Listener 4810 Cognitive Dissidence By Vagans

[emcee]

An interesting puzzle. Some of the adjusted theme words were, perhaps, slightly contrived. On the whole, I thought it was very entertaining.

Many thanks, Vagans.

[midgler]

I thought this was  great fun and very original.  Not the hardest thanks to some generous hints.  I predict some grumbling but for me it was perfectly fair with an unambiguous ending and minimal grid staring.  Many thanks, Vagans! 

[upsetter]

Some pretty tough clueing with plenty of distractors but we managed to stumble over the line.

Thanks, Vagans. 

[HawkCrossword]

I love this kind of puzzle. It's a great achievement to include so many examples, and it has an extra challenge to identify the context for each. I'm amazed at 29A, but, hey, I can't think of anything better.

 

Thanks, Vagans!

[Cruncher]

I thought this was a fun puzzle with some grid entries which slightly stretched the imagination.

On a separate topic I wonder if anyone has received their annual statistics complete with an entire page by Mr G about submissions and sizes and foldings, not just for ease of checking but also presumably to ensure parity in the weekly tombola for the selection of winners.

On average there are about 400 correct entries per week which generate 3 winners each week. So the odds of winning a prize, assuming your entry is correct, is about 1:135 or so taken as an average across the year.

If I submit entires most weeks and, on average, have at least 45 entries marked correct each year - we all make mistakes... - am I right in thinking that I might expect to be a prizewinner roughly once every three or four years?

If in fact I haven't won a prize for over 15 years do we feel that the selection process is flawed and that a public enquiry is a matter of national urgency?

Disappointed of Putney

[NickorWan]

Cruncher, it can take a lot of events before actual results resemble theoretical probability. If you toss a coin twice, theoretical probability tells us that we should see one heads and one tails, however, quite likely that wouldn’t be the case. The more we tossed the coin, the more likely actual results would get reliably near to theoretical probability. Because the numbers here are so vast – there are over 10M combinations of three winners from 400 – it would probably take billions of draws to see results resembling anything like theoretical probability.

If you put eight different packs of playing cards in a box, shake the box and draw out three card without looking. Note the cards, put them back and repeat the process. How many times before you have drawn all 416 cards? Theoretical probability tells us that each card should appear within 133 goes, but I don’t think you would have them all if you did it all day. However, if you did nothing else but that for the next ten years, you might see the averages nearing something like theoretical probability.

[HawkCrossword]

I agree with NickorWan on the stats. You do need a large sample size, but you also need a good, testable hypothesis. I’m surprised to hear JG uses a tombola, as I’d have thought this would favour those entries submitted on printouts, having thicker paper. That might be a good one to test, but we don’t have the data.

 

The fairest way to pick a winner would be to use the Random button on a scientific calculator, which generates a number between 0 and 0.9999999… Number the entries from 1 to n, then the integer value of (n * RND) + 1 is the winner. Simples.

 

For the record, I started submitting in 2015. I won twice in 2016, but haven’t since. I must have submitted roughly 350-400 correct entries since the last prize. Still, that’s only 8 years compared to your 15, so I get your concern, Cruncher.