PDA

View Full Version : Why tournaments are a waste of time



Patrick
11-18-2002, 03:40 AM
Playing pool tournaments is like playing in the casino or gambling, you play with the odds. The biggest reason why people play tournaments is to make money, and you won't make any money if your percentage of winning and getting into the money is greater than 50%. If you need to win 4 matches in a row to get your money back (from travel expenses and such), and every match is a 50% chance of winning, then your chance is 1 in 16, so you win your money back once every 16 tournaments. That is a big waste of time and money.

For example on Euro Tour in a tournament with 128 players, you need to win 8 straight matches to win the tournament (double elimination). Then if you have 50% chance per match, the chance of winning is only 1 in 256 (0.39%). First price on Euro Tour is only $3000 and the travel expenses are around $1000. So you win only 3 times your bet, and the chance to win is 1 in 256, not very smart.

Lets look at what your winning percentage must be in order to make a profit on Euro Tour. 2nd price on Euro Tour is $2300, that is little more than twice what your bet was. So winning 7 matches in a row should be 50% chance to make a good profit. If your winning percentage of every match is 90%, then winning 7 matches in a row is 47.8% chance. Winning 8 matches and the entire tournament is 43% chance. So in a year you only make about $2000 if you are the best player on Euro Tour. The best player on Euro Tour is Ralf Souquet, he wins an average of 5.33 matches every tournament. So he has about 87.3% average chance to win a match.

Only 14 players on Euro Tour have played every tournament in the last 6 tournaments, the others play to get experience and with a chance to play with better players. The reason why there are 128 players in a tournament is because of about half of them are from the same country so it is very cheap to attend the tournament. And most of them are A or B players who want to play with the best players just for fun. There are currently 458 players on the Euro Tour ranking list. The top 32 players play to get qualified to the world championships. The rest just play for fun in maybe 1 or 2 tournaments, but they can't afford to play anymore so they quit.

Even if you make a profit from tournaments, it is still a waste of time. Then how about showing your skill to others and get famous? It doesn't matter, you will still have the same skill if you don't show it, the skill doesn't change if you play tournaments or not. Many athletes have wasted their life trying to prove others that they can win the world championships. Look what happened to Jimmy White, he has tried for 2 decades trying to win the world championships and he got 2nd six times. Why play tournaments if you know the odds already? If you know how big chance you have to win the tournament, then why do it? You already know what will happen. If you don't care about the money, then it will all be a waste of time. You can play tournaments if you enjoy doing it and like the pressure, but other than that there is no reason why you should play tournaments. It is better to improve your skills, and when you don't improve any further, start improving your skills in another sport. Instead of practicing for 5 years and playing tournaments for 10 years, you could have mastered 3 different sports! Wouldn't it be good to go for the odds after those 15 years and if you are lucky you win the world championships in 3 different sports.

The dangers of playing tournaments too early

A big waste of time and money is to play tournaments if you have not reached a high skill level, you will waste a lot of money with bad odds, it is better to wait until your odds are higher. I wouldn't recommend to seriously start playing tournaments until you have reached your potential or close to it, otherwise your skill development will get stalled. You are trying to add your different pool skills together too early when they are not developed well enough, and then your potential will not get as high. You can't change your game when playing tournaments either because there is too little time, and when you change your game you will get into a slump. If you play for 3 years instead of 5 that you needed, then you play tournaments for 10 years with bad odds and without the chance of improving your skill much. But if you instead would have developed your skills for an extra 2 years, your skills will be better than if you had chosen the 13 year path. If you started playing tournaments too early and continue for many years with the same stance and stroke, then it will be difficult to learn another better technique and it will take many years until the bad habits are gone.

Patrick

CarolNYC
11-18-2002, 04:55 AM
Hi Patrick,
Im going to politely disagree with you about tournament play for the following reasons:
First, most of the best caliber players are tournament players-personally, when I play a State Championship and come upon a world class pro,I get psyched-adrenaline pumps-to become better is to play better calibers-not only that, I have a sponsor,so money does not come out of the pocket-but just to have the opportunity to play against one of the best is fine with me-wouldnt you like a shot at playing Efren?
Carol~just a thought!

Doctor_D
11-18-2002, 05:30 AM
Good morning:

Interesting analysis and observation to say the least. However, in my professional opinion, your logic does not hold any significant merit or value.

