Turin. World Tour Finals (ATP)

[ashkor87]

And...
So much for Rublev having no chance of winning.
Don't take it personally, Ashkor, but nobody here has 0%. And, looking at the points, this is the typical, modern court. Super slow, players get to everything, and every other point is a monster rally.
BTW. Medvedev said that "Everybody is a contender here". He should know a bit.

Certainly the court isn't quick .

[ashkor87]

But people need to understand that these percentages are just a way of expressing the chances..0% and 2% both mean the same thing..hardly any chance at all, in my opinion. I still think Rublev and Fritz have hardly any chance of winning the title..not that they won't win a match!

[ponchi101]

But people need to understand that these percentages are just a way of expressing the chances..0% and 2% both mean the same thing..hardly any chance at all, in my opinion. I still think Rublev and Fritz have hardly any chance of winning the title..not that they won't win a match!

Please, take this with a LOT of sense of humor.
I find it a bit odd that a person from India will say that 0% means the same as 2%. You guys INVENTED the number! If you were to say that 1% is, in all practical purposes, the same as 2%, sure. The difference is trivial. But 0% is so absolute that that is where I find that prediction odd.
Anyway. After yesterday's matches, my prediction of FAA winning this thing went out the window. He was blasting his FH and still, Ruud got to it. And Fritz played a very solid match (Rafa didn't). So count my predictions null.
In our PREDICTIONS game, so far, I am 0-3. I have called every single match already played wrong.

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

[ponchi101]

And that is brave. I applaud him.

[ti-amie]

Tuesday, November 15, 2022 Day 3

Centre Court Starts At 11:30 Am

RR
(3) Marcelo Arevalo/Jean-Julien Rojer VS (7) Marcel Granollers/Horacio Zeballos
Not Before 2:00 Pm
RR
(1) Rafael Nadal VS (5) Felix Auger-Aliassime
Not Before 6:30 Pm
RR
(2) Rajeev Ram/Joe Salisbury VS (6) Lloyd Glasspool/Harri Heliovaara
Not Before 9:00 Pm
RR
(3) Casper Ruud VS (8) Taylor Fritz

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

[ponchi101]

He was in control the entire match.
I gather, again, that the FAA pick was a bit hasty.

[ashkor87]

But people need to understand that these percentages are just a way of expressing the chances..0% and 2% both mean the same thing..hardly any chance at all, in my opinion. I still think Rublev and Fritz have hardly any chance of winning the title..not that they won't win a match!

Please, take this with a LOT of sense of humor.
I find it a bit odd that a person from India will say that 0% means the same as 2%. You guys INVENTED the number! If you were to say that 1% is, in all practical purposes, the same as 2%, sure. The difference is trivial. But 0% is so absolute that that is where I find that prediction odd.
Anyway. After yesterday's matches, my prediction of FAA winning this thing went out the window. He was blasting his FH and still, Ruud got to it. And Fritz played a very solid match (Rafa didn't). So count my predictions null.
In our PREDICTIONS game, so far, I am 0-3. I have called every single match already played wrong.

Thank you but there is a place for exactness- a discussion on subjective probabilities is not one of them..people need to understand that. What validity do these probabilities have, anyway? None at all - they are simply a short-hand

[ptmcmahon]

Using the exact numbers of 0%, is not subjective though. You can say something has a 40% chance and sure that can be subjective.

But not 0%

If I have 100 cookies, eat most of them but not all, I don't say I have "0% of my cookies left."

[ponchi101]

...
Thank you but there is a place for exactness- a discussion on subjective probabilities is not one of them..people need to understand that. What validity do these probabilities have, anyway? None at all - they are simply a short-hand

I will revise my probability for Rublev. I think he has a better chance than Tsitsipas right now.

[ashkor87]

...
Thank you but there is a place for exactness- a discussion on subjective probabilities is not one of them..people need to understand that. What validity do these probabilities have, anyway? None at all - they are simply a short-hand

I will revise my probability for Rublev. I think he has a better chance than Tsitsipas right now.

Given that the court is slower thn we expected, that might be a bit premature..Tsitsi can do well on a slow court..so he lost to Djoko- everyone loses to Djoko..remember Garcia winning after losing to Swiatek!

[ashkor87]

Using the exact numbers of 0%, is not subjective though. You can say something has a 40% chance and sure that can be subjective.

But not 0%

If I have 100 cookies, eat most of them but not all, I don't say I have "0% of my cookies left."

I suggest we take this offline..not to be rude, but I imagine people on this forum are fed up with this little debate.