Skip to main content

Probability and Cumulative Dice Sums

Post a Comment

Poisson Games and Sudden-Death Overtime

Let's say we have a game that can be reasonably modeled as two independent Poisson processes with team \(i\) having parameter \(\lambda_i\). If one team wins in regulation with team \(i\) scoring \(n_i\), then it's well-known we have the MLE estimate \(\hat{\lambda_i}=n_i\). But what if the game ends in a tie in regulation with each team scoring \(n\) goals and we have sudden-death overtime? How does this affect the MLE estimate for the winning and losing teams?

Assuming without loss of generality that team \(1\) is the winner in sudden-death overtime. As we have two independent Poisson processes, the probability of this occurring is \(\frac{\lambda_1}{\lambda_1 + \lambda_2}\). Thus, the overall likelihood we'd like to maximize is \[L = e^{-\lambda_1} \frac{{\lambda_1}^n}{n!} e^{-\lambda_2} \frac{{\lambda_2}^n}{n!} \frac{\lambda_1}{\lambda_1 + \lambda_2}.\] Letting \(l = \log{L}\) we get \[l = -{\lambda_1} + n \log{\lambda_1} - {\lambda_2} + n \log{\lambda_2} - 2 \log{n!} + \log{\lambda_1}-\log({\lambda_1 + \lambda_2}).\] This gives \[\begin{equation}
\eqalign{
\frac{\partial l}{\partial \lambda_1} &= -1+\frac{n}{\lambda_1}+\frac{1}{\lambda_1}+\frac{1}{\lambda_1 + \lambda_2}\\
\frac{\partial l}{\partial \lambda_2} &= -1+\frac{n}{\lambda_2}+\frac{1}{\lambda_1 + \lambda_2}.
}
\end{equation}\] Setting both partials equal to \(0\) and solving, we get \[\begin{equation}
\eqalign{
(n-\hat{\lambda_1})(\hat{\lambda_1}+\hat{\lambda_2})+\hat{\lambda_2} &= 0\\
(n-\hat{\lambda_2})(\hat{\lambda_1}+\hat{\lambda_2})-\hat{\lambda_2} &= 0,
}
\end{equation}\] and so \[\begin{equation}
\eqalign{
\hat{\lambda_1} &= (n+1) \frac{2n}{2n+1}\\
\hat{\lambda_2} &= n \frac{2n}{2n+1}.
}
\end{equation}\] For example, if both teams score \(3\) goals in regulation and team \(1\) wins in sudden-death overtime, our MLE estimates are \(\hat{\lambda_1} = 3\frac{3}{7}, \hat{\lambda_2} = 2\frac{4}{7}\).

Intuitively this makes sense, because \(2n\) goals were scored in regulation time, hence we "expect" that the overtime goal occurred around a fraction \(\frac{1}{2n}\) of regulation, so team \(1\) scored \(n+1\) goals in about \(\frac{2n+1}{2n}\) regulation periods and team \(2\) scored \(n\) goals in about \(\frac{2n+1}{2n}\) regulation periods. The standard Poisson process MLE estimates here coincide with the estimates we derived above.

Does this work in practice? Yes! I tested it on my NCAA men's lacrosse model, and it increased the out-of-sample testing accuracy by 0.5%. Surprisingly large for such a small change!

Comments

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

Probability and Cumulative Dice Sums

Let a die be labeled with increasing positive integers \(a_1,\ldots , a_n\), and let the probability of getting \(a_i\) be \(p_i>0\). We start at 0 and roll the die, adding whatever number we get to the current total. If \({\rm Pr}(N)\) is the probability that at some point we achieve the sum \(N\), then \(\lim_{N \to \infty} {\rm Pr}(N)\) exists and equals \(1/\rm{E}(X)\) iff \((a_1, \ldots, a_n) = 1\). The direction \(\implies\) is obvious. Now, if the limit exists it must equal \(1/{\rm E}(X)\) by Chebyshev's inequality, so we only need to show that the limit exists assuming that \((a_1, \ldots, a_n) = 1\). We have the recursive relationship \[{\rm Pr}(N) = p_1 {\rm Pr}(N-a_1) + \ldots + p_n {\rm Pr}(N-a_n);\] the characteristic polynomial is therefore \[f(x) = x^{a_n} - \left(p_1 x^{(a_n-a_1)} + \ldots + p_n\right).\] This clearly has the root \(x=1\). Next note \[ f'(1) = a_n - \sum_{i=1}^{n} p_i a_n + \sum_{i=1}^{n} p_i a_i = \rm{E}(X) > 0 ,\] hence this root is als...
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