UW Doog Bot's Proprietary Season Wins Probability Distribution Calculator® Way Too Early Prediction



Just a reminder of last year's accuracy.

Though given, that was post Auburn loss before which, we'd had slightly better odds of going 10-2. Fuck off, and generate your own proprietary calculator that's better.
For a methodology refresher and for Kim's benefit when he plagiarizes this, I split games into the following 7 categories and assign them a statistical percentage likelihood based on some math stuff.
- No Way We? Win - 1%
- Highly Unlikely To Win - 16%
- Unlikely To Win - 32%
- 50/50 To Win - 50%
- Likely To Win - 68%
- Highly Likely To Win - 84%
- No Way We? Don't Win - 99%

These are the values I assigned to each game.
- EWU - No Way We? Don't Win - 99%
- Cal - Likely To Win - 68%
- Hawaii - No Way We? Don't Win - 99%
- @BYU - Highly Likely To Win - 84%
- USC - Likely To Win - 68%
- @Stanford - Likely To Win - 68%
- @Arizona - Likely To Win - 68%
- Oregon - Highly Likely To Win - 84%
- BYE - L
- Utah - Likely To Win - 68%
- @OSU - No Way We? Don't Win - 99%
- BYE - L
- @Colorado - No Way We? Don't Win - 99%
- WSU - Highly Likely To Win - 84%

You might think that the values for say, @Stanford and @Arizona, are different and should be something like 62% and 74% respectively, the point of the methodology isn't to predict the outcome of a specific game but to generate a per game average win % to apply to the whole season for a Win-Loss expected value. For this reason, we can avoid trying to nail down individual % too accurately and assume that across the sample the differences will balance themselves out[(62+74)/2=68]. If you don't get it, just trust me, math.

The TLDR results, Expected Value = 9.88 so we can roughly assume that 10-2 is the most probable regular season outcome.
After assigning our % values we average them out and come up with a 82% average chance of winning each game.
"But Doogie, why do I care what our average is? Doesn't that ignore individual matchups?"
Sure it does, but we aren't predicting one game, or the specific outcomes of any games, we want to figure out what our end of season record is likely to be and an average % will do that accurately enough for our purposes. Even though we might be favored in every game across the whole season we are likely to lose a few games. (This is why undefeated seasons are so fucking special)
So we take that average % and apply it to a binomial distribution and we get this.

So WTF does that mean? Well, it means that 10-2 is indeed the most likely outcome at almost 30%. 11-1 at 25% and 9-3 at 21% being the other most likely outcomes.
"Bot, our schedule is shit and you are telling me that 9-3 is almost as likely as a better record?"

Well, it is and it isn't, if you look at individual outcomes it is a likely outcome BUT if you look at an aggregate of above/below our expected value (9.88) we get a likelihood of winning 10 or more games of 64% and winning 9 or less games of 35%. In other words, take the over, 10-2 or better.
This also means that 9 wins should be viewed as a "floor" of sorts. Less than that and the team is probably under-performing its talent in a consistent manner that is attributable to coaching/development/etc. In other words, we should be talking about who is losing their job.

Later, closer to the season, I will do my regular polling of the masses and update the maff with HH's aggregate prediction. So you will get your chance to make your own predictions with this approach. Who knows, maybe I will feel generous and even do a Duck version for the Refuge since @greenblood is kind of cool and we have a bunch of retard educk poasters seeking asylum and flooding the place with their AIDS over there.
Math gifs



Comments
-
I could have told you 10-2 without any maff.
-
Huh?
-
10-2 is a disappointment quite honestly
I can accept one loss because going unbeaten is rare for anyone let alone us but 2 losses with this schedule is bad -
It aint 11-1. Btw, Bot makes record predictions when he knows who's playing QB. Kinda like how vegas does itBennyBeaver said:I could have told you 10-2 without any maff.
Benny, uW aint going 11-1. Fuck odear. Ill make that prediction right now.
Step up in August Benny, again when it counts..ALL conferences. #goducks -
ThisRaceBannon said:10-2 is a disappointment quite honestly
I can accept one loss because going unbeaten is rare for anyone let alone us but 2 losses with this schedule is bad -
85% is all it would take to make 11-1 the most likely outcome. The difference is pretty minuscule but played out over an entire season it is important. What games would you adjust upward to get the additional 3% average? USC? @Arizona? @Stanford?RaceBannon said:10-2 is a disappointment quite honestly
I can accept one loss because going unbeaten is rare for anyone let alone us but 2 losses with this schedule is bad -
I don't do mathUW_Doog_Bot said:
85% is all it would take to make 11-1 the most likely outcome. The difference is pretty minuscule but played out over an entire season it is important. What games would you adjust upward to get the additional 3% average? USC? @Arizona? @Stanford?RaceBannon said:10-2 is a disappointment quite honestly
I can accept one loss because going unbeaten is rare for anyone let alone us but 2 losses with this schedule is bad -
Doesn't require math, just picking a few teams to move from "likely to win" to "highly likely to win" or to "No way we? lose". I'll do the math.RaceBannon said:
I don't do mathUW_Doog_Bot said:
85% is all it would take to make 11-1 the most likely outcome. The difference is pretty minuscule but played out over an entire season it is important. What games would you adjust upward to get the additional 3% average? USC? @Arizona? @Stanford?RaceBannon said:10-2 is a disappointment quite honestly
I can accept one loss because going unbeaten is rare for anyone let alone us but 2 losses with this schedule is bad
Answer the question @RaceBannon!! -
I accept one loss. Period
From among the usual suspects -
I will be somewhat disappointed with 10-2, but a lot of that depends on who the losses are two and how the games play out. And whether we win the North and the league or not.
9-3 and it's FirePete.com -
Love you for this, but I would probably adjust the Stanford game to a 50-50 and bring Colorado down to a highly likely.
We haven't won @Stanford forever and it's played after USC so the guys might be banged up.
@Colorado on their senior night with their forever Senior QB. New Coach so who knows, but UW will get their best shot at altitude. We win, highly likely, but there is definitely a way we lose. -
The bottom pic made me think of what is, rather easily, the greatest non-naked jugs scene in the history of cinema.
-
That's the thing, move a few up, move a few down, moar or less it all balances out. The aggregate HH scores were pretty spot on last year and I'll be polling for those again later. We were a few lucky bounces/calls from 10-2. I'm sure even if we aren't 10-2 it'll be similar in that a few lucky(or unlucky) moments make the difference.Doogles said:Love you for this, but I would probably adjust the Stanford game to a 50-50 and bring Colorado down to a highly likely.
We haven't won @Stanford forever and it's played after USC so the guys might be banged up.
@Colorado on their senior night with their forever Senior QB. New Coach so who knows, but UW will get their best shot at altitude. We win, highly likely, but there is definitely a way we lose.
This is also a separate conversation for what expectations for a coach SHOULD BE. -
YellowSnow said:
The bottom pic made me think of what is, rather easily, the greatest non-naked jugs scene in the history of cinema.
-
-
Taking it off here boss!!RaceBannon said:YellowSnow said:The bottom pic made me think of what is, rather easily, the greatest non-naked jugs scene in the history of cinema.
-
Back in the old days, when folks used to not get their panties in bunch, our 8th Grade Spanish teacher had us watch Cool Hand Luke once. And it wasn't even in Spanish. It was simply his favorite movie and he had a tradition of showing it the young people.RaceBannon said:And for @Doog_de_Jour
Other fun fact: my scatter gun is named Lucille. -
Did we have a Newman poll? Cool Hand Luke is hard to top as the GOAT for Newman
Its where I learned to keep getting back up and EARN some prison respect -
The Verdict was amazing actingRaceBannon said:Did we have a Newman poll? Cool Hand Luke is hard to top as the GOAT for Newman
Its where I learned to keep getting back up and EARN some prison respect -
With those numbers EV turns into 9.55, still just good enough to make 10-2 the most likely but the distribution significantly shifts to this.Doogles said:Love you for this, but I would probably adjust the Stanford game to a 50-50 and bring Colorado down to a highly likely.
We haven't won @Stanford forever and it's played after USC so the guys might be banged up.
@Colorado on their senior night with their forever Senior QB. New Coach so who knows, but UW will get their best shot at altitude. We win, highly likely, but there is definitely a way we lose.
Which means slightly better than coin toss P(x)>9 -
You guys are going to be the only fucking pac 12 team Arizona beats.
I hate you -
-
might as well not even play the game with the stats
-
No. Just Newman vs Steve McQueen in terms of who was sexier. I'll get on this.RaceBannon said:Did we have a Newman poll? Cool Hand Luke is hard to top as the GOAT for Newman
Its where I learned to keep getting back up and EARN some prison respect -
Done! @RaceBannonRaceBannon said:Did we have a Newman poll? Cool Hand Luke is hard to top as the GOAT for Newman
Its where I learned to keep getting back up and EARN some prison respect -
10-2 sounds about right. I'd put the 0reg0n game as a 68% cuz they have an extra day to prepare, they're coming off two home games while we'll? be coming off two road games, I've watched UW play like dogshit versus them too many times in the last twenty some odd years to give them that high of odds, and Phil Knight. Also, I'd put @Stanford (It's hard) and @Arizona (It's hot) as 50%s.
-
10-3 (bowl loss)
Defense can’t get much better than it’s been the past couple of years. Highly likely it is about the same to maybe slightly worse.
Offense; assume better QB play, much worse RB play, same OL, slightly better TE (barely used and replacing second round sample), standard below average WR play and you get an offense that is probably about the same as last year, possibly slightly better.
Average it all out and you get about the same 10-2 average from the past few years and a matchup dependent bowl game.
-
if we go 10-2 hopefully we win the north, then we have 2 more so we can go 12-2 but a NY6 game will make us 11-3. but I am leaning to 9-3 and San Antonio
@UW_Doog_Bot good chit
Me reading it
then I settled in and it is more like this
-
Get all the screenshots you need.UW_Doog_Bot said:
It aint 11-1. Btw, Bot makes record predictions when he knows who's playing QB. Kinda like how vegas does itBennyBeaver said:I could have told you 10-2 without any maff.
Benny, uW aint going 11-1. Fuck odear. Ill make that prediction right now.
Step up in August Benny, again when it counts..ALL conferences. #goducks -
I'd say that I would be disappointed with 10-2 as well but won't be surprised. 11-1 or 12-0 combined have a 35% likelihood so it's not like we are talking a hope and a prayer. We are unlikely to have this favorable of a schedule again anytime soon and you gotta win em' while you can.YellowSnow said:I will be somewhat disappointed with 10-2, but a lot of that depends on who the losses are two and how the games play out. And whether we win the North and the league or not.
9-3 and it's FirePete.com
Yes, post season results will affect the success or failure rating of the season. I think winning the North is a "requirement".
9-3 won't make me want to fire Pete but only bc who the fuck else are you getting? Also, it won't happen realistically. I will want some house clearing of coaches though.
Really, talk to me after Cal. Put up 40 and allow 7 and we are going to fuck the Pac12 like a jeep hitting a raccoon. Repeat last years shit stain and TSIO.