The John De Lange Sophisticated Prediction Contest - WC 2010
in [World Football]
|
From: milivella on 12 Jun 2010 04:51 anders t: > Quoting milivella in rec.sport.soccer: > > >Summary: we don't like Uruguay > > What we do is to factor in that South Africa is the home team, and that > Uruguay will be sacrificed. You're right. :) -- Cheers milivella
From: milivella on 12 Jun 2010 05:00 juanvazquez: > that is, if you fill them into the sheet they make sense and all the > controls are right? As Anders said, they are not exactly OK, but the differences are in order of 0.0001, so it should be easy to make it a valid entry. > How do you translate say ELO into the sheet? Do you have a "system"? > Can ELO (or any other simulation) be translated with different sets of > numbers? I took the easy way :) , since the systems that I entered (Castrol Football and Chance de Gol) already have in their website a sophisticated prediction: http://www.castrolfootball.com/predictor/successpredictor/ http://chancedegol.uol.com.br/copa10.htm > Excuse my ignorance. I usually have difficulties translating my > predictions into the sheet and always have to compromise several > numbers, which are not dictated by my wishes, but by the need to make > the prediction consistent. When you'll see my predictions, you'll feel like a genius! -- Cheers milivella
From: Futbolmetrix on 12 Jun 2010 17:51 On Jun 12, 10:43 am, anders t <anthu_001(a)no_-_spam_.hotmail.com> wrote: > > No, they don't add up correctly says my Excel instance (but the diffs are > rather small). That's because unfortunately there was a major bug in the spreadsheet, which almost undermines the whole sophisticatedness of the SPC. There should have been two additional restrictions: the sum of QF exit probabilities in groups A-D and E-H should have been equal to 2, and the sum of (semi + LF + WF) in each half of the draw should also have been equal to 2. Alas, too late to change that. And who knows, maybe the winner will be someone whose predictions don't satisfy the condition. D
From: milivella on 12 Jun 2010 20:16 Futbolmetrix: > unfortunately there was a major bug in the spreadsheet, > which almost undermines the whole sophisticatedness of the SPC. Shame to us all in equal parts, or at least to all the ones that didn't spotted it! > There > should have been two additional restrictions: the sum of QF exit > probabilities in groups A-D and E-H should have been equal to 2, and > the sum of (semi + LF + WF) in each half of the draw should also have > been equal to 2. My entry... [checks] complies! Wow. The utterly stupid method that I used made me submit a set of silly predictions, but at least it was compliant to restrictions that I didn't even know. Now I'll be a bit less sad to end in the last position. (I re-read my post, and the last paragraph sounded sarcastic. But it's not! Indeed I'm thinking that my stupid method could be just the first step to a winning system. If I'll keep this rate of progress, in two centuries I could win a freaking SPC.) (Actually a lot earlier, if someone does a Greece again and Agnostic becomes so agnostic that he doesn't submit any entry.) -- Cheers milivella
From: milivella on 12 Jun 2010 20:50
Futbolmetrix: > unfortunately there was a major bug in the spreadsheet, > which almost undermines the whole sophisticatedness of the SPC. There > should have been two additional restrictions: the sum of QF exit > probabilities in groups A-D and E-H should have been equal to 2, and > the sum of (semi + LF + WF) in each half of the draw should also have > been equal to 2. > > Alas, too late to change that. And who knows, maybe the winner will be > someone whose predictions don't satisfy the condition. On a second thought, you should remove all the entries that don't satisfy the conditions. And - wait, there is more - also all the entries that satisfy them consciously, since it's a very bad move to spot such a bug and not telling it (Anders, I'm looking in your direction (generically north, from my point of view)). The same ban should be applied to simulations, since they too "knew" the limitations and of course remained silent: if you want to be an artificial intelligence, then you are expected to say something! Oh, and of course anyone who says (that he didn't know he was satisfying the conditions) only after this thread is a liar, so they all should be removed from the competition as well. That would be a badass gamemaster move, if you ask me. -- Cheers milivella |