ECAC Pick the Playoffs 2010

[unionbob]

Re: ECAC Pick the Playoffs 2010

#12 Clarkson @ # 5 SLU Clarksin 2-1
#11 Brown @ #6 RPI RPI 2-1
#10 Dartmouth @ #7 Quinnipiac Dartmouth 2-0
#9 Harvard @ #8 Princeton Princeton 2-1


Go U!!!!

[hawthr]

Re: ECAC Pick the Playoffs 2010

#12 Clarkson @ #5 SLU - SLU 2-1
#11 Brown @ #6 RPI - RPI 2-0
#10 Dartmouth @ #7 Quinnipiac - Quinnipiac 2-1
#9 Harvard @ #8 Princeton - Princeton 2-0

RPI!

[Rjm7272]

Re: ECAC Pick the Playoffs 2010

St. Lawrence 2-1
Rensselaer 2-0
Dartmouth 2-1
Harvard 2-0

Let's Go 'Gate!

[QUBobcats70]

Re: ECAC Pick the Playoffs 2010

#12 Clarkson @ #5 SLU - SLU 2-0
#11 Brown @ #6 RPI - RPI 2-0
#10 Dartmouth @ #7 Quinnipiac - Quinnpiac 2-0
#9 Harvard @ #8 Princeton - Princeton 2-1

Quinnipiac

[oceanst41]

Re: ECAC Pick the Playoffs 2010

St. Lawrence 2-1
RPI 2-0
Quinnipiac 2-0
Princeton 2-1

Cornell

[vicb]

Re: ECAC Pick the Playoffs 2010

Brian Sullivan USCHO

SLU 2-1
RPI 2-0
Quinny 2-0
Prinny 2-1

[vicb]

Re: ECAC Pick the Playoffs 2010

13 hours to go:

	Winner	2-0	2-1

SLU	61	22	39

Clark	13	0	13

			

RPI	70	57	13

Brown	4	0	4

			

Quinni	52	17	35

Dartm	22	4	18

			

Prince	60	24	36

Harvard	14	2	12

[LynahFan]

Re: ECAC Pick the Playoffs 2010

Finally got around to doing some tallying.

Since 1983, when the ECAC first introduced multi-game series for the playoffs, there have been 137 total series. Of those, 98 (72%) have been decided in two games, but this does include several of those ghastly first-to-three-points series, which clearly made "sweeps" much more likely. That means that only 39 series (28%) have gone past game 2, either to the (even stupider) mini-game or to a full game 3.

The trend has distinctly changed, though. 21 of those 39 extended series have occurred since 2003, when the first two rounds became 3-game series. That's 38% of the 56 series that have occurred since 2003. This makes sense, because in the first round the teams are more evenly matched now (all in the bottom 8) while in the 2nd round even if the lower-seeded team isn't that good, at least it has some momentum going for it from the first round. Still, in a typical year, we're only seeing ~3 game 3's, spread between the rounds. 2008 was an anomaly, with 5 of the 8 series going to a game 3.

And yet, of with 74 people picking 4 series (296 total picks), we've collectively made 170 picks (57%) for game 3's!

[sshablak]

Re: ECAC Pick the Playoffs 2010

SLU 2-0 Team Gate
RPI 2-0
Q-Pac 2-1
Princeton 2-1

[burgie12]

Re: ECAC Pick the Playoffs 2010

And yet, of with 74 people picking 4 series (296 total picks), we've collectively made 170 picks (57%) for game 3's!

Subconsciously, some of my thought process is that you're guaranteed a point if you pick the series to go to three games. Can't talk about anyone else's thought process, but I know that at least creeps into mine. I guess I'm just hedging my bets trying to get more points than I got last year (a dismal 2).

[justlookin']

Re: ECAC Pick the Playoffs 2010

Clarkson 2-1
RPI 2-1
Dartmouth 2-1
Princeton 2-1

The North Country Teams. OK SLU

[RHamilton]

Re: ECAC Pick the Playoffs 2010

St. Lawrence 2-0
RPI 2-1
Dartmouth 2-1
Harvard 2-1

[LynahFan]

Re: ECAC Pick the Playoffs 2010

Subconsciously, some of my thought process is that you're guaranteed a point if you pick the series to go to three games.

Heh. I never really paid attention to the scoring system before. I'm not sure your hedging strategy really works, though. Given the historical unlikelihood of game 3s, you're going to end up losing more points by turning potential 4-pointers into 3s than you're going to gain by turning 0s into 1s.

[redrocker]

Re: ECAC Pick the Playoffs 2010

vicb said, "1 contestant Ltsatch did not put down a team"

Pretty sure he is Yale.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: ECAC Pick the Playoffs 2010

Heh. I never really paid attention to the scoring system before. I'm not sure your hedging strategy really works, though. Given the historical unlikelihood of game 3s, you're going to end up losing more points by turning potential 4-pointers into 3s than you're going to gain by turning 0s into 1s.

There are 4 possible outcomes to every series, and each is equally likely to happen, assuming random outcomes. The long run situation will be that you pick the same option for all four games (home in 2, visitor in 3, etc.), and all 4 possibilities happen (home wins in 2, home wins in 3, visitor wins in 2, visitor wins in 3). If you pick a sweep in the long run, you will receive 8 points, or an average of 2 points per series (you'd get 4, 3, 1, and 0). If you pick a 3-game series in the long run, you will receive 10 points, or an average of 2.5 points per series (you'd get 4, 3, 2, and 1). Therefore statistically, burgie12's hedging strategy is more profittable. Now obviously the beauty of betting is we are playing the short run, and anything can happen. If this were a 5,000 series tournament, I'd take burgie's strategy any day. But with only 8 series, play your heart.