Are we reaching a threshold?

[mps247]

Interesting...

Can you state the so-called Law Of Averages please?

I take it you don't gamble Starkey...

I think Phil misspoke, but the rest of his argument was well made. One small error at the end, where he has made a mistake that most people make. I think he can be forgiven, don't you?

Phil, the law of averages is something you would do best to ignore, especially if you are gambler! If I was to flip a fair coin ten times, and the outcome was heads every time, most people would conclude that the coin is most likely to yield tails at the next throw. This would be incorrect - there is a 50% chance that the coin will yield tails, and a 50% chance the coin will yield heads. The belief that this coin is more likely to yield tails on the next throw is known as the law of averages. It is the false belief that there should be a correcting factor.

It is true that the proportion of tails will approach 50% as total coin tosses increase. This is the law of large numbers, and differs from the law of averages. Toss the coin 100 times and you may get heads 60% of the time (60 heads). Toss the coin 1000 times and you may end up with heads 55% of the time (550 heads). Yes, you are approaching 50%. However, the difference between the absolute number of heads and the mean value has increased from 10 to 50. If you had placed a bet on tails for every flip, you would be further out of pocket after 1000 throws, even though the proportion of tails being thrown is approaching 50%.

When it comes to tube challenging, there is no reason why a higher standard should be reached with more participants. It is quite possible that there are a few extremely good tube challengers, and the rest of us are awful. There might only be one superb tube challenger, or all of us could be amazing.

I believe what Phil meant to say was that the experiences gained and shared on this forum, and actually tube challenging with others on this forum, have raised the standard as people have learned more from each other. Newcomers may have brought a new perspective to aspects of the challenge, and this has been mixed together with the experience of people who've been doing it for ages. I suppose it could be compared with the genetic algorithms in Hakan's programs.

[tubeguru]

I think what I was getting at originally was that there must be a FINITE time that can be achieved. After all, we have a fixed number of lines, trains run at a maximum speed, people can only cover the distance between two stations in a certain time before they collapse and die.

The reason I mentioned people giving up was simply so I could highlight the fact that they have got to the point where they know that despite ANYTHING they do, they will not be able to cover the remaining distance in a time required to get the record. If we could extend this idea to the whole system, we can see that if there were ONE route which was the absolute fastest (based on the above factors), then once someone had completed a time over that route and had gone at the absolute FASTEST speed over it, then there would be no point in anyone trying for anything faster.

The one factor in tube challenging that throws everything open is the train delay factor. On some days the trains run like clockwork, but given the flexibility the controllers have I have trouble believing that the tube runs to the same times every day all week. Therefore, because the people who run the tube are shifting the goalposts we in turn have nothing concrete to aim at. You could arrive at the platform at 12pm exactly five days in a row and have to wait five different amounts of time for the next train.

If the trains ALWAYS ran to the same times every day and there were never ANY delays then there would be an absolute fastest route which would yield the absolute fastest time that could never be beaten, whatever you did. However, the chances of us finding it are slim because there are so many different ways to do this thing, and the running factor adds many more possibilities.

I still think that we are reaching a levelling-out point of sorts, where most attempts are coming in at around the same sort of time, but given the variable factors (delays, running locations) there is no doubt a reasonable increase in time to be had out there somewhere. I suppose that is the equivalent of today's athletes continually trying to break athletics world records.

As you can see, most of my thinking is theoretical, as none of us have any idea what the current absolute fastest time is, and I suppose we'll never know unless someone goes out and does a challenge every day for the next year or something.

Oh, hang on ...

[Wanstead]

Has it got to the stage where a threshold has almost been reached, where any attempt will only succeed in breaking the record if lightning changes are made, trains run exactly to time and there are NO delays all day? Or is there still a lot of time to be made up and a much faster time just ready to be set if only everything holds together reasonably well?

The last two full network attemps (Hakan and Andi) have both been aborted near the end when it became apparent that the time would not be beaten. This points to the current record being close to the best anyone can hope to achieve given the current configuration.

