World Series of Darts 2017- Discussion

[Bruce Terrett]

Michael Smith - Adam Rowe
Peter Wright - Rhys Mathewson
Daryl Gurney - Koha Kokiri
James Wade - Darren Hayes
Simon Whitlock - Justin Thompson
Philip Taylor - Kyle Anderson
Gary Anderson - Rob Szabo
Raymond van Barneveld - Corey Cadby

Barneveld gets Cadby again, what are the odds of such a draw, twice

Will Wadey Crash & Burn, or will his match be an Affirmation that he's playing well.....(sorry!)

[ssjsa]

PHIL TAYLOR will begin his bid to win a third TABtouch Perth Darts Masters title against Kyle Anderson on Friday, as Corey Cadby and Raymond van Barneveld meet once again on the World Series of Darts stage.

Legendary 16-time World Champion Taylor took victory in the first two years of the Perth Darts Masters in 2014 and 2015, and warmed up for his return to Western Australia by winning last weekend's Melbourne Darts Masters.

The 57-year-old will meet August's other World Series of Darts winner, Auckland Darts Masters champion Kyle Anderson, in a plum first round tie after being paired with the Perth-born star.

"It will be tough against Kyle because his confidence is up at the moment and he's a really good player," said Taylor. "I've loved it in Perth before and it will be great again this week.

"I'm looking forward to it and it's lovely in Perth, probably my favourite place in Australia so far."

Local hero Anderson said: "It's good to be home, I'm happy to be here.

"I've said before that if I get how I play on the floor onto TV then I can get to the end of the events and that's shown in the last couple of weeks.

"I'm playing well and I'm looking forward to seeing my family, playing in front of friends and hearing that roar again like I have for the last four years."

The opening night of the World Series of Darts event will also see Australia's World Youth Champion Cadby taking on five-time World Champion Van Barneveld for a second successive weekend, having won their meeting in Melbourne 6-4.

World number three Peter Wright, the runner-up in Melbourne, will take on Rhys Mathewson as they meet for a second successive week, with the Scottish ace winning 6-2 last Friday.

Top seed Gary Anderson drew New Zealand's Rob Szabo, while former Perth Darts Masters finalist James Wade, the number four seed, meets qualifier Darren Hayes, who is making his TV debut on Friday after winning through a knockout held in the Pilbara region of Western Australia.

Perth's Adam Rowe will take on former World Youth Champion Michael Smith, while New Zealand-born Koha Kokiri faces Daryl Gurney and top-ranked Australian Simon Whitlock comes up against Justin Thompson.

The TABtouch Perth Darts Masters will be held from August 25-27 at HBF Stadium in Perth. For tickets, visit www.downunderevents.com.au or www.ticketmaster.com.au.

Watch the draw at the OfficialPDC Facebook Channel

TABtouch Perth Darts Masters
Draw Bracket
Gary Anderson (1) v Rob Szabo
Simon Whitlock v Justin Thompson
James Wade (4) v Darren Hayes
Michael Smith v Adam Rowe
Phil Taylor (2) v Kyle Anderson
Raymond van Barneveld v Corey Cadby
Peter Wright (3) v Rhys Mathewson
Daryl Gurney v Koka Kokiri

Schedule of Play
Friday August 25 (7pm local time)
First Round x8
Michael Smith v Adam Rowe
Peter Wright v Rhys Mathewson
Daryl Gurney v Koha Kokiri
James Wade v Darren Hayes
Simon Whitlock v Justin Thompson
Phil Taylor v Kyle Anderson
Gary Anderson v Rob Szabo
Raymond van Barneveld v Corey Cadby
Best of 11 legs

Saturday August 26 (7pm local time)
Quarter-Finals
Best of 19 legs

Sunday August 27 (7pm local time)
Semi-Finals
Final
Best of 21 legs

[GRAYISALEGEND]

WHAT A COMPLETE AND UTTER JOKE

[el_ringo]

Michael Smith - Adam Rowe
Peter Wright - Rhys Mathewson
Daryl Gurney - Koha Kokiri
James Wade - Darren Hayes
Simon Whitlock - Justin Thompson
Philip Taylor - Kyle Anderson
Gary Anderson - Rob Szabo
Raymond van Barneveld - Corey Cadby

Barneveld gets Cadby again, what are the odds of such a draw, twice

Easy, the odds of the first draw multiplied by the odds of the second draw (unless you invent a professor).

The odds are only 8-1 as the 2 events are unconnected & the odds of it happened if there was another event next week would be 8-1 again.

