Discussion:
**2019 Pool** Race 6, Monaco GP - Final Results
Add Reply
Mark
2019-05-26 15:02:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The top 7 are currently:

1 JohnM 108
2 mairsz 106
3 Mark 104
3 Phil Carmody 104
5 Duddie 94
5 Jimbo 94
5 Shaun 94

The people who scored points are:

5 Duddie 26
1 JohnM 20
3 Mark 20
3 Phil Carmody 20
5 Shaun 18
11 ceg 16
8 durian 16
13 EB5AGV 16
5 Jimbo 16
2 mairsz 16
8 Martin Harran 16
12 Out Cider 16
8 Stephen Cole 16
21 FB 12
15 Sreekumar A 12
13 Ar 10
15 Darryl Johnson 8
15 Hornplayer9599 8
19 Mark Jackson 8
20 D Munz 4
22 fnot 2
18 Sir Tim 2

Let me know about the inevitable mistakes!
;-)

Mark

The overall table looks like:

1 Mark 10 18 24 18 14 20 104
2 ceg 4 16 8 24 18 16 86
3 Sreekumar A 10 18 8 10 10 12 68
4 D Munz 6 14 6 8 10 4 48
5 Mark Jackson 8 8 8 18 2 8 52
6 fnot 8 6 2 4 4 2 26
7 Darryl Johnson 12 16 12 14 6 8 68
8 Sir Tim 8 18 6 14 14 2 62
9 durian 8 18 10 12 24 16 88
10 Jimbo 14 18 10 18 18 16 94
11 Out Cider 8 8 14 16 12 16 74
12 Shaun 8 24 14 12 18 18 94
13 Phil Carmody 10 18 14 18 24 20 104
14 Duddie 10 14 18 12 14 26 94
15 EB5AGV 8 14 16 6 10 16 70
16 FB 2 14 6 4 4 12 42
17 Hornplayer9599 10 10 16 12 12 8 68
18 JohnM 10 18 24 18 18 20 108
19 mairsz 14 18 16 18 24 16 106
20 Ar 14 18 8 6 14 10 70
21 Martin Harran - 18 18 12 24 16 88
22 Stephen Cole - 18 18 12 24 16 88

Ordered by points:

1 JohnM 10 18 24 18 18 20 108
2 mairsz 14 18 16 18 24 16 106
3 Mark 10 18 24 18 14 20 104
3 Phil Carmody 10 18 14 18 24 20 104
5 Duddie 10 14 18 12 14 26 94
5 Jimbo 14 18 10 18 18 16 94
5 Shaun 8 24 14 12 18 18 94
8 durian 8 18 10 12 24 16 88
8 Martin Harran - 18 18 12 24 16 88
8 Stephen Cole - 18 18 12 24 16 88
11 ceg 4 16 8 24 18 16 86
12 Out Cider 8 8 14 16 12 16 74
13 Ar 14 18 8 6 14 10 70
13 EB5AGV 8 14 16 6 10 16 70
15 Darryl Johnson 12 16 12 14 6 8 68
15 Hornplayer9599 10 10 16 12 12 8 68
15 Sreekumar A 10 18 8 10 10 12 68
18 Sir Tim 8 18 6 14 14 2 62
19 Mark Jackson 8 8 8 18 2 8 52
20 D Munz 6 14 6 8 10 4 48
21 FB 2 14 6 4 4 12 42
22 fnot 8 6 2 4 4 2 26

DUPLICATOR RANKER1 RANKER2 RESULTS
1. AUS HAM BOT HAM HAM
HAM VET VER HAM RIC VET HAM RIC VET BOT HAM VER
14 14 1/25 6 6 20/25 8 8 12/25
2. CHI HAM BOT BOT LEC
BOT HAM VER BOT HAM VER BOT HAM VER HAM BOT LEC
12 26 10/25 12 18 19/25 12 20 15/25
3. BAH LEC BOT HAM BOT
HAM BOT LEC HAM BOT VER HAM BOT VER HAM BOT VET
18 44 5/25 20 38 11/25 18 38 11/25
4. RUS BOT BOT HAM BOT
HAM BOT VET HAM BOT VER HAM BOT VER BOT HAM VET
20 64 4/25 14 52 10/25 12 50 12/25
5. SPA BOT BOT HAM BOT
BOT HAM VET HAM BOT VET HAM BOT VET HAM BOT VER
14 78 5/25 20 72 8/25 18 68 13/25
6. MON BOT BOT HAM HAM
HAM BOT VER HAM BOT VER HAM BOT VER HAM VET BOT
14 92 8/25 14 86 12/25 16 84 14/25
Duddie
2019-05-29 12:19:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Cool to score high but remind me how did I get 26 points :)

