Skip to main content

Probability and Cumulative Dice Sums

Post a Comment

A Stupid and Strange Way of Looking at Sports Power Ratings that could be Smart and Useful

As I've mentioned previously, a common method used in sports for estimating game outcomes known as log5 can be written \[p = \frac{p_1 q_2}{p_1 q_2+q_1 p_2}\] where \(p_i\) is the fraction of games won by team \(i\) and \(q_i\) is the fraction of games lost by team \(i\). We're assuming that there are no ties. What's the easiest way to derive this estimate? Here's one argument. Assume team \(i\) has a probability \(p_i\) of beating an average team (a team that wins half its games). Now imagine that this means for any given game the team has some "strength" sampled from [0,1] with median \(p_i\) and that the stronger team always wins. Thus, the probability that team 1 beats team 2 is \[ p = \int_0^1 \int_0^1 \! \mathrm{Pr}(p_1 > p_2) \, \mathrm{d} p_1 \mathrm{d} p_2 .\] This looks complicated, but but with probability \(p_1\) team 1 is stronger than an average team and with probability \(p_2\) team 2 is stronger than an average team. From this perspective the log5 estimate is just the Bayesian probability that team 1 will be stronger than an average team while team 2 will be weaker than an average team, conditional on either team 1 being stronger than an average team and team 2 weaker than an average team, or team 1 weaker than an average team and team 2 stronger than an average team. In these cases it's unambiguous which team is stronger. The cases where the strength of both teams is stronger or weaker than an average team (the ambiguous cases) are thus discarded.

How could this be useful? Instead of ignoring the ambiguous outcomes when estimating the outcome probabilities under this "latent strength" model, we could instead determine which probability distributions best fit the outcome distributions for a given league! Furthermore, this allows us to cohesively put a power rating system into a Bayesian framework by assigning to each team a Bayesian prior strength distribution. These priors could either be uninformative or informative using e.g. preseason rankings.

Comments

  1. merrittsDecember 31, 2013 at 5:36 AM

    This is interesting and seems to be closely related to the Bradley-Terry ranking model. I think the missing link in either of these approaches is connecting p_i with underlying cumulative strength of the team's individual players.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Christopher D. LongDecember 31, 2013 at 11:30 AM

      Yes, a Bayesian strength Bradley-Terry-Luce model would have \[ p= \frac{S_1}{S_1+S_2},\] where \(S_i\) is sampled from some probability distribution. As I've mentioned in a previous article, these approaches may be related by setting \(S_i = \frac{p_i}{q_i}\).

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Simplified Multinomial Kelly

Here's a simplified version for optimal Kelly bets when you have multiple outcomes (e.g. horse races). The Smoczynski & Tomkins algorithm, which is explained here (or in the original paper): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion#Multiple_horses Let's say there's a wager that, for every $1 you bet, will return a profit of $b if you win. Let the probability of winning be \(p\), and losing be \(q=1-p\). The original Kelly criterion says to wager only if \(b\cdot p-q > 0\) (the expected value is positive), and in this case to wager a fraction \( \frac{b\cdot p-q}{b} \) of your bankroll. But in a horse race, how do you decide which set of outcomes are favorable to bet on? It's tricky, because these wagers are mutually exclusive i.e. you can win at most one. It turns out there's a simple and intuitive method to find which bets are favorable: 1) Look at \( b\cdot p-q\) for every horse. 2) Pick any horse for which \( b\cdot p-q > 0\) and mar...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mixed Models in R - Bigger, Faster, Stronger

When you start doing more advanced sports analytics you'll eventually starting working with what are known as hierarchical, nested or mixed effects models . These are models that contain both fixed and random effects . There are multiple ways of defining fixed vs random random effects , but one way I find particularly useful is that random effects are being "predicted" rather than "estimated", and this in turn involves some "shrinkage" towards the mean. Here's some R code for NCAA ice hockey power rankings using a nested Poisson model (which can be found in my hockey GitHub repository ): model The fixed effects are year , field (home/away/neutral), d_div (NCAA division of the defense), o_div (NCAA division of the offense) and game_length (number of overtime periods); offense (strength of offense), defense (strength of defense) and game_id are all random effects. The reason for modeling team offenses and defenses as random vs fixed effec...
3 comments
Read more

A Bayes' Solution to Monty Hall

For any problem involving conditional probabilities one of your greatest allies is Bayes' Theorem . Bayes' Theorem says that for two events A and B, the probability of A given B is related to the probability of B given A in a specific way. Standard notation: probability of A given B is written \( \Pr(A \mid B) \) probability of B is written \( \Pr(B) \) Bayes' Theorem: Using the notation above, Bayes' Theorem can be written:  \[ \Pr(A \mid B) = \frac{\Pr(B \mid A)\times \Pr(A)}{\Pr(B)} \] Let's apply Bayes' Theorem to the Monty Hall problem . If you recall, we're told that behind three doors there are two goats and one car, all randomly placed. We initially choose a door, and then Monty, who knows what's behind the doors, always shows us a goat behind one of the remaining doors. He can always do this as there are two goats; if we chose the car initially, Monty picks one of the two doors with a goat behind it at random. Assume we pick Door 1 an...
20 comments
Read more