More exact results but dont win the round

[crucible77]

Hi all,
I have just come runner up in the PL Period 3 contest to JW147,
Now JW147 got 2 exact results and i got 3 yet i still lost as he got 2 1 aways
Now i personally see it silly as the idea of a Prediction Contest is to Predict exact results as best you can, which i have done best in the round yet still not won I was just wondering what others thought about this

Here is a pm Statman sent me on the subject

The argument swings both ways, I think. It was discussed a couple of years ago when someone correctly predicted all eight winners in a last-16 round (very rare – in 3½ seasons I think it’s only happened 2 or 3 times), and they did not win the round.

The consensus was that, in a tie, the most correctly-predicted winners should take precedence.

As it is, for knockouts, you could correct all 8 and I could get 4 correct scores and one other winner, and I would beat you – that is still the case. However, now, the tie-break at least does give priority to the ‘most winners’ prediction, and I think that is right.

The League is slightly different, in that a predetermined number of frames is played. In this scenario, there’s 2 points for the dead-on result and 1 point for result one frame adrift in either direction – that is the closest equivalent to knockout events. Therefore, it seemed sensible to regard “most correct winners” as “most matches in which points were scored” to remain in keeping with the rest of the season, which is mostly knockout-based.

I’m sure on another day the consensus could have swung the other way, but, on balance, I feel that a logical conclusion was reached. In any case, the Rules clearly set that out as the principal tie-breaker.

Hope you don’t feel put out! Quite some thought has gone into it and it has evolved over time. I am still slightly uncomfortable with the initial scenario, in that the person who predicts the most winners does not necessarily win. However, in the absence of any simple solution while still giving a bonus for the correct result, I propose no change.

Please feel free to open a thread to discuss this as a suggested talking point. I would ask that you open a thread on the main “prediction contest” forum page and not in any of the sub-forums dealing with specific tournaments. If you choose to do this, I’m sure it will be fairly looked at.

"

[The Statman]

Thanks for starting this thread.

As intimated in the above text that I wrote (although not stated explicitly, sorry!), it was felt that the Prediction Contest should be concerned with the result (i.e. winner) rather than the scoreline.

The thinking is that, in a round of 16 matches, someone who correctly predicts a;; 16 players through to the next round should be rewarded more than someone who predicts only 8 players through to the next round but happend to get those 8 scorelines exactly right (which means, by definition, that he got the other 8 entirely wrong).

It is the case, as I mentioned above, that if you get all 8 winners right, and I get 5 winners right but four of them with the correct score, then I will beat you in the Prediction Contest even though I got three winners wrong.

In many ways I feel that the points fariff should be simplified to purely a point for a correctly predicted winner, with no bonuses for scoreline. However, that would result in tie-breaks in almost every round – and probably not the simplest of tie-breaks – and that is something that, frankly, I don't have time for!

The League format is different in that a 'win' is not a win in the same way as for a knockout tournament. The final tables are based on frames won, not matches won, and so it is right that the Prediciton Contest relevance doesn't stop as soon as one player reaches 4 frames.

However, I am open to change and, if consensus dictates it, I am happy to change the system – although there is only one more Premier League period left to predict (apart from the knockout semis and final).

On the whole, I am of the opinion that predicting the winner is more important than getting the score right. For the league matches, the only way I see of equatinig these matches is to do what is done now – give the single point for the scorelines on either side. It is still my opinion that someone who predicts within one frame of all four results has done better than someone who does so with three out of the four – even if two of those happen to be spot on.

But, like I say, I am open to persuasion.

[crucible77]

Is there no chance of me winning the PL Period 3 then even if the rule gets changed

I find it rather silly that your rewarded more for correct winners than scores
Why not just put the players and say predict the winners but dont bother with the scoreline

Here are our predictions

Match C77 JW147 Correct score
Hendry v Perry 1-5 1-5 1-5
Ronnie v Davis 6-0 6-0 6-0
Hendry v Higgins 2-4 2-4 4-2
Ronnie v Selby 3-3 4-2 3-3

Firstly I have sort of won 3 matches and only drawn with him on 1 so he wins 0 matches yet still wins the rounds

Secondly you said 'On the whole, I am of the opinion that predicting the winner is more important than getting the score right' yet i have got 3 right winners and got 3 scores exact and jw147 has got 2 right winners and 2 scores exact so he didnt even get more winners correct than me so how can jw147 win

[The Statman]

Is there no chance of me winning the PL Period 3 then even if the rule gets changed ...

