Wimbledon '10 Day 4 OoP and Discussion - Page 2 - DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate

**rfceicizgm** · 06-23-2010, 10:38 PM

It's nice that they gave the Isner/Mahut finish a "not before 3:30."

It isn't listed on this thread, but on the "To Be Announced" on the Wimbledon website it says that Isner, Mahut, and Debakker all have doubles matches tomorrow!

LOL but not before 6!

**Unjucky** · 06-23-2010, 10:42 PM

They saw Ree's practice curtsy?

LOL but not before 6!

For Mahut and Isner, I hope they mean "AM... the next day"

Wouldn't it be anticlimactic if Isner/Mahut only lasted 2 games tomorrow? I don't think it can go too long. They'll both be more rested than today.

I'll say 5-3, giving a final score of 65-63. No idea who will win, but I'll say Isner for kicks.

**rfceicizgm** · 06-23-2010, 10:44 PM

Considering I guessed in the realm of 12-10 last time, I'll refrain from prognosticating.

I'll save it for the daily women's picks which were so wrong today as to be laughable.

**Unjucky** · 06-23-2010, 10:47 PM

Okay, let's make a Letterman style 'top 10 reasons they didn't put Serena on centre court.'

10. They saw her practice curtsie.

9. They were afraid she'd "shove those strawberries and cream down her f***ing throat."

8. Caroline's said she cheers for England in the World Cup (after Denmark)

7. Kai-Chen Chang is secretly a HUGE British crowd favorite.

**Almolfuncomma** · 06-24-2010, 12:19 AM

What if Mahut and Isner just went out there for the next x number of days and decided, "Let's just keep this going for as long as we can!" At what point does Wimbledon say "Enough!" and pretend there was an "extenuating circumstances tiebreak rule" all along?

What would be their incentive for doing that? In the language of game theory, this won't be a stable Nash equilibrium

Both Isner and Mahut would try to cheat from this strategy because they would benefit.

**laperuzdfhami** · 06-24-2010, 12:26 AM

What would be their incentive for doing that? In the language of game theory, this won't be a stable Nash equilibrium Both Isner and Mahut would try to cheat from this strategy because they would benefit.

Unless the benefit they valued were only available if neither wins the match. But somehow I don't think free stay at an NHS hospital is what they're seeking.

**Almolfuncomma** · 06-24-2010, 12:31 AM

Unless the benefit they valued were only available if neither wins the match. But somehow I don't think free stay at an NHS hospital is what they're seeking.

Haha yeah, but I guess after some point, neither of them would want to advance because they'd know that would lose the next round. Wow, we are entering a whole new zone here...

**qwerty1** · 06-24-2010, 02:30 AM

The OOP has changed! http://www.wimbledon.org/en_GB/score...ule/index.html

**Penisvergroesserung** · 06-24-2010, 07:23 AM

What's dumb about not putting Serena on Centre is that she's also playing a way more prestigious opponent than Wozniacki's.

Unless, of course, the Queen is going to leave right after Murray, which would be perfectly fine.

**gymnAnemoe** · 06-24-2010, 10:07 AM

What's dumb about not putting Serena on Centre is that she's also playing a way more prestigious opponent than Wozniacki's.

Unless, of course, the Queen is going to leave right after Murray, which would be perfectly fine.

If I was King, I would stay to see Caro

But I can perfectly see the Queen leaving after Murray's match.

06-23-2010, 10:38 PM	#21
rfceicizgm Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 479 Senior Member	It's nice that they gave the Isner/Mahut finish a "not before 3:30." It isn't listed on this thread, but on the "To Be Announced" on the Wimbledon website it says that Isner, Mahut, and Debakker all have doubles matches tomorrow! LOL but not before 6! Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

06-23-2010, 10:42 PM	#22
Unjucky Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 555 Senior Member	They saw Ree's practice curtsy? LOL but not before 6! For Mahut and Isner, I hope they mean "AM... the next day" Wouldn't it be anticlimactic if Isner/Mahut only lasted 2 games tomorrow? I don't think it can go too long. They'll both be more rested than today. I'll say 5-3, giving a final score of 65-63. No idea who will win, but I'll say Isner for kicks. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

06-23-2010, 10:44 PM	#23
rfceicizgm Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 479 Senior Member	Considering I guessed in the realm of 12-10 last time, I'll refrain from prognosticating. I'll save it for the daily women's picks which were so wrong today as to be laughable. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

06-23-2010, 10:47 PM	#24
Unjucky Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 555 Senior Member	Okay, let's make a Letterman style 'top 10 reasons they didn't put Serena on centre court.' 10. They saw her practice curtsie. 9. They were afraid she'd "shove those strawberries and cream down her f***ing throat." 8. Caroline's said she cheers for England in the World Cup (after Denmark) 7. Kai-Chen Chang is secretly a HUGE British crowd favorite. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

06-24-2010, 12:19 AM	#25
Almolfuncomma Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 590 Senior Member	What if Mahut and Isner just went out there for the next x number of days and decided, "Let's just keep this going for as long as we can!" At what point does Wimbledon say "Enough!" and pretend there was an "extenuating circumstances tiebreak rule" all along? What would be their incentive for doing that? In the language of game theory, this won't be a stable Nash equilibrium Both Isner and Mahut would try to cheat from this strategy because they would benefit. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

06-24-2010, 12:26 AM	#26
laperuzdfhami Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 465 Senior Member	What would be their incentive for doing that? In the language of game theory, this won't be a stable Nash equilibrium Both Isner and Mahut would try to cheat from this strategy because they would benefit. Unless the benefit they valued were only available if neither wins the match. But somehow I don't think free stay at an NHS hospital is what they're seeking. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

06-24-2010, 12:31 AM	#27
Almolfuncomma Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 590 Senior Member	Unless the benefit they valued were only available if neither wins the match. But somehow I don't think free stay at an NHS hospital is what they're seeking. Haha yeah, but I guess after some point, neither of them would want to advance because they'd know that would lose the next round. Wow, we are entering a whole new zone here... Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

06-24-2010, 02:30 AM	#28
qwerty1 Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 622 Senior Member	The OOP has changed! http://www.wimbledon.org/en_GB/score...ule/index.html Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

06-24-2010, 07:23 AM	#29
Penisvergroesserung Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 610 Senior Member	What's dumb about not putting Serena on Centre is that she's also playing a way more prestigious opponent than Wozniacki's. Unless, of course, the Queen is going to leave right after Murray, which would be perfectly fine. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

06-24-2010, 10:07 AM	#30
gymnAnemoe Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 526 Senior Member	What's dumb about not putting Serena on Centre is that she's also playing a way more prestigious opponent than Wozniacki's. Unless, of course, the Queen is going to leave right after Murray, which would be perfectly fine. If I was King, I would stay to see Caro But I can perfectly see the Queen leaving after Murray's match. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)