Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: King Kong's score wrong ?


Lower Club Player

Status: Offline
Posts: 154
Date:
King Kong's score wrong ?


I don't understand how King Kong has 1.25 points from round 2 after 2 matches have been played.

The two matches are
(1) Federer (SUI) d. Almagro (ESP) 63 64
Acasuso (ARG) d. (8) Ljubicic (CRO) 64 63
where Federer and Ljubicic had byes in the first round.

With King Kong picking at random, 1/2 time he picks the seeded player, 1/2 the time he picks an unseeded player (this 1/2 equals 1/4 the player who won in round 1 and 1/4 the player who lost in round one).

Therefore, when the seeded player wins King Kong gets 2 points * 1/2 = 1 point, and when the unseeded player wins King Kong gets 2 points * 1/4 = 1/2 point.

With one seeded player and one unseeded player winning King Kong should have 1 + 1/2 = 1.5 points (not the 1.25 points given).



__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 34280
Date:

Well spotted - you're right, but I was already aware of this. I've taken a shortcut here, since the gorillas were only ever meant to be a bit of fun and to act as a guide to the worst it should be possible to do.

R1 is easy - 50% of the gorillas will get each match right.

In R2, if a player who had a bye in R1 wins, 50% of the gorillas will get it right, but if they get beaten, only 25% of the gorillas will get it right because only 50% of the gorillas who predicted the seed to lose will have predicted the right player to get through to face him in the first place. This is exactly what you just explained, of course. So you're right, they should have had 1.5 points at that stage, not 1.25.

However, this is where the simplifying 'fudge' comes in - the results assume that 37.5% of the gorillas get each R2 match right (and that R3 starts with 37.5% of the gorillas having the right player in branches that had byes in them and 25% of them having the right player in branches that didn't have byes in them), but that approximation (which has 2nd, 3rd and 4th order effects, etc, in later rounds too) only holds when averaged over the draw as a whole if half of those who had byes in R1 lose in R2 and half of them win.

Usually, a lot more players with R1 byes win in R2 than lose, simply because they are the top 8 seeds, so the true gorilla scores are usually a bit higher than the approximate scores shown.

This could be corrected for with quite a bit of work, it's just not a high enough priority at the moment. Conversely, it seems silly to take the gorillas out altogether when they do provide a rough guide to the effect of completely random picks just because the King Kong figure is not completely accurate yet.

Hope that makes sense! smile

__________________

GB on a shirt, Davis Cup still gleaming, 79 years of hurt, never stopped us dreaming ... 29/11/2015 that dream came true!

GB top 25s (ranks, whereabouts) & stats - http://www.britishtennis.net/stats.html



Lower Club Player

Status: Offline
Posts: 154
Date:

No !

The two matches have one seeded player winning and one unseeded player winning. Hence your stated short-cut method should get the same answer as doing it correctly. i.e. 0.375 * 2 matches * 2 points per match = 1.5

How do you get 1.25 ?


__________________


County player

Status: Offline
Posts: 923
Date:

Bruce,

Steven has calculated an average over the whole of round 2, therefore matches involving seeds have an average of 0.375, and matches not involving seeds have an average of 0.25, hence an overall average of 0.3125.

So for 2 matches in round 1 the gorillas would get a score of 0.3125*2*2=1.25

__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 34280
Date:

As anyone who frequents the Rusedski board knows, Bruce is the person who does his best to keep me on the straight and narrow as far as accuracy is concerned. A thankless task, I must admit, which he nevertheless does extremely well. smile

Getting to the point, Guy's completely correct (he does have the advantage over Bruce of having the spreadsheet to look at this week, obviously) - in other words, at the moment King Kong will end up with the same score from every 56-player event whatever the results are.

I will get around to making that calculation more accurate one day. At the moment, it's still better to have a slightly flawed approximation to a totally random set of picks to compare with than none at all, I think.

-- Edited by steven at 17:27, 2007-05-17

__________________

GB on a shirt, Davis Cup still gleaming, 79 years of hurt, never stopped us dreaming ... 29/11/2015 that dream came true!

GB top 25s (ranks, whereabouts) & stats - http://www.britishtennis.net/stats.html

Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard