02-07-2011, 01:54 PM
|
#1
|
|
Redundant Minister of Redundancy
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Montreal
|
EA simulation correctly picks Superbowl winner, yet again
The EA simulation has correctly picked the Superbowl winner 7 of the last 8 years. Pretty impressive.
An article from the start of the NFL season when this year's simulation was run:
http://www.wired.com/playbook/2010/0...dden-2010-sim/
Interesting that it's so good at picking NFL winners and terrible at picking NHL winners...
|
|
|
|
02-07-2011, 02:57 PM
|
#2
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Interesting that they're able to pick the correct winner overall with such accuracy, while being so very wrong about things like this:
Quote:
|
The Packers will tie Favre’s Minnesota Vikings for the NFC’s top record but will be the top seed in the conference due to a stronger record against divisional foes.
|
It probably comes down to good overall modelling of player attributes and the game itself, coupled with a fair bit of luck.
I remember an EA NHL prediction from 2006-2007 which had the Flames winning the cup, Iginla getting the Art Ross (with something like 120 points) and Tanguay taking the Con Smythe.
|
|
|
|
|
02-07-2011, 03:22 PM
|
#3
|
|
Redundant Minister of Redundancy
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Montreal
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-07-2011, 03:34 PM
|
#4
|
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackEleven
|
Look at that, 0-4
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Roast Beef For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
02-07-2011, 03:37 PM
|
#5
|
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Calgary
|
probably because the sim engine in NHL in brutal and all tems are basically within 2-3 points of each other
|
|
|
|
|
02-07-2011, 03:54 PM
|
#6
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Vancouver
|
In fairness hockey's probably much more difficult to simulate given the number of games, and the fact that playoffs are 7 game series' not one game per round. Still though, 7 out of 8 is pretty good.
__________________
A few weeks after crashing head-first into the boards (denting his helmet and being unable to move for a little while) following a hit from behind by Bob Errey, the Calgary Flames player explains:
"I was like Christ, lying on my back, with my arms outstretched, crucified"
-- Frank Musil - Early January 1994
|
|
|
|
|
02-07-2011, 03:58 PM
|
#7
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Calgary
|
What was the year they got it wrong? 2007?
__________________
MYK - Supports Arizona to democtratically pass laws for the state of Arizona
Rudy was the only hope in 08
2011 Election: Cons 40% - Nanos 38% Ekos 34%
|
|
|
|
|
02-07-2011, 04:16 PM
|
#8
|
|
Redundant Minister of Redundancy
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Montreal
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Igottago
In fairness hockey's probably much more difficult to simulate given the number of games, and the fact that playoffs are 7 game series' not one game per round. Still though, 7 out of 8 is pretty good.
|
I would think more rounds would make it easier to simulate. The more rounds you have the less chance a random unlikely event has of impacting the final outcome as it will be mitigated over the course several games. Or in other words, in a 7 game series the team that is "better on paper" should have a better chance of winning than in a one game winner-take-all scenario.
I think hockey probably has a larger unpredictability factor to the games themselves. In football you have a play, you execute it, then you reset for the next play. Hockey is much more dynamic -- turnovers happen constantly, penalties (which are unpredictable) probably have a bigger impact on the final result, games are much closer in the playoffs (usually won by a single goal in the playoffs), and other such events. I'm no expert, so I'm just guessing here...
|
|
|
|
|
02-07-2011, 04:19 PM
|
#9
|
|
Franchise Player
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
02-08-2011, 04:26 PM
|
#11
|
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roast Beef
Look at that, 0-4
|
I've could've sworn they picked Chicago last year. They were gloating because they picked Vancouver this year and were all excited because the game picked Chicago the year before... meh, Flames are going to win it anyways this year.
|
|
|
|
|
02-09-2011, 01:42 AM
|
#12
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Calgary, AB
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackEleven
I would think more rounds would make it easier to simulate. The more rounds you have the less chance a random unlikely event has of impacting the final outcome as it will be mitigated over the course several games. Or in other words, in a 7 game series the team that is "better on paper" should have a better chance of winning than in a one game winner-take-all scenario.
I think hockey probably has a larger unpredictability factor to the games themselves. In football you have a play, you execute it, then you reset for the next play. Hockey is much more dynamic -- turnovers happen constantly, penalties (which are unpredictable) probably have a bigger impact on the final result, games are much closer in the playoffs (usually won by a single goal in the playoffs), and other such events. I'm no expert, so I'm just guessing here...
|
I haven't taken STATS in years but I'm pretty sure that's not how probability works.
|
|
|
|
|
02-09-2011, 02:14 AM
|
#13
|
|
tromboner
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: where the lattes are
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by flamesrule_kipper34
I haven't taken STATS in years but I'm pretty sure that's not how probability works.
|
Umm actually it kind of is. You can more accurately predict results with a larger sample size.
|
|
|
|
|
02-09-2011, 09:09 AM
|
#14
|
|
First Line Centre
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by flamesrule_kipper34
I haven't taken STATS in years but I'm pretty sure that's not how probability works.
|
lol
The more samples = the more accurate a representation of the population.
Otherwise, everyone could just survey one person to get their representative population.
|
|
|
|
|
02-09-2011, 12:04 PM
|
#15
|
|
Loves Teh Chat!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by flamesrule_kipper34
I haven't taken STATS in years but I'm pretty sure that's not how probability works.
|
Maybe you should crack open that text book again. 
|
|
|
|
|
02-09-2011, 12:59 PM
|
#16
|
|
CP Gamemaster
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Gary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diverce
I've could've sworn they picked Chicago last year. They were gloating because they picked Vancouver this year and were all excited because the game picked Chicago the year before... meh, Flames are going to win it anyways this year.
|
They did pick Chicago just before the playoffs started I believe.
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:00 PM.
|
|