Dr. D.

bigbro6060
11-18-2002, 07:11 AM
for many people tournaments are not about winning money, they are about testing oneself against others and your own expectations. Many people will pay to travel and see it as a bit of a holiday. if u don't want to enter then fine but life isn't just about money

NH_Steve
11-18-2002, 07:51 AM
Once again, showing what little you know of the REAL WORLD!
For one thing, for OBVIOUS reasons it is very rare for a player with a 50% chance to
actually win a tournament -- tourney winners are far and away the players who have a
better chance of winning to begin with, and that's why they play in tournaments, oh wise one.
Now for the rest of us? Here's three good reasons:

1) You know what your costs are up front (unlike the variables involved in gambling) -- Oh,
you don't gamble? -- then good luck finding the 1 in about 50 good players willing to give you a
genuine challenge, period. And what's the motivation for them to show their best, or you to force
yourself to bring your game to another level?

2) You get to play new & different opponents -- Unless of course the part of Sweden
you live in is blessed with a wide variety of strong players at your local room -- which I strongly
doubt. From those different players you get to learn different subtleties to the game, to add to
your own arsenal of competive resources.

3) Playing better players is a key way of improving your game -- And who knows, you might
even steal a game or two or more & find yourself in the money /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

((edit: can you tell I don't use Internet Explorer /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif ? ))

Voodoo Daddy
11-18-2002, 08:34 AM
Moron!!!

Eric.
11-18-2002, 09:11 AM
and the more you say, the more you are proving them right.

Friendly suggestion-words without credibility are just that-words.
Try to build up a little credibility in life, it will help you when you grow up, move outta mommy's house and have to do it on your own!

Good luck.

Eric >and i do mean GOOD LUCK!

SpiderMan
11-18-2002, 10:03 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Patrick:</font><hr> For example on Euro Tour in a tournament with 128 players, you need to win 8 straight matches to win the tournament. Then if you have 50% chance per match, the chance of winning is only 1 in 256 (0.39%). Patrick <hr /></blockquote>

If there are only 128 players, and you are assuming every one has a 50% chance of winning a given match, then any individual's chance of winning the tournament has to be 1 in 128, not 1 in 256.

SpiderMan

rackmup
11-18-2002, 10:15 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Patrick from the archives:</font><hr>...Just when my game was good this happens, I would have won the world championships easy.<hr /></blockquote>

Umm...to win the "World Championships", would you not have to play in a tournament?

Or is that something you could have accomplished "telepathically"?

Regards,

Ken (amazed at the possibility of knowing the "World Champion of Mental Telepathy Straight Pool")

pass
11-18-2002, 11:29 AM
(50% chance per match) X (8 matches) = Patrick is a jack*ss

Unfortunately he's right, 0.5 to the eighth power (8 matches) = .0039 or 1 in 256.

Not that it matters as the other posts have pointed out.

eg8r
11-18-2002, 12:23 PM
One thing funny about his idea is; Who says one has a 50 50 chance to beat their opponent. I would give myself less than 1% chance to beat Earl Strickland. This minute difference will throw off all his math as it is now 99.999:.001

eg8r

smfsrca
11-18-2002, 02:02 PM
Right on, Carol
I'm certainly not going to play Efren or any other champion heads up in a challenge match, but, for the price of a tournament entry, hey, what a deal!
By the way, I did get to play Efren in a tournament about 2 years ago. Don't ask? My tombstone will probably read "In peace may he rest, he lost to the best."

Steve in CA

TonyM
11-18-2002, 04:01 PM
Oh, Im sorry, I think it's a rhetorical question!

Tony
-Patrick, a legend in his own mind

Patrick
11-18-2002, 10:23 PM
I said tournaments are a waste of time, I didn't say playing against better players is.
Efren is not a good player, I would like to play against Stephen Hendry.

Patrick

Patrick
11-18-2002, 10:26 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote NH_Steve:</font><hr>
2) You get to play new &amp; different opponents -- Unless of course the part of Sweden
you live in is blessed with a wide variety of strong players at your local room -- which I strongly
doubt. <hr /></blockquote>The 2nd best player in my pool room is better than Efren Reyes.

