|
|
PLEASE NOTE: The Reality TV World Message Boards are filled with desperate
attention-seekers pretending to be one big happy PG/PG13-rated family. Don't
be fooled. Trying to get everyone to agree with you is like herding cats,
but intolerance for other viewpoints is NOT welcome and respect for other
posters IS required at all times. Jump in and play, and you'll soon find out
how easy it is to fit in, but save your drama for your mama. All members are
encouraged to read the
complete guidelines.
As entertainment critic Roger
Ebert once said, "If you disagree with something I write, tell me so, argue
with me, correct me--but don't tell me to shut up. That's not the American way."
|
|
"March Madness Bracket Challenge"
|
Agman2 2707 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Survivor-themed Cruise Spokesperson"
|
03-18-16, 12:55 PM (EST)
|
3. "RE: March Madness Bracket Challenge" |
I think many people's brackets were devastated yesterday!
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
cahaya 19505 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
03-30-16, 01:24 AM (EST)
|
6. "RE: March Madness Bracket Challenge" |
I, too, did well the in the round of 64 and 32, notching a few "seeded upsets". I've got OK and NC in the final 4, but any future points are completely shot with my picks of Kansas and Michigan State in the championship game.Stats sites like Ken Pomeroy's Kenpom.com and Nate Silver's fivethirtyeight.com (in addition to one academics site of stats gurus) revealed how over- or under-seeded some teams were. For example, Gonzaga was a classic under-seed if there ever was one. Having said that, choosing brackets is a game of probabilities and it is inevitable that some teams on the other side of that 50/50 line will win. Unusual events (and games) do happen. The trick is picking which ones will pull it off despite the statistical odds. There's a reason no one gets the "perfect bracket" despite the millions of entries, with the odds being in the realm of "astronomical" (1 in 9,223,372,036,854,775,808, a rather unimaginable number). Nutzy's trophy shop
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
cahaya 19505 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
03-13-17, 10:40 PM (EST)
|
11. "RE: March Madness Bracket Challenge" |
I went with two "real" brackets, both of which applied different ratings/stats/Vegas-lines, with rather different results! I'm just curious which of the two selection methods actually does the better job of predictions.
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
cahaya 19505 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
03-26-17, 02:15 AM (EST)
|
12. "Bracket Madness" |
LAST EDITED ON 03-26-17 AT 02:28 AM (EST)I ran two brackets based on two predictive statistics sites, pitting Nate Silver vs Ken Pomeroy. One is by Nate Silver's fivethirtyeight site complete with livetime during game graphs of win probabilities (wow!). Great site and very sound prediction method that perfectly predicted all the states in the Obama election, but failed to predict Trump's win. This bracket is Cahaya's Silver bracket. The other site is Ken Pomeroy's kenpom.com ranking and point system for all teams in the NCAA. Four of his top 5 teams made it to the Elite 8. It's a math system that also measures strength of schedule, and (adjusted) offense and defense statistics. This bracket is Cahaya's PomPom bracket (cheerleaders!). So, which prediction system is better? Who will win, Nate or Ken? Only time -- and play -- will tell!
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
cahaya 19505 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
04-11-17, 08:59 PM (EST)
|
15. "RE: Bracket Madness" |
I won't go into details, but Nate did slightly better in the early rounds, but his bracket busted in the later rounds, not predicting either of the F2.Ken predicted a Gonzaga/NC final, thus got more points overall than Nate. To be fair to Nate, he put win probabilities on the teams and none of them were overwhelming favorites, with only slightly different probabilities between top-seeded teams. Ken, on the other hand, uses a ranking system instead of a win probability system, and it proved to be more reliable in the late rounds. And... Vegas got it all wrong. No surprise since it's more a measure of bettor sentiment than it is hard stats.
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
|
|