Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob
Interesting that they're able to pick the correct winner overall with such accuracy, while being so very wrong about things like this:
It probably comes down to good overall modelling of player attributes and the game itself, coupled with a fair bit of luck.
|
I think being horribly wrong at things like the Vikings basically confirms the obvious - it's just lucky. The odds aren't good that the game is going to predict the winner nearly every year, but 8 samples isn't exactly a large sample size and people love to try and justify statistical anomalies all the time when luck is clearly the most logical explanation.
If the game was so accurate, then why was basically every other prediction in that article wrong?