Show HN: For 10 World Cups, my model's 2 favorites had the champion every time
1–10 of 53 posts
Re: Show HN: For 10 World Cups, my model's 2 favorites had the champion every time
#2!remindme tomorrow
Re: Show HN: For 10 World Cups, my model's 2 favorites had the champion every time
#3How does this paper not even mention the word "overfitting"?
Re: Show HN: For 10 World Cups, my model's 2 favorites had the champion every time
#4A good AI would calculate refereeing decisions and put Argentina at 100% unless England can pull off a miracle against FIFA today.
Re: Show HN: For 10 World Cups, my model's 2 favorites had the champion every time
#5"They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time, it works every time." - Brian Fantana, Anchorman
Re: Show HN: For 10 World Cups, my model's 2 favorites had the champion every time
#6How does this paper not even mention the word "overfitting"?
The abstract does say
> limitations, principally the small number of tournaments available for validation and the risk of in-sample weight selection
But I agree this model is no more valuable than Paul the Octopus.
Re: Show HN: For 10 World Cups, my model's 2 favorites had the champion every time
#7It's worth noting that there has only been 24 world cups
Re: Show HN: For 10 World Cups, my model's 2 favorites had the champion every time
#8Probably the human pseudonym of Paul the Octopus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Octopus).
Re: Show HN: For 10 World Cups, my model's 2 favorites had the champion every time
#9> the model identifies Argentina (28.0%) and Spain (21.1%) as the leading championship candidates
Re: Show HN: For 10 World Cups, my model's 2 favorites had the champion every time
#10> Applied prospectively to the in-progress 2026 World Cup from the Round of 32, the model identifies Argentina (28.0%) and Spain (21.1%) as the leading championship candidates.
Seems weird to wait to run the "prospective" simulation until the World Cup is already in progress. Although it seems that the model also needs to use "the actual bracket and group-stage performance". So it's not prospective?