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 (Round 1, September 2025)

=

Pool Standings (Total Score - 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!
🤞

Pool Prize (Breakdown)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 value of this outcome under the null hypothesis that they are equally skilled?

reply
reply

Dang! Not publishable

reply

0 stars for you lol

reply

We have hereby failed to reject the null hypothesis (at any publishable significance threshold) that @Undisciplined and @grayruby are equally skilled.[1][2]

  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