Thanks for running the show :)
Mark
2019-05-29 16:10:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Duddie
Cool to score high but remind me how did I get 26 points :)
By effectively getting all of the predictions right. That gives you 2
for Pole, 10 for first, 8 for second and 6 for third: 2+10+8+6 = 26

Where you get it almost right, you get points related to how close,
which is a "least diff" set of scores:

Real \ Predicted 1 (10) 2 (8) 3 (6)

1 (10) 10 6 2

2 (8) 6 8 4

3 (6) 2 4 6

It's a slightly odd calculation - agreed collectively - which most
rewards correctness, but doesn't completely penalise a close miss.

The calculation is that you take two values:

- least: whichever of the predicted points or the real points is
least
- diff: the difference between the predicted and real points

and you subtract the latter from the former.

So, clearly this works out as being the points for correct:

- least: 10, 8 or 6 depending on first, second or third
- diff: 0 - as the difference is identical

When it comes to incorrect scores, take where you predict first and they
come in third:

- least: 6 (as prediction is 10 and the actual is 6)
- diff: 4 (10-6)

Subtract the 4 from the 6 and you get the 2, which the table confirms.

Alternatively, think about where you predict third and they come in
second:

- least: 6 (as prediction is 6 and the actual is 8)
- diff: 2 (8-6)

Subtract the 2 from the 6 and you get 4.

There are many arguments for changing the scoring, not least because it
is (clearly) not harder to correctly predict a first place than a second
all else being equal, so why not have something more like:

Real \ Predicted 1 (10) 2 (8) 3 (6)

1 (10) 10 6 2

2 (8) 6 10 6

3 (6) 2 6 10

Or why not take more of the results into consideration (e.g. why not
have points for your predictions even if they fall outside of the podium
spots:

Real \ Predicted 1 (10) 2 (8) 3 (6)

1 (10) 10 6 2

2 (8) 6 8 4

3 (6) 2 4 6

4 (4) 0 0 2

or even:

Real \ Predicted 1 (10) 2 (9) 3 (8)

1 (10) 10 8 6

2 (9) 8 9 7

3 (8) 6 7 8

4 (7) 4 5 6

5 (6) 2 3 4

6 (5) 0 1 2

But that removes the link from the (old) points completely.

Personally, I don't care as I just run it. If anyone wants to propose a
new points system which the group agrees with, I'm happy to take it on.
Post by Duddie
Thanks for running the show :)
¡De nada!
Mark Jackson
2019-05-29 17:46:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark
Post by Duddie
Cool to score high but remind me how did I get 26 points :)
It's a slightly odd calculation - agreed collectively - which most
rewards correctness, but doesn't completely penalise a close miss.
- least: whichever of the predicted points or the real points is
least
- diff: the difference between the predicted and real points
and you subtract the latter from the former.
There are many arguments for changing the scoring, not least because it
is (clearly) not harder to correctly predict a first place than a second
all else being equal,
I have in my files the final places in the old Pick6 competition from
1993, which was scored like that: pick the top 6, and for each of those
that finishes in the top 6 score 10-6-4-3-2-1 (WDC points structure at
the time) if they finished 0-1-2-3-4-5 places removed from your prediction.

By 2006 (the only other results I seem to have kept) WDC points went
down to 8th (10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1) and we were picking that many, although
the competition was still called Pick6.

Personally I prefer that structure, although I'm not unhappy with the
present approach.
--
Mark Jackson - http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson
Don’t spend all your time thinking about quantum
mechanics - otherwise you will go crazy. - John Bell
Loading...