| AccuScore Round by Round Probabilities |
|
|
|
The AccuScore Super Computer has simulated each round and each potential match-up 10,000 times. This article gives you a breakdown on all the remaining teams win probability for each remaining round.
Trackback(0)
Comments (30)
Dick Van Dyke is Stupid
said:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed |
You do not need a larger sample size. The standard deviation of 10,000 matches is less than .01, and so a 99% accuracy will be less than 3% away. To get it better, you will need to increase the sample size a ton. Anyways, the reason for the error is not improper sample size but imperfect sampling methods. It is impossible to take everything into consideration or to even know how exactly to take anything into consideration. In reality, the sample is much larger than needs be. Gallup typically uses a sample of only about 1000 and they do just fine, (but with easier questions than predicting an unknown outcome of a game). |
dick van dyke
said:
|
too low sample size. run it more to become more accurate |
leos23
said:
|
kent state way to make history....10 pts in first half...should stayed in ohio!! |
leos23
said:
|
kent state sucks!! go bruins  |
leos23
said:
|
   :-  |
Tom Guru
said:
|
Also, with respect to Adam's comment at the bottom, he is correct. With a 4% chance of a 16th seed winning their match, then after 100 tries, there is only 1.7% chance that none of them has won yet. Either the percentages are too high for them or they're higher now than they used to be or the 1st seeders have just been getting really lucky all these years. My guess - the probability is off. |
Tom Guru
said:
|
And more than 1/3 chance that both teams in the championship game will be 1st seeders. |
Tom Guru
said:
|
Try more like 6.5% chance of all 1st seeds making it to the final four, given the percentages in the top table. |
TOPPER!
said:
|
Toppers are gonna do work on THURSDAY this thing is a horrible way to guess. tooooo many upsets. Big red is Stomping the bruins. sorry, but im calling it |
Hbomb
said:
|
Hey yea said.....GTown has a better offense? Wisky avg 67.5 pts and GT avg 69.8 so I guess you are right..lol however the badgers only allow 53.8 vs GT's 57.6 sooo I guess its pretty even....wait except that the badgers have a way better chance at advancing out of the sweet 16 because GTown is not in it! Wake Up |
joe g
said:
|
hookem horns |
jhklgfdgsdf
said:
|
ALL YALL ARE CRAZY TENNESSEE IS GUNNA WIN IT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
badman
said:
|
Oops..slight clarification to my earlier post...odds of all number one seeds making it to the final FOUR...but it is still less than 2%. |
badman
said:
|
UNC, KS, UCLA and Memphis as the most probable winners? Who would have thunk??? According to the statistices, it looks like the Tournament Selection Committee did a good job of seeding in the first place. As an aside and statistically speaking the odds of all the #1 seeds making it to the final is less than 2%. This sounds about right since it has not happened since the tournament went to the 64 team format - 1985. That would suggest there needs to be at least one major upset along the way. Chances are there will be a lot more. That's where skill and luck come in. I hope I am lucky. |
cam
said:
|
i got UNC, Kansas, Memphis, UCLA top 2 i got UNC and Memphis. who wins? |
DUBSILK
said:
|
I picked UCLA over Kansas in the finals before I even looked at these stats. All seem like good reliable estimates of the games being played. |
yea...
said:
|
Heres my issue...Georgetown and Wisconsin play similar styles of ball, but Georgetown has more offense, so how is it Wisconsin has a better chance of winning, esp. when they're in the same region??? |
still luther
said:
|
every team technically has a chance right? i mean,Obviously the play in team is not going to beat UNC, but technically it could happen, so it really isn't a 0.0% chance it is like a 0. 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000001% chance, right?  |
luther
said:
|
final four= Pitt, UCLA, UNC, Kansas top two= UCLA, kansas WINNER= KANSAS Memphis is out before you think let's go Coppin St!!! better chance for Kansas!!! |
llib
said:
|
kansas vs ucla in titlegame |
ky
said:
|
If these writers were good, they would make millions. They couldn't pick the right winners. I always see who they pick and I go opposite. |
dsong
said:
|
These predictions are horrible. Too many upsets! |
yourn
said:
|
it seems to me that kansas and ucla have a better chance at making the finals than cornell and boise st. |
roc on
said:
|
|
lloyd
said:
|
I enjoyed the article on probability for advancement, I think that you excluded some of the percentages in the finals. If a team has a chance to be the champ they have to have a shot at the final game. I would be interested if you reran the numbers, thanks |
NATE
said:
|
It could be helpful when trying to pick some upsets to see statistically which seed has the highest % chance to pull it off. If you wanted to take a 12 over a 5, George Mason would be your worst option statistically. While Arizona is your best % for a 10 to upset a 7. |
Monster
said:
|
Adam, I guess you don't believe in under dogs. Tisk Tisk Tisk |
Chickenmilk
said:
|
Why does kansas and ucla have 0% chance of making finals? |
Adam P
said:
|
A 16 seed has never won a single game (out of nearly a hundred tries). Is it realistic for the 16 seeds to have a 4% chance of beating a 1 seed? I think the odds are more like 1% of less!! |
sfdgjha
said:
|
im not so sure how much faith to put in this....they did a lot of checking and used a lot of stats, but isnt march madness all about the upsets? i would suggest not putting too much stock in this unless you have no clue what's going on. |
Write comment
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|