X-Factor / Jack Houghton / 05 December 2009 /

Jack Houghton brings us his latest X Factor musings

Five years in and the X Factor is finally getting the serious academic consideration it deserves. Dr Lionel Page - who is, presumably, related to Lionel Richie, a long-time friend of the show - has studied 150 episodes of X Factor and Pop Idol and concludes that contestants singing later in the show are much less likely to be eliminated. Going further, his research suggests that performing second or third puts contestants at the biggest disadvantage.

The research will come as no surprise to Betfair Forumites. As far back as when Will Young stood magnificently, a towering sentinel and guarding lion at the gates of reality-show talent-town, prescient posters postulated similar theories. We knew then what the boffins at Cambridge have only just figured out. Still, it's nice to have it confirmed. Especially as Lionel's calculation no doubt involved a square root or two: a sure sign of statistically rigorous and robust mathematics.

Lionel explains the phenomenon as having to do with memory. Whenever watching a sequence, he claims, humans remember better what they saw first and last. In interviews, he reckons, similar patterns emerge: candidates seen last have a natural advantage over those seen earlier in the process. Well, that might be true in the business world Lionel, but the same reasoning can't explain the results of your square-rooted X Factor number crunching.

You see, X Factor voters aren't like these fly-by-night job interviewers that populate the business world. We take our work seriously. We hold the future of these young talents in our downward-pointing, piston-like index fingers - and would never let something as unreliable as memory affect how we vote. No, each performance is watched closely. It is tabulated. Then cross-tabulated against charts identifying perfections of pitch, resonance, timbre and Factor X. Scores are noted; combined and sampled; placed on curves of standard deviation. Some square rooting occurs. Pi makes an appearance. We then check and re-check our calculations - aided, invaluably, by ample reviews provided by programme makers. And then we have it: a definitive answer as to the best performer of the night.

So Lionel, your conclusion might be valid, but your explanation of that conclusion is flawed.

Perhaps some other scientific phenomenon is at work? Look, I know gravity is a bit passé these days - in fact, I think I'm right in saying it might no longer exists - but, just for a moment, let's say it does. Let's say that dear old Newton was on to something. Could his theory - that an apple falling from a tree would be gravitationally drawn to the biggest object in the vicinity: his head - explain why those performing last are at an advantage?

Think about it for a second. The performer closing the show always has the most climatic stage production to support them: a 300-strong choir; billowing smoke; inspirational lighting and fireworks; a troupe of gyrating half-naked male dancers. This stage production - driven by Friedman's ego - is, effectively, the biggest "object" on view that night. Perhaps then, the person singing last, the person surrounded by this refulgent splendour, will have their performance "pulled" closer to singing perfection, as mapped out on the charts of voters? Look Lionel, I'm not a scientist, but it's something you might want to think about.

Against the backdrop of such weighty deliberations, an X Factor news report seems a little redundant, but nonetheless, here it is. Olly has been slated for not consoling Lloyd last week. Eminem might become a judge. Lady Ga Ga isn't allowed gambolling lambs to accompany her performance because of health and safety (gone mad) concerns. Oh, and it's Michael Jackson week.

No bet for us. I think Danyl will go, but our lay of him in the Top 3 market from a few weeks' back gives us plenty of interest.

This week's recommendations:
No bet.

Already Recommended:
4 pts LAY Danyl at [2.02] in Top 3 market.
1 pt BACK Dannii at [2.48] in Winning Judge market.
1 pt BACK Cheryl at [8.0] in Winning Judge market.
1 pt BACK Joseph at [12.0] in Winner market.
1 pt BACK Olly at [3.4] in Over 25s market.
1 pt BACK Olly at [8.2] in Winner market.

Already Settled (-1.6 pts):
2 pts BACK Rachel at [2.7] in Bottom Two market - Week Two - WON.
3 pts BACK Rachel at [1.76] in Bottom Two market - Week Three - LOST.
2 pts BACK Lucie at [2.10] in Girls market - LOST.
1 pt BACK John and Edward at [2.0] in Bottom Two market - Week Six - LOST.
2 pts LAY Lloyd at [1.36] in Bottom Two market - Week Seven - WON.
1 pt LAY Lloyd at [1.87] in Elimination market - Week Seven - WON.
1 pt BACK Danyl at [4.0] in Elimination market - Week Eight - LOST.
1 pt BACK Lloyd at [25.0] in Winner market - LOST.

'.$sign_up['title'].'

'; } } ?>

:

:

:

?

: