Semi Bragging and a $200 Reward

[Farfenugen]

David,

Do capitalizations count?

Can I count Larue and LaRue as the same?

Thanks.

[kem]

[ QUOTE ]
My reward was for someone refuting the claim. Not for coming close. My accuracy comment wasn't related to the award.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
(To make it easy, I'd suggest using white page searches and multiplying by 2.5 unless they also inlude enumerating unlisted numbers. If so multiply by 1.5. Accuracy is probably not vital because I don't think it will be close.)

[/ QUOTE ]

It sure sounded like the accuracy comment was in relation to the estimation. You also said that you didn't "think it will be close."

You then admit:

[ QUOTE ]
It's closer than I thought so even if I'm right its not quite as impressive as I hoped.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
If it does and you go to enough lengths to prove it to the satisfaction of the people on this forum, you get $300.

[/ QUOTE ]

Proving anything "to the satisfaction of the people on this forum" is undoubtably more difficult than $300 makes is worth to me. I'm far more interested in the original $200 challenge, which I believe I have already met.

To those who pointed out that I haven't verified that the Amazon listed authors have whitepages.com addresses, realize for a moment that some of the authors may actually be unlisted! While I multiplied the whitepages.com result by 1.5, there was no such multiplier for the Amazon results.. The fact that "accuracy is probably not vital", and I was 12% when only 10% was needed, and I don't see how this isn't a win for me.

David -- in the interest of ending this thread, and not wasting any more time, I propose we meet in the middle and agree on some settlement of 2+2 books which total more than one (1) but less than $200 worth. Let me know what you think...

[Farfenugen]

Bah, nevermind. It looks like it doesn't really matter.

[zoobird]

Bad example. Or maybe a good one - it shows how faulty the available data for this is. I'm related to the Anita Goldwasser on the list. She's my Dad's first cousin. Neither of her 40+ year old sons (who both live in the U.S. not at home) are on the list.

Also, interestingly isn't Hank Goldwasser (probably 'Henry' from the list) a popular poker blogger? Not sure if I'm related to him by marriage, but I stumbled on his blog and found it pretty entertaining. Can't remember what its called though.

I took a stab at the Einstein family. And it seems like there are 296 of them (44 non published listings) in the United States according to whitepages.com

I then searched in amazon.com and came up with this list:

albert einstein
alfred einstein
arthur einstein
bernice w einstein
blair einstein
bob einstein
bucky einstein
carl einstein
carol einstein
charles einstein
daniel einstein
david einstein
edwin f einstein
elisabeth roboz einstein
francine h einstein
gilles o einstein
h.a einstein
herbert h einstein
irving einstein
isidor einstein
jacob einstein
jeff einstein
joseph s einstein
leon einstein
lewis einstein
major b einstein
mara einstein
mark einstein
morris einstein
ned einstein
patricia einstein
paul einstein
pedro einstein
rosalie einstein
rosemary einstein
ruth einstein
siegfried einstein
stanley einstein
stephen j einstein
thomas h einstein
vivian einstein
vivian einstein gordon
walter otto einstein
xavier einstein

(I have excluded some hits that might be duplcates)

(a.h einstein)
(lewis d einstein)
(r. einstein)
(a.e einstein)

This sums up to 44 out of 296, which seems to be about 14.8%
or 44 out of 340 (including the 44 non published listings) which sums up to about 12.9%

[David Sklansky]

I already called off the contest but Eintein doesn't make it You forgot to multiply by the number of adults in each household. There appears to be about ten times as many Einsteins as Sklanskys.

[Matt Ruff]

[ QUOTE ]
Thus ten to fifteen percent of all adult Sklanskys are book authors

[/ QUOTE ]

But are any of them professional writers? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

-- M. Ruff

[kem]

[ QUOTE ]
I already called off the contest but Eintein doesn't make it You forgot to multiply by the number of adults in each household. There appears to be about ten times as many Einsteins as Sklanskys.

[/ QUOTE ]

I multiplied by 1.5, why don't I win?

There are under 300 Lippmann's, I cited 2 sources. People pointed out that some of the Amazon authors might not live in the US, in counter to this argument:
- They might be unlisted (hence the 1.5 multiplier)
- My ratio was 42/354, but only 10% is needed -- you can scratch 6 names off of my list and I'm still > 10%


You said that accuracy wasn't important because it wasn't going to be close, and now you're using accuracy as a basis for not paying up. Furthermore, proving my claim to the satisfaction of a 10,000+ member bulletin board wasn't a requirement either.

I think you're out of legs to stand on... Or is there some new, hidden rule, which I failed to meet ??

The way I see it:
- You proposed a contest.
- I supplied a winner.
- You called off the contest.
- You denied my claim based on "flawed" whitepages.com data.
- I showed the data was clean, provided a backup.
- You raised the stakes to $300 and said I had to convince everyone on the board.

You were "90%" sure that "Sklansky" was the far and away winner, then as soon as it looked close you ended the contest and disqualified the best entry on bogus requirements? Next time you propose a contest, maybe we can we have a 3rd party administer it? I even offered you a compromise, which you ignored... I know you don't like to admit defeat, but c'mon!

[WalkAmongUs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I already called off the contest but Eintein doesn't make it You forgot to multiply by the number of adults in each household. There appears to be about ten times as many Einsteins as Sklanskys.

[/ QUOTE ]

I multiplied by 1.5, why don't I win?

There are under 300 Lippmann's, I cited 2 sources. People pointed out that some of the Amazon authors might not live in the US, in counter to this argument:
- They might be unlisted (hence the 1.5 multiplier)
- My ratio was 42/354, but only 10% is needed -- you can scratch 6 names off of my list and I'm still > 10%


You said that accuracy wasn't important because it wasn't going to be close, and now you're using accuracy as a basis for not paying up. Furthermore, proving my claim to the satisfaction of a 10,000+ member bulletin board wasn't a requirement either.

I think you're out of legs to stand on... Or is there some new, hidden rule, which I failed to meet ??

The way I see it:
- You proposed a contest.
- I supplied a winner.
- You called off the contest.
- You denied my claim based on "flawed" whitepages.com data.
- I showed the data was clean, provided a backup.
- You raised the stakes to $300 and said I had to convince everyone on the board.

You were "90%" sure that "Sklansky" was the far and away winner, then as soon as it looked close you ended the contest and disqualified the best entry on bogus requirements? Next time you propose a contest, maybe we can we have a 3rd party administer it? I even offered you a compromise, which you ignored... I know you don't like to admit defeat, but c'mon!

[/ QUOTE ]


JESUS. Will somebody give this guy 300 bucks? Please!

[David Sklansky]

I said that I would send $200 to "anyone who can refute" it. "It" being the actual percentages, not the estimated percentages. I called off the contest because I realized that it was closer than I hoped. Thus I wouldn't be able to publicize the fact with the degree of certainty I wanted. As far as your name is concerned, it is highly doubtful it beats Sklansky because of other information I have obtained.

In spite of the above, I'll send you a hundred buck settlement to avoid hard feelings. Or you can choose to do the research to get the original prize and the bonus. PM me your address.