|
This forum is read-only now. Please use Forum 2 for new posts
xml |
No replies possible in the archive |
Author: duncshine
Date: 07-07-2004, 16:46
| All,
By way of 'right of reply' I thought I should pass this on.
I have been contacted by Codemasters, who wish to apologise for the conduct of their researchers on this forum.
While Codemasters does of course welcome information from people in-the-know across Europe for titles like LMA Manager, it is not their intention to misuse user groups like this in order to do so.
The lady from Codemasters also apologised for the abusive nature of the posts by some researchers, who she says got a bit carried away.
She has asked the relevant people to be careful about how and where they request information for the games in future.
Since she has taken the trouble to act on this matter, I do think it's only fair to point people at a link should they want to help with the research for this product.
Click here for the codemasters web site, which has various means of emailing them, and also its own forum for discussion of topics relating to their own games.
On a personal note, I'd like to apologise for my own part in the escalation of matters on this forum earlier today. I hope it hasn't been too disruptive.
Cheers
Dunc |
Author: anita
Date: 07-07-2004, 17:12
| Nice, nice,dunc. And thx to lady from Codemasters.
Have you ever thought of applying as UN-peace-negotiator in, lets say, Middle East, dunc? You will melt everyones heart |
Author: duncshine
Date: 07-07-2004, 17:42
| Anita!
I'm not sure my level of whining would be accepted at the UN!
And anyway, world peace is too easy... Let's try and work out those UEFA Roundings...
Dunc. |
Author: bert.kassies
Date: 07-07-2004, 19:20
| dunc, I fully agree with anita. Great ending |
Author: anita
Date: 08-07-2004, 01:15
| I almost cried reading your reply. I may not be the most socialable guy in town, but you just threw asphalt on it.
Reason why I reply, because of holding this topic (you) up for some hours.
Hugs |
Author: anita
Date: 08-07-2004, 02:30
| I still hold up this topic. Bert, why do you get 113.505 on Real Madrid, but adding last five years its 113.503. Lot of other teams and nations add wrong.
I know that you, Bert, is the only guy answering me in a logaritmic Johanssonsk way, but you cant add something together and then + 0.0025 + ln5. Thats not fair of you. I trust in you. Give me an explanation. Wonder why others like Ricardo and Forza and dunc and others can't find this out or react to obvious faults. I am fifty. Someone must be half of that.
And dunc, since I called you a peacemaker (isn't that a gun from Colt factory from 1866?), is it 113.505 or is it 113.503.
No point me and bert talking through each other. If there's any point of bantering those LMA-guys because they nag, why don't try to find out where UEFA is rounding down. Must be our toys.
Like another scientist, I seek an answer. It may be wrong, but that proves something as well. Or have you given up the whole UEFA-project-coefficient-problem and is more occupied in nagging ignorants.
There is absolutely no idea discussing UEFA-rankings if noone understand nothing. We had no idea about the geographical seeding, noone has obviously no idea about rounding down and when.
Why don't we shut down the whole forum, since noone try to explain the imperative thousandth and when?
lot of hugs, especially to dunc |
Author: kerrbhoy
Date: 08-07-2004, 08:09
| Isn't the fun trying to find out the stuff UEFA doesn't tell you?
This forum was the first place on the Internet to work out that UEFA had created regional groups. |
Author: duncshine
Date: 08-07-2004, 11:04
| Hi Anita,
The embarrassing truth about the UEFA Rounding situation is that I HAVEN'T given up trying to work it out (and I am still naive enough to start with the assumption that there is no Lennart-Variable, nor any errors and typos).
But I haven't posted on the subject because I can't work out the answer! Maybe berating researchers was my way of coping!!
Dunc. |
Author: JPV
Date: 08-07-2004, 11:11
| I am fifty. Someone must be half of that.
birthday 8 july 1979
But ehm... instead of getting gifts, i prefer giving gifts . Bert, i still got a .com left i can hand out... do you want it? e-mail jeroen_coolsaet AT hotmail.com |
Author: anita
Date: 08-07-2004, 11:32
| I was really pissed off tonite. My PC just respond on Internet, not to my programmes, not even E-mail. Sat with my friend Norton trying to fix it for hours. In vain. Luckily I have saved my football sheets on discs, but as normal there are some semi-important stuff not saved.
Meaning semi-important, because as long as football sheets are saved, what can be more important?
Still pissed off, but not crying. Just sobbing. Sorry if I have been a little harsh. UEFA pisses me off as well.
regards, and jeroen, -79 and me -55 seems to corrolate with half age. Half wit or double wit?
regards |
Author: Ricardo
Date: 08-07-2004, 11:34
| Anita, don't rule us out that easy. I too am still working on the roundings . The +0.00025 [actual meaning 0.00075 is rounded upwards>helped me getting close, but I still got some(10 or so) irregularites I have not yet been able to explain. I am still working on it, but do not have 24 hours a day time for it. I am a working class man and have a regular job to perform too. If I find an answer I let you know. |
Author: duncshine
Date: 08-07-2004, 11:41
| Hi Ricardo
I have a similar problem. No Lennart variable, but I have it down to 9 countries, each of which ends up .001 out (some high, some low).
