pull down to refresh

Howzzat Cricket Lovers!
The round 1 of Cricket Pool (September 25) has just finished and it's time we have a look at the results of matches/pool questions and pool standings.
(This post is published after every round of the pool to give you all a clear idea where you stand in the pool and form your strategy for the next rounds.)
The Results (Round 1, September ) Predict the winners
  • South Africa
  • Afghanistan
  • Srilanka
  • No Result
Predict for Extra Runs Q.1. How many runs will Srilanka score against Zimbabwe? (+ - 30 runs will be considered correct)
  • 177 (147-207 is correct)
Q.2. How many runs will Bangladesh score against Netherlands? (+ - 30 runs will be considered correct)
  • 164 (134-194 is correct)

Pool Standings (Round 1, September 2025)

=

Pool Standings (Total Score - September 2025)

Good start. We have a Bingo but no 4 runs from anyone is disappointing. @TheMorningStar continues his good form, many of us getting 3 runs means we're in the same page, but we don't compete to be on the same. I think you gotta be bold if you wanna be more successful. @TheMorningStar boldly picked Afghanistan over Pakistan that paid him a Bingo and he's already 3 runs ahead!
Anyways, it's too early for the month but not for the year. If you miss here, someone else is gonna take your spot.
Best of Luck everyone! šŸ¤ž

Pool Prize (Breakdown)

  • For September : 10K Sats for the winner, 1k sats zap for the runner-up, 500 sats zap for the 3rd highest scorer.
  • For 2024-2025 Session (Annual Rewards: Distributed on Halloween 2025): 130000 Sats
Thanks for playing.
Alright decent start. Let's get some Jumbos now.
reply
Good luck! Not better than @undisciplined, how?
reply
We have a very large body of evidence demonstrating that I'm better at this than @grayruby (and only him).
reply
Suppose @Undisciplined beats @grayruby in 344 out of 673 contests. What is the p value of this outcome under the null hypothesis that they are equally skilled?
reply
0.258
reply
Dang! Not publishable
reply
We have hereby failed to reject the null hypothesis (at any publishable significance threshold) that @Undisciplined and @grayruby are equally skilled.12

Footnotes

  1. I did not actually check @grayruby's calculation ↩
  2. This is a mouthful, but it is the accurate way of saying it; but most high school teachers and medical professionals probably wouldn't know that.3 ↩
  3. Not a statistical claim ↩
reply
0 stars for you lol
reply