RPI 2013 Part V: Who Wants Screech?

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: RPI 2013 Part V: Who Wants Screech?

Here's your context. You have no clue whether it has happened before.

Grasp that.

My source of information was noted in a very clear disclaimer. Since that isn't good enough for you, and in making an inference that you know exactly what the committee will be doing, why don't you enlighten the group? I don't know if you're trying to take the taste-of-your-own-medicine approach, but you're not doing a good job of it. You're losing your touch.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: RPI 2013 Part V: Who Wants Screech?

My source of information was noted in a very clear disclaimer. Since that isn't good enough for you, and in making an inference that you know exactly what the committee will be doing, why don't you enlighten the group? I don't know if you're trying to take the taste-of-your-own-medicine approach, but you're not doing a good job of it. You're losing your touch.

I would not have made an inference. I would have implied something, which I did not. You then inferred. Incorrectly, I might add. There's something new.

Regardless, I'm more than willing to continue to allow you to make an *** of yourself by speaking as some kind of authority from a position of extreme ignorance.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: RPI 2013 Part V: Who Wants Screech?

I would not have made an inference. I would have implied something, which I did not. You then inferred. Incorrectly, I might add. There's something new.

Regardless, I'm more than willing to continue to allow you to make an *** of yourself by speaking as some kind of authority from a position of extreme ignorance.

I never said that you inferred anything. I did. My apologies if that was not clear. Since my inference is incorrect, then why would you be lecturing me about my implied method of speech by doing the exact same thing yourself?

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: RPI 2013 Part V: Who Wants Screech?

I never said that you inferred anything. I did. My apologies if that was not clear. Since my inference is incorrect, then why would you be lecturing me about my implied method of speech by doing the exact same thing yourself?

Forget it. This is like talking to a brick wall, only thicker.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: RPI 2013 Part V: Who Wants Screech?

Forget it. This is like talking to a brick wall, only thicker.

Well, he did invite us all to put him on ignore, after all. Presumably that now makes it "our fault" for responding to him.

Perhaps we could collectively try an experiment for two weeks: suppose none of us respond to anything he says during that period. Might he learn anything thereby? After all, it was his suggestion to the rest of us (not mine!) that we all try it. We could give it a shot and see how it works out!

 

[jmhusker]

Re: RPI 2013 Part V: Who Wants Screech?

Patman computed that RPI has a 16.41% chance of making the tourney weighting results by Robin Lock's CHODR http://board.uscho.com/showthread.p...2013-Edition&p=5679637&viewfull=1#post5679637.

Interesting... but I'm not sure that I agree with the numbers. I don't think the tool is wrong but the choice for determining win probabilities (CHODR). Look at AH. Here are the numbers for the 3 teams that must win AH in order to get in:

UCONN: 25.34%
Mercyhurst: 19%
Canisius: 22.95%

Given that Canisius play Niagara first while Mercyhurst plays UCONN, does anyone really see how Canisius' chances are better than Mercyhurst? Mercyhurst can get in without having to even play Niagara. Canisius needs to win 2 games against one team that is a lot better than they are and a 2nd that is also better. How in the world do they end up at 22.95% chance while Niagara's chance of wining AH is only 32.71%?

I think that 16.41% chance is too low.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: RPI 2013 Part V: Who Wants Screech?

Interesting... but I'm not sure that I agree with the numbers. I don't think the tool is wrong but the choice for determining win probabilities (CHODR). Look at AH. Here are the numbers for the 3 teams that must win AH in order to get in:

UCONN: 25.34%
Mercyhurst: 19%
Canisius: 22.95%

Given that Canisius play Niagara first while Mercyhurst plays UCONN, does anyone really see how Canisius' chances are better than Mercyhurst? Mercyhurst can get in without having to even play Niagara. Canisius needs to win 2 games against one team that is a lot better than they are and a 2nd that is also better. How in the world do they end up at 22.95% chance while Niagara's chance of wining AH is only 32.71%?

I think that 16.41% chance is too low.

I think there may be a factor in that Canisius has beaten Niagara once this year.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: RPI 2013 Part V: Who Wants Screech?

Well, he did invite us all to put him on ignore, after all. Presumably that now makes it "our fault" for responding to him.

Perhaps we could collectively try an experiment for two weeks: suppose none of us respond to anything he says during that period. Might he learn anything thereby? After all, it was his suggestion to the rest of us (not mine!) that we all try it. We could give it a shot and see how it works out!

I approve this message.

 

[Ralph Baer]

Re: RPI 2013 Part V: Who Wants Screech?

Interesting... but I'm not sure that I agree with the numbers. I don't think the tool is wrong but the choice for determining win probabilities (CHODR). Look at AH. Here are the numbers for the 3 teams that must win AH in order to get in:

UCONN: 25.34%
Mercyhurst: 19%
Canisius: 22.95%

Given that Canisius play Niagara first while Mercyhurst plays UCONN, does anyone really see how Canisius' chances are better than Mercyhurst? Mercyhurst can get in without having to even play Niagara. Canisius needs to win 2 games against one team that is a lot better than they are and a 2nd that is also better. How in the world do they end up at 22.95% chance while Niagara's chance of wining AH is only 32.71%?


I think that 16.41% chance is too low.

I hope that you are correct.

 

[jmhusker]

Re: RPI 2013 Part V: Who Wants Screech?

I think there may be a factor in that Canisius has beaten Niagara once this year.

OK so that gives them a 33% chance to get to the finals. And looking at AH results, I see they are a combined 3-1 against UCONN and MH. 75% x 33% gets you close to 25%. The sample sizes are awfully small though.

 

[RHamilton]

Re: RPI 2013 Part V: Who Wants Screech?

My weighted iteration over all outcomes using KRACH says...

20.95%

My unweighted numbers match exactly (8.2% for RPI) with JimDahl's, which I'm quite pleased about.

It ran overnight, finishing in ~5 hours on my 5 year old laptop, much quicker than the ~10 hours it took on the very fast 8-core server I used two years ago. I also did a much better job storing the data, so I can perform queries (what are the odds of RPI making the tournament if x result happens, for example) in a fraction of a second, something that took several minutes last year.

I'll have more info, including seed breakdown and some locks when I get home from work. Unfortunately, I'm not the college student with unlimited time anymore . I'll be piping data over to WaP for additional analysis as well.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: RPI 2013 Part V: Who Wants Screech?

My weighted iteration over all outcomes using KRACH says...

20.95%

My unweighted numbers match exactly (8.2% for RPI) with JimDahl's, which I'm quite pleased about.

It ran overnight, finishing in ~5 hours on my 5 year old laptop, much quicker than the ~10 hours it took on the very fast 8-core server I used two years ago. I also did a much better job storing the data, so I can perform queries (what are the odds of RPI making the tournament if x result happens, for example) in a fraction of a second, something that took several minutes last year.

I'll have more info, including seed breakdown and some locks when I get home from work. Unfortunately, I'm not the college student with unlimited time anymore . I'll be piping data over to WaP for additional analysis as well.

Well done, sir. It's also nice to see the application of all those efficiency lessons that the comp-sci profs teach.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: RPI 2013 Part V: Who Wants Screech?

My weighted iteration over all outcomes using KRACH says...

20.95%

One in five chance....to meet a number 1 seed. I'm of two minds here, part of me wants the team to miss the tournament this year so that the sting of our exit really hurts and provides extra motivation for next year. Naturally part of me wants to see us score at least one more goal this year.

 

[Ralph Baer]

Re: RPI 2013 Part V: Who Wants Screech?

My weighted iteration over all outcomes using KRACH says...

20.95%

My unweighted numbers match exactly (8.2% for RPI) with JimDahl's, which I'm quite pleased about.