I do agree with you in part but you've almost answered your own question. If breaking the record time does rely pretty much on luck then so be it: you'll have to get lucky and that might require many attempts (viz: Andi). If it was solely about getting a prefect route then you could almost win it on paper and any reasonably fit person could then get the time in by going through the motions on the day. And that would be that, but It's the random nature of such a large transport system which makes it truly challenging.

[tubeguru]

I was aware that I was answering my own question as I went along.

[Wanstead]

Here's a quick plot of all the recorded completions of the full network, taken from Scriv's site.

[tubeguru]

Do you have any annotations you could add to that to givce it some meaning?

[greatkingrat]

The network in 2002 was different to the current network so you can't compare a 275 time with a 270 time on the same graph.

[Wanstead]

Do you have any annotations you could add to that to givce it some meaning?

[Edit: I've made the scale on the axes more readable.]

My Excel skills when it comes to charts aren't so hot so it's a quick plot so you can see trends.

Interesting things you can see at a glance:

• Overall trend (black line) is downwards over time, in other words times are getter quicker recently
• Dense cluster of recent completions showing the level of activity which drew your attention and started this topic
• Some distant outlying points show that, for some, getting a completion at all costs is still important

The network in 2002 was different to the current network so you can't compare a 275 time with a 270 time on the same graph.

I'm trying to work out how to split the data into three sets but keep it on the same graph. If I manage it, I'll update the image above.

[RichieG]

Interesting things you can see at a glance:

• Overall trend (black line) is downwards over time, in other words times are getter quicker recently
• Dense cluster of recent completions showing the level of activity you drew attention to by starting this topic
• Some distant outlying points show that, for some, getting a completion at all costs is still important

That last one on the list will be my aim when I do my charity Full Network Challenge in the spring (see other thread!). I have decided that aborting is not an option, even if I have to go over two days! (The 'proper' slowest FNC attempt?!)

While I do think that there is some truth in what tubeguru is saying here, I don't think there is a problem with it. If it is something that people enjoy doing - which for the most part we do! - then why stop it just because a 'limit' has been reached? It could be one of the reasons why there are so many 'alternative' challenges - they're quicker, and can be more competitive than a FNC can be. I think it's the difference between a marathon and a sprint - the FNC is the marathon, where for most people it's completing it that's the important bit, and people who have done it in the past will support those who haven't. There are some people who do want to get it done in the fastest possible time, and will try again and again to do it. An R15 or a Z1 is more of a 500m. It's a much shorter race, one that there isn't necessarily a fastest possible time (yet!) and everybody who takes part is competing with each other to win.

That all made more sense in my head before I typed it, but hey ho

[Mitchell&BrownLook]

Firstly, just to clear up my use of the term "law of averages", I was effectively trying to describe Hassan's suggested alternative in a way that wouldn't have greatly increased the total length of my post, nor have ventured off into a great distraction. Thus in my attempt to be both precise and concise, while in achieving the latter it has failed in the former, but I hope you all knew roughly what I meant and forgive me as Hassan has offered. (Thanks Hassan!)

With this in mind you can choose just to edit out the words "and the laws of averages dictate that" from my above post, or choose to go for Hassan's extended version of the point, which also includes the idea that the forum's existence actually allows for collaboration of thoughts and experiences for others to benefit upon, which is something I hadn't actually considered, which I duly thank Hassan for once again.

Continuing the debate, I'd just like to challenge Neil's concept of their being a finite time for the record. (And no I'm not picking on you Neil, honestly!)

Simply my point is that while the London Underground continues to change and evolve as a transport system, it is difficult for a finite time to be established as new trains are built with increased running speed and new signaling systems allow more a more frequent service. Similarly timetables may change with changing demand to say, allow Mill Hill East to have a train every 5 minutes, rather than the current situation. While this may be seen as metaphorically "splitting hairs", I think it's something to bear in mind even if in the grand schemes of things it is a minor detail, as I personally would say the very fact that there isn't a "concrete timetable" nor a known "absolute fastest route" is what's so great about tube challenging. I would say that only if these two factors became true then (and only then) could it be considered that the record is reaching a threshold.

