If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Since we moved our URL please clear your browsers history and cookies and try logging in again. Thank you and sorry for any inconvenience
Congratulations to Adon for being the Day Three winner, with a perfect score!!! Unfortunately, a few participants (Tevez32, Luiz for 3, re5pectas) did not submit their predictions in time and thus their entries were not accepted. Once again, I am sorry about this.
Well, you could accept predictions for games which started after the predictions were submitted.
1st in IBN 2018-2019 2nd in IBN 2016-2017 2nd in IBN 2015-2016 1st in IBN 2014-2015 2nd in IBN 2013-2014 2nd in IBN 2012-2013 2nd in IBN 2010-2011 3nd in IBN 2009-2010 1st in IBN 2008-2009 2nd in IBN 2007-2008
Well, you could accept predictions for games which started after the predictions were submitted.
My day 4 predictions:
rus-civ nzl-lib pur-chn fra-can
gre-tur esp-ltu
Thanks for your input. My thought on this is that partial submissions are inherently unfair to other contestants. Imagine if BRA-USA was one of the early games today. Everyone picks USA to win. Brazil wins in a huge upset. Now the player who submitted a partial scorecard avoids the -2 points that almost everyone else incurs. In other words, making a prediction comes with risk. And partial submissions avoid some of that risk. Now, the expected value for any prediction is positive even for the most uncertain games (most uncertain game will have a 50-50 odds, giving the player .5*5 + .5*-2=1.5 expected value, which is positive). So on the basis of the expected value, it would seem that players who submit partial scorecards are only hurting themselves. But there is a chance of a major upset, in which case they have avoided the negative points incurred by other players. And this is isn't fair because had they made their prediction for that upset game, it is highly probable that they would have not picked the upset. In all, the fairest thing to do is to invalidate partial and late submissions from the process. If there is overwhelming support for accepting such submissions, I can change the rules. I am your humble servant.
Thanks for your input. My thought on this is that partial submissions are inherently unfair to other contestants. Imagine if BRA-USA was one of the early games today. Everyone picks USA to win. Brazil wins in a huge upset. Now the player who submitted a partial scorecard avoids the -2 points that almost everyone else incurs. In other words, making a prediction comes with risk. And partial submissions avoid some of that risk. Now, the expected value for any prediction is positive even for the most uncertain games (most uncertain game will have a 50-50 odds, giving the player .5*5 + .5*-2=1.5 expected value, which is positive). So on the basis of the expected value, it would seem that players who submit partial scorecards are only hurting themselves. But there is a chance of a major upset, in which case they have avoided the negative points incurred by other players. And this is isn't fair because had they made their prediction for that upset game, it is highly probable that they would have not picked the upset. In all, the fairest thing to do is to invalidate partial and late submissions from the process. If there is overwhelming support for accepting such submissions, I can change the rules. I am your humble servant.
Still, it's not like anyone's submitting the predictions late on purpose. And I don't feel like accepting them would be unfair to me at all.
+ I'm afraid that one day I might be unable or forget to submit the predictions on time, that would suck.
Still, you're the one who's running the game, do what seems fairest to you.
Comment