$5 million followup
“It’s gettable, but it’s hard – that’s why it’s five million dollars.”
“The chances of picking every game correctly were astronomical”
- NBR (paywalled)
“crystal ball gazing of such magnitude that University of Auckland statistics expert associate professor David Scott doesn’t think either will have to pay out.”
“quite hard to win “
“someone like you [non-expert] has as much chance because [an expert] wouldn’t pick an upset”
- Radio Sport NZ (‘Crowd Goes Wild’ breakfast)
“An expert is less likely to win it than someone who just has a shot at it.”
“It’s only 64 games and, as I say, there’s only 20 tricky ones I reckon”
Yeah, nah.
Thomas Lumley (@tslumley) is Professor of Biostatistics at the University of Auckland. His research interests include semiparametric models, survey sampling, statistical computing, foundations of statistics, and whatever methodological problems his medical collaborators come up with. He also blogs at Biased and Inefficient See all posts by Thomas Lumley »
““someone like you [non-expert] has as much chance because [an expert] wouldn’t pick an upset””
I’d have thought the most probable number of upsets is 0.
10 years ago
Don’t know why I thought that. Please ignore.
10 years ago
I still suspect that the quoted statement is bollocks, though.
10 years ago
It’s only true to the extent that the chance is zero for either (to within rounding error)
10 years ago
Stuff said “TAB football ambassador Paul Ifill said it was the single biggest prize pool the TAB had offered”
This isn’t true. A pool is a sum that is divided among the winners. In this case if there are no winners then there is no division hence no pool.
10 years ago
If there were to be winners, the money would be divided among them, so I think they have a technical defence there.
In any case,Stuff distinguished themselves by getting the basic message correct, unlike everyone else except NBR.
10 years ago