I assume you meant "Golf" and not "Gold", but Woods would obviously have an incentive to specify as low a rate as he thought would pass muster with the judges. But based on the JREF's response to Pavel, the judges would tell Woods that he must hit 100% of the fairways to pass. It really isn't rocket science to come up with a fair protocol in either of these cases, but thus far the JREF hasn't seemed interested in fairly testing Pavel.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Information on Protocol for Pavel Ziborov Applicant
- Thread starter RemieV
- Start date
-
- Tags
- pavel ziborov
pavel_do
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2007
- Messages
- 363
If only it would be all simple.. Ye.. you state your limits and accuracy and they accept it.. but ONLY after wards they tell you.. well.. you cant really run in your usual conditions, you cant wear your usual comfortable shoos, cause they might give you advantage..How about you do it in 2 sizes less of yours.. and it should rain too..to make sure u CAN perform under any conditions.. cause you confident you can..why not.. OH.. you cant perform it this way... than.. YOU FAKE TIME WAISTER...BYE... whos next??
Ye you wouldn't if it would be told you before all the negotiation started or soon after claim was accepted.. But they say it in the end as you can see... can you??? You can, if you really read threads and negotiation... ( nevertheless I didn't not violet THEIR time limit of 8 hours.. I am not asking for 9 or 10..
(though if it would be up to me, I would ask for a week of testing lets say 50 pairs each day for 5 days.. that would FOR SURE be fair test and would allow me and any other applicant to prove to JREF there ability if they have any...) but as we know JREF is not scientific team or researchers.. they are challenge thats all..
I guess you dont see how it is really IS.. and it is not as simple as presented from JREF side...
I think Startz (thanks to him) asnwered your question.. For past year that you talking about..the delay on JREF's side was about 9 month..12-9=3 ... So JREF 9 month Pavel/Startz 3...can you see the difference??
P.s.
The last thing.. YOU HAVE TO STATE YOUR ACCURACY when you send your claim.. That I DID. And they not asking you to state in advance how much time you need for that...
And as we all know, or at least as most people knows, that JREF DO NOT discuss any details of test or performance or what ever. BEFORE YOU SENT INN YOUR APPLICATION .. thats is really complicate things too..You can see from threads that before my application was accepted and sent inn.. I tried many times to find out details and conditions to make sure I have proper applications but to get the reply it was like ask Queen to come down for a tea.. So I had to do allot of different tests and tried ways from Zener cards to pairs and triples and 5th what ever.. during process and it would really save allot of time to me and JREF if they would only respond to questions and inquires cause they were directly related to test and application.. I didn't asked them something which is non of my business or out of boredom I would liked to know..
Last edited:
Tiger Woods actually hits the fairway 63.43% of the time this year:
http://www.pgatour.com/r/stats/info/xm.html?102
He's ranked 93rd, so he's hardly leading the category this year. Note that if you keep good records, it becomes fairly trivial to determine your success rate.
Given an accuracy of 63.43%, and a baseline performance of 50% (which is probably somewhere about right for the set of all golfers that play as often as Tiger does) one could craft a test to determine if Tiger did have such an accuracy. You could have him hit 250 drives and 150 or more fairway hits would have odds less than 1:1000 if his actual ability were 50%, but such a performance would have an almost 87% chance of happening if it were 63.43%. Now, even at a pretty strong pace of one drive every 2 minutes, that'd still be 500 minutes, or about 10 hours with a few breaks. Any reasonable person wouldn't fault Tiger for a dropping accuracy after such a long test, and so it would seem unlikely such a test might proceed.
Now with someone like David Toms this year (74.25%) it's a little easier to distinguish him from a 50% fairway hitter. A trial of 60 drives with a performance of 43 fairways is enough to state with 99.9% certainty that he is not a 50% hitter, and still give him a 73% chance of success if his skill is really 74.25%. With generous breaks seems you could get through that in 3 or 4 hours. If you're willing to add a few more trials you can improve his chances further of course.
What is really driving up the number of trials is that the ability appears to be wrong most of the time it is needed. Since a person guessing has a 50% chance of success, a 70% performance means it's only improving 20% over the norm. Looked at that way, it means when the guess is wrong, the ability can only fix that situation 40% of the time. Now, you could argue that it fixes wrong guesses 60% of the time, but ruins a correct guess 20% of the time, but overall I'd say either case is about as "impressive".
What would probably help is if Pavel were to actually try one of the protocols for a while and establish a baseline performance for him. The performance over 100 trials gives a pretty good comparison. From there, Pavel could try a few modifications to see if the success rate can be improved with changes.
I'd suggest that it'll take 10 times the length of a final test to really establish parameters that'll work. I don't think the JREF or the readers here (myself included) believe Pavel has done 1000 trials to be convinced the proposed 100 trial test is viable (even if it WERE approved).