Patrick

Patrick
11-18-2002, 10:30 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Patrick:</font><hr> For example on Euro Tour in a tournament with 128 players, you need to win 8 straight matches to win the tournament. Then if you have 50% chance per match, the chance of winning is only 1 in 256 (0.39%). Patrick <hr /></blockquote>

If there are only 128 players, and you are assuming every one has a 50% chance of winning a given match, then any individual's chance of winning the tournament has to be 1 in 128, not 1 in 256.

SpiderMan <hr /></blockquote>It would be 1 in 128 if it was single elimination (7 matches to win), but on Euro Tour it is double elimination from the beginning, and then it changes to single elimination at the end, so you need to win 8 matches to win the tournament.

Patrick

Patrick
11-18-2002, 10:36 PM
Money is evil, this is why I give everything I create for free. I will not need the money anymore because I am not planning to travel to tournaments. Keeping extra money that you don't need or use is evil, it is like you are killing innocent people in Africa.

Patrick

Patrick
11-18-2002, 10:39 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote rackmup:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Patrick from the archives:</font><hr>...Just when my game was good this happens, I would have won the world championships easy.<hr /></blockquote>

Umm...to win the "World Championships", would you not have to play in a tournament?

Or is that something you could have accomplished "telepathically"?

Regards,

Ken (amazed at the possibility of knowing the "World Champion of Mental Telepathy Straight Pool") <hr /></blockquote>I don't care about tournaments anymore, I already know the odds, why would I need to play.

Patrick

Patrick
11-18-2002, 10:41 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Doctor_D:</font><hr> Good morning:

Interesting analysis and observation to say the least. However, in my professional opinion, your logic does not hold any significant merit or value.

Dr. D.

<hr /></blockquote>What is your IQ?

Patrick
11-18-2002, 10:43 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> One thing funny about his idea is; Who says one has a 50 50 chance to beat their opponent. I would give myself less than 1% chance to beat Earl Strickland. This minute difference will throw off all his math as it is now 99.999:.001

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>The 50% chance was an example. It is not 50% every match of course, it is an average. So you can have 10% chance in one match and 90% is another, so the average is 50%. Ralf Souquet wins an average of 5.33 matches every tournament on Euro Tour. So he has about 87.3% average chance to win a match.

Patrick

Patrick
11-18-2002, 11:09 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote NH_Steve:</font><hr>
1) You know what your costs are up front (unlike the variables involved in gambling) -- Oh,
you don't gamble? -- then good luck finding the 1 in about 50 good players willing to give you a
genuine challenge, period. And what's the motivation for them to show their best, or you to force
yourself to bring your game to another level?
<hr /></blockquote>You don't need to play with a better opponent to get better. I compete with perfection, that is my opponent. The goal is not to beat good players, the goal is to become a perfect pool player. No pool player on earth is a good enough opponent, the best computer player in Virtual pool 3 has the best raw skill in the world, anything can be programmed into the game. You can compete with the computer, I have done it for years, that has always been my goal. You need to improve your game in order to have a better chance of winning against the computer. Even if I beat it 90% in 9-ball it is still better than me. The only difference now is that he makes better position from massť shots.

Patrick

Patrick
11-18-2002, 11:21 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pass:</font><hr> (50% chance per match) X (8 matches) = Patrick is a jack*ss

Unfortunately he's right, 0.5 to the eighth power (8 matches) = .0039 or 1 in 256.

Not that it matters as the other posts have pointed out.

<hr /></blockquote>I have never been wrong at anything. Others think they are right when they are wrong, then when they have harassed and laughed and they see the truth, then they can't accept that they were wrong and continue to argue. Everytime I say something, I think about it, unlike everyone else. I always allow that I am wrong about something and I will admit it if I am, but I haven't been wrong about anything yet. People should think about this, don't argue with someone who has been right about everything he have said. Odds are very low that you are right.

Patrick

11-18-2002, 11:27 PM
well, patrick, i've read your post but none of the following zillion reply posts. . you certainly do seem to get this place cooking.

i have to say that i was questioning if that was really you as i read the post. your writing is getting first rate. i hear no accent at all. none. you've come a long way.

as to your basic concept, it is, of course, gibberish.

you've made two wrong assumptions about tourney play:

1) we play to win.

