OK, so here’s my sports journo explanation of why round numbers are not ACTUALLY important.
Cricket is one of our national sports. Some matches go on for five days (Test matches, between countries). One major milestone for batsmen is to score 100 runs without being dismissed in the one innings - a “century” or a “ton.”
In Australia, the “bad luck” number as you approach 100 is 87 - the “devil’s number” - because it’s 13 short of a ton.
In terms of batting averages, a VERY GOOD batsman will average over 50, and an exceptional one will average over 60. (The best ever was at 99.94, but he was legitimately a freak. Don Bradman, who, of course, was an Aussie.)
So, if you get close to a century and don’t get it, people are disparaging. “Couldn’t handle the pressure.” “Mentally weak.” Which triggers me.
“Would you like a hundred every second time at bat, or 87 every time?”
Given that 87 would make you the second-best batsman in history, and 50 drops you back to being just very good, it’s an easy enough answer.
So, beware the fallacy of pseudo-significant numbers