Poll
1 vote (8.33%) | |||
3 votes (25%) | |||
3 votes (25%) | |||
1 vote (8.33%) | |||
4 votes (33.33%) |
12 members have voted
- Punxsutawney Phil sees shadow and Patriots win the Super Bowl +140
- Punxsutawney Phil does not see shadow and Patriots win the Super Bowl +225
- Punxsutawney Phil sees shadow and Seahawks win the Super Bowl +260
- Punxsutawney Phil does not see shadow and Seahawks win the Super Bowl +250
Facts to consider:
Since record keeping began Phil has seen his shadow 19 times (meaning six more weeks of winter) and not seen it 16 times (early spring). It is evidenced that he sees his shadow by going back into his hole, apparently to sleep six more weeks. Note: See correction to this below
Weather in Punxsutawney is predicated to have a high of 25 degrees on Monday with an 80% chance of snow.
Question: What is the correlation to cloudy weather and Phil going into his hole?
The question for the poll is what do you think will happen?
I think I'm going to bet this on Bovada. I want "Phil does see his shadow and Pats win". But both your bet and mine are listed at +EV, so I don't see how we can book 2 sides of a 4 cornered bet.
I'm confused. P.Phil has been a tradition going back at least through my childhood 50 years ago (and I think much longer than that), so I don't get the 19 and 16 record you're quoting. They're not claiming the same groundhog has lived 35 years, are they? I would find that hard to believe.
Quote: beachbumbabsI'm confused. P.Phil has been a tradition going back at least through my childhood 50 years ago (and I think much longer than that), so I don't get the 19 and 16 record you're quoting. They're not claiming the same groundhog has lived 35 years, are they? I would find that hard to believe.
Ooops. First, my source is Wikipedia. However, I made the stupid mistake of counting spans of years as just one year. When I expand them out I get these results:
"Long winter" 103
"Early spring" 16
That same page also mentions that Phil came along in 1952 and there was a Pete before.
Here is the expanded table. I skipped over years with no record or "war clouds."
1887 | "Long winter" |
1888 | "Long winter" |
1890 | "Early spring" |
1898 | "Long winter" |
1900 | "Long winter" |
1901 | "Long winter" |
1902 | "Early spring" |
1903 | "Long winter" |
1904 | "Long winter" |
1905 | "Long winter" |
1906 | "Long winter" |
1907 | "Long winter" |
1908 | "Long winter" |
1909 | "Long winter" |
1910 | "Long winter" |
1911 | "Long winter" |
1912 | "Long winter" |
1913 | "Long winter" |
1914 | "Long winter" |
1915 | "Long winter" |
1916 | "Long winter" |
1917 | "Long winter" |
1918 | "Long winter" |
1919 | "Long winter" |
1920 | "Long winter" |
1921 | "Long winter" |
1922 | "Long winter" |
1923 | "Long winter" |
1924 | "Long winter" |
1925 | "Long winter" |
1926 | "Long winter" |
1927 | "Long winter" |
1928 | "Long winter" |
1929 | "Long winter" |
1930 | "Long winter" |
1931 | "Long winter" |
1932 | "Long winter" |
1933 | "Long winter" |
1934 | "Early spring" |
1935 | "Long winter" |
1936 | "Long winter" |
1937 | "Long winter" |
1938 | "Long winter" |
1939 | "Long winter" |
1940 | "Long winter" |
1941 | "Long winter" |
1942 | "Long winter" |
1943 | "Long winter" |
1944 | "Long winter" |
1945 | "Long winter" |
1946 | "Long winter" |
1947 | "Long winter" |
1948 | "Long winter" |
1949 | "Long winter" |
1950 | "Early spring" |
1951 | "Long winter" |
1952 | "Long winter" |
1953 | "Long winter" |
1954 | "Long winter" |
1955 | "Long winter" |
1956 | "Long winter" |
1957 | "Long winter" |
1958 | "Long winter" |
1959 | "Long winter" |
1960 | "Long winter" |
1961 | "Long winter" |
1962 | "Long winter" |
1963 | "Long winter" |
1964 | "Long winter" |
1965 | "Long winter" |
1966 | "Long winter" |
1967 | "Long winter" |
1968 | "Long winter" |
1969 | "Long winter" |
1970 | "Early spring" |
1971 | "Long winter" |
1972 | "Long winter" |
1973 | "Long winter" |
1974 | "Long winter" |
1975 | "Early spring" |
1976 | "Long winter" |
1977 | "Long winter" |
1978 | "Long winter" |
1979 | "Long winter" |
1980 | "Long winter" |
1981 | "Long winter" |
