|
So does 4th place in placement matches just mean "got to the Ro8 and no further"?
|
On September 19 2013 13:27 slowbacontron wrote:
So does 4th place in placement matches just mean "got to the Ro8 and no further"?
Correct. 4th place in placement matches means they got 8th place overall and would not go to the season finals. For example, last season Soulkey and Symbol got 4th place in the WCS KR Placement Matches.
|
What's the difference between 4th in Placement and 2nd in Placement for Korea and Europe? Don't only 5 from those regions to to the Finals?
|
On September 18 2013 01:17 Die4Ever wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 00:25 [F_]aths wrote:On September 13 2013 20:50 Die4Ever wrote:
I've been working on a program that calculates each players' chances of going to Blizzcon. It works by running hundreds of thousands of simulations of the tournament brackets using Monte Carlo method(wikipedia it) with the help of Aligulac ratings. Not only does it give % chances, but it also lists events that help or hurt that player's chances in the details section.
----MMA Acer gets 16th place in Season 3 Finals
This happens 10.1397% of the time. When it does, it changes his chances to 74.7506%. The number of past events does not justify a probability calculation with four decimal places. You're right, maybe I'll change to 1 or 2.
Even that is massively excessive, but better than four decimal places.
|
----NaNiwa gets 32nd place in IEM
This happens 43.75% of the time. When it does, it changes NaNiwa's chances to 3.40%.
How can that be? I thought he was already qualified for round of 16...
|
Did you make a difference between finishing 16th or finishing 12th because 16th gives you 200 points while 12th gives you 300 points. When I look at player's if-chances it's only about finishing 4th in the groupe, but finishing 3rd gives you 100 more points.
|
Why is starbuck not listed?
|
On September 19 2013 21:33 Siard wrote:
Why is starbuck not listed?
He's at the bottom of the at least 1% chance list.
Starbuck, 3097/300000, started with 100 WCS points, 1.03233%
|
On September 19 2013 20:30 chuky500 wrote:
Did you make a difference between finishing 16th or finishing 12th because 16th gives you 200 points while 12th gives you 300 points. When I look at player's if-chances it's only about finishing 4th in the groupe, but finishing 3rd gives you 100 more points.
It counts the difference in points, but it doesn't show the difference in placing. I could make it show the difference, but I'm not sure if that's better.
|
On September 19 2013 18:51 urmig wrote:Show nested quote +
----NaNiwa gets 32nd place in IEM
This happens 43.75% of the time. When it does, it changes NaNiwa's chances to 3.40%.
How can that be? I thought he was already qualified for round of 16...
Ah you are correct, the IEM qualifiers put you into the round of 16. I will need to fix that soon.
|
On September 19 2013 13:59 slowbacontron wrote:
What's the difference between 4th in Placement and 2nd in Placement for Korea and Europe? Don't only 5 from those regions to to the Finals?
You are correct that there is no difference in points between them, but they still do happen.
|
On September 19 2013 16:22 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 01:17 Die4Ever wrote:On September 18 2013 00:25 [F_]aths wrote:On September 13 2013 20:50 Die4Ever wrote:
I've been working on a program that calculates each players' chances of going to Blizzcon. It works by running hundreds of thousands of simulations of the tournament brackets using Monte Carlo method(wikipedia it) with the help of Aligulac ratings. Not only does it give % chances, but it also lists events that help or hurt that player's chances in the details section.
----MMA Acer gets 16th place in Season 3 Finals
This happens 10.1397% of the time. When it does, it changes his chances to 74.7506%. The number of past events does not justify a probability calculation with four decimal places. You're right, maybe I'll change to 1 or 2. Even that is massively excessive, but better than four decimal places.
I like numbers 
|
On September 19 2013 22:54 Die4Ever wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2013 13:59 slowbacontron wrote:
What's the difference between 4th in Placement and 2nd in Placement for Korea and Europe? Don't only 5 from those regions to to the Finals? You are correct that there is no difference in points between them, but they still do happen.
I'm just saying that for Korea and Europe players it's redundant to have both those events evaluated.
|
On September 20 2013 02:57 slowbacontron wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2013 22:54 Die4Ever wrote:On September 19 2013 13:59 slowbacontron wrote:
What's the difference between 4th in Placement and 2nd in Placement for Korea and Europe? Don't only 5 from those regions to to the Finals? You are correct that there is no difference in points between them, but they still do happen. I'm just saying that for Korea and Europe players it's redundant to have both those events evaluated.
Yea it does clutter the output a little bit, maybe I'll group them together sometime.
|
Just give us one foreigner.
|
On September 19 2013 16:22 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 01:17 Die4Ever wrote:On September 18 2013 00:25 [F_]aths wrote:On September 13 2013 20:50 Die4Ever wrote:
I've been working on a program that calculates each players' chances of going to Blizzcon. It works by running hundreds of thousands of simulations of the tournament brackets using Monte Carlo method(wikipedia it) with the help of Aligulac ratings. Not only does it give % chances, but it also lists events that help or hurt that player's chances in the details section.
