Home› Archived Forums› General Discussion
Options

Federer twins

degsyhufcdegsyhufc Posts: 59,251
Forum Member
✭
in General Discussion #1
Just been on the news that Roger Federer's wife has given birth to twin boys.
They already have twin girls.

That can't be very common.
«1

Comments

  • Options
    BelligerenceBelligerence Posts: 40,613
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #2
    1 in 3000 chance.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,486
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #3
    Imagine the racquet 4 kids will be causing...
  • Options
    jsmith99jsmith99 Posts: 20,382
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #4
    Belligerence wrote: »
    1 in 3000 chance.

    Of what? having twins? Having twin girls? And is the father's name significant?
  • Options
    lemoncurdlemoncurd Posts: 57,778
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #5
    She clearly likes a Roger.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,373
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #6
    jsmith99 wrote: »
    Of what? having twins? Having twin girls? And is the father's name significant?

    Presumably refers to the odds of having two sets of twins by the same parents, and are you seriously asking who Roger Federer is?
  • Options
    AddisonianAddisonian Posts: 16,377
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #7
    jsmith99 wrote: »
    And is the father's name significant?
    Yes I'd say so...
  • Options
    doe_a_deerdoe_a_deer Posts: 2,132
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #8
    Belligerence wrote: »
    1 in 3000 chance.

    Surely it's less common than that? Where did you get that figure?
  • Options
    AddisonianAddisonian Posts: 16,377
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #9
    doe_a_deer wrote: »
    Surely it's less common than that? Where did you get that figure?
    I was thinking that too. It must be rarer than that.
  • Options
    BluescopeBluescope Posts: 3,432
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #10
    The chances of having twins is shockingly low I just read it is 1 in 30 or 3.3%. It seems in the last few years it has gone up 76% as women are waiting until much later in life to have kids. You are also twice as likely to have twins again if your already have one set.

    so 1 in 3000 maybe not as daft as it sounds.
  • Options
    ShappyShappy Posts: 14,531
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #11
    That's ace.
  • Options
    farmer bobfarmer bob Posts: 27,595
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #12
    Back of the Net!
    oops wrong sport :blush:
  • Options
    Penny CrayonPenny Crayon Posts: 36,158
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #13
    Anyone remember the Bobsey Twins?
  • Options
    CryolemonCryolemon Posts: 8,670
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #14
    jsmith99 wrote: »
    Of what? having twins? Having twin girls? And is the father's name significant?

    Having two sets of twins I would think. IIRC the odds of twins, for any one pregnancy, is about 1 in 60, but it's slightly higher for some families.
  • Options
    BelligerenceBelligerence Posts: 40,613
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #15
    jsmith99 wrote: »
    Of what? having twins? Having twin girls? And is the father's name significant?
    Having two sets of twins with different sexes.
    doe_a_deer wrote: »
    Surely it's less common than that? Where did you get that figure?
    Heard it on the radio.
  • Options
    FilliAFilliA Posts: 864
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #16
    I knew someone who had been told that because of the way she ovulated she was likely to be carrying twins every time she got pregnant. After the first set she lived in terror of a second pregnancy, she said she did want one more child but no way was she going to risk getting two.
  • Options
    shackfanshackfan Posts: 15,461
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #17
    jsmith99 wrote: »
    Of what? having twins? Having twin girls? And is the father's name significant?

    No, I'm sure having the name Roger Federer doesn't make any difference to the odds of having 2 sets of twins ( he does normally win in 2 sets though!!!). Have you no idea who he is? You CANNOT be serious.... (ok, right sport, wrong player!)
  • Options
    jsmith99jsmith99 Posts: 20,382
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #18
    echad wrote: »
    Presumably refers to the odds of having two sets of twins by the same parents, and are you seriously asking who Roger Federer is?

    The chance of a person who's had twins having a second set of twins is exactly the same as any named person having one set of twins. Or maybe slightly more likely, since it suggests that twins run in the family.

    It's only if you name a specific person that, to get the odds of two sets of twins, you multiply the odds together.

    A woman went to prison because a senior forensic scientist didn't understand this - nor, apparently, did the judge or jury.

    And, no, I've heard the name somewhere, but I've no idea who he is.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,373
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #19
    jsmith99 wrote: »
    The chance of a person who's had twins having a second set of twins is exactly the same as any named person having one set of twins. Or maybe slightly more likely, since it suggests that twins run in the family.

    It's only if you name a specific person that, to get the odds of two sets of twins, you multiply the odds together.

    A woman went to prison because a senior forensic scientist didn't understand this - nor, apparently, did the judge or jury.

    And, no, I've heard the name somewhere, but I've no idea who he is.

    I know, which is why I mentioned that it was to the same set of parents - the same individuals having two sets of twins. :confused:

    You might wanna look him up - some would debate whether he is the greatest male tennis player of all time; but he's certainly the most successful.
  • Options
    fi~fi~ Posts: 5,481
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #20
    my first thought was IVF but then reading on the bbc site apparently twins does run in both families
  • Options
    Mumof5Mumof5 Posts: 108
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #21
    I have two sets of twins - both my maternal grandparents are twins, and my maternal Nan's twin had twins. Definitely runs in families down the mother's side.

    It's actually a lot more common than people think.
  • Options
    Steveaustin316Steveaustin316 Posts: 15,779
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #22
    Anyone tempted to put bets on the Federer children winning everything at Wimbledon 2034?:D
  • Options
    clarriboclarribo Posts: 6,258
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #23
    jsmith99 wrote: »
    The chance of a person who's had twins having a second set of twins is exactly the same as any named person having one set of twins. Or maybe slightly more likely, since it suggests that twins run in the family.

    It's only if you name a specific person that, to get the odds of two sets of twins, you multiply the odds together.

    A woman went to prison because a senior forensic scientist didn't understand this - nor, apparently, did the judge or jury.

    And, no, I've heard the name somewhere, but I've no idea who he is.

    Do you have a link to this what was the case?
  • Options
    jsmith99jsmith99 Posts: 20,382
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #24
    echad wrote: »
    ....................You might wanna look him up - some would debate whether he is the greatest male tennis player of all time; but he's certainly the most successful.

    Now you've explained who he is, I don't need to look him up.
    clarribo wrote: »
    Do you have a link to this what was the case?

    Sally Clark

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Clark

    http://plus.maths.org/content/os/issue21/features/clark/index
  • Options
    FizzbinFizzbin Posts: 36,827
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #25
    Steveaustin316 wrote: »
    Anyone tempted to put bets on the Federer children winning everything at Wimbledon 2034?:D
    Definitely the Mixed Doubles.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 80
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #26
    I read earlier,think it was on Yahoo news that the older twins are identical,i have identical twins and was told that these do not run in families and are a 'fluke',only the non identical type do.

    If the newborn twins are non identical then it would be a 'fluke' with the first set and possibly a family thing with the newborns although even in non identicals apparently they only run through the maternal side,all to do with hyper ovulation genes.

    I read far too many books when pregnant with mine lol,maybe there is different research around now,it was 17 years ago.

    If both sets are identical that is a lovely double fluke :)
Sign In or Register to comment.