But as Neil correctly says:

The chances of us finding it are slim because there are so many different ways to do this thing.

That to me is the essence and excitement of the activity.

Before I go I'll just add that I totally agree with Wanstead's post and especially Richie G's stance that there isn't a problem if a leveling out is taking place, and that I too will continue to participate even if the record is made tougher to reach than now as scrxisi has suggested may happen.

[Soup Dragon]

The current GWR time was only set due to trains being in the "right place at the wrong time" If you ran this exact route through journey planner now it only come out at 17hrs 30mins.... I believe the actual time is 17hrs 12mins 43secs and to be perfectly blunt this was only achieved with the aid of very co-operative support.........

It is possbile to get routes on paper marginally inside this but more and more the biggest issue is now speed and fitness......

I've got a theoretical route of 16hrs 36m however, thats not to say it will work on the day.

But the main reason I started tube challenging was to raise money! Now it's just a hobby and for fun! Having lived in London for all my life, I learn new things everytime!

16h36m sounds like a stonker of a route, the key to how accurate your estimate is will depend hugely on how much time you've allowed for various runs and bus connections between various stations. I'd be very happy to help you analyse this route to see how realistic the 16h36m is

[palkanetoijala31]

When i originally started reading this forum about may 2006 the record had just been grabbed by Steveoo and Sam by 5 seconds and people thought neil and geoffs record was unbeatable.

I started to work on my own route planning and came out wiv a time on journey planner under their record but wiv no expeireance on tube running at that time was unsure of whether it would work hence my 1st attempt went well and even got a train no one has got since but that was beginners luck.

So i waited read many posts especially the unformentioned ******** it made me even laugh and thought eh every record zone 1,all lines,alphabet,dlr,bottle,mouse and various others are up for grabs.

Finally i decided to register and then do my 1st challenge the south thames on which i met some gr8 friends the brown family and various other challengers i must admit i was in awe of them having just been confirmed world record holders.So the day went ahead wiv me kind of like being dragged along by the experts allthough i got to admit i did enjoy beating everybody on the run to east putney that day and then getting my arse kicked back into shape around the southwark area.

To answer the term are we reaching a threshold no Karahan/illhan as he is now nearly didnt make the 1st run of the day train connection imagine if he didnt make it the record would be 17h 25m 50s and nozzacook would have been a record holder as well for his 17h 31m

[joy54]

I remember Hakan telling me that on any single attempt he makes using his current route created using the genetic algorithm, he calculated he has a 30% change of breaking the current record held by myself and Andi.

Now of course no one other than Hakan does not have access to his "optimum" route or the genetic algorithm he uses to create routes, but considering his running pace is of considerably less stature than others on this forum, I reckon that a fast runner with a "decent" route could achieve the same 30% record breaking success rate. Furthermore a fast runner that had a "specially devised" route created by Hakan (his routes always compensate for a slower running pace) could achieve an even higher success rate.

So to answer Neil, no we have not reached a threshold, we have just reached a point where people are statistically more likely to be unsuccessful than successful by an factor of 2 (i.e. in three attempts one will be likely to succeed whereas two will be likely to fail).

Now of course some will reply here than Andi has achieved nowhere near the success rate described above in his recent attempts, in my opinion this fact shows more about the routes he is using rather than the "threshold" theory. If he was using a route anywhere near as good as Hakan's he should statistically have broken the record easily by now (since 24/07/08 he has attempted to break the record ten times, with a success rate of zero) and factoring in the fact that Andi is one of the fastest runners on the forum, it seems to suggest that a trip back to the drawing board routewise, will be needed, before he is to break the record again.

[Wanstead]

That further suggests if the Swede and the Finn were ever to join forces they'd flatten the current record.

[tubeguru]

That further suggests if the Swede and the Finn were ever to join forces they'd flatten the current record.

You're only as fast as your slowest runner ...