2) all players enter with, more or less, the same statistical weight.

although i've not been playing in tourneys lately, i'll tell you that some of them i entered with the idea of losing well. and better than last time. i'll get criticized here but in a town like this there are players i'm simply not bettable against. not likely to beat. yet. that's ok. as long as i'm moving up.

as to the math. study calcuttas.


dan

rackmup
11-19-2002, 12:15 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Patrick:</font><hr>...why would I need to play.<hr /></blockquote>

Thankfully, you don't. I can just hear Strickland now...

"First, I have to beat all of these Puerto Ricans...and now, ALIENS?!"

I just don't think it would be very pretty.

Regards,

Ken (no aliens allowed in Texas tournaments, only "Super-Heros", like "Spiderman")

Patrick
11-19-2002, 02:25 AM
The 50% was just an example, 50% is the average between all players together. Most of the players with a 70-90% chance play to win, most of the players with a 10-50% chance play to get a chance to play with better opponents so they need to play their best. Most of the players with 50-70% chance play because they think they can make money if they get lucky.

If a player's average chance is 30% chance to win, it is only 30% against a 50% player. If both players have 30% average, then winning the match is a 50% chance for both.

What do you mean with "study calcuttas"?

Patrick

Chris Cass
11-19-2002, 03:00 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Patrick:</font><hr>
Efren is not a good player,
Patrick <hr /></blockquote>

Now this is the first thing you've said that I could honestly agree with.

Efren, is a GREAT player. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Regards,

C.C.

Chris Cass
11-19-2002, 03:06 AM
So, does this mean you won't be attending the Derby this yr.?

Regards,

C.C.~~didn't think so.....

Patrick
11-19-2002, 03:45 AM
Why do you assume I am as bad player as the rest? I am the best player who ever lived.

http://vp3.0catch.com/teraarticles.htm#19

Patrick

CarolNYC
11-19-2002, 05:05 AM
Hi Steve,
Yep,know the feeling, but I bet the adrenaline was pumping!:)
Drew Karen,Jeanette,Allison,Helena and of the 4 of them,won 4 games,ha ha ha ha-but at least I can say"I was at the table!" Right?
You take care!
Carol~"Steve took on the best-not like the REST!"ha ha ha ha!BAM!

CarolNYC
11-19-2002, 05:15 AM
Im sorry Patrick,
I did not mean to start a confrontation-I was merely stating that tournament play is NOT a waste of time-we all have a competive nature in us-and tournament to me is extreme competition-and thats what I like!And most tournaments are entitled"Challenge of Champions",so to be in a tournament like that "makes my day"
Good luck playing Steve Hendry!Carol~still believes Efrens a magician!:):):)

Patrick
11-19-2002, 07:20 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote CarolNYCGood luck playing Steve Hendry!Carol~still believes Efrens a magician!:):):) [/quote:</font><hr>I don't need luck when playing Stephen Hendry, I am better than him.

Patrick

Patrick
11-19-2002, 07:28 AM
You don't need tournaments for extreme competition. You can play matches against players. The only reason why you want to play tournaments is because the best players don't want to play against lesser skilled players. And in the tournaments they must play against them.

Extreme competition doesn't have to be a tournament, a tournament is just many matches added together, and the one who is the luckiest wins.

Extreme competition like the Hong Kong challenge between Efren and Earl is good, but a tournament with many players is a waste of time, the matches are way too short.

Patrick

Nostroke
11-19-2002, 07:34 AM
I never took probability but i agree with you- If there are 128 players and everyone has equal chance, your odds of winning are 1 in 128-If 1 in 256, What happens the other 128 times? No one wins?

Patrick
11-19-2002, 07:56 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Nostroke:</font><hr> I never took probability but i agree with you- If there are 128 players and everyone has equal chance, your odds of winning are 1 in 128-If 1 in 256, What happens the other 128 times? No one wins? <hr /></blockquote>You think of this too simple. Double elimination is not same as single elimination.

If you lose the first match, then you need to win the next 9 matches to win the tournament. If you lose your 2nd or 3rd match, then you need to win 8 matches to win the tournament. The first half of the tournament is double elimination, 3 matches if you win them all. Then you have single elimination with 32 players (5 matches). Even if you lose a match in the beginning, your next match will still be the same percentage to win it. Your chance to win those next 8 or 9 matches is not bigger just because you lost the last match. You need to win at least 8 matches to win the tournament, and that is 1 chance in 256.