No. Even if it was the unfairest thing in the world, nothing would presuade me to change the rules after everybody entered on the basis of the rules that were displayed at the time they entered.

(I will look at the rest of your post later, as I am (supposed to be) at work at the moment!)

[crucible77]

No. Even if it was the unfairest thing in the world, nothing would presuade me to change the rules after everybody entered on the basis of the rules that were displayed at the time they entered.

(I will look at the rest of your post later, as I am (supposed to be) at work at the moment!)

Lol Ok Statters, get on with your work lol

BTW It is the unfairest thing in the world as i should have clearly won

[The Statman]

I find it rather silly that your rewarded more for correct winners than scores
Why not just put the players and say predict the winners but dont bother with the scoreline

Well, that was the consensus at the time. I think this is one where you just fall one side or the other.

The bonus for the correct answer certainly comes in because it relieves the difficulty of having large tie-breaks for every round. (Contrary to popular conception I do this just for fun and would not have time to mull over tie-breaks every day when I am at venues as a spectator with no internet access.)

Here are our predictions

Match C77 JW147 Correct score
Hendry v Perry 1-5 1-5 1-5
Ronnie v Davis 6-0 6-0 6-0
Hendry v Higgins 2-4 2-4 4-2
Ronnie v Selby 3-3 4-2 3-3

Firstly I have sort of won 3 matches and only drawn with him on 1 so he wins 0 matches yet still wins the rounds

Secondly you said 'On the whole, I am of the opinion that predicting the winner is more important than getting the score right' yet i have got 3 right winners and got 3 scores exact and jw147 has got 2 right winners and 2 scores exact so he didnt even get more winners correct than me so how can jw147 win

The point is that the Contest is based on the knockout format, and the League predictions were only an afterthought.

With knockout matches, your chances of scoring for a match are 50:50. Either one player wins or the other does. You then have a (typically) 1 in 5 chance of gaining the extra point for the scoreline, assuming you've got the winner right.

The League format of predetermined length matches does not fit in well with this. If it was just 'win' or 'lose' (let's ignore the possibility of a draw for now; assume they were all 7-frame matches so there would be a technical winner for every match) the when someone got to 4 frames the match would stop.

As it is, someone could be 4-0 up and lose the next two frames. Someone else could be 2-2 and win the next two frames. These are two very different scenarios which end up with the same result. But the match 'win' or 'loss' does not have a direct bearing on the final tables; the frames won/lost figures do that.

There are seven possible match outcomes, from 0-6 through to 6-0. One of the intentions was to make it as close as possible mirror the chances of scoring for each match in the knockout format. Therefore, I did this by considering the dead-on score and the scoreline either side to be regarded as the equivalernt of 'correct winner'. This gives you a 3 in 7 chance of scoring for each match, which is 42.9%; not quite 50:50 but as close as possible to it. You then have a 1 in 3 chance of getting the scoreline dead on, assuming you have scored for the match; higher chance than with knockouts but, as mentioned before, you had a slightly lower chance of being in this position in the first place.

Essentially, therefore, by achieving a score for all four matches – whether knockout or fixed-length, you have shown a greater consistency of predicting than someone who achieves a score for three matches but not for the fourth.

The probability of scoring, comparing a best-of-9 with a six-frame league match, are as follows:

<table border=1><tr><td>Format</td><td>Score
2 points</td><td>Score
1 point</td><td>Score
0 points</td></tr><td>Best-of-9</td><td>1 outcome
(10%)</td><td>4 outcomes
(40%)</td><td>5 outcomes
(50%)</td></tr><td>Fixed 6-frame</td><td>1 outcome
(14.3%)</td><td>2 outcomes
(28.6%)</td><td>4 outcomes
(57.1%)</td></tr></table>

This is as close as I think it is possible to get to complete parity, while keeping the same general scoring system – bearing in mind that it is only meant to be a bit of fun, and the finite time I desire to spend on it! (And, if we were to compare with best-of-7s for the knockouts, which is a closer comparison of potential outcomes, the figures would be closer to matching.)

[steedee]

if i undersand correctly. which is my no means a certainty.

in the league stage we are predicting the peformance of each player individualy and not the matches as a whole i.e how many of the six frames selby will win on that night.

now if that i the case, given that qualification is based on how many frames they win in total during the league stage, and not on how many matches they win, then the current format is the fairest way.

if hendry, for instance, won 3 games 4-2 and lost 3 6-0 he would finish with 12 points whereas higgins could draw 5 games 3-3 lose 4-2 to hendry and still have 17 points and finish above him.
so over the course of the six matches you are predicting how many points the will get and not how many matches they will win

[Rane]

Is there no chance of me winning the PL Period 3 then even if the rule gets changed

I find it rather silly that your rewarded more for correct winners than scores
Why not just put the players and say predict the winners but dont bother with the scoreline

Here are our predictions

Match C77 JW147 Correct score
Hendry v Perry 1-5 1-5 1-5
Ronnie v Davis 6-0 6-0 6-0
Hendry v Higgins 2-4 2-4 4-2
Ronnie v Selby 3-3 4-2 3-3

Firstly I have sort of won 3 matches and only drawn with him on 1 so he wins 0 matches yet still wins the rounds

Secondly you said 'On the whole, I am of the opinion that predicting the winner is more important than getting the score right' yet i have got 3 right winners and got 3 scores exact and jw147 has got 2 right winners and 2 scores exact so he didnt even get more winners correct than me so how can jw147 win

There must be something wrong in this table, else this discussion don´t make sense to me. The only places the two of you have different predictions is in the O´Sullivan - Selby match.

[The Statman]

if i undersand correctly. which is my no means a certainty.

in the league stage we are predicting the peformance of each player individualy and not the matches as a whole i.e how many of the six frames selby will win on that night.

now if that i the case, given that qualification is based on how many frames they win in total during the league stage, and not on how many matches they win, then the current format is the fairest way.

if hendry, for instance, won 3 games 4-2 and lost 3 6-0 he would finish with 12 points whereas higgins could draw 5 games 3-3 lose 4-2 to hendry and still have 17 points and finish above him.
so over the course of the six matches you are predicting how many points the will get and not how many matches they will win

Well, sort of.

Essentially the argument can be judged on ordinary knockout matches and it boils down to one question:

In the event of a tie, which should take precedence? (a) the most correctly predicted match winners, or (b) the most correctly predicted dead-on scorelines.

By definition, (b) is the exact opposite of (a).

My personal opinion is that (a) should take priority over (b) and consensus has tended to agree with me.

Once you have answered that question, the exact tweakings for the League format will take care of themselves.

[The Statman]

There must be something wrong in this table, else this discussion don´t make sense to me. The only places the two of you have different predictions is in the O´Sullivan - Selby match.

Indeed, hadn't noticed that. The predictions were:

<table border=1><tr><td>Match</td><td>actual</td><td>crucible77's
predictions</td><td>jw147's
predictions</td></tr><tr><td>Hendry-Perry</td><td>1-5</td><td>1-5</td><td>1-5</td></tr><tr><td>O'Sull.-Davis</td><td>6-0</td><td>6-0</td><td>6-0</td></tr><tr><td>Hendry-Higgins</td><td>4-2</td><td>2-4</td><td>3-3</td></tr><tr><td>O'Sull.-Selby</td><td>3-3</td><td>3-3</td><td>4-2</td></tr></table>

crucible77 got: 3× 2points for perfect prediction; total 6 points
jw147 got: 2× 2 points for perfect prediction, 2× 1 point for score close; total 6 points

The tie-break has given priority for the predictor who scored for most matches, i.e. jw147 who scored for all four matches.

This is in line with the principle for knockout matches whereby those who score for most matches take priority over those who get the most dead-on scores, who by definition therefore have more zeroes to have reached the tied scores.

Essentially it is all decided on 'fewest zeroes' in all cases, whatever the format – which seems to me like a perfectly logical situation.

[Odrl]

The table should of course say 3-3 for O'Sullivan-Selby, instead of 2-2.

[The Statman]

The table should of course say 3-3 for O'Sullivan-Selby, instead of 2-2.

Quite so; I've corrected it now