A shout out to my statistician friends

Over the past couple of years, I have been regularly watching “The Price is Right” while eating my lunch. For reasons I cannot logically explain, I find this show highly entertaining. We have set up to record the show each day and I watch whenever I have a chance.

Yesterday I was eating a yummy lunch, a flour tortilla filled with broccoli and a delicious cheddar cheese with beer that Barry had bought, while watching the show. The first unusual thing that happened was that all six of the contestants in the initial rounds won their prizes: this does not seem to happen very often. But the really amazing thing happened when the three in the second round spun the wheel at the end of their round. All three – yes, all three – spun a total of 100 in their two spins of the wheel (the middle one landed on 100 in her first spin). Ordinarily, the prize for spinning 100 is $1000, but because the show is celebrating its 45^th anniversary, the prize was $10,000!

When there is a tie, the players get a second spin of the wheel, just one spin, with the highest number going on to the final round. The first two landed on 100, winning $25,000 each! The third came very close, only 2 numbers away from landing on 100. Those first then each spun once more to determine the player who would enter the final round. I have attached a video clip here.

When Barry got home I had to make him watch it, it was just so unbelievable. So that got me to thinking, what exactly is the probability of spinning 100 on the first spin and then of hitting 100 again in the second spin?

It has been a very long time, not to mention cancer in my brain, since I have thought about such questions, so I am counting on some of my former statistical colleagues who may be reading this to weigh in and correct me, but here goes.

First, in the two spins of the wheel, there are twenty ways to obtain a total of 100:

First Spin	Second Spin
5	95
10	90
15	85
20	80
25	75
30	70
35	65
40	60
45	55
50	50
55	45
60	40
65	35
70	30
75	25
80	20
85	15
90	10
95	5
100

That means that on any given day, there is a 20% chance that a player spinning the wheel will have a total of 100. That sounds about right, that does seem to happen about 20% of the time.

After spinning a total of 100, the player then has one additional spin and must land on 100 to win, which should happen 5% of the time.

So, the probability that one player will have a total of 100 on his or her first one or two spins AND THEN land on 100 on the second spin is 1%, in other words, of every 100 players who spin the wheel, approximately one will win both prizes.

Now the question is, what is the probability that these events will happen for multiple players on the same day? On the first spin of the wheel, when each of the three players have a 20% chance of winning, the probability that all three will do so is 0.8% (0.008).

On the second spin of the wheel, there are 8 possible and equally likely configurations of players who can land on 100:

Number of players who land on 100	Possible configurations	Details of configurations
0	1	No players
1	3	Player 1, player 2, or player 3
2	3	Players 1 & 2, players 2 & 3, or players 1 & 3
3	1	All 3 players

The probability that just two of the three players will land on 100 is based on the binomial probability

In our case, N = 3, x = 2, and π = 0.05, so this comes to 0.007125.

I think we then need to multiply these two numbers, 0.008 (first spin) and 0.007125 (second spin), to get the overall probability of the outcome of the game in question, and that is then 0.000057 (0.0057%). Seems like a very long shot to me!

Help me out here, guys – am I even close to the right answer?

I really do need to get a life!

Love,

Rebecca

Wonder

We drove up to Sharon early Wednesday morning, the day before Thanksgiving. We had planned to go that afternoon and look at a couple of used pianos at a place about an hour past Sharon, but the heavy rain had made the driving exhausting and we had to table those plans. Ella is anxious to begin lessons and now that the work they have been doing in their house is nearly complete, they have a spot cleared and just waiting for the piano! So we hope over the coming weeks to have a chance to fill that space.

Meanwhile, we were able to take the three older girls to a movie on Thanksgiving Day while the other adults were preparing for dinner. We saw “Wonder,” a movie based on the R.J. Palacio book of the same name. The movie tells the story of a ten-year-old boy named Auggie Pullman, who was born with a condition known as Treacher Collins Syndrome that causes facial abnormalities that even after many surgeries are still quite apparent. Because of this, and having spent much of his young life in and out of hospitals during 27 surgical procedures, he has been home schooled through the fourth grade. As the movie begins Auggie is entering the fifth grade at a local school in a trendy, though unspecified, New York City neighborhood. The movie, which received a glowing review in the New York Times, tells his story through focusing on the various people in his life, which I believe is how the book is structured as well. Our granddaughter Maya has read the book, and was quick to point out that there was quite a bit in the book that was not included in the movie.

The phrase “sugar coated” is what comes to mind in thinking about this film. Despite the best efforts of a warm and caring principal (played by Mandy Patinkin), most of his classmates treat Auggie, played by the young actor Jacob Tremblay, distressingly poorly. But his parents, played by Julia Roberts and Owen Wilson (need I say more?), are over-the-top perfect. Even his older sister Via (Izabela Vidovic), who struggles with having a brother who demands so much of their parents’ attention, is an amazingly mature teenager. It is no surprise that the story has a happy ending.

