Is being in the bottom 3 actually helpful?

[pete fabrizio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Historically, being in the b3 is the kiss of death. Each week's eliminee is pretty likely to come from the previous week's b3. Surprise b3's lose their momentum and go from front-runner to out in a hurry. Ocassionally you see a brief rally for someone in there for the first time, but the main way out of the dumps is to give great performances (e.g. Elliot last year - perrenial b3).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if this is true, but we should compile data on it. Where can I find show by show breakdowns for previous seasons, so I could see who was bottom 3 and who got eliminated quickly?

My intuition tells me that the boottee is likely to NOT have been in the b3 the previous week more often than not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't mean to suggest it was "more likely than not," just that it happens quite a lot and you don't really see this "rally" effect any more than you would expect from a normal distribution and regression to the mean. It's an incredibly small sample, but last season's elimination order is kind of interesting. There were only two "surprise" eliminees -- meaning people who hadn't been in the bottom 3 or its functional equivalent (both Melissa and Kevin had been bottom-feeders from 24 -> 12). But on the other hand, someone appearing in the b3 for the first time usually got at least a one-week reprieve:

12: Ace Lisa [Melissa]
11: Bucky Lisa [Kevin]
10: Ace Katherine [Lisa]
9: Elliot Paris [Mandisa]
8: Elliot Ace [Bucky]
7: Chris Paris [Ace]
6: Paris [Kellie]
5: Elliot [Paris]
4: Katherine [Chris]
3: [Elliot]

I would still stand by my statement that appearing in the bottom 3 is the "kiss of death." The only person who seemed to have much of a sustained "rally" after being in it was McPhee.

[mynamewastaken]

But just looking at your data contestants are 6-3 going home after NOT being in the bottom 3 the week before vs going home the next week.

Wow that made no sense. Melissa could not be said to be a surprise bootee (from this data) since she was the 1st one gone. Kevin left the next week, he was safe in top12. Lisa left the next week the slow death route, then Mandisa was a surprise bootee... Altogether Kevin, Mandisa, Bucky, Kellie, Chris and Elliot all got booted the week after appearing in the bottom 3, whereas only Lisa, Ace and Paris failedto rally.

This suggests to me that being in the bottom 3 (or equivalent) has at least a small rallying effect, in that there is a strong correlation between being in the bottom 3 and being safe the next week.

Whether this can actually sustain you in the long run, I doubt, but that's a much more difficult question to answer. But I would not bet on Richardson going home this week. The rally effect should buy him a little time.

[pete fabrizio]

[ QUOTE ]
This suggests to me that being in the bottom 3 (or equivalent) has at least a small rallying effect, in that there is a strong correlation between being in the bottom 3 and being safe the next week.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is probably inaccurate, since there are more people not in the bottom 3 than in the bottom 3. I haven't done the math, but 3 out of 9 could still mean a positive correlation between being bottom 3 and being eliminated.

[smbruin22]

i think the best money (quick payout, large odds) was just going against assuming people are safe.... i think lakisha may go home pretty soon (and i've been on sligh too), and you'll probably get big odds on it...... i don't think sanjaya is going home anytime soon, but he always seems priced like he is. ergo, others must have some value (big juice too though)

[mynamewastaken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This suggests to me that being in the bottom 3 (or equivalent) has at least a small rallying effect, in that there is a strong correlation between being in the bottom 3 and being safe the next week.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is probably inaccurate, since there are more people not in the bottom 3 than in the bottom 3. I haven't done the math, but 3 out of 9 could still mean a positive correlation between being bottom 3 and being eliminated.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I understand your math. To me, the people who DON'T wind up in the bottom 3 cancel out to a zero-sum.

I was trying to answer the question: Is being in the bottom 3 helpful? To figure this out I discount all the people who are NOT in the bottom 3 (or equivalent) and then look to see if those people who ARE in the bottom 3 are hurt or helped by it.

From the limited data set posted (and my recollection as well) it seems to me that those people who find themselves in the bottom 3 one week are likely to be safe the next, and I attribute this to the rallying effect discussed herein. Certainly, 3 of 9 last year went home after being the bottom 3, but the fact that 67% survived the next week suggests to me that the concept of mobilizing one's fanbase is very real.

As to whether this rallying effect can sustain a contestant through the competition, the answer is much more difficult but I would guess no, as those contestants who are perennial bottom-3ers do not fare very well overall.

You'll notice that those contestants in the bottom 3 on top12 night (Phil, Sanjaya) were not even in the bottom this week. Although there are many possible factors for this, it is perfectly in line with the trend of contestants in the bottom 3 being safe the next week.

Anyway, wasn't trying to argue but I'm not sure I see your point.

[pete fabrizio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This suggests to me that being in the bottom 3 (or equivalent) has at least a small rallying effect, in that there is a strong correlation between being in the bottom 3 and being safe the next week.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is probably inaccurate, since there are more people not in the bottom 3 than in the bottom 3. I haven't done the math, but 3 out of 9 could still mean a positive correlation between being bottom 3 and being eliminated.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I understand your math. To me, the people who DON'T wind up in the bottom 3 cancel out to a zero-sum.

I was trying to answer the question: Is being in the bottom 3 helpful? To figure this out I discount all the people who are NOT in the bottom 3 (or equivalent) and then look to see if those people who ARE in the bottom 3 are hurt or helped by it.

