|
|
|
|
#3
11-16-2005, 02:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: OT: Is winning 1st in 4 out of a set of 8 a grand slam?
But it makes it so much easier. I think after you start up a set of 8, you should designate 4 to be in set 1 and 4 to be in set 2 so that this problem is forever solved.
|
|
#4
11-16-2005, 02:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: OT: Is winning 1st in 4 out of a set of 8 a grand slam?
It depends on if they were 4 that you started in a row. Winning 1,4,6,and 8 is not a slam but 1,2,3,4 is. I also feel that 3,4,5,6 is a slam.
|
|
#5
11-16-2005, 02:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: OT: Is winning 1st in 4 out of a set of 8 a grand slam?
No way. If 3,4,5,6 is a slam, then a 4-tabler should count it if he gets 3,4 in one set and 1,2 in the next.
I'm putting my foot down here: it's only a slam for an 8-tabler if he gets 1,2,3,4 or 5,6,7,8.
|
|
#6
11-16-2005, 02:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: OT: Is winning 1st in 4 out of a set of 8 a grand slam?
[ QUOTE ]
No way. If 3,4,5,6 is a slam, then a 4-tabler should count it if he gets 3,4 in one set and 1,2 in the next. I'm putting my foot down here: it's only a slam for an 8-tabler if he gets 1,2,3,4 or 5,6,7,8. [/ QUOTE ] Noah is right. It is obvious why... Assuming even finish distribution, the chance of winning each tournament in a set of 4 is .01%. On the other hand, the chance of winning 4 out of a set of 8 is .46%. You can't call that a grand slam when it is 46 times as likely to happen. The 3,4,5,6 or 2,3,4,5, etc, argument is bad too. This scenerario is 3 times as likely to happen as winning a set of 4.
|
|
#7
11-16-2005, 02:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: OT: Is winning 1st in 4 out of a set of 8 a grand slam?
[ QUOTE ]
No way. If 3,4,5,6 is a slam, then a 4-tabler should count it if he gets 3,4 in one set and 1,2 in the next. I'm putting my foot down here: it's only a slam for an 8-tabler if he gets 1,2,3,4 or 5,6,7,8. [/ QUOTE ] It's a grand slam if it's 4 in a row, but this is only if it is counted by when a tourney is started. I'm sure some people will see 4 wins in a row and think they got a grand slam but if someone is 8 tabling in a set then this logic would be incorrect. Also I think this can only count if it's in the same session
|
|
#8
11-16-2005, 03:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: OT: Is winning 1st in 4 out of a set of 8 a grand slam?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] No way. If 3,4,5,6 is a slam, then a 4-tabler should count it if he gets 3,4 in one set and 1,2 in the next. I'm putting my foot down here: it's only a slam for an 8-tabler if he gets 1,2,3,4 or 5,6,7,8. [/ QUOTE ] It's a grand slam if it's 4 in a row, but this is only if it is counted by when a tourney is started. I'm sure some people will see 4 wins in a row and think they got a grand slam but if someone is 8 tabling in a set then this logic would be incorrect. Also I think this can only count if it's in the same session [/ QUOTE ] zing. it has to be 4 in a row, doesnt matter when they are started. back to back to back to back. holla
|
|
#9
11-16-2005, 03:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: OT: Is winning 1st in 4 out of a set of 8 a grand slam?
[ QUOTE ]
I like the push though. I don't do that very often when I flop a monster but maybe I will start doing it. [/ QUOTE ] You were probably one of those people that thought Tiger Woods won the Grand Slam after he won the Masters that next year too, eh? Has to be either 1-4 or 5-8 (counting in the order you started them) if you ask me...
|
|
#10
11-16-2005, 11:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: OT: Is winning 1st in 4 out of a set of 8 a grand slam?
[ QUOTE ]
It depends on if they were 4 that you started in a row. Winning 1,4,6,and 8 is not a slam but 1,2,3,4 is. I also feel that 3,4,5,6 is a slam. [/ QUOTE ] 3456 is a Tiger Slam (like tiger woods wining all four majors but not in the same year)f EDIT Damn it I can't believe someone thought of this before me. Must resolve to read all posts before posting. Greg
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
