Why is it bs to test during an event?
Darren Appleton Video: "Banned! My Story"
- Thread starter JAM
- Start date
Wow. Not a lot of poker players in the pool crowd. I'm kind of surprised. Poker players would understand the odds immediately.
Not a lot of GOOD poker players
If 4 of 16 is being picked for the test isn't the probability of a person being picked 1/4? Just asking lol.
It all depends on how many rounds they test in. If it’s only one round, and 4 of 16 are chosen, then yes, 1/4. But let’s say they test every round, and it’s always the same chance, 1/4, each round. If you made it through 3 rounds, your chances of being tested once is 1/4 + 1/4 + 1/4, or 3/4, or 75% chance of being tested once.
Players will get used to this testing in time.
Darren sounds like he's in progress. Acted an ass and is paying for it.
Hopefully they get their guidelines in check. It does sound like MMA or boxing commission arbitrary fines/ suspensions.
Sounds like he gets it and will do better.
He just might win another big one. I would love to see it. Darren spoke really well on this video, he's come along way.
Darren sounds like he's in progress. Acted an ass and is paying for it.
Hopefully they get their guidelines in check. It does sound like MMA or boxing commission arbitrary fines/ suspensions.
Sounds like he gets it and will do better.
He just might win another big one. I would love to see it. Darren spoke really well on this video, he's come along way.
Well no; those probabilities don't add (otherwise after 4 rounds you'd be at 100%, clearly wrong.)
At 1/4 per round, the chance of getting tested exactly once out of 3 rounds is 1/4 x 3/4 x 3/4 x 3 = 42%
I.e., 25% of getting tested in any 1 round, but not the other 2.
Or, from the other direction, the probability of not getting tested at all is .75 x .75 * .75 = .42
So the chances of getting tested *at least* once is about 58%
For exactly once, subtract:
prob. of getting tested every round: .25 ** 3 = 2%
prob. of getting tested in rounds 1 + 2 = .25 * .25 * .75 = 5%
prob. of getting tested in rounds 1 + 3 = .25 * .75 * .25 = 5%
prob. of getting tested in rounds 2 + 3 = .75 * .25 * .25 = 5%
Which comes out to the same 42% ( 58 - 2 - 5 - 5 - 5 = 41 because of rounding errors.)
I think.
DeeDeeCues
Well-known member
Nice straw man, build it yourself?
Did you forget one of the conditions of daz's rehabilitation is a public apology?
Yes!
At the highest level natural is the best. Look around the world stage, do you see dope heads?
I didn’t want to go full long hand on this. Sorry - have a life. You’re closer than my rudimentary explanation. I really didn’t want to go into the longhand of “well, there’s x rounds. You have to add up all of the distinct possibilities - tested in round one, but not in two and three….”, etc etc. I was just trying to show the poster that it wasn’t just 1/4. I haven’t checked your math, but on the surface it looks good. I really don’t want to devote that much time on here. Thanks for the correction.
telinoz
Registered
This is how transparent and professional World Snooker handle disciplinary issues:
middleofnowhere
Registered
If i heard him right it was before he played. He said he didn't have to go and seemed to be ducking the guy. Later he had to go and was asked for a sample then. Would have been easy to comply but he made a big issue of it.
I think he was pissed because he was tested 7 days earlier. It should not happen during the tournament.
If it is worth winning it is worth cheating for.
You see it in all sports that have a real prize and really, in all aspects of our world...
I don't see pool immune to that phenomenon.
IMO... That is a really myopic view of what should be expected from a system that tests.
If I was running the testing...
It is realistic to think that a cheater who was tested 7 days before a tournament would think he wouldn't be tested again in the short term; therefore, he might be more likely to get dirty after the first test.
Hit him again...we got his agreement on file.
How much acting out should be tolerated in professional pool? That's the underlying question. You can take sides all you want, it doesn't change the question.
Seems like Darren owned up to what he did, and will try to do better. He might have been used as an example to others, which sucks for him, but might eventually be good for the sport.
Seems like Darren owned up to what he did, and will try to do better. He might have been used as an example to others, which sucks for him, but might eventually be good for the sport.
Doping in pool is interesting. One person may need one thing, another player something else. I read about people taking beta blockers. I took them for blood pressure for years. Hated to compete on them because they left me feeling flat footed and dull. I need to be slightly on edge to compete at my best. Somebody that is bouncing off the walls might find that beta blockers or a half-dozen aspirin are just the ticket.
I skipped a few pages so it may have been made clear already but it seems the "bottle" Darren threw was the small plastic sample cup with lid, not the same as throwing a quart glass bottle! Throwing the bottle, throwing his case against a wall, it does seem like he needs to bring himself under control. He made need help with that. What he did doesn't strike me as a big deal or something many other pool players haven't done but it does seem to be a symptom of something that needs to be brought under control.
I do think competitors should have a little time to cool off after a tough loss or an upsetting incident. Unfortunately you get the best "TV" by sticking a mike under somebody's nose when their emotions are at a peak. Some sports or associations have created a set time to let competitors gather themselves. I think at least five to fifteen minutes would be reasonable, almost impossible for a live event though.
The fine seems like it should have a lower cap on it. As Darren pointed out, it could have been far more had he won more. There is some structure but even five thousand can be ridiculous. I am left feeling like though Darren erred he came out of this looking better than Matchroom or the WPA. Matchroom and the WPA should have coordinated then announced the punishment in one package.
It will be interesting to see if punishments are consistent moving forward. Calling this a second offense when the first offense was six years ago seems unreasonable. Offenses should sunset in a more reasonable time. If Darren is playing in a superseniors event thirty years from now and does something considered to deserve punishment, will that be his third strike?
We have Darren's side now, a piece of the other side. It would be annoying to try to play while trying to whizquiz. Within one hour of his last match of the day would seem more reasonable. I am not a fan of Darren's or an unfan that dislikes him. As a relatively uninterested observer, seems like he got the gooey end of the stick!
Hu
I skipped a few pages so it may have been made clear already but it seems the "bottle" Darren threw was the small plastic sample cup with lid, not the same as throwing a quart glass bottle! Throwing the bottle, throwing his case against a wall, it does seem like he needs to bring himself under control. He made need help with that. What he did doesn't strike me as a big deal or something many other pool players haven't done but it does seem to be a symptom of something that needs to be brought under control.
I do think competitors should have a little time to cool off after a tough loss or an upsetting incident. Unfortunately you get the best "TV" by sticking a mike under somebody's nose when their emotions are at a peak. Some sports or associations have created a set time to let competitors gather themselves. I think at least five to fifteen minutes would be reasonable, almost impossible for a live event though.
The fine seems like it should have a lower cap on it. As Darren pointed out, it could have been far more had he won more. There is some structure but even five thousand can be ridiculous. I am left feeling like though Darren erred he came out of this looking better than Matchroom or the WPA. Matchroom and the WPA should have coordinated then announced the punishment in one package.
It will be interesting to see if punishments are consistent moving forward. Calling this a second offense when the first offense was six years ago seems unreasonable. Offenses should sunset in a more reasonable time. If Darren is playing in a superseniors event thirty years from now and does something considered to deserve punishment, will that be his third strike?
We have Darren's side now, a piece of the other side. It would be annoying to try to play while trying to whizquiz. Within one hour of his last match of the day would seem more reasonable. I am not a fan of Darren's or an unfan that dislikes him. As a relatively uninterested observer, seems like he got the gooey end of the stick!
Hu
middleofnowhere
Registered
Neither here nor there, you just comply and then make a formal complaint later. He chose to do it his own way and he's going to pay for it.