Don't ask me to explain it in depth as it works on the same principle of Deal or No Deal if you have 2 boxes left the 1p and 250K the odds of you having the 250K box in front of you is 22-1 if you don't swap BUT if you swap the 2 final boxes your odds of having the 250K are 2-1.

[ifm]

Michael Smith - Adam Rowe
Peter Wright - Rhys Mathewson
Daryl Gurney - Koha Kokiri
James Wade - Darren Hayes
Simon Whitlock - Justin Thompson
Philip Taylor - Kyle Anderson
Gary Anderson - Rob Szabo
Raymond van Barneveld - Corey Cadby

Barneveld gets Cadby again, what are the odds of such a draw, twice

Easy, the odds of the first draw multiplied by the odds of the second draw (unless you invent a professor).

The odds are only 8-1 as the 2 events are unconnected & the odds of it happened if there was another event next week would be 8-1 again.

Don't ask me to explain it in depth as it works on the same principle of Deal or No Deal if you have 2 boxes left the 1p and 250K the odds of you having the 250K box in front of you is 22-1 if you don't swap BUT if you swap the 2 final boxes your odds of having the 250K are 2-1.

That's Monty Hall, I see the excuses are becoming more desperate

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[BlueSpark]

You would think that Barney would be after redemption after the last defeat.
But his lazy demeanour would override that eventually, cue another loss.
All of the other games look crap, the only one I will be catching up on YouTube afterwards.

[Zeyes]

Don't ask me to explain it in depth as it works on the same principle of Deal or No Deal if you have 2 boxes left the 1p and 250K the odds of you having the 250K box in front of you is 22-1 if you don't swap BUT if you swap the 2 final boxes your odds of having the 250K are 2-1.

The Monty Hall logic doesn't apply to Deal or no Deal, unless you guys are running a very strange version of it in the UK.

(Not that your statement makes any sense in the first place, because a set of binary choices can't have individual probabilities of 22-1 and 2-1.)

[ChrisW]

I have mailed a professor of statistics. If he has time will jot down some calculations for me later.

[oche balboa]

You would think that Barney would be after redemption after the last defeat.
But his lazy demeanour would override that eventually, cue another loss.
All of the other games look crap, the only one I will be catching up on YouTube afterwards.

But...but....this is the PDC

[BlueSpark]

You would think that Barney would be after redemption after the last defeat.
But his lazy demeanour would override that eventually, cue another loss.
All of the other games look crap, the only one I will be catching up on YouTube afterwards.

But...but....this is the PDC

Your point is caller?

[el_ringo]

Don't ask me to explain it in depth as it works on the same principle of Deal or No Deal if you have 2 boxes left the 1p and 250K the odds of you having the 250K box in front of you is 22-1 if you don't swap BUT if you swap the 2 final boxes your odds of having the 250K are 2-1.

The Monty Hall logic doesn't apply to Deal or no Deal, unless you guys are running a very strange version of it in the UK.

(Not that your statement makes any sense in the first place, because a set of binary choices can't have individual probabilities of 22-1 and 2-1.)

sorry I meant 50-50 or 1 in 2 for the odds if you swap

Its because you made the first choice from 22 boxes but the swap makes it a choice of 2

[Ginge]

Thank god they dont make that show anymore, it turned into an absolutely pathetic and dire programme.

[Rout]

Don't ask me to explain it in depth as it works on the same principle of Deal or No Deal if you have 2 boxes left the 1p and 250K the odds of you having the 250K box in front of you is 22-1 if you don't swap BUT if you swap the 2 final boxes your odds of having the 250K are 2-1.

The Monty Hall logic doesn't apply to Deal or no Deal, unless you guys are running a very strange version of it in the UK.

(Not that your statement makes any sense in the first place, because a set of binary choices can't have individual probabilities of 22-1 and 2-1.)

sorry I meant 50-50 or 1 in 2 for the odds if you swap

Its because you made the first choice from 22 boxes but the swap makes it a choice of 2

Why does that logic and odds only apply to the 250k box, and not every other box?

[ifm]

Don't ask me to explain it in depth as it works on the same principle of Deal or No Deal if you have 2 boxes left the 1p and 250K the odds of you having the 250K box in front of you is 22-1 if you don't swap BUT if you swap the 2 final boxes your odds of having the 250K are 2-1.

The Monty Hall logic doesn't apply to Deal or no Deal, unless you guys are running a very strange version of it in the UK.

(Not that your statement makes any sense in the first place, because a set of binary choices can't have individual probabilities of 22-1 and 2-1.)

sorry I meant 50-50 or 1 in 2 for the odds if you swap

Its because you made the first choice from 22 boxes but the swap makes it a choice of 2

Why does that logic and odds only apply to the 250k box, and not every other box?