Patrick

SpiderMan
11-19-2002, 09:01 AM
Doesn't matter, if there are 128 entrants each having an equal chance, then any individual's chance is 1 in 128, not 1 in 256.

Sum of all probable outcomes must equal 1.0. If each of the 128 entrants only had a 1/256 chance, that only adds up to 0.5. Mathematically incorrect.

SpiderMan

Patrick
11-19-2002, 10:25 AM
You think of this too simple. Winning 8 matches in a row is not the same chance as winning 7 in a row.

Patrick

SpiderMan
11-19-2002, 01:45 PM
I tried to make it simple. As an option, you could print out this entire discussion, take it to your favorite earthly mathematics teacher, and ask him to walk you through it /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

SpiderMan

Patrick
11-19-2002, 02:22 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr> I tried to make it simple. As an option, you could print out this entire discussion, take it to your favorite earthly mathematics teacher, and ask him to walk you through it /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

SpiderMan
<hr /></blockquote>Are you saying winning 8 matches in a row is 1 in 128 chance?

Patrick

Patrick
11-19-2002, 03:14 PM
I thought it was obvious to you. You got it all wrong from the beginning. If you win every match (without losing), then it is one chance in 256 to win the tournament.

Patrick

bluewolf
11-19-2002, 03:33 PM
Patrick,

I also have to differ with you on this one. People compete in tournaments for various reasons unrelated to money.

It is an opportunity to test one's ability against other players. Even if you have a sl, it says nothing about how good you are. For instance, a sl 7 may be good at one place and more like a sl4 in another place. So a tournament allows a person to compete with others from various leagues and parts of the country or countries. It is only then, that they can honestly appraise their ability to successfully play pool under moderate to high pressure situations.

Some places have tournaments that are local. We have a local tournament here on sunday afternoon. It is a time out with other lovers of the sport and fun competition. There is also one on wed nights for those who wish to compete with some excellent pool players.

I play pool for the fun and the challenge of the game, physically and mentally. If I only played for money then it would be my J O B.

On the other hand,those who have chosen this as their profession are to be commended because of the dedication, time on the table, hard work involved.

My hat is off to those who have made achievements in this sport at whatever level they have chosen.

blu

bluewolf
11-19-2002, 03:42 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Patrick:</font><hr>
Dr. D.

<hr /></blockquote>What is your IQ? <hr /></blockquote>

It is not a question of what is your total IQ, but rather what is your pool IQ. It does not matter if I am a genius in philosopy, math, verbal analogies. It matters if I am a genious in pool.

blu

Patrick
11-19-2002, 03:46 PM
The players don't play just to get rich, they play to get enough money to continue to afford playing more tournaments.

Pressure and tournament play is not real pool skill. Having better nerves doesn't improve your cueball control when you practice.

Patrick

SpiderMan
11-21-2002, 04:32 PM
Are you saying that in a tournament with four players of equal ability, each has a one in eight chance of winning?

SpiderMan

Patrick
11-22-2002, 03:53 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr> Are you saying that in a tournament with four players of equal ability, each has a one in eight chance of winning?

SpiderMan <hr /></blockquote>Of course not, it is very obvious, even 3 year old kids know that. I am not talking about that, I am talking about double elimination where you win all matches.

Patrick

SpiderMan
11-22-2002, 12:50 PM
Then you need to check your assumptions. Probablility to win of any equally-ranked player would be same as all others. Sum of probabilities to win must equal one (somebody has to win). In your original statement, you said 128 players each had a 1/256 chance of winning, which sums to 1/2 and is wrong, at least in our dimension /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Won't waste more time with this, I suspect you understand but feel you must defend the statement.

SpiderMan

rackmup
11-22-2002, 01:00 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Won't waste more time with this,<hr /></blockquote>

It is my understanding, that if one upsets a member of the 9th Dimension, he could be the recipient of a bedside pod. Within this pod resides the most hideous of beings, one that will steal your soul as you sleep, infest and cover your body with blisters and mushroom all of your pool-cue tips.

There is to be no reasoning with those from the 9th Dimension. To be promoted to that Dimension, one must prove they are never wrong in their theories. Once in the 9th Dimension, everything they say or do is perceived to be correct, even if it is not.

You are fighting a losing battle my long-legged friend.

Stand down my Brother. Stand down.

