Car Nack Predicts 16-1

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by Richard Wallace

Through Week 1, Car Nack's 25% prediction is not looking good. 9/17 (52.9%) of #1 seeds have captained winning alliances.

Using a binomial distribution with n=17 and p = .25, the probability that 9 or more first seeds would win in week 1 is only 1.24%. Unless later week events behave much differently than the early week events, there is currently a better chance of flipping a coin and predicting the outcome correctly 6 times in a row than there is of Car Nack's prediction being correct. Although that has happened, so all hope is not yet lost for this prediction.

[JackN]

Anyone have an update on this? I feel like this has been a season where more lower seeded alliances have won.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by JackN

Anyone have an update on this? I feel like this has been a season where more lower seeded alliances have won.

Week 0.5: 1/1
Week 1: 9/17
Week 2: 19/24
Week 3: 12/21

So far, #1 seeds have won 65% of Regionals/Districts.

[plnyyanks]

Originally Posted by dodar

Week 0.5: 1/1
Week 1: 9/17
Week 2: 19/24
Week 3: 12/21

So far, #1 seeds have won 65% of Regionals/Districts.

So far, we're at a higher percentage of events won by #1 than all but 2010, 2011, and 2015.

Originally Posted by plnyyanks

Overall 363 of 628 events were won by top seeds (57.8025477707 percent)
  In 2007, 17 of 41 events were won by top seeds (41.4634146341 percent). 0 events were skipped
  In 2008, 24 of 45 events were won by top seeds (53.3333333333 percent). 0 events were skipped
  In 2009, 21 of 44 events were won by top seeds (47.7272727273 percent). 8 events were skipped
  In 2010, 35 of 50 events were won by top seeds (70.0 percent). 5 events were skipped
  In 2011, 41 of 62 events were won by top seeds (66.1290322581 percent). 0 events were skipped
  In 2012, 46 of 73 events were won by top seeds (63.0136986301 percent). 0 events were skipped
  In 2013, 46 of 81 events were won by top seeds (56.7901234568 percent). 0 events were skipped
  In 2014, 51 of 102 events were won by top seeds (50.0 percent). 0 events were skipped
  In 2015, 82 of 117 events were won by top seeds (70.0854700855 percent). 0 events were skipped

[tr6scott]

Car Nack is a witch.

[Calvin Hartley]

Originally Posted by tr6scott

Car Nack is a witch.

Does Car Nack float?

[dodar]

Originally Posted by Calvin Hartley

Does Car Nack float?

When the 2017 Water Game happens we will find out.

[tindleroot]

Originally Posted by Calvin Hartley

Does Car Nack float?

What really matters is if Car Nack weighs the same as a duck.

[lynca]

This is a big prediction from CarNack !
The #1 seed typically wins more than 25% of the events in previous years.

[Bob Steele]

I am wondering why the all knowing Car Nack has made this prediction.

I would think that a really good breaching robot will probably place in that position and then choose the best shooter.

???

[Navid Shafa]

Originally Posted by Bob Steele

I am wondering why the all knowing Car Nack has made this prediction.

I would think that a really good breaching robot will probably place in that position and then choose the best shooter.

???

I don't think this strategy would ever work out...

[IronicDeadBird]

Originally Posted by Car Nack

Car Nack predicts that in the regional and district events that the number one seed will have a very difficult time winning the event. In fact the number one seed will win in less than 25% of the events.

Car Nack has spoken.

Wow...

[Doug Frisk]

It's a perfectly reasonable prediction. This year a plan executed well will overcome the best individual robots.

The qualifications will do a good job of seeding the best robots high. The best team players and the best strategists may not seed number 1.

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

I can see Car Nack's points but I disagree. A team that makes a robot to effectively rank 1 is probably strategic enough to pick really good partners that compliment them as well. Teams still have to win matches to rank 1 in addition to breaching and capturing as well. And since breaching and capturing does not award in game points for qualifying matches, the rank 1 team will likely be a strong scorer on their own. A lower seeded alliance that has an earlier third bot can have a decent chance of working together to take down the top 2 bots but I think they would still be the underdogs. Will have to wait and see I guess

[Cal578]

Originally Posted by Rangel(kf7fdb)

... And since breaching and capturing does not award in game points for qualifying matches ...

...but does in tournament...

It always bothers me when the rules to get into the tournament are not the same as the rules to win the tournament. Qualification is supposed to result in a ranked list of probability of winning the tournament (it's not perfect, but that's the intention). If the rules change, the result is likely to be different.