Answers scribbled unintelligibly on the back of a napkin and photographed from a distance only please.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Rout]

Ive heard that logic many times about DOND and it doesn't make sense to me. It would make sense if the game was 21 identical "empty" boxes and one cash box. But with 22 different amounts, then the 22-1 swap logic can be applied to any box. It doesn't fit in the with context of the game.

[el_ringo]

Ive heard that logic many times about DOND and it doesn't make sense to me. It would make sense if the game was 21 identical "empty" boxes and one cash box. But with 22 different amounts, then the 22-1 swap logic can be applied to any box. It doesn't fit in the with context of the game.

It's applicable to any 2 boxes left at the end. You should always swap to give yourself the best shot at the highest amount.

It's because of when you make the choice as the events are connected.

With the 2 boxes left you are effectively making a choice from 2 boxes knowing what the 2 amounts left are.

So the odds of your box infront of you being the 250K is 22-1 as you made that choice at the beginning.

The odds of the other box are 50-50 as you know it can only be 1 of 2 amounts and you are only making the choice based on these being 2 boxes left.

People will often then say but as you know what is left the box in front of you is also 50-50 which is true but you have no choice over it so the odds of it being 250K are stuck at the original 22 - 1.

The most important part of it isn't the odds of what is known it's where you have the choice.

To move this back to darts the odds of each event being the same are the 8 - 1 but if the draws were unseeded and blind picked then the odds of it happening in a next tournament would be greatly increased. If they have the same 8 seeds on each WSOD and the same qualifiers it certainly wouldn't be uncommon to see the same first round and next rounds etc for every event.

[Rout]

Ive heard that logic many times about DOND and it doesn't make sense to me. It would make sense if the game was 21 identical "empty" boxes and one cash box. But with 22 different amounts, then the 22-1 swap logic can be applied to any box. It doesn't fit in the with context of the game.

It's applicable to any 2 boxes left at the end. You should always swap to give yourself the best shot at the highest amount.

It's because of when you make the choice as the events are connected.

With the 2 boxes left you are effectively making a choice from 2 boxes knowing what the 2 amounts left are.

So the odds of your box infront of you being the 250K is 22-1 as you made that choice at the beginning.

The odds of the other box are 50-50 as you know it can only be 1 of 2 amounts and you are only making the choice based on these being 2 boxes left.

People will often then say but as you know what is left the box in front of you is also 50-50 which is true but you have no choice over it so the odds of it being 250K are stuck at the original 22 - 1.

The most important part of it isn't the odds of what is known it's where you have the choice.

To move this back to darts the odds of each event being the same are the 8 - 1 but if the draws were unseeded and blind picked then the odds of it happening in a next tournament would be greatly increased. If they have the same 8 seeds on each WSOD and the same qualifiers it certainly wouldn't be uncommon to see the same first round and next rounds etc for every event.

Lets say I am playing and I have not had a very good game. The two amounts left are 1p and £100. And I would prefer to be in the 1p club for a bit of notoriety than win the not exactly life changing, £100.

Would swapping give me more chance of getting the 1p? Or would it give me more chance of winning the £100?

[el_ringo]

Lets say I am playing and I have not had a very good game. The two amounts left are 1p and £100. And I would prefer to be in the 1p club for a bit of notoriety than win the not exactly life changing, £100.

Would swapping give me more chance of getting the 1p? Or would it give me more chance of winning the £100?

That's the point the odds on the other box containing either 1p or a £100 is 50-50

But the odds of your box holding a penny are fixed at 22-1

So it give's you the same chance if swapping but not by keeping the original box.

[Rout]

Lets say I am playing and I have not had a very good game. The two amounts left are 1p and £100. And I would prefer to be in the 1p club for a bit of notoriety than win the not exactly life changing, £100.

Would swapping give me more chance of getting the 1p? Or would it give me more chance of winning the £100?

That's the point the odds on the other box containing either 1p or a £100 is 50-50

But the odds of your box holding a penny are fixed at 22-1

So it give's you the same chance if swapping but not by keeping the original box.

So if im chasing the penny i should swap. Ok

So what if I suddenly have a change of heart half way through the decision making process? And decide I'm being silly about the 1p club and £100 would make a nice addition to my dole money?

Is it still better to swap to chase the £100 now?

[Wubbalubbadubdub]

You would think that Barney would be after redemption after the last defeat.
But his lazy demeanour would override that eventually, cue another loss.
All of the other games look crap, the only one I will be catching up on YouTube afterwards.

I think your right, most players would be itching to play the player that beat them last time. If he's done his homework Barney should be able to control the game to his advantage, but it's down to that laziness factor.