Regards,

Ken

Patrick
11-23-2002, 03:52 AM
You don't understand. All of them have a 1 chance in 128 to win, but winning 8 matches in a row is 1 chance in 256. It is 1 chance in 128 because you don't know in which of your first 3 matches you will lose to get another chance. But after you lose that match, the percentages change because of new information, so you need to win 8 matches, and winning 8 matches in a row is 1 chance in 256, don't you understand this?

You really think anyone would say anything else than 1 chance in 128 if all have equal chances? Only apes can answer that wrong. I am not talking about that, I am talking about winning all matches in a double elimination tournament. You also thought you were right in the Marilyn Von Savant questions, even if you know you are right, you are wrong. You just waste my time, you think of this too simple like a kid would do. And like the rest of the humans you don't even give an apology, I am sick of you humans, always arguing and then you really think you are right when you are wrong, this is what annoys me.

I bet you don't even know how to calculate how big chances you have with different percentages. If you have an average of 90% to win a match, then winning 8 matches in a row is 43% chance, you probably don't even know how to calculate that. And then you argue with me about something apes would argue about, don't you see how stupid this looks like? You don't need higher than 100 iq to understand that 8 matches in a row with 50% chance per match is 1 chance in 256.

If you lose a match, you need to win a total of 9 matches to win the tournament. If you don't lose a match, you only need to win 8 matches to win. So if you lose the 1st match, you need to win 9 straight matches (1 chance in 512), if you lose the 2nd match, you need to win 8 straight matches (1 in 256), if you lose the 3rd match, you need to win 7 straight matches (1 in 128). The percentages always change after every match, but the percentages from the start are 1 chance in 128, and then after the first match the percentages are different for everyone. So winning 8 matches in a row is 1 chance in 256.

Patrick

MaineEAck
11-23-2002, 07:44 AM
how can you say every match is a 50-50 chance? If I play Earl Strickland, I think he may have a bit more then a 50-50 chance of winning.

Patrick
11-23-2002, 08:39 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote MaineEAck:</font><hr> how can you say every match is a 50-50 chance? If I play Earl Strickland, I think he may have a bit more then a 50-50 chance of winning. <hr /></blockquote>Hello??? Are you really this stupid?

rackmup
11-23-2002, 09:19 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Patrick:</font><hr> Hello??? Are you really this stupid? <hr /></blockquote>

That's not really necessary, is it my pod-dwelling friend? Go back to being the 'friendly, informative alien' you claim to be.

Remember:

"Me Earthling. Me come in peace."

Regards,

Ken

Patrick
11-23-2002, 03:18 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote rackmup:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Patrick:</font><hr> Hello??? Are you really this stupid? <hr /></blockquote>

That's not really necessary, is it my pod-dwelling friend? Go back to being the 'friendly, informative alien' you claim to be.

Remember:

"Me Earthling. Me come in peace."

Regards,

Ken <hr /></blockquote>Sorry, all the stuff Spiderman had written made me believe Maineack was serious.

Patrick

SpiderMan
12-02-2002, 11:15 AM
You're right, he's shifting and jinking like a rabbit in the crosshairs, and quoting seventh-grade algebra like it was something special.

Heard you had a pretty good session of "real pool" out at Skillman this weekend, wish I could have made it but I was on the road.

SpiderMan

Jimmy Mendoza
12-02-2002, 12:13 PM
Because he only posts things to get everyone's panties in a knot.

rackmup
12-02-2002, 12:17 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Spiderman:</font><hr>Heard you had a pretty good session of "real pool" out at Skillman this weekend, wish I could have made it but I was on the road.<hr /></blockquote>

Every game I won was given to me by my competitor. I couldn't control whitey on the snaps, rattled nineballs and was pounded on by Susan.

On another note: Susan accused me of being 'quiet'.

That has never happened to me before.

Regards,

Ken

Sid_Vicious
12-02-2002, 03:20 PM
Does the words "OHHH, I maybe shouldn't have had any of that chinese food" ring any bells? The boy was attacked quicker than a Ceaser Salad from Wizard's Spiderman! I'd be quiet too ;-) sid

SpiderMan
12-02-2002, 05:05 PM
That's disgusting! Nothing works as fast as a caesar salad from Wizards.