Pavel, if you missed my earlier inquiry, here it is again:
Have you asked the JREF to reopen your file?
Have you asked the JREF to reopen your file?
I think rule #01 could not be clearer on this:
"1. This is the primary and most important of these rules: Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers and/or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result."
When you state an ability, there is usually a process involved which led you to say exactly that. It usually doesn't pop into your head at the drop of a hat. I found Cuddles' running analogy pretty good.
Oy, Pavel, you are really milking this David-vs-Goliath-shtick.
Unfortunately, you do not seem to be very good at "History Adjustment Creation Karlroving" (HACK) or "Little Improvised Experience Stories".
The start.
@Anyone: Please read and make up your own mind. Watch how often the claim changes. Do you get the impression that this guy knows what he's doing, other than parading himself to an internet audience?
If you want to continue, please go here.
If you were the JREF and read all these exchanges, what would you think and what would you do? Keep in mind, they get hundreds of similar documents each year.
pavel_do
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2007
- Messages
- 363
I am working on it... and I am doing it not for forum entertainment and first call..I do it, because I do feel I was treated unfairly and I have invested allot of time for the test to happen and I was refused “out of the blue”, when I am done Ill post it on forum, same as I did before with some letters. Beside JREF I have my own things to deal with and they are the priority not JREF, though till the last events the JREF was one fo them..
But any ways, thank you for consideration.
Startz
Muse
GzuzKryzt:
With all respect, I think you are confusing Pavel's long, and sometimes wandering, discussions here in the forum with the protocols he submitted to JREF. Yes, it took him a long time to narrow down a testable protocol. But the "narrowing down" process on the forum isn't part of the Challenge. In the end, the protocols actually submitted were reasonable by past JREF standards. ("Reasonable" is just my opinion, which someone could legitimately differ with.) I would think that all JREF should care about in the end is that a testable protocol, one that guards against cheating or statistical fluke, is presented.
I did say "claim", right?
What takes you so long? You were pretty upset - i.e. motivated - and you said the facts were pretty clear. Taking this into consideration, the letter practically types itself.
And could you please answer this simple question: Do you feel the JREF acted fraudulently in your case?
pavel_do
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2007
- Messages
- 363
Well I think you just “puling my leg” or “taking piss” sorry my French...
What take me so long.. well.. first of all its not public business what I am dealing with, but I can reveal some if its is really important to know to everyone..
Again i think it is clear that I DO FEEL THE JREF ACTED FRAUDULENTLY AND UNFAIR IN MY CASE.. and even you can see it.. just pretend not to.. cause its comfortable and convenient..you dont need to review some of your points and opinion about JREF and the Challenge..
Last edited:
I'll even front you an outline of the letter, Pavel.
"Dear JREF,
given our previous negotiations and your stipulation that every applicant is tested on what he claims, I consider the last stipulation by Mr. Randi unfair and unjust.
I apologize the negotiations have sometimes been unfocused on my part. But the often long response times on your part also contributed to the current situation.
I can perform to the discussed rate of [insert percentage] in a test of 100 trials.
I can do 100 trials in less than eight hours: [insert specific duration]
The expenses will of course be solely paid by me. I do not consider relatively high expenses for testing material a valid reason for the closing of my file.
Therefore, I plead with you to reopen my file.
I want to etch out the last details at your convenience and proceed to a test immediately.
Kind regards"
It's not perfect, I didn't sleep on it. This took me from the time of my last post.
Where did the "fraud" part happen exactly?
Startz
Muse
You did indeed. Sorry if I misunderstood your point.
pavel_do
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2007
- Messages
- 363
You know what GzuzKryzt..I am sure you know... so no comment! I had enough...
Last edited:
Actually I don't. I think you are wrongly accusing the JREF of fraud.
Please tell us where you think the JREF committed fraud.
That made my morning.
I really do not understand how the JREF came to entertain the notion of proceeding to a test with this applicant. It's been pretty clear to me since day dot that it was all about having a go to beat the odds, rather than displaying any "paranormal" ability.
Pavel, do your business with someone else, apply for another challenge -- there are a few out there. Prove us all wrong; put egg on our collective faces. If successful, you'll not only be richer, but you'll be able to try for the $1M for real. Go on, give it a shot. I dare you.
M.
JoeTheJuggler
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2006
- Messages
- 27,766
You don't make any sense here, Rodney.
In fact, Tiger Woods hits the fairway some specific percentage of the time. If you had all the information, it could be calculated. You take the number of drives that hit the fairway, divide that number by the total number of drives and then multiply by 100. It wouldn't be 3 different values.
Do you think a baseball player can have simultaneously 3 different batting averages?
Profound, very profound.
No, but I do know that even a very good hitter will sometimes have a run of 20 at-bats where he gets no hits, or perhaps one or two hits.