Wow, it must have taken ages to work all that out. Shame that it's complete bollocks. My correct analysis will appear in a few moments!

The public vote is still moderated by the judges scores without the dance off, it's just that with it they get to 'moderate' it twice. What was actually so terrible about series 8 and 9 which had no dance off? We still ended up with the best dancers in the final and there were no more shock exits than there have been with the DO.

Agreed. Complete and utter ...................

I had not intended to get involved in this stupidity, but will just throw in this scenario, then I will do no more number crunching.

Say the judges vote team A first, B second etc. But the public vote goes the other way, putting team D first, C second etc.

Every team would get 5 points.

BUT, as the highest public votes then take precedence, the judges 1st and 2nd choices would be in the DO.

Just one permutation, which doesn't even include tied scores. There must be more, which throws the 95% probability straight out of the window.

No, to be fair the maths in B_OR's analysis takes into account the fact that the public vote takes precedence (It is correct. I've just checked it. ). It doesn't take into account tied scores from the judges which is quite likely (but they do say that).

I am afraid not. This is the point my threads are trying to make, but it is clearly getting lost in translation.

Ed Balls had no chance of getting to the final unless he was constantly first with the public every week. If he was getting massive public support but just one other contestant wowed that week, then it was odds-on in the final weeks he would have been given the boot.

This is the point I am making about splitting votes. If Ed Balls was your favourite then you could have been shooting yourself in the foot by voting for any other couple as well. You could have been assisting in giving another couple the public rank Ed needed to survive.

Another good point (although I am still interested in Claudia).

How many years have we had a final where the public have had little interest in the finalists in comparison to couples that have been given the boot?

This voting system ensures the judges predominantly populate the final with their favourites irrespective of whether the public has any interest in them.

Stop fibbing daveGold. You know its right. You have spent 10+ weeks spouting Mickey Mouse nonsence to try and undermine what is truthful and real.

I ask again for the umpteenth time, are you connected with the show, or do you know anyone connected with the show?

I have heard some of your false arguments before. They are garbage.

For week after week I had to
listen to my mum complaining about that bloomin Ed Balls getting through.
Listen to her bemoaning the departure of someone better.
Listen to her saying her sisters thought the same.

God bless the power of the judges
(or else I was going to buy some noise-cancelling headphones)

Tommo, you are wrong. You have given one example which is already in the figures I have presented. (There are 24 in total.)

When we first calculated the figures we did it by hand. That is when we found the problem and significant bias towards the judges.

Then to check the later weeks we wrote a software program to calculate everything for us. It tallied exactly with our hand-calculated figures for the early weeks

I have just moded the code to allow me to input draws.

I am not wrong. End of!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BIB - seriously??

I know; incredible isn't it. Maybe certain people should rearrange these words into a well know phrase or saying. Life a get.

Perhaps I'm not a member of the 'public' but,with the exception of this year where I would have liked to see how Laura could have progressed,I've had more interest in a finalist than any of those who have left in previous weeks for as far back as I can remember......
Kara and Matt;Chelsee;Kimberley;Sophie and Natalie;Caroline;Kellie.....
and before them,when my memory is hazier:'Ramps';Colin;Jill;probably Kerplunk;maybe Alesha and another that year.......

Then Jim write to the BBC and demand they remove the public vote.

If it remains it has to conform to BBC Editorial Guidelines and Ofcom regulations, which it presently does not.

The Guidelines state every entry must have a fair chance of winning. This system does not do that.

Ofcom regulations say the BBC must ENSURE the public are not misled. It has become clear that most people on this forum were unware of the massive bias. The BBC were even on written record as saying it was impossible for the public favourite to ever be thrown off the show. So the BBC were even misleading themselves.

However, worst of all the presenters in 2015 and the celebs in 2016 have been misleading viewers saying no one is safe. That is misleading as in most weeks some couples can get ZERO public votes and will only appear in the dance off in a miniscule number of situations when they get zero public votes.

At the start of this year in response to James Jordan (I think) the BBC claimed the public choose the winner (or something on that line) but failed to say the judges predominantly choose who they will allow the public to choose their winner from, potentially kicking out public favourites up to that point.

Similar things have happened in Eurovision. Allegedly the 2015 winner of that show was presented to UK audiences by the BBC as 'Your winner', when he was not. The landslide winner that year (Italy) in a vote of millions was relegated to 3rd by just 200 jury members. For two years the public favourite, two really good songs, were incapable of getting better that 3rd in the official contest, because 200 jury members had made it literally impossible for most songs to have any credible chance of winning the contest prior to the public vote.

If the BBC want to run these systems they need to start telling the public about the massive bias in these votes so it is clear to everyone and not just mathematicians. The public need to know when songs or couples face almost impossible odds, even when they are getting massive public support.

That is why Ofcom regulations exist.

Percentage Chance Eliminated (fair 25.0%): B = 4.2% using the assumptions I have detailed if you bothered to read them.

Ie, 4.2% = 1/24

You are wrong. End of.

It took 15 minutes in the boring bits (non-dancing) of Strictly one week.

Should I be bored by the silly bits they put into the show to pad it out, or do something more useful?

Why would I bother to read pages and pages of boring, self interested, arrogant bollocks when a simple bit of maths says exactly what I said. If all the contestants tie when the judges and public votes are added together, the two highest public votes go through, whoever they are. Those 2 could be the bottom two from the judges. Simples!!!! It doesn't take an Einstein, or a computer programme to know that particular scenario is totally, utterly, indisputably correct.

I love the whole show

Useful to whom exactly?

quite interesting. give us a clue

Because if you had bothered to read it you would understand that the case you had detailed was in my calculations.

The probabilities I have detailed are correct. You are wrong to say they are wrong.

ok. roger wilco and out.

I have better things to do as I said. Like having to spend 12 hours a week in hospital on a dialysis machine. Do you really think that the vast majority of people on here are remotely interested in your self -aggrandisement? You carry on being your own biggest fan, cos you don't have many others.

My scenario was totally correct, and I am about to block all your drivel.

I posted my argument in the last thread and you didn't respond. I've offered to discuss this with you in forum mails and that offer still stands. All you've responded with is arrogant insults. I'm thick skinned but I hope the rest of the respondents in this thread are too because you've picked a fight with almost all of them!

The basic problem with your maths is that it assume all results of the public vote are equally likely. After watching Ed Balls dance Gangnam Style, did we really think he was equally likely to be bottom of the public vote as top of the public vote? Was he really the dancer most likely to leave the competition as this maths predicted? No.

Your scenario was correct, but it was already in my calculations. You then went onto say that because you found one scenario where the bottom 2 would avoid the dance off that meant there must be more. There are not in the assumptions I made and under which you did your calculations.

That is where my 95% probability comes from.

Consequently you were wrong to challenge that 95% probability.