The Sports Illustrated Cover Jinx

[Time Cop]

Is the dreaded curse going to rear its ugly head again?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/magazine/cover/

(Also note the "Williams Trading" name on Lance's jersey.)

 

[Ksmanning]

"Time Cop" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Is the dreaded curse going to rear its ugly head again?
>
> http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/magazine/cover/
>
> (Also note the "Williams Trading" name on Lance's jersey.)

Yea! I see it too! He's preggers!

 

[Sam]

There is no such thing as the SI jinx. Learn a little about
a thing called regression to the mean.

"Time Cop" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Is the dreaded curse going to rear its ugly head again?
>
> http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/magazine/cover/
>
> (Also note the "Williams Trading" name on Lance's jersey.)
>
>
>
> --

 

[Robert Chung]

Sam wrote:
> There is no such thing as the SI jinx. Learn a little
> about a thing called regression to the mean.

So if they put a really bad rider on the cover, he'll
improve?

 

[Sam]

Maybe from a purely statistical standpoint.

The point is that usually someone who gets on the cover has
done something extraordinary so the only way for them to go
is "down", but I assume that with your knowledge base you
probably figured that out.

"Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:2jvb1fF15bfqvU1@uni-
berlin.de...
> Sam wrote:
> > There is no such thing as the SI jinx. Learn a little
> > about a thing called regression to the mean.
>
> So if they put a really bad rider on the cover, he'll
> improve?

 

[Davey Crockett]

"Sam" <[email protected]> writes:

> Maybe from a purely statistical standpoint.
>
> The point is that usually someone who gets on the cover
> has done something extraordinary so the only way for them
> to go is "down", but I assume that with your knowledge
> base you probably figured that out.
>

I skimmed the article.

I did get the impression though that Mr. Price (author of
said article) didn't fancy Armstrong's chances.

--
le Vent a Dos Davey Crockett No e-patents, pas de brevets
logiciels Pétition contre les brevets logiciels :
http://petition.eurolinux.org Six-Day site:
http://members.rogers.com/sixday/sixday.html Please address
all replies to the list

 

[Robert Chung]

Sam wrote:
> "Robert Chung" wrote
>> Sam wrote:
>>> There is no such thing as the SI jinx. Learn a little
>>> about a thing called regression to the mean.
>>
>> So if they put a really bad rider on the cover, he'll
>> improve?
>
> Maybe from a purely statistical standpoint.

When you recommended to the OP that he learn a little about
regression to the mean, what other standpoint did you mean?

> The point is that usually someone who gets on the cover
> has done something extraordinary so the only way for them
> to go is "down", but I assume that with your knowledge
> base you probably figured that out.

Oh, I figured that out, as my example may have shown. I just
wouldn't've described that as regresssion to the mean. As a
general rule, people who tell others to look up regression
to the mean in the context you just used should probably
make that recommendation a bit less frequently. Either that,
or they should learn a little about a thing called
regression to the mean.

 

[Ilan Vardi]

"Sam" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Maybe from a purely statistical standpoint.
>
> The point is that usually someone who gets on the cover
> has done something extraordinary so the only way for them
> to go is "down", but I assume that with your knowledge
> base you probably figured that out.

It's your turn to learn something about statistics, which is
that they are a statement about uncertainty and therefore
don't apply well when there is a mechanism at work. In
particular, someone who has done something extraordinary, as
you put it, is more likely to do it again than someone who
hasn't. Here's a simpler test for you: In roulette, the
number 22 comes up 5 times in a row, which number should you
bet on next (if you are going to bet, that is)?

-ilan

 

[Ilan Vardi]

"Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> Oh, I figured that out, as my example may have shown. I
> just wouldn't've described that as regresssion to the
> mean. As a general rule, people who tell others to look up
> regression to the mean in the context you just used should
> probably make that recommendation a bit less frequently.
> Either that, or they should learn a little about a thing
> called regression to the mean.

That too.

-ilan

 

[Dan Connelly]

Ilan Vardi wrote:
> Here's a simpler test for you: In roulette, the number 22
> comes up 5 times in a row, which number should you bet on
> next (if you are going to bet, that is)?
>

22. And you'll probably lose. No jynx there, though. Same
with any of the other jynxes (rainbow jersey, SI, ...)

Dan

 

[Dan Connelly]

Dan Connelly wrote
> No jynx there, though.

Whoops. Jynx is a band. Lynx, but not jynx or sphynx.

Dan

 

[Davey Crockett]

Dan Connelly <djconnel@i_e_e_e._o_r_g> writes:

> Ilan Vardi wrote:
> > Here's a simpler test for you: In roulette, the
> > number 22
> > comes up 5 times in a row, which number should you bet
> > on next (if you are going to bet, that is)?
> >
>
>
> 22. And you'll probably lose. No jynx there, though. Same
> with any of the other jynxes (rainbow jersey, SI,
> ...)
>
> Dan

Probability now? Just don't confuse Statistics with
Probability. They might be often related, but are not the
same thing at all..........

--
le Vent a Dos. Davey Crockett http://petition.eurolinux.org
; http://members.rogers.com/sixday/sixday.html Please
address all replies to the list

 

[Ilan Vardi]

Dan Connelly <djconnel@i_e_e_e._o_r_g> wrote in message news:<0%[email protected]>...
>
>
> 22. And you'll probably lose. No jynx there, though. Same
> with any of the other jynxes (rainbow jersey, SI,
> ...)