SpiderMan

Professor
12-02-2002, 05:33 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Patrick:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Patrick:</font><hr> For example on Euro Tour in a tournament with 128 players, you need to win 8 straight matches to win the tournament. Then if you have 50% chance per match, the chance of winning is only 1 in 256 (0.39%). Patrick <hr /></blockquote>

If there are only 128 players, and you are assuming every one has a 50% chance of winning a given match, then any individual's chance of winning the tournament has to be 1 in 128, not 1 in 256.

SpiderMan <hr /></blockquote>It would be 1 in 128 if it was single elimination (7 matches to win), but on Euro Tour it is double elimination from the beginning, and then it changes to single elimination at the end, so you need to win 8 matches to win the tournament.

Patrick <hr /></blockquote>

Think about what you are saying. The chance of winning a 128 man DE tournament would be 1/256 IF everyone could lose every match. Since there has to be a winner the odds of any given player winning the tournament, assuming they are all equally likely (50% chance) is in fact 1:127 or a chance or probability of 1/128.

If you do know anything about statistics, you know that the sum of all the possible outcomes has to total one hundred percent (sum of probabilities equals 1). You see the flaw in your logic was failing to recognize that there has to be a winner.

A couple of comments: First Patrick, you may well be smart, but don't know jack squat (yes, you do clearly depict the difference between intelligence and knowledge). Second, strike that statement about never having been wrong about anything in your future post. Not saying it wasn't true, just that it definitely isnít true any longer.

SpiderMan
12-04-2002, 12:44 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Professor:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Patrick:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Patrick:</font><hr> For example on Euro Tour in a tournament with 128 players, you need to win 8 straight matches to win the tournament. Then if you have 50% chance per match, the chance of winning is only 1 in 256 (0.39%). Patrick <hr /></blockquote>

If there are only 128 players, and you are assuming every one has a 50% chance of winning a given match, then any individual's chance of winning the tournament has to be 1 in 128, not 1 in 256.

SpiderMan <hr /></blockquote>It would be 1 in 128 if it was single elimination (7 matches to win), but on Euro Tour it is double elimination from the beginning, and then it changes to single elimination at the end, so you need to win 8 matches to win the tournament.

Patrick <hr /></blockquote>

Think about what you are saying. The chance of winning a 128 man DE tournament would be 1/256 IF everyone could lose every match. Since there has to be a winner the odds of any given player winning the tournament, assuming they are all equally likely (50% chance) is in fact 1:127 or a chance or probability of 1/128.

If you do know anything about statistics, you know that the sum of all the possible outcomes has to total one hundred percent (sum of probabilities equals 1). You see the flaw in your logic was failing to recognize that there has to be a winner.

A couple of comments: First Patrick, you may well be smart, but don't know jack squat (yes, you do clearly depict the difference between intelligence and knowledge). Second, strike that statement about never having been wrong about anything in your future post. Not saying it wasn't true, just that it definitely isnít true any longer.
<hr /></blockquote>

He doesn't understand. He's so proud of knowing that two to the eighth power is 256 that he doesn't realize it's not the correct expression for a random individual's probability of winning in a field of 128 REGARDLESS OF FORMAT.

SpiderMan

Perk
12-04-2002, 01:06 PM
&lt;--glad that my days of college are over...managerial stats sucked....i am surprised that this debate is still ongoing. Just to let ya know, I agree with Spiderman. The reality of it is that not all players have .50 chance of winning.

I think its hysterical the [censored] that Patrick comes up with. Namely the statement "that he has never been wrong". Every one has opinions, and mine rides with the fact that "Patrick is currently wrong..thus his previous statement was false".

&lt;--designing a statistical program as we speak.... 50% chance of downing shot of tequila. What the odds of making it threw the 8 shots are?

SPetty
12-04-2002, 03:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Perk:</font><hr> &lt;--designing a statistical program as we speak.... 50% chance of downing shot of tequila. What the odds of making it through the 8 shots are? <hr /></blockquote>Sweetie, you need to practice more if your odds are only 50%... /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif You've also got to factor in the previous shot-making ability of the shooter and, of course, the time frame in which the 8 shots occur. I might be able to maybe find one or two people who would bet on me to score 100% in this trial, and I wouldn't let 'em down! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

SPetty~~~hope it doesn't sound like braggin', 'cause that's really not something good to brag about!