|
Post by Traveling Man on Jun 3, 2006 9:57:42 GMT -5
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. LOL! ;D I was worried about Zheng and Dementieva, but now that Lisjak and Peer took them out, I'm worried they'll take Tina out as well. Lisjak looks to be settling into this match She's up 40-0. Make that 40-15.
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on Jun 3, 2006 10:01:30 GMT -5
Lisjak holds on her 5th gamepoint. Hingis leads 4-1.
|
|
|
Post by R. Black on Jun 3, 2006 10:02:15 GMT -5
GS only happen 4 times a year. If there were no seed, luck might not even out for some players. You could have, for example, Schnyder having to face Henin, Clijsters, Davenport or Sharapova in the first or second round of every Slam during 2 or 3 years in a row.
Just like, if you play "pile ou face" 10 times, you could have "face" 8, 9 or 10 times. It might take a while before it converges to 50%, and players don't play during 100 years for that to happen.
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on Jun 3, 2006 10:03:03 GMT -5
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. Sorry, but are you joking? Suppose we flip a coin 5 times. The ratio of the two outcomes will probably be 3/2 or 4/1. Suppose we flip a coin 1000 times. The ratio of the two outcomes might be something like 1040/960. Suppose we flip a coin 1,000,000. The ratio of the two outcomes will be very close to 1/1, since LUCK HAS EVENED OUT by then.
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on Jun 3, 2006 10:03:50 GMT -5
Hingis holds for 5-1.
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on Jun 3, 2006 10:04:36 GMT -5
GS only happen 4 times a year. If there were no seed, luck might not even out for some players. You could have, for example, Schnyder having to face Henin, Clijsters, Davenport or Sharapova in the first or second round of every Slam during 2 or 3 years in a row. Just like, if you play "pile ou face" 10 times, you could have "face" 8, 9 or 10 times. It might take a while before it converges to 50%, and players don't play during 100 years for that to happen. Yes, I know that. That's why I agree with 16 seeds.
|
|
|
Post by Grarliner on Jun 3, 2006 10:05:38 GMT -5
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. Sorry, but are you joking? Suppose we flip a coin 5 times. The ratio of the two outcomes will probably be 3/2 or 4/1. Suppose we flip a coin 1000 times. The ratio of the two outcomes might be something like 1040/960. Suppose we flip a coin 1,000,000. The ratio of the two outcomes will be very close to 1/1, since LUCK HAS EVENED OUT by then. What makes you think we're dealing with a like situation?
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on Jun 3, 2006 10:06:16 GMT -5
Hingis breaks at 15 to win the first set 6-1.
|
|
|
Post by Brinyi on Jun 3, 2006 10:08:27 GMT -5
Fifth set, go Shrimp go!
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on Jun 3, 2006 10:08:49 GMT -5
Sorry, but are you joking? Suppose we flip a coin 5 times. The ratio of the two outcomes will probably be 3/2 or 4/1. Suppose we flip a coin 1000 times. The ratio of the two outcomes might be something like 1040/960. Suppose we flip a coin 1,000,000. The ratio of the two outcomes will be very close to 1/1, since LUCK HAS EVENED OUT by then. What makes you think we're dealing with a like situation? Pardon? You said luck doesn't even out, I showed that it does. I know that the tennis situation is different, but it wasn't about that anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on Jun 3, 2006 10:10:09 GMT -5
Hingis holds at 15 for 6-1, 1-0.
Mathieu playing fantastically. Double setpoint. ;D
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on Jun 3, 2006 10:12:32 GMT -5
Unbelievable.
|
|
|
Post by R. Black on Jun 3, 2006 10:12:37 GMT -5
Mathieu playing fantastically. Not. Going. To. Last.
|
|
|
Post by shenaynay on Jun 3, 2006 10:13:20 GMT -5
Gogo Martina.
|
|
|
Post by Grarliner on Jun 3, 2006 10:14:38 GMT -5
What makes you think we're dealing with a like situation? Pardon? You said luck doesn't even out, I showed that it does. I know that the tennis situation is different, but it wasn't about that anymore. I said people think that everything equals out in the end. That's untrue. Some things do, but that isn't "everything". It WAS always about tennis, too, btw. It's not a fair parallel.
|
|
|
Post by Brinyi on Jun 3, 2006 10:14:47 GMT -5
Paulo!
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on Jun 3, 2006 10:14:53 GMT -5
But then two bad forehands to lose the set. Surprising.
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on Jun 3, 2006 10:16:15 GMT -5
Mathieu playing fantastically. Not. Going. To. Last. I know. *sigh* But he won a set! ;D
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on Jun 3, 2006 10:16:25 GMT -5
Pardon? You said luck doesn't even out, I showed that it does. I know that the tennis situation is different, but it wasn't about that anymore. I said people think that everything equals out in the end. That's untrue. Some things do, but that isn't "everything". It WAS always about tennis, too, btw. It's not a fair parallel. Please give me an example for something involving random proceedings that does not even out over an infinite space of time.
|
|
|
Post by molala on Jun 3, 2006 10:17:02 GMT -5
woohoo Paulo!!!
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on Jun 3, 2006 10:17:15 GMT -5
Marti doesn't convert a breakpoint. 6-1, 1-1.
|
|
|
Post by molala on Jun 3, 2006 10:18:13 GMT -5
Julien!!! first time in the fourth round, already with 2 upsets this tourney!
allez, Oli!!!
|
|
|
Post by Grarliner on Jun 3, 2006 10:18:32 GMT -5
I said people think that everything equals out in the end. That's untrue. Some things do, but that isn't "everything". It WAS always about tennis, too, btw. It's not a fair parallel. Please give me an example for something involving random proceedings that does not even out over an infinite space of time. Draws.
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on Jun 3, 2006 10:18:38 GMT -5
Easy hold for Marti. 6-1, 2-1.
|
|
|
Post by molala on Jun 3, 2006 10:20:23 GMT -5
Random! French! Dude!!! ED, sheesh normally i would complain about julien benneteau being called "random". but the occasion is too good !!!
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on Jun 3, 2006 10:21:01 GMT -5
Mixed Doubles Shocker: Stewart/Matkowski def. Raymond/Bjorkman [1] 2-6 6-3 6-2 Yesterday the #2 seeds lost and now the #1 seeds.
|
|
|
Post by Maeby Fünke on Jun 3, 2006 10:21:09 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? No, I just think there is a maximum number of players who need to be kept apart in the first few rounds. Its not an absolute number.
|
|
|
Post by Brinyi on Jun 3, 2006 10:21:26 GMT -5
Putative semifinalist Fit Dave down a set to RRH.
|
|
|
Post by Maeby Fünke on Jun 3, 2006 10:21:42 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. I prefer 'succinct' and 'concise'.
|
|
|
Post by Tennislurker on Jun 3, 2006 10:21:57 GMT -5
jen fat retired forever?
|
|