It ran overnight, finishing in ~5 hours on my 5 year old laptop, much quicker than the ~10 hours it took on the very fast 8-core server I used two years ago. I also did a much better job storing the data, so I can perform queries (what are the odds of RPI making the tournament if x result happens, for example) in a fraction of a second, something that took several minutes last year.

I'll have more info, including seed breakdown and some locks when I get home from work. Unfortunately, I'm not the college student with unlimited time anymore . I'll be piping data over to WaP for additional analysis as well.

You might want to post your results on the bracketology thread.

 

[jmhusker]

Re: RPI 2013 Part V: Who Wants Screech?

My weighted iteration over all outcomes using KRACH says...

20.95%

My unweighted numbers match exactly (8.2% for RPI) with JimDahl's, which I'm quite pleased about.

It ran overnight, finishing in ~5 hours on my 5 year old laptop, much quicker than the ~10 hours it took on the very fast 8-core server I used two years ago. I also did a much better job storing the data, so I can perform queries (what are the odds of RPI making the tournament if x result happens, for example) in a fraction of a second, something that took several minutes last year.

I'll have more info, including seed breakdown and some locks when I get home from work. Unfortunately, I'm not the college student with unlimited time anymore . I'll be piping data over to WaP for additional analysis as well.

Well my back of the envelope method and guesstimate that 3 PWR flips gets us in wasn't so bad after all. 24.6 vs. 21.0! So now that you are looking at scenarios, can you supply the following:
- Changes based on the 4 outcomes on Thursday.
- If Michigan loses to Miami, what is the likelihood of them falling over the TUC cliff? I played with the predictor and there were just too many other factors that come in to play to get a good feel (other than a Notre Dame loss which pretty much seals it)

 

[realet]

Re: RPI 2013 Part V: Who Wants Screech?

- If Michigan loses to Miami, what is the likelihood of them falling over the TUC cliff? I played with the predictor and there were just too many other factors that come in to play to get a good feel (other than a Notre Dame loss which pretty much seals it)

Haven't looked real closely at it, but my guess is "pretty likely."

 

[RHamilton]

Re: RPI 2013 Part V: Who Wants Screech?

So now that you are looking at scenarios, can you supply the following:
- Changes based on the 4 outcomes on Thursday.
- If Michigan loses to Miami, what is the likelihood of them falling over the TUC cliff? I played with the predictor and there were just too many other factors that come in to play to get a good feel (other than a Notre Dame loss which pretty much seals it)

Yes, I'll be working on a breakdown on a per-game basis -- unfortunately won't be able to play with it until later tonight after work.

I chose not to store any TUC cliff information, as I was more interested in the final result (seed for each team) rather than the interim calculations. I ended up storing a rank/seed for all 59 teams for each outcome; in retrospect it would have made more sense to only store TUCs, or at least a designation of where the TUC cutoff is. Maybe next year, or maybe I'll re-run tonight .

 

[rvd5star69]

One in five chance....to meet a number 1 seed. I'm of two minds here, part of me wants the team to miss the tournament this year so that the sting of our exit really hurts and provides extra motivation for next year. Naturally part of me wants to see us score at least one more goal this year.

Really? Any team can win tourney is year..... I want another game. I want bailen to have a chance to play in his last game. I want kasdorf tomgetmw chance to redeem himself. Any regional in ready to fly or drive

 

[johnk]

Re: RPI 2013 Part V: Who Wants Screech?

One in five chance....to meet a number 1 seed. I'm of two minds here, part of me wants the team to miss the tournament this year so that the sting of our exit really hurts and provides extra motivation for next year. Naturally part of me wants to see us score at least one more goal this year.

Extra motivation doesn't lead to execution. It would be great to get in, especially for the seniors. Their chances this year are somewhat better than they were in 2011. Hopefully a couple of games fall the right way and off to a regional they go.

 

[ilovehockeyfights]

Re: RPI 2013 Part V: Who Wants Screech?

Honest question and please feel free to educate me:

Why isn't Nick Bailen considered hobey baker material?