From the limited data set posted (and my recollection as well) it seems to me that those people who find themselves in the bottom 3 one week are likely to be safe the next, and I attribute this to the rallying effect discussed herein. Certainly, 3 of 9 last year went home after being the bottom 3, but the fact that 67% survived the next week suggests to me that the concept of mobilizing one's fanbase is very real.

As to whether this rallying effect can sustain a contestant through the competition, the answer is much more difficult but I would guess no, as those contestants who are perennial bottom-3ers do not fare very well overall.

You'll notice that those contestants in the bottom 3 on top12 night (Phil, Sanjaya) were not even in the bottom this week. Although there are many possible factors for this, it is perfectly in line with the trend of contestants in the bottom 3 being safe the next week.

Anyway, wasn't trying to argue but I'm not sure I see your point.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's called regression to the mean. Look into it.

[mynamewastaken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This suggests to me that being in the bottom 3 (or equivalent) has at least a small rallying effect, in that there is a strong correlation between being in the bottom 3 and being safe the next week.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is probably inaccurate, since there are more people not in the bottom 3 than in the bottom 3. I haven't done the math, but 3 out of 9 could still mean a positive correlation between being bottom 3 and being eliminated.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I understand your math. To me, the people who DON'T wind up in the bottom 3 cancel out to a zero-sum.

I was trying to answer the question: Is being in the bottom 3 helpful? To figure this out I discount all the people who are NOT in the bottom 3 (or equivalent) and then look to see if those people who ARE in the bottom 3 are hurt or helped by it.

From the limited data set posted (and my recollection as well) it seems to me that those people who find themselves in the bottom 3 one week are likely to be safe the next, and I attribute this to the rallying effect discussed herein. Certainly, 3 of 9 last year went home after being the bottom 3, but the fact that 67% survived the next week suggests to me that the concept of mobilizing one's fanbase is very real.

As to whether this rallying effect can sustain a contestant through the competition, the answer is much more difficult but I would guess no, as those contestants who are perennial bottom-3ers do not fare very well overall.

You'll notice that those contestants in the bottom 3 on top12 night (Phil, Sanjaya) were not even in the bottom this week. Although there are many possible factors for this, it is perfectly in line with the trend of contestants in the bottom 3 being safe the next week.

Anyway, wasn't trying to argue but I'm not sure I see your point.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's called regression to the mean. Look into it.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no need to be condescending; I was genuinely looking for a response and I appreciate it.

I hardly think that given the vote totals are hidden and the widespread fear of vote tampering, statistical ties, etc. my analysis can be legitimately construed as a regression fallacy. If and only if we knew that the bottom 3 who are safe were significantly lower in vote totals than those contestants NOT in the bottom 3 could we deduce a regression towards the mean. As it stands, for all we know the difference between Richardson and whoever was 3rd last on BI night was 1 vote or a million votes... no way to tell where Richardson fell on the bell curve.

Even if your alternative theory is legitimate, which it very well could be, it is just further evidence that being in the bottom 3 is helpful as it increases the likelihood of a future positive regression, leading to future safety from elimination.

Is your point that a contestant's performance the week before has no bearing on his ranking the next week? Or is it that a person in the bottom 3 is pretty much on the cusp of elimination, and has no chance to recover? Or is it that the answer is situation dependent?

[pete fabrizio]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if your alternative theory is legitimate, which it very well could be, it is just further evidence that being in the bottom 3 is helpful as it increases the likelihood of a future positive regression, leading to future safety from elimination.

[/ QUOTE ]

In poker, does losing a pot positively correlate with you winning the next pot, because of "future positive regression"?

[ QUOTE ]
Is your point that a contestant's performance the week before has no bearing on his ranking the next week? Or is it that a person in the bottom 3 is pretty much on the cusp of elimination, and has no chance to recover? Or is it that the answer is situation dependent?

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is that the "bottom 3 helps rally the troops" belief is probably overdone (and yes, largely bolstered by the regression fallacy). The fact that people drift in and out of the bottom 3 is perfectly consistent with normal variance. What the bottom 3 indicates to me is that the contestant is not very popular and didn't have a very good performance. Normally that's bad news.

[mynamewastaken]

Good points, well noted. Thx.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that the "bottom 3 helps rally the troops" belief is probably overdone (and yes, largely bolstered by the regression fallacy). The fact that people drift in and out of the bottom 3 is perfectly consistent with normal variance. What the bottom 3 indicates to me is that the contestant is not very popular and didn't have a very good performance. Normally that's bad news.

[/ QUOTE ]
This all seems right.

Being in the bottom 3 is obviously a bad sign because it means you aren't very popular with the voters. But that's not the question I had in mind when I started this thread. Let me restate the issue with a current example.

An unknown performer ("Fred") finished in the bottom three this week. Did American Idol help or hurt Fred by not announcing that he was in the bottom 3?

1. The standard assumption seems to be that this hurts Fred. He's going to miss out on the rallying effect.

2. My intuition is that this actually helps Fred. Most people constantly seek validation of their personal opinions, especially in subjective matters like clothes and music. Seeing Fred in the bottom 3 would have caused many of his fans to start doubting their own ears. Next week instead of enjoying his performance they would subconsciously be picking it apart.