1982 | "Long winter" |
1983 | "Early spring" |
1984 | "Long winter" |
1985 | "Long winter" |
1986 | "Early spring" |
1987 | "Long winter" |
1988 | "Early spring" |
1989 | "Long winter" |
1990 | "Early spring" |
1991 | "Long winter" |
1992 | "Long winter" |
1993 | "Long winter" |
1994 | "Long winter" |
1995 | "Early spring" |
1996 | "Long winter" |
1997 | "Early spring" |
1998 | "Long winter" |
1999 | "Early spring" |
2000 | "Long winter" |
2001 | "Long winter" |
2002 | "Long winter" |
2003 | "Long winter" |
2004 | "Long winter" |
2005 | "Long winter" |
2006 | "Long winter" |
2007 | "Early spring" |
2008 | "Long winter" |
2009 | "Long winter" |
2010 | "Long winter" |
2011 | "Early spring" |
2012 | "Long winter" |
2013 | "Early spring" |
2014 | "Long winter" |
At first glance, with an 80% chance of snow, I was thinking that 'no shadow' was the right play (combined with either team, but the Seahawks have a better price), but if an actual shadow doesn't mean anything, then I presume that the true price is based off the history of what Phil (or Pete) has done in the past?
Quote: MidwestAPSo wait a minute, the determination to if Phil see's his shadow is based on if he goes back into his hole or not, and not the actual presence of sunlight?
Yes. But you would think if there is no direct sunlight he wouldn't see his shadow and thus go back in his hole.
Quote: Wizard...Considering the 80% chance of show and that he has not seen his shadow 87% of the time, I think betting betting both (1) no shadow & Pats and (2) no shadow & Seahawks sounds like the sharp bet. One of them seems likely to win and enough to cover the loss on the losing bet.
Wait a minute... Is the Wizard advocating a "hedge" on a groundhog?... hehe
Quote: AyecarumbaWait a minute... Is the Wizard advocating a "hedge" on a groundhog?... hehe
*groan*
More food for thought. Here is the "long winter" percentage both before and after the Pete/Phil change in 1952:
Punxsutawney Pete only: 92.9%
Punxsutawney Phil only: 81.0%
Combined: 86.6%
I'm not sure if this is just a small sample size issue, climate change, or maybe that Pete was just lazier and wanted to sleep more.
Quote: MidwestAPSo if he sees his shadow (goes back in hole and long winter) which historically has occurred at a 85% clip, it would seem to imply that 85% of the time, the sun is shining. Now, I'm not familiar with western PA, but that seems awfully high. Can any PA residents confirm that early February is sunny 85% of the daytime hours?
One thing I've never understood is why Phil would interpret a sunny day as meaning six more weeks of winter. Wouldn't the opposite seem more logical?
Quote: WizardOne thing I've never understood is why Phil would interpret a sunny day as meaning six more weeks of winter. Wouldn't the opposite seem more logical?
I wondered the same thing. I think we just have a fickle groundhog who wants to sleep more than he wants to wake up.
Quote: WizardOne thing I've never understood is why Phil would interpret a sunny day as meaning six more weeks of winter. Wouldn't the opposite seem more logical?
In the north, clear sunny skies usually equals cold weather, the coldest days are usually after a cloudless night. The clouds usually means warm southern moisture and they keep the warmth from radiating into space.
Quote: zoobrewIn the north, clear sunny skies usually equals cold weather, the coldest days are usually after a cloudless night. The clouds usually means warm southern moisture and they keep the warmth from radiating into space.
Good answer, thanks.
So we have two conflicting things going on. The 87% historical "long winter" or no shadow rate to the cold and snowy weather predicted for Monday.
Quote: AyecarumbaWhat happened with Phil?
He saw his shadow.
Strange - it was announced early in the morning, but I thought it only "counted" at noon.
Then again, the "traditional" saying doesn't mention a time, or even a shadow:
If Candlemas day (February 2) be fair and bright
Winter will have another flight
If on Candlemas day it be shower and rain
Winter is gone and will not come again.