GMT -5
But it's not the same for everyone. That's the point. Go ahead and seed 64 for all I care. Aha! It's never the same for everyone, no matter how hard you try. Hence, you might not even try in the first place! If it is never the same for everyone, why did you say it was? But the goal isn't to make it the same for everyone. I told you no, with no seeds, one's 'luck' would not even out over the course of a year, two weeks, seven years, anything. That's a superstitious belief based on nothing and people love to repeat it. The point was that with no seeds, you would not have a situation where hey, good and bad draws come to an equilibrium over a year for players, which is what you asserted. You would have a situation with the best players going out too early and the lesser players getting too far too often though. But if you really are going to take the tack that you cannot evenly balance a draw no matter what you do and so you shouldn't bother ... well, first off, who says that's true, secondly, it's like saying we shouldn't bother to curb air pollution if we can only be rid of 95% of it. Of course we should! |
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on Jun 3, 2006 9:22:54 GMT -5
Rochus 6-6!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Grarliner on Jun 3, 2006 9:23:14 GMT -5
I thought seedings were to keep the marquee players apart. You don't get more marquee players just because the draw is bigger. That isn't even why they moved to 32 seeds. It was a silly solution to a completely different problem. That is my analysis. It's a bit light. |
|
|
|
Post by R. Black on Jun 3, 2006 9:23:23 GMT -5
You don't get more marquee players just because the draw is bigger. So you think there should be the same number of seeds in 32p draw and 64p draw? |
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on Jun 3, 2006 9:25:09 GMT -5
Random French Dude def R. Stepanek 5-7, 7-5, 7-6, 6-3.  Peer holds for 6-4, 5-5. |
|
|
|
Post by Grarliner on Jun 3, 2006 9:27:12 GMT -5
Oh, Elena might be going down. Double BP.
|
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on Jun 3, 2006 9:28:44 GMT -5
Peer converts her 3rd breakpoint of the game and will now serve for the match at 6-4, 6-5.  |
|
|
|
Post by Brinyi on Jun 3, 2006 9:31:12 GMT -5
Dammit ED!
|
|
|
|
Post by Brinyi on Jun 3, 2006 9:31:33 GMT -5
Sexxpanek  |
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on Jun 3, 2006 9:32:02 GMT -5
Triple matchpoint for Peer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brinyi on Jun 3, 2006 9:32:05 GMT -5
Oli takes the third set tb  |
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on Jun 3, 2006 9:34:23 GMT -5
At triple matchpoint, lizchris and someone else created threads on the result of the match, but now Lena D has saved 2 matchpoints.
|
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on Jun 3, 2006 9:34:41 GMT -5
Aha! It's never the same for everyone, no matter how hard you try. Hence, you might not even try in the first place! If it is never the same for everyone, why did you say it was? But the goal isn't to make it the same for everyone. I told you no, with no seeds, one's 'luck' would not even out over the course of a year, two weeks, seven years, anything. That's a superstitious belief based on nothing and people love to repeat it. The point was that with no seeds, you would not have a situation where hey, good and bad draws come to an equilibrium over a year for players, which is what you asserted. You would have a situation with the best players going out too early and the lesser players getting too far too often though. But if you really are going to take the tack that you cannot evenly balance a draw no matter what you do and so you shouldn't bother ... well, first off, who says that's true, secondly, it's like saying we shouldn't bother to curb air pollution if we can only be rid of 95% of it. Of course we should! Well tell that to the air-conditioning folks.  I meant that players will always have different draws, and in that way it's the same situation for everyone. Of course one's "luck" evens out. Yes, it takes longer than a year, but it evens out. It's superstitious to believe that it doesn't. If you play the lottery for 1000 years and they distribute 50% of the prize-pool, you will win about 50% of what you have invested. The only reason why seeds are needed is that there are different categories of events. If a season consisted of 40 tournaments that are all of the same kind, you wouldn't need seedings, since it would be more like a league then. |
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on Jun 3, 2006 9:35:03 GMT -5
Peer finally wins 6-4, 7-5.
|
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on Jun 3, 2006 9:37:21 GMT -5
Enough already!!! I miss all the action because of your jabbering.
BTW, is it Oli, Olli or Ollie? Either way, go Rochus!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Brinyi on Jun 3, 2006 9:39:20 GMT -5
Enough already!!! I miss all the action because of your jabbering. BTW, is it Oli, Olli or Ollie? Either way, go Rochus!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The double L is to be avoided at all costs. |
|
|
|
Post by Grarliner on Jun 3, 2006 9:40:22 GMT -5
If it is never the same for everyone, why did you say it was? But the goal isn't to make it the same for everyone. I told you no, with no seeds, one's 'luck' would not even out over the course of a year, two weeks, seven years, anything. That's a superstitious belief based on nothing and people love to repeat it. The point was that with no seeds, you would not have a situation where hey, good and bad draws come to an equilibrium over a year for players, which is what you asserted. You would have a situation with the best players going out too early and the lesser players getting too far too often though. But if you really are going to take the tack that you cannot evenly balance a draw no matter what you do and so you shouldn't bother ... well, first off, who says that's true, secondly, it's like saying we shouldn't bother to curb air pollution if we can only be rid of 95% of it. Of course we should! Well tell that to the air-conditioning folks. I meant that players will always have different draws, and in that way it's the same situation for everyone. Of course one's "luck" evens out. Yes, it takes longer than a year, but it evens out. It's superstitious to believe that it doesn't. If you play the lottery for 1000 years and they distribute 50% of the prize-pool, you will win about 50% of what you have invested. The only reason why seeds are needed is that there are different categories of events. If a season consisted of 40 tournaments that are all of the same kind, you wouldn't need seedings, since it would be more like a league then. GoDom, I really don't think you're right about 'luck' and your lottery example. On what grounds do you think 'luck' evens out in any time period? And why would your example, which is false, be applicable to tennis? |
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on Jun 3, 2006 9:41:38 GMT -5
Hingis next on Lenglen. I'm nervous. |
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on Jun 3, 2006 9:45:41 GMT -5
GoDom, I really don't think you're right about 'luck' and your lottery example. On what grounds do you think 'luck' evens out in any time period? Um, on common sense, and probability. |
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on Jun 3, 2006 9:47:16 GMT -5
Hingis breaks to start the match.
1-0. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on Jun 3, 2006 9:50:03 GMT -5
Hingis hold for a 2-0 lead. |
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on Jun 3, 2006 9:50:04 GMT -5
Hingis next on Lenglen. I'm nervous. Any specific reason for that? |
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on Jun 3, 2006 9:50:39 GMT -5
last comments from Eurosport on Peer-Dementieva match:
16:31 Dementieva fires a forehand wide and Peer has 3 matchpoints.
16:33 Peer returns some rasping groundstrokes from Dementieva but cannot convert the first matchpoint.
16:34 Only one more left now as another backhand finds the net.
16:35 An attempt at a drop shot falls woefully short from Dementieva and Peer has caused an upset!! 6-4 7-5 the score
|
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on Jun 3, 2006 9:52:12 GMT -5
Hingis next on Lenglen. I'm nervous. Any specific reason for that? Not really. I just tend to always be really nervous before my favourites (Martina or Monica) play any match. Hence, the hue and cry as my initial reaction when the draw came out. |
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on Jun 3, 2006 9:52:44 GMT -5
Hingis gets the double break.
3-0.
|
|
|
|
Post by janie on Jun 3, 2006 9:52:47 GMT -5
Random! French! Dude!!! ED, sheesh  |
|
|
|
Post by Grarliner on Jun 3, 2006 9:53:35 GMT -5
GoDom, I really don't think you're right about 'luck' and your lottery example. On what grounds do you think 'luck' evens out in any time period? Um, on common sense, and probability. Well, you're mistaken. As I said, that is common sense. People just have this superstitious belief that hey, everything evens out in the end. It doesn't. There is no reason to expect that it should in this instance in particular. Basic statistics. |
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on Jun 3, 2006 9:54:23 GMT -5
Oly tanks the 4th set. Smart boy. |
|
|
|
Post by janie on Jun 3, 2006 9:54:30 GMT -5
Any specific reason for that? Not really. I just tend to always be really nervous before my favourites (Martina or Monica) play any match. Hence, my the hue and cry as my initial reaction when the draw came out. Ha, at least you're not as bad as our friend the cat, who was really worried that Molik might upset Maria.  |
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on Jun 3, 2006 9:55:35 GMT -5
Hingis holds serve for a 4-0 lead.  |
|
