STATS GURU: Pacquiao's Loss Was Almost Statistically Impossible

cool. i love stuff like this.

 

Makes sense. Just from Round 5 and 8 alone the chances of two judges scoring both those rounds for Bradley is about the same odds 2500-1.

 

This content is protected

 

Bang! Bang! Bang!

 

Bull****.

 

Yet people win the lottery!

 

Good work

 

This content is protected

 

Mike Jones loss was pretty statistically impossible too

 

But like he said, it depends on multiple factors that he couldn't include in the actual calculation.

We've seen here that about 90% scored it for Pac, 5% a draw and 5% for Bradley.
If you take away 50% from the Bradley pickers that were essentially trolling you keep about 2.5% who actualy think he won, or are such a big Timmy fan or hate Pac that much they couldn't come up with a realistic score.

That's about as much as the actual press who scored it for Bradley.

So you can say the chance of Bradley winning outright was about 1 to 40 x2 (2 judges) = 1 to 80, not counting in the possibilty of corruption.
(that's far from 1 to 3300)

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Statistical fact: 98% of stats are bull****.

 

That means this statement has only 2% chance of being true!

 

What I found interesting was his suggestion of increasing the number of judges. Not only would that fix incompetent judging, but if you were to try and pay off 4 judges (double the number needed to get a normal decision) it would look TOO obvious. Beyond ridiculous. I mean if boxing wanted to truly sink itself into the grave, it would be like a jury convicting a clearly innocent man. It would be too messy and too many tracks to cover.

I very much enjoy this idea and support it. An even better addition would be to have them seated at different areas around the ring.