JoshMartini007

I was bored so I tried to see if I can come up with a better system for predicting medals. Places like GraceNote essentially take the top three contenders and give them gold, silver and bronze. That tends to cause situations where a nation with a 50% chance to win say 12 events would be predicted to win 12 medals, but in reality they would only win six. Usually this is masked by the overall medal count, but it becomes apparent if you look at the details for individual sports.
 
Currently my model is quite early in development, it doesn't take into account the maximum athletes per nation in a specific event or the chances of an athlete to fail (DNS/DSQ/DNF etc). It also only currently works for events where you can obtain a score/time/measurement (placing/head to head events will have to wait).
 
Here's a sample of the men's 100m (top 5) that I was using as my test data.
 
Men's 100m
Gold
- 76.4%
- 17.8%
- 1.9%
- 1.5%
- 0.9%
 
Silver
- 60.6%
- 17.8%
- 5.8%
- 4.4%
- 4.2%
 
Bronze
- 46.0%
- 14.7%
- 9.9%
- 7.7%
- 6.3%
 
 
As mentioned above, the United States is currently a bit inflated due to more than three athletes contributing to its chances (removing them manually and redistributing it would give them 73.3%, 53.5% and 38.6% chances respectively).

I was bored so I tried to see if I can come up with a better system for predicting medals. Places like GraceNote essentially take the top three contenders and give them gold, silver and bronze. That tends to cause situations where a nation with a 50% chance to win say 12 events would be predicted to win 12 medals, but in reality they would only win six. Usually this is masked by the overall medal count, but it becomes apparent if you look at the details for individual sports.
 
Currently my model is quite early in development, it doesn't take into account the maximum athletes per nation in a specific event or the chances of an athlete to fail (DNS/DSQ/DNF etc). It also only currently works for events where you can obtain a score/time/measurement (placing/head to head events will have to wait).
 
Here's a sample of the men's 100m (top 5) that I was using as my test data.
 
Men's 100m
Gold
- 76.4%
- 17.8%
- 1.9%
- 1.5%
- 0.9%
 
Silver
- 60.6%
- 17.8%
- 5.8%
- 4.4%
- 4.2%
 
Bronze
- 46.0%
- 14.7%
- 9.9%
- 7.7%
- 6.3%
 
 
As mentioned above, the United States is currently a bit inflated due to more than three athletes contributing to its chances (removing them manually and redistributing it would give them 73.3%, 53.5% and 38.6% chances respectively).

I was bored so I tried to see if I can come up with a better system for predicting medals. Places like GraceNote essentially take the top three contenders and give them gold, silver and bronze. That tends to cause situations where a nation with a 50% chance to win say 12 events would be predicted to win 12 medals, but in reality they would only win six. Usually this is masked by the overall medal count, but it becomes apparent if you look at the details for individual sports.
 
Currently my model is quite early in development, it doesn't take into account the maximum athletes per nation in a specific event or the chances of an athlete to fail (DNS/DSQ/DNF etc). It also only currently works for events where you can obtain a score/time/measurement (placing/head to head events will have to wait).
 
Here's a sample of the men's 100m (top 5) that I was using as my test data.
 
Men's 100m
Gold
- 76.4%
- 17.8%
- 1.9%
- 1.5%
- 0.9%
 
Silver
- 60.6%
- 17.8%
- 5.8%
- 4.4%
- 4.2%
 
Bronze
- 46.0%
- 14.7%
- 9.9%
- 7.7%
- 6.3%
 
 
As mentioned above, the United States is currently a bit inflated due to more than three athletes contributing to its chances (removing them manually and redistributing it would give them 73.3%, 53.5% and 38.6% chances respectively).

I was bored so I tried to see if I can come up with a better system for predicting medals. Places like GraceNote essentially take the top three contenders and give them gold, silver and bronze. That tends to cause situations where a nation with a 50% chance to win say 12 events would be predicted to win 12 medals, but in reality they would only win six. Usually this is masked by the overall medal count, but it becomes apparent if you look at the details for individual sports.
 
Currently my model is quite early in development, it doesn't take into account the maximum athletes per nation in a specific event or the chances of an athlete to fail (DNS/DSQ/DNF etc). It also only currently works for events where you can obtain a score/time/measurement (placing/head to head events will have to wait).
 
Here's a sample of the men's 100m (top 5) that I was using as my test data.
 
Men's 100m
Gold
- 76.4%
- 17.8%
- 1.9%
- 1.5%
- 0.9%
 
Silver
- 60.6%
- 17.8%
- 5.8%
- 4.4%
- 4.2%
 
Bronze
- 46.0%
- 14.7%
- 9.9%
- 7.7%
- 6.3%
 
 
As mentioned above, the United States is currently a bit inflated due to more than three athletes contributing to its chances (removing them manually and redistributing it would give them 73.3%, 53.5% and 38.6% chances respectively).

The results are on the site, but you have to find them. From the top corner, open up the site map, click on SA Trials Tokyo 2020 and then go to the notice board (not the results).

BIG UPDATE
 
I've updated the sports in which nations can qualify in, including remove some which they are no longer possible to qualify in. I've also took into account tripartite invitations. While the invitations can sometimes be a bit random, I tried my best to see which active nations have a chance at getting one.
 
Fun Facts:
- 12/70 remaining nations only have chances in athletics or athletics+swimming.
- Senegal has the most sports where it has a chance at qualifying in with 11. Behind them are Cameroon, Jordan and Montenegro with 9 each.
- 60/70 remaining nations are eligible to obtain a tripartite invitation. The 10 that aren't includes...
 

 
Without tripartite invitations the nations that will struggle to qualify many athletes are Bolivia and Republic of Congo as they only have chances in three sports each

Here at the bottom.

I find this doccument http://www.feverj.org.br/avisosregata/2019/11_Nov/NoR - Tokyo Southamerican_Selection 2019.pdf, but i don´t know where is live results
 
Race will start tomorrow

Also shouldn't South Korea face Singapore? They were the second best team while Singapore should be the seventh placed team.
 
Unless they ignore wins/points and only went with point differential.

The number of athletes trying to qualify is a lot larger than the number of athletes trying to win a medal. So I can see there being more pressure for officials to do shady stuff.

There's a lot of push back between the sport federations and South Africa's Olympic Committee over accepting/declining the quotas.
 
I imagine the field hockey federation used FIH's top 20 rule as a way to show that their team had sufficient strength to compete.

Also shouldn't South Korea face Singapore? They were the second best team while Singapore should be the seventh placed team.
 
Unless they ignore wins/points and only went with point differential.

Didn't think Afghanistan had it in them. Chinese Taipei is arguably the second weakest entrant (maybe Singapore), but I thought Afghanistan would be clearly weaker than everyone.

Yeah, ten Asian nations have already qualified. In terms of tripartite nations I would say and have better chances, but it would be nice to see them qualify in their national sport.
 
The favourites seem to be three of but in archery anything could happen, the three previously mentioned tripartite nations plus could pull off the upset.

Yeah, ten Asian nations have already qualified. In terms of tripartite nations I would say and have better chances, but it would be nice to see them qualify in their national sport.
 
The favourites seem to be three of but in archery anything could happen, the three previously mentioned tripartite nations plus could pull off the upset.

I do, but I forgot about it when writing the above message

I always felt that a 20-0 for a forfeit was too little. Teams could try to take advantage of it...

Zambia  qualified for fith round
zambia 3 - 2 kenya

Qualification document
 
More specific...
 
A quota place can only be obtained if the result achieved by the athlete or Mixed Team in the qualifying competition where the quota is obtained is equal to or higher than the MQS for that event.

and picked K1 so the C1 quotas were reallocated to and
 
and picked C1 so the K1 quotas were reallocated to and

Men: +
Women: +

I was bored, here is what the top 10 would look like if we only used the top 4 players from each nation (I only looked at the top 1000 players).
 
Men
1.   Serbia - 6,234,720
2.   Latvia - 6,036,160
3.   United States - 4,971,879
4.   Slovenia - 4,555,680
5.   Lithuania - 4,475,760
6.   Canada - 4,006,120
7.   Netherlands - 3,964,080
8.   Russia - 3,162,320
9.   Mongolia - 2,714,920
10. Switzerland - 2,519,560
 
Women
1.   France - 2,176,360
2.   Canada - 1,549,480
3.   Russia - 1,438,010
4.   Italy - 1,393,680
5.   China - 1,389,720
6.   Spain - 1,361,900
7.   Netherlands - 1,264,200
8.   Poland - 1,150,100
9.   Japan - 1,121,503
10. United States - 1,012,950
 
Both genders only have one team (Serbia and Russia) which overlaps with the current ranking list. Additionally, the host quota would go to the women. For those curious, in the men's ranking China is ranked 12th while Japan is ranked 14th and in the women's rankings Romania is 13th while Mongolia is 17th.
 
I'm surprised how well Canada is doing, though I knew they were trying to send a quality team. Hopefully they will compete in the qualification tournament, though it will be hard to defeat the European teams.

I was bored, here is what the top 10 would look like if we only used the top 4 players from each nation (I only looked at the top 1000 players).
 
Men
1.   Serbia - 6,234,720
2.   Latvia - 6,036,160
3.   United States - 4,971,879
4.   Slovenia - 4,555,680
5.   Lithuania - 4,475,760
6.   Canada - 4,006,120
7.   Netherlands - 3,964,080
8.   Russia - 3,162,320
9.   Mongolia - 2,714,920
10. Switzerland - 2,519,560
 
Women
1.   France - 2,176,360
2.   Canada - 1,549,480
3.   Russia - 1,438,010
4.   Italy - 1,393,680
5.   China - 1,389,720
6.   Spain - 1,361,900
7.   Netherlands - 1,264,200
8.   Poland - 1,150,100
9.   Japan - 1,121,503
10. United States - 1,012,950
 
Both genders only have one team (Serbia and Russia) which overlaps with the current ranking list. Additionally, the host quota would go to the women. For those curious, in the men's ranking China is ranked 12th while Japan is ranked 14th and in the women's rankings Romania is 13th while Mongolia is 17th.
 
I'm surprised how well Canada is doing, though I knew they were trying to send a quality team. Hopefully they will compete in the qualification tournament, though it will be hard to defeat the European teams.

That's denying the fact that badminton's strength has been in Asia for decades now. In a Commonwealth Games perspective wrestling is now pretty much a Canada/India/Nigeria show, not exactly universally diverse (other than we have three nations from three continents competing for medals).

I agree, as long as you acknowledge that it wasn't done as an anti-India thing, but a pro-England thing.