Team Slavik fell from 7th out of 32 contestants in our pool down to 19th place after last nights late results.
Old Dominion almost pulled it off as one of our 12 seed vs. 5 seed upsets, but Arkansas pulled a no-show against USC late at night. Both hurt a bit, but the big hurt came earlier when Creighton had a late shot to win from in close during regulation, losing later in OT vs. Nevada. We had them winning the next game vs. Memphis as well, so that's a major gash. All our final fours are intact, so we have good prospects going forward.
The first round is like being in a knife fight. You're going to get cut. You just hope you're not bleeding too bad at the end so you can survive into the later rounds and be within shouting distance going into the Final Four.
There is an amazing diversity in the processes people go through in order to pick the "perfect bracket". Some go through hours of research worthy of purchasing a million dollar stock position or a major life decision like a home or a car. Others simply choose by what city they would rather live in, which mascot would win in a fight, team colors, etc. (history shows they win most of the pools anyway).
The odds of actually picking the perfect bracket theoretically are 1:2^63 (one in two to the 63rd power) or one in 9 Million Trillion. What a bazillion was taken? According to the odds posted on the Powerball lottery site, you would be 60 billion times more likely to win Powerball than post a perfect bracket.
Most of the Internet sites that run the computerized standings for pool players have their leaders posting a minimum of two to three losers already, just on the basis of the first round results.
In theory, the odds previously stated assume the coin-flip theory (ie: every game is a 50-50 toss-up) and we "know" that's not the case. So we could tilt the odds more in our favor by adding some other assumptions to the mix.
Assume that since a 16 seed has never beaten a 1 seed that those games are "locks" to go to the 1 seed. Two seeds rarely beat 15 seeds (although it has happened) so toss those into the "lock" hopper as well. That's eight games we no longer have to worry about, they're in the bank. We've now reduced the odds to 1:2^55 (one in two to the 55th power) or 1 in 36 million billion.
What if I take into account the "fact" that I have a system (who doesn't) that ranks teams and the system is accurate in picking winners 67% of the time? Your odds with that system would be approximately 1: 240 billion.
If you were 70% accurate: 1:13 billion
If you were 72% accurate: 1: 970 million
If you were 75% accurate: 1:150 million
If you took the "chalk" strategy across the board (ie: picked the lower seed to win every game) 1: 150 billion. NO UPSETS. THAT WOULDN'T BE ANY FUN!!!
So far, this tournament is favoring the chalk, not too many "major" upsets and few minor ones. That could change today and going forward. I have to admit, my approach is closest to the pure chalk strategy, assuming the committee and the various number crunchers have done the homework for me, with a pich of selective upsets tossed in.
I probably am more likely to reach for upsets in the early rounds and stay closer to the chalk later on. I have to have a real feel that the lower seeded team has a good chance to win as well as the favorite being a candidate to go home early.
I guess Winthrop over Notre Dame (yes, it hurt to pick that one) fit the model best.
(Yes, because they won. ODU and VCU were also there for the same reasons, close but no cigar). Winthrop has been knocking on this door for years and ND, although talented, has had some off the court issues and inconsistency throughout the year.
Sometimes you look to the numbers for answers and sometimes you have to trust your gut, I guess. As you can see, sometimes the numbers provide more questions than answers.
No comments:
Post a Comment