[Luanda]

[rquote=2557104&tid=146645&author=RCW1945]Luanda
You seem to have posted 2 or 3 times the same link to weighted averages.
It does not become more relevant to this problem by repetition.
There are no averages involved here as I explained earlier.
[/rquote]#

Nonsense. I have posted two links and they are from different websites.

Edited : My apologies I am wrong. I Ctrl-V 'd the wrong link, it is here.

http://www.cs.cornell.edu/w8/~andru/...portional.html

[Vicky.]

[rquote=2557106&tid=146645&author=Penelope]
But anyway, when you compare that to Rachel Rice fanatics doing 're-dial sessions from 8pm to 9pm', it kinda puts the entire Big Brother process into perspective.[/rquote]

Again apparently.

People say a lot of things on the internet that arent true.

[MissKittyFantastico]

[rquote=2557107&tid=146645&author=VickyJ][rquote=2557105&tid=146645&author=MissKittyFantasti co]Why is AhmedFan posting as Penelope?

Did his other account get a permanent ban or something? [/rquote]
Temp ban, for calling everyone freaks and weirdos...the usual.[/rquote]

Is it not against the rules to make another account whilst serving a ban?

Seems to me that AhmedFan is a bigger hypocrite than I thought, being so desperate to come and spew his bile on a forum that he can't even wait until his ban has passed.

Talk about pot calling the kettle black.

[Penelope]

[rquote=2557110&tid=146645&author=VickyJ]
People say a lot of things on the internet that arent true.[/rquote]
But they can do this if they want, and it's far more likely for fanatical forum users to do it, then casual HL viewers at home who really don't care all that much about voting to skew results. There's loads of casual viewers who don't even pick up the phone, nevermind vote once or twice.

As a fanatic I've voted 100 times before, so I don't see why Rachel Rice fanatics were lying. I think they voted loads.

But ultimately, people CAN vote loads, and that's the crux of it.

[Luanda]

[rquote=2557119&tid=146645&author=Penelope][rquote=2557110&tid=146645&author=VickyJ]
People say a lot of things on the internet that arent true.[/rquote]
But they can do this if they want, and it's far more likely for fanatical forum users to do it, then casual HL viewers at home who really don't care all that much about voting to skew results. There's loads of casual viewers who don't even pick up the phone, nevermind vote once or twice.

As a fanatic I've voted 100 times before, so I don't see why Rachel Rice fanatics were lying. I think they voted loads.

But ultimately, people CAN vote loads, and that's the crux of it.[/rquote]

You do realise that you spent all that money on voting 100 times and it didn't make one iota of difference to the result. You can be sure that somebody else did exactly the same for other housemates. It is useful to have more than a one-dimensional view of voting.

[Vicky.]

[rquote=2557125&tid=146645&author=Luanda]You do realise that you spent all that money on voting 100 times and it didn't make one iota of difference to the result. You can be sure that somebody else did exactly the same for other housemates. It is useful to have more than a one-dimensional view of voting. [/rquote]Well exactly. You get over the top fans of any housemate.

I dont normally vote, but i have been voting 5 times an eviction ever since kris was up. No doubt that makes me part of the multiple voting crap. But for my 5 votes, you can guarantee someone somewhere else voted 10. it all cancels itself out.

[Luanda]

I can't really see how voting numerous times, if you have had a bet, is particularly useful. You would have to vote literally thousands of time in order to make a difference. If one was to do that then the potential winnings would have to be astronomical. If that was the case - ie making a huge bet on an outsider - then the wager would most probably be reported as suspicious.

The best way of scamming the bookies is to pay an insider on the phone lines and get them to divulge figures but the chances of that are very slim and if you are caught you will be p*****g in a bucket at night for a long time.

[Shasown]

[rquote=2557119&tid=146645&author=Penelope]
As a fanatic I've voted 100 times before, so I don't see why Rachel Rice fanatics were lying. I think they voted loads.

But ultimately, people CAN vote loads, and that's the crux of it.[/rquote]

Yes but Sree still got evicted didn't he?

[RCW1945]

Luanda
Apology accepted.
The Condorcet article is very interesting per se but totally irrelevant to our problem.
It involves voting under a completely different set of rules in which each voter is allowed to weight their votes.

[Luanda]

[rquote=2557162&tid=146645&author=RCW1945]Luanda
Apology accepted.
The Condorcet article is very interesting per se but totally irrelevant to our problem.
It involves voting under a completely different set of rules in which each voter is allowed to weight their votes.[/rquote]

Agreed but the same concept is used on BB. One has to take into account the fact that once a housemate is evicted then people may vote on second or even third choices. I'm not saying these rules are used on the BB vote, all I'm saying is when weighted figures are used then these concepts come into play.

[Shasown]

The weighted figures on BBO which were the ones Ahemedfan originally posted on were inaccurate. If you read the blurb on the linked page I CBA to post here you will see the adjustments were made to show :

Every year at the end of a series of Big Brother, Channel 4 insist on issuing percentages for the Finalists which simply don't add-up. This makes it difficult to judge how close the result was in reality. For example, here are the figures released for the Big Brother 10 public vote:

Rodrigo 11% (5th Place)
Charlie 13.2% (4th Place)
David 19% (3rd Place)
Siavash 26% (Runner-up)
Sophie 74.4% (Winner)

...which adds-up to 143.6%. See what we mean? The reason the figures don't add-up is because when 'Final Five' housemates leave the House, the vote counts are all taken at different times and the voting continues.

So, we've taken the trouble to 'weight' the figures for you, and the result comes out something like this:

Rodrigo 11% (5th Place)
Charlie 13.2% (4th Place)
David 14.4% (3rd Place)
Siavash 15.7% (Runner-up)
Sophie 45.7% (Winner)

You will notice that the two lowest placed H/M werent adjusted however in order to give a correct indicator they should have been (it would have been a lower percentage because the amount of votes they received didnt change however more votes were recived for the other contestants, therefore Rod and chucks % would have dropped as part of the overall total votes received.)

If they were werent adjusted then all the other percentages would be incorrect too.

In order to give proper % for all housemates you would need to know total votes cast for all and then votes cast for the exiting housemate at their exit point. If you wanted further information like % of each housemate at each exit point you would need the actual number of votes cast at that point.

They did at one point change the "weighted" results to this but reverted back to the original:

Rodrigo 11% (5th Place)
Charlie 11.8% (4th Place)
David 14.7% (3rd Place)
Siavash 16% (Runner-up)
Sophie 46.5% (Winner) "

Again another set of guess-timates!

[RCW1945]

"when weighted figures are used "
For the nth time, there are no weighted figures in this situation.

[Luanda]

[rquote=2557211&tid=146645&author=RCW1945]"when weighted figures are used "
For the nth time, there are no weighted figures in this situation.[/rquote]

They were weighted from the original raw data. I have no idea on what they based the weightings though.

[RCW1945]

You mean those guestimates (cf Shasown) by BBO. Apart from starting this discussion they are irrelevant to the discussion which is about real data (which sadly we don't have).
Also, when a vote travels down that phone line it is labelled A, B or C etc.
That is the only information it carries. The previous voting proclivity of its sender is absolutely mathematically irrelevant.

[RCW1945]

Luanda
If you really do not want to accept anything I say, but persist with your misunderstandings, I suggest you go back to the OP and read all of Shasown's posts because s/he seems to have a sound grasp of the situation and expresses it clearly (many times).

[Luanda]

[rquote=2557347&tid=146645&author=RCW1945]Luanda
If you really do not want to accept anything I say, but persist with your misunderstandings, I suggest you go back to the OP and read all of Shasown's posts because s/he seems to have a sound grasp of the situation and expresses it clearly (many times).[/rquote]

I was actually agreeing with you.

[Luanda]

[rquote=2557612&tid=146645&author=Antelope1] Deleted. Multiple acounts [/rquote]

You are still making loads of assumptions.

[XxShortyxX]

I read about this on DS, basicly Sophie won it by a landside and the others were nowere near betting her.

[RCW1945]

Keep up, Shorty, keep up!

[GhettoSuperstar]

I was so surprised David came 3rd (and close to 2nd), thought he was gonna be 5th!

[RCW1945]

elphindos
Where on earth do you get such fascinating and accurate data from. You must tell us all.

[RCW1945]

elphindos
Can you spell irony?

[elphindos]

Deleted, multiple accounts

[Shasown]

1 Vote per person would be fairer yes however it wouldn't yield the same amount of money for CH4/Endemol, would it, do you really think they would kill the goose that lays the golden eggs?

[RCW1945]

" IMO, at least to some extent and in some cases. "
That's getting better.
Of course you are entitled to your opinion even if it is founded on nothing but wild generalisations and backed by no concrete facts.
The problem with your first post was that you stated several "facts" with no evidence at all. Did you read this long thread which is all about the lack of real data?