This was a movie that Eliana, Ella, and Maya all wanted to see, so we took the three of them. But Eliana and Ella, now 12 and 11, wanted to go to the movie themselves. So. we drove the three of them but then Barry, Maya, and I sat separate from the two older girls.

After the movie we all gathered at Simmie and Ronen’s house for our Thanksgiving dinner. Barry did his usual task of carving the turkey while some of us worked on getting the other food to the table, and here is the how it all looked before we sat down to feast.

On Friday we went with Julia and Noah, along with their mom and big sister, to the Providence Children’s Museum. We had not been there in some time, because it is primarily a place for young children. Julia, at 3½,  is the perfect age at this point. Noah was a bit overwhelmed at first but he eventually became more comfortable with the crowds and the noise and had a great time as well. The highlight is the large water play area. The large plastic aprons that the museum provides for the children to wear do not keep them from getting very wet, which just adds to the fun.

We had Shabbat dinner on Friday night with Simmie and family and spent Shabbat afternoon with Dina and the two younger children: Joshua and Aaron had travelled to Jacksonville, FL to celebrate a Bar Mitzvah (friends who used to live in Sharon and still come up quite often to visit family) and Ella spent Shabbat with a friend in Rhode Island. It was a really nice opportunity to have some quiet time with the two little ones. After Shabbat Barry and I drove down to Providence to escort Ella back to Sharon, and an excursion reminiscent of many such trips twenty-five years ago.

On Sunday we took Maya and Ella to the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston. The two girls, who are two years apart, really get along so well: they have the affection of sisters who are close in age without all the drama that sisters close in age usually experience. They also share a lot of interests, including reading, art, and music. We enjoyed the special exhibit, “Takashi Murakami: Lineage of Eccentrics,  A Collaboration with Nobuo Tsuji and the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.”

After the museum we headed to Café Eilat (kosher pizza) in Brookline for lunch, and then stopped at Kolbo, the Judaica store where we had taken Eliana last month, to buy Maya a new mezuzah to replace the Winnie the Pooh one she had on her door and had long since outgrown. The trip was completed with a stop at Kupels Bakery for treats to take home. It was a terrific day.

We headed back to New York on Monday morning. It is just so quiet here!

Have a great week.

Love,

Rebecca

One size may not fit all

It has taken me a couple of days to compose this post because I feel a need to provide some explanation. Many of my readers are from traditional Jewish backgrounds, and may have a variety of customs related to the year following the death of a parent. The “one size fits all” approach may not work so well in this setting, and at the end of the day each of us has to reach his or her own conclusions about what is and is not appropriate.

It is generally accepted in the Jewish tradition that live music is a source of great joy, and as a lifelong lover and sometimes player of music I certainly cannot disagree with that. For this reason, following the passing of each of our parents, Barry and I have abstained from attending live concerts and shows. That is why two years ago I (alone) took the children to the Broadway shows during their New York visits following the death of Barry’s mother, and Barry will be taking Maya to “School of Rock” when she visits with us during the last week of December, the visit that had to be postponed following my bladder cancer diagnosis this summer.

But like so many aspects of Jewish law, there are many grey areas. I know that many people avoid movie theaters (even if they continue to view movies and television in the privacy of their homes) during the mourning period. On the Chabad web page I found a couple of useful points:

Joy, in terms of the mourning tradition, is associated largely with public, social events rather than with personal satisfactions.

Attendance at operas and concerts, theaters and movies is to be discouraged. Listening to radio and television, depends on the above-mentioned criteria of joy. Generally, sports events and broadcasts over radio and TV of news and sports are permitted.

I am fascinated by the specific exception made for sports events. Even very pious Jewish men cannot live for a year without viewing their games! I can make a good argument that film, for me, is the equivalent of sports. So I am very comfortable continuing to see movies.

We have seen two recently. The first is called “Lady Bird.” A.O. Scott’s New York Times review was titled “Greta Gerwig’s ‘Lady Bird’ is Big Screen Perfection.” The movie is a touching story of Christine (Saoirse Ronan, who was terrific in “Brooklyn,” which I reviewed on 30 November 2015), a spirited 17-year-old who prefers to be called “Lady Bird.” She is about to graduate high school and embark on her adult life while plagued by ongoing battles with her mother, Marion (Laurie Metcalf), who seems to be mad at the world. Her father, Larry (Tracy Letts) is a good-hearted but long-suffering fellow who tries to help and support Christine while dealing with his own difficulties. There are other interesting characters, including Lady Bird’s brother and his wife and various male and female friends who play a role in her life. She has a boyfriend who seems too good to be true and is (turns out he is gay), another boyfriend who does not deserve her affection, and girlfriends who are unable to be true friends. But Lady Bird is far from perfect herself.

It is hard not to see this film in the context of the current political climate. This seems to be a family that should be at least comfortable with two reasonably well educated parents, yet continues to struggle at every turn both financially and psychologically. Unfortunately, this seems to be an all-too-familiar tale these days.

The movie was written and directed by Greta Gerwig and is at least partly autobiographical, but in interviews Ms. Gerwig emphasizes that this is not strictly her own story. Having said that, the characters seem quite real. It deserves the 100% it received on Rotten Tomatoes.

“Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri” received 94% on Rotten Tomatoes, but I have to say I really do not especially recommend this movie. The three billboards were paid for and painted by Mildred Hayes (Frances McDormand) whose 18-year-old daughter was brutally raped and murdered almost a year earlier and is angry that the state and local police, led by Chief William Willoughby (Woody Harrelson), himself dying of pancreatic cancer, have made no progress whatsoever in identifying the man who committed this heinous crime:

RAPED WHILE DYING AND STILL NO ARRESTS

HOW COME, CHIEF WILLOUGHBY?

It is certainly easy to understand this mother’s pain and anger, but as her anger turns to violent rage it is increasingly difficult to accept. Having said that, this film, too, may represent a sign of the times, when so many people feel increasingly frustrated with their lives and are struggling to find productive ways to channel that anger. Still, it was just so overwhelmingly depressing that I cannot recommend it.

So put those dark thoughts out of your mind, and have a wonderful Thanksgiving! Barry and I have prepared a big batch of root vegetables roasted with herbs to go along with the turkey and fixings our children are preparing, so our house smells terrific right now. We are looking forward to a fun weekend.

Love,

Rebecca

More on Joshua

I share here a brief portion of the words that Rabbi Noah Cheses, rabbi of the Young Israel of Sharon, spoke on this past Sabbath as Joshua celebrated becoming a Bar Mitzvah with the congregation.

Josh, you understand very well about the importance of role models. Last week we had a conversation about your role models. I asked you, “who do you look up to most? Who do you want to be like someday?” You listed several family members but you focused most on your Sabba. It was clear to me that you have a very special relationship with him. I asked you what about him you look up to. You said “My Sabba works very hard to support and care for his family. He has a cool job and is also very gracious with his time. He is sensitive and kind. He has a positive spirit and great attitude. When I got my first cell phone, he was the first number that I put into my contacts even before my parents. In the first month we exchanged over 1000 texts about baseball, football and life.”

Joshua later told Barry that it was probably 1000 texts in the first two months, but who’s counting? What I know is that this far exceeds all of Barry’s other texting combined.

Joshua is named after Barry’s father of blessed memory, and he seems to have inherited his great grandfather’s love of playing and following sports. Barry had enjoyed watching baseball as a teenager but was never much into playing, and neither I nor our daughters were particularly into athletics. So it is clear that this Joshua is channeling his namesake.

Here are a few pictures from the Saturday night party at “Launch.” The lighting is quite poor and I do not have a camera that can do well in that setting, but you can get an idea of just how athletic our grandson is!

Here are a couple of other pictures. Maya wore herself out jumping, while Simmie, Dina, Ella and Dina's friend Marissa took a break in the action.

Love,

Rebecca

A belated farewell to a colleague and friend

Sometimes when I send out the e-mail messages to share a new post on my blog, I receive a “response” to each one saying

Delivery Status Notification (Delay)

Delivery incomplete

There was a temporary problem delivering your message to xxxxx@yyyyy.zzz. Gmail will retry for 47 more hours. You'll be notified if the delivery fails permanently.

Since I send out more than 125 such messages each time I post, I set up an automatic rule that files these delivery status notices in a separate folder, bypassing the inbox.

For some reason, the other day I was looking through that folder and noticed a message that said

Delivery Status Notification (Failure)

Message not delivered

There was a problem delivering your message to j92554@aol.com. See the technical details below

And another that said

Delivery Status Notification (Failure)

Address not found

Your message wasn't delivered to j92554@aol.com because the address couldn't be found. Check for typos or unnecessary spaces and try again.

That address was the personal e-mail account of an old Pfizer colleague. I tried sending an e-mail to his old Pfizer e-mail address and that, too, bounced back. So I called the phone numbers I had for him. The Pfizer phone number was no longer connected, but I had a personal cell phone and I left a message there, including my home (Riverdale) phone number.

When we returned from Sharon there was a voice mail on our home phone from Joe’s wife Teresa. I had never met her but Joe had spoken of her and their two children often. He had also told me many stories of growing up in an Italian family in Boro Park, Brooklyn, where he worked during his younger years in a local hardware store frequented by traditional Jewish families and hence knew a good deal about the Jewish calendar and traditions.

I called Theresa and she told me that Joe had passed away during a trip to the Caribbean. I found the following on a memorial page, and especially appreciated the last line:

Joe was a director of Information Strategy and Analytics, Clinical Informatics and Innovation at Pfizer where his career spanned 30 plus years. During the course of his career he provided support, guidance and jokes to his colleagues.

I am still in touch with a number of Pfizer colleagues but no one had told me about this. Maybe they just did not know that I had remained friendly with Joe. His son was diagnosed with and treated for Mesenchymal Chondro Sarcoma of the talus (bone cancer) in 2014 and this was an additional connection for us. 

I can hardly imagine just how much his family misses him. I am honored to have known him as a colleague and a friend.

Love,

Rebecca