Well, Liquid had odds of 1.8 and Fnatic had odds of 1.9 pre-match, so actually it was a very strong prediction considering how close the actual game was!
0
C9B fans come
posted in
Valorant Discussion
Comments:
Threaded
Linear
no, it wasnt, because it still predicted Liquid to win. That is unreliable. And false. Fnatic was favoured, and fnatic won, by match results. This only proves my argument and disproves yours even more. I mean, i already proved ur argument wrong even without today's results, but this just adds salt to your injury.
Odds are real time it changes from score to score and amount of people betting, favourable team is also a factor
That... isnt my point or argument at all. Even pre-match odds leaned in favour of liquid, is the point and it proves my argument that betting odds are not reliable for favoured team to win. Match results are. And this only proved it. but again, today's results dont even matter, because I proved my argument to be true without today's results.
Liquid were favourite if you just consider betting scenario and only that. People betted more on TL and that's why it was more favoured but just in betting scene
Yeah no thats my point. Betting odds are not a valid criterion to judge what team is favoured, because as you see, they lost, and Fnatic won, and were the favoured team to win by using factual match results and accomplishments and logic.
The brier score of the individual outcome is 0.264833622, so it's still tracking quite well. My dead grandma could've predicted fnatic to win with 100% confidence and gotten a brier score of 0, but that doesn't mean she's a skilled predictor, could've just got a coinflip right :). So we compare multiple outcomes and the confidence to get the mean and figure out the relative strength of the predictors.
If you want, you can give me your probabilities(of the favorite winning) for these next upcoming matches so I can compute your brier scores too and compare to the prediction market performance.
Brier scores or whatever other bullshit you're talking about doesn't matter. This argument was finished days ago, and I proved you wrong even without this proof that we got today. But my point is that the proof today changes the 100% debunking of your argument to like 110%. It's not that major, nor is it the only thing that I used to prove you wrong. Bettors are not reliable and not factual, match results are, to determine favoured team in matchups.
I will give you a good example how bad betting odds are. There was a 4 match test series going on between India and England. India were clear favourite according to situation. England won first match by fluke and for the rest of the series it showed England to win even with India 2-1 up in the series. (After the toss)
Maybe you should do a little reading on the efficient market hypothesis? If you think that is bunk too, you can surely price in your predictions in the markets and outperform them.
When you get kicked by the bookmaker, let me know!
That has nothing to do with anything. Again, the argument is about objectively determining the favoured team. Even if a team is factually favoured, by the valid criterion of match results, that doesnt guarantee a win. It is only the most likely option. You dont have a rebuttal which is why you refer to some random hypothesis.
I don't have anything to rebut thankfully. It's just very entertaining to me to see how much nonsense you'll be able to generate, if I keep querying you.
Discord