----MMA Acer gets 16th place in Season 3 Finals
This happens 10.1397% of the time. When it does, it changes his chances to 74.7506%. The number of past events does not justify a probability calculation with four decimal places. You're right, maybe I'll change to 1 or 2. Even that is massively excessive, but better than four decimal places.
Is it? He's running a lot of monte carlo.
|
On September 20 2013 04:19 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2013 16:22 [F_]aths wrote:On September 18 2013 01:17 Die4Ever wrote:On September 18 2013 00:25 [F_]aths wrote:On September 13 2013 20:50 Die4Ever wrote:
I've been working on a program that calculates each players' chances of going to Blizzcon. It works by running hundreds of thousands of simulations of the tournament brackets using Monte Carlo method(wikipedia it) with the help of Aligulac ratings. Not only does it give % chances, but it also lists events that help or hurt that player's chances in the details section.
----MMA Acer gets 16th place in Season 3 Finals
This happens 10.1397% of the time. When it does, it changes his chances to 74.7506%. The number of past events does not justify a probability calculation with four decimal places. You're right, maybe I'll change to 1 or 2. Even that is massively excessive, but better than four decimal places. Is it? He's running a lot of monte carlo.
He did a run without Aligulac, and that case for example Revival has exactly 50/50 chance to win/lose. But in the monte-carlo results is says Revival has 49.85/50.15 chance, off in the first decimal place.
+ Show Spoiler [example] +
Revival, 243912/300000, started with 2900 WCS points, 81.304%
Revival starts in the round of 32 in America Premier facing Polt, Sage, HyuN
Revival loses this match 49.85% of the time, which changes Revival's chances to 71.56%.
Revival wins this match 50.15% of the time, which changes Revival's chances to 90.99%.
|
On September 20 2013 05:29 KillerDucky wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2013 04:19 EatThePath wrote:On September 19 2013 16:22 [F_]aths wrote:On September 18 2013 01:17 Die4Ever wrote:On September 18 2013 00:25 [F_]aths wrote:On September 13 2013 20:50 Die4Ever wrote:
I've been working on a program that calculates each players' chances of going to Blizzcon. It works by running hundreds of thousands of simulations of the tournament brackets using Monte Carlo method(wikipedia it) with the help of Aligulac ratings. Not only does it give % chances, but it also lists events that help or hurt that player's chances in the details section.
----MMA Acer gets 16th place in Season 3 Finals
This happens 10.1397% of the time. When it does, it changes his chances to 74.7506%. The number of past events does not justify a probability calculation with four decimal places. You're right, maybe I'll change to 1 or 2. Even that is massively excessive, but better than four decimal places. Is it? He's running a lot of monte carlo. He did a run without Aligulac, and that case for example Revival has exactly 50/50 chance to win/lose. But in the monte-carlo results is says Revival has 49.85/50.15 chance, off in the first decimal place. + Show Spoiler [example] +
Revival, 243912/300000, started with 2900 WCS points, 81.304%
Revival starts in the round of 32 in America Premier facing Polt, Sage, HyuN
Revival loses this match 49.85% of the time, which changes Revival's chances to 71.56%.
Revival wins this match 50.15% of the time, which changes Revival's chances to 90.99%.
My concern isn't so much about accuracy, it's more just I don't want 0.03% to be displayed as 0%.
|
On September 20 2013 05:45 Die4Ever wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2013 05:29 KillerDucky wrote:On September 20 2013 04:19 EatThePath wrote:On September 19 2013 16:22 [F_]aths wrote:On September 18 2013 01:17 Die4Ever wrote:On September 18 2013 00:25 [F_]aths wrote:On September 13 2013 20:50 Die4Ever wrote:
I've been working on a program that calculates each players' chances of going to Blizzcon. It works by running hundreds of thousands of simulations of the tournament brackets using Monte Carlo method(wikipedia it) with the help of Aligulac ratings. Not only does it give % chances, but it also lists events that help or hurt that player's chances in the details section.
----MMA Acer gets 16th place in Season 3 Finals
This happens 10.1397% of the time. When it does, it changes his chances to 74.7506%. The number of past events does not justify a probability calculation with four decimal places. You're right, maybe I'll change to 1 or 2. Even that is massively excessive, but better than four decimal places. Is it? He's running a lot of monte carlo. He did a run without Aligulac, and that case for example Revival has exactly 50/50 chance to win/lose. But in the monte-carlo results is says Revival has 49.85/50.15 chance, off in the first decimal place. + Show Spoiler [example] +
Revival, 243912/300000, started with 2900 WCS points, 81.304%
Revival starts in the round of 32 in America Premier facing Polt, Sage, HyuN
Revival loses this match 49.85% of the time, which changes Revival's chances to 71.56%.
Revival wins this match 50.15% of the time, which changes Revival's chances to 90.99%.
My concern isn't so much about accuracy, it's more just I don't want 0.03% to be displayed as 0%.
I should read more before I ask but I'm lazy (sorry) and you might just have the answer handy anyway, but is there a confidence interval with your %chance results and an error range?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
