"To our knowledge, no one has ever produced a perfect bracket, the three-minute mile of office pools. Perhaps one is buried in the boneyard of photocopied, hand-filled brackets of yesteryear. Internet-era contests are easier to track. Against the standard of perfection, more than 30 million ESPN brackets have failed, one by one, in the past 16 years, according to a spokeswoman. Over the last two years, no CBSSports.com bracket remained perfect through the second day of the tournament, a spokeswoman said. Yahoo’s entrant who came closest to perfection got 58 of 63 games right in 2007, according to a spokesman; last year no one picked more than 50 games correctly at either CBS or Yahoo. (Yahoo is partnering with Buffett’s perfect bracket contest.)"
ESPN has been running a large-scale bracket contest for 13 years. Nobody has ever come close to perfection, the sports network’s John Diver told CNN in January. Only one person in the last seven years managed to pick just the first-round winners correctly.
“I don’t want to say it’s impossible,” Diver said, “but it’s basically impossible.”"
ok look, its obviously a ridiculous long shot, but those articles are overstating it,
tradition brackets aren't a good predictor of how this bracket will play out because the incentives are different
in most polls its sort of silly to shoot for perfection for 2 reasons
1) if you're playing against other people, missing big upsets don't hurt you, if no one picked the #15 seed to win, the #15 seed winning doesn't hurt you relatively,
2) in most bracket, later rounds are seeded more heavily, so if your picking a big upset and miss, you're leaving alot of potential future points on the table
both of these reason disincentive picking alot of upsets
neither reason applies here, in fact in order to put in a plausible bracket, you better roll the dice on some fairly unlikely bracket
from my counting yesterday, if you want history to be your guide, you should probably pick 8-10 9 or lower seeds winning in the first round, and 3-5 12 or lower seeds winning in the first round
which would be way more agressive than would make sense in a traditional bracket
Date: March 18th, 2014 9:47 AM Author: heady queen of the night indirect expression
The incentives are different, but you're still taking what amounts to a random guess on at least some of the upsets, which puts you back at the statistical odds, which are really, really low.
Date: March 18th, 2014 10:00 AM Author: Peach arousing state telephone
Jeff Bergen, a math professor at DePaul University, derived a more realistic calculation that takes basketball knowledge into account. If you know the sport pretty well, he concludes, your chances of picking perfectly are more like 1 in 128 billion.
Still not so hot. As Bergen explained, that would mean you’d need to fill out about 90 billion brackets before you even had a 50-50 chance to win.
Date: March 18th, 2014 9:58 AM Author: Peach arousing state telephone
If all 317 million people in the U.S. filled out a bracket at random, you could run the contest for 290 million years, and there’d still be a 99 percent chance that no one had ever won.
Date: March 18th, 2014 10:00 AM Author: Peach arousing state telephone
Jeff Bergen, a math professor at DePaul University, derived a more realistic calculation that takes basketball knowledge into account. If you know the sport pretty well, he concludes, your chances of picking perfectly are more like 1 in 128 billion.
Still not so hot. As Bergen explained, that would mean you’d need to fill out about 90 billion brackets before you even had a 50-50 chance to win.
Date: March 18th, 2014 10:43 AM Author: Harsh marketing idea
yeah
how many random combinations are there if posit that we have to have 8-10 >=9 seeds winning in the first round, and 3-5 >=12 seeds winning in the first round, and 0 16 seeds winning, and we don't give a shit what happens in the final four because we going to take the buyout number
any math people want to take a shot at how many of the 1/9quintillion brackets we have left?
Date: March 18th, 2014 10:21 AM Author: Aggressive beady-eyed senate corn cake
But even sick knowledge won't win it. You need to be lucky to the tune of needing to be like, 1 in 150,000,000,000. It's hard enough to get out of the first round perfect, so hard that nerds have done it once in like 16 years.
Date: March 19th, 2014 10:51 AM Author: jet sick public bath
For any one bracket, your odds are obviously better picking all 10 favorites. But when there are multiple brackets involved, its obviously important to ensure that each bracket is unique.
Date: March 20th, 2014 9:07 AM Author: Splenetic Box Office
I think it's less total number of upsets and more that you just can't have teams like Florida Gulf Coast last year or Cornell a few years ago at all. Both of those teams probably eliminated 99% of brackets from contention to be perfect, and all of the sudden the "well maybe someone hits" becomes "impossible" again, esp. because it will probably eliminate an even larger portion of the "knowledgeable about basketball" brackets, meaning the brackets left go back up to the already unreasonable odds.
Date: March 20th, 2014 9:12 AM Author: Harsh marketing idea
considering the historical average is for 1 or so 14 or 15 seed to win
what do you think of the strategy of using Sagrin, (or someother rating system) to guess which is the most likely 2-3 14-15 upsets are, and then picking one of those?
Date: March 20th, 2014 9:23 AM Author: 180 bawdyhouse
they not only did that, but they generated algorithmically the most likely brackets, so those 7,553 entries are (more or less) the 7,553 most likely outcomes, not just random selections.
Date: March 20th, 2014 9:35 AM Author: 180 bawdyhouse
if you sign up for a bracket using that website, the agreement is that if any one bracket wins, you share the winnings with everyone. it's a lottery pool.
this part would make it interesting too:
“If you get to the Final Four with a perfect bracket, I may buy you out of your position,” Buffett said. “I’ll make you an offer you can’t refuse. I will accept your phone call, you better believe it.”
someone signs up on that site and does reach the final four with a perfect bracket, then refuses Buffet's buy out offer. then their bracket fails. chances one of the other entrants sues?
Date: March 20th, 2014 10:32 AM Author: thriller hairless french chef market
They planned for the algorithm stuff. That's why they limited the number of entrants to 15M. Even if all 15M brackets were unique (and were the 15M most likely permutations, a priori), the odds of a payout would still be somewhere in the 1/1000 range.
Date: March 20th, 2014 10:43 AM Author: thriller hairless french chef market
A supercomputer could generate every possible bracket in a little over a second. Give the teams preset strengths and it could then rank the brackets by a priori probability.
Side note: Not sure what all this chatter about needing to put it the number of upsets to be in line with historical averages, etc. is. The single most likely combination is the one with all favorites. Of course, that goes outside the realm of what you need to do to ensure that you have a unique bracket if you're trying to cop dat billion for yourself.