Actually, it seems to me that beating roulette shouldn't be
that hard. In particular, the approach taken in the book
"The Eudaenomic Pie", that is, to use differential equations
to predict the final placement of the ball, is too heavy
handed. Why not just use the following method: Watch where
the ball lands and on the next bet have your team bet on
numbers in the same half of the wheel (relative to the
motionless table). This only requires knowing the state of
the wheel when the ball is thrown.

-ilan

 

[Robert Chung]

Davey Crockett wrote:
>
> Probability now? Just don't confuse Statistics with
> Probability. They might be often related, but are not the
> same thing at all..........

I used to think I kinda knew a little about probability but
I'm very confused by the Vice President's use of the word
"probably" when he said yesterday that he had no regrets and
felt better after "probably" telling

 

[Kirby Krieger]

"Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Davey Crockett wrote:
> >
> > Probability now? Just don't confuse Statistics with
> > Probability. They might be often related, but are not
> > the same thing at all..........
>
> I used to think I kinda knew a little about probability
> but I'm very confused by the Vice President's use of the
> word "probably" when he said yesterday that he had no
> regrets and felt better after "probably" telling

>
>

self-absolvement was even more revealing: he justified his
incivility by saying that it made him feel real good
afterwards, and left it for his interlocutor to conclude
that therefore he had done a right and just thing. And I
thought the foreskin was ugly ....

Kirby.

 

[Benjamin Weiner]

Robert Chung <[email protected]> wrote:
> Davey Crockett wrote:
> >
> > Probability now? Just don't confuse Statistics with
> > Probability. They might be often related, but are not
> > the same thing at all..........

> I used to think I kinda knew a little about probability
> but I'm very confused by the Vice President's use of the
> word "probably" when he said yesterday that he had no
> regrets and felt better after "probably" telling

A couple months ago I went on a little rampage after reading
an abstract with this sentence, trying to claim that a
particular phenomenon was worthy of note:

The random probability of such an occurrence is
significantly less than 3%.

What the hell does that mean? What's significantly less than
3% ? 2 percent? 2.5 percent? If it was 3%, would they claim
it was significantly less than 4% ? It's still actually
uninteresting, because it's an a posteriori probability, and
it turns out that enough observations (on order of 30) have
been made that you should expect something with a 3% chance
to turn up. But damnit, just being wrong does not excuse
illiteracy. (And that brings us back to the Bush
administration.)

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Davey Crockett wrote:
> >
> > Probability now? Just don't confuse Statistics with
> > Probability. They might be often related, but are not
> > the same thing at all..........
>
> I used to think I kinda knew a little about probability
> but I'm very confused by the Vice President's use of the
> word "probably" when he said yesterday that he had no
> regrets and felt better after "probably" telling

Well, as we all know, Republicans are the party of family
values, clean living and morality, while the Democrats
are potty-mouthed sociopaths. So,, by those standards,
**** Cheney has obviously proven himself to be a
Democrat. Now, the Republicans can't run a split ticket
in the election. So they're going to have to come up with
a new VP to run with the Boy King.

http://webpages.charter.net/micah/newag.jpg

--
tanx, Howard

"The fickleness of fame and fortune's
caprice Together changed the life of Mason
Reese" Alice Donut

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Davey Crockett]

Benjamin Weiner <[email protected]> writes:

> A couple months ago I went on a little rampage after
> reading an abstract with this sentence, trying to claim
> that a particular phenomenon was worthy of note:
>
> The random probability of such an occurrence is
> significantly less than 3%.
>
> What the hell does that mean? What's significantly less
> than 3% ? 2 percent? 2.5 percent? If it was 3%, would they
> claim it was significantly less than 4% ? It's still
> actually uninteresting, because it's an a posteriori
> probability, and it turns out that enough observations (on
> order of 30) have been made that you should expect
> something with a 3% chance to turn up. But damnit, just
> being wrong does not excuse illiteracy. (And that brings
> us back to the Bush administration.)

What does it mean? No Problemo:

``Figures don't Lie, but Liars can sure Figure.''

--
le Vent a Dos. Davey Crockett http://petition.eurolinux.org
; http://members.rogers.com/sixday/sixday.html Please
address all replies to the list

 

[Ilan Vardi]

"Sam" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Maybe from a purely statistical standpoint.
>
> The point is that usually someone who gets on the cover
> has done something extraordinary so the only way for them
> to go is "down", but I assume that with your knowledge
> base you probably figured that out.

The data shows that of the past 20 tours de France, half
were won by the previous year's winner.

-ilan

 

[Richard Adams]

Howard Kveck wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Davey Crockett wrote:
>>
>>>Probability now? Just don't confuse Statistics with
>>>Probability. They might be often related, but are not the
>>>same thing at all..........
>>
>>I used to think I kinda knew a little about probability
>>but I'm very confused by the Vice President's use of the
>>word "probably" when he said yesterday that he had no
>>regrets and felt better after "probably" telling

>
>
> Well, as we all know, Republicans are the party of
> family values, clean living and morality, while the
> Democrats are potty-mouthed sociopaths. So,, by those
> standards, **** Cheney has obviously proven himself to
> be a Democrat. Now, the Republicans can't run a split
> ticket in the election. So they're going to have to
> come up with a new VP to run with the Boy King.
>
> http://webpages.charter.net/micah/newag.jpg
>

http://www.playapixie.org/past/000291.php