A thought, has anyone checked whether taking the total of years 2002/3, 2001/2, 2000/1, and 1999/2000 coefficients, and multiplying just that figure by .66 before adding (2003/4 *.33) will help?
I don't have the numbers easily to hand, but it is one of the variables I haven't tried yet...
D. |
Author: anita
Date: 08-07-2004, 11:51
| Oh,sorry. Thought I wrote it. Congratulations, jeroen. Nice age. Happy birthday to .... |
Author: anita
Date: 08-07-2004, 11:58
| Has been tried of someone, dunc. Think Forza. Was almost right. The problem is if you take coefficient*0.5*0.66 or if you start at the bottom dividing points with teams. Then you can round down for every operation. Or up. Doesnt work anyway |
Author: duncshine
Date: 08-07-2004, 12:03
| Hi Anita,
I'm sure you're right.
I was specifically thinking of the total of the four years, then multiplied by .66, rather than rounding down individual years before multiplying by .66 .
Just a variation on a theme, as Elgar would want...
D. |
Author: anita
Date: 08-07-2004, 12:08
| Well , Edward is a nice guy, but hardly capable of helping us now. I will look into it again. Have to trust Berts site, since my sheets are "?#&&?%& |
Author: Ricardo
Date: 08-07-2004, 14:38
| Dunc, I tried that, but that's not enough. Looking at Macedonia, all five year-coefficients end on .x66. For that it does not matter if it done first *.5 andf then *.66 or straight *.33. Their teamcoefficients end on x.xxx78 and, looking at the required result, ALL these 5 numbers are rounded upwards!! So you have to look at the 5 years individual.
The last 2 digits of the country coefficient are causing the 4th and 5th digital, so what I did is make a list of possible last 2 digits. Most frequent are 00, 33, 66, 25, 50 and 75. These 4th and 5th digits have to be either rounded up or down
First presumption I made is that all same endings are treated the same.But every year rules can be different Second, and that one is dicussable: I went for straight *.33 calculation. 00(2nd+3rd digit in coeff) -> 00(4th&5th digit in team-coeff) 33->89 66->78 25->25 50->50 75->75
Base: 00->00 -- (no rounding needed) Taking Macedonia as base, I found 66->78 Up
89 is higher than 78 so if 78 is Up, 89 s also Up: 33->89 Up
Filling this in leaves you some holes. Belarus makes in the 3rd year 50->50 Down Finland makes in the 3rd year 75->75 Down Romania makes in the 3rd year 25->25 Down Hungary does the same in the first year 25->25 Down Sweden in the 4th year: 50->50 Down Israel in the 5th year: 50->50 Down Czech in the 5th year 75->75 Down
And then I get into trouble Spreading these last in the scheme For Portugal i have to round the second year 2.02125 up to 2.022 and England in the 3rd year 3.81843up to 3.819, while I already rounded 0.xxx57 down.
So, this is not working.
By applying Bert's rule I have 5 coefficient 0.001 to low, 6 0.001 too high and 1 0.002 too high. I have the feeling that it lies with the .x75 endings, but have not found a rule that gets the right answer |
Author: bert.kassies
Date: 08-07-2004, 18:55
| anita wrote: "I still hold up this topic. Bert, why do you get 113.505 on Real Madrid, but adding last five years its 113.503. Lot of other teams and nations add wrong".
In the (not so off-)topic UEFA roundings I wrote: "My team rankings are NOT calculated as the sum of the yearly coefficients, but as the number of individual team points added to 33% of the country ranking".
I thought that clarified all. The reason I do that is because UEFA always did the calculation this way. And yes, the rest of my contribution to that topic is about Johansson's constant. But that's just some fine tuning. Adding a percentage of the country ranking over five years to the accumulated individual points was obviously they only way to get the exact UEFA rankings.
Until a few weeks ago. So now I don't know anymore. As already said the deviations with a magnitude over 0.001 (positive as well as negative) can only be explained by some combination of rounding up and rounding down. Always rounding down (or rounding up) over no matter which subsets of the data will not lead to the exact UEFA 2004 team rankings.
Not giving up myself yet. But absolutely no time left this week. Still hoping that someone of you comes with the final soulution |
Author: viulo
Date: 09-07-2004, 00:21
| Haven't given it up either, but still no breakthrough. Let's just have hope... |
Author: Ricardo
Date: 09-07-2004, 09:39
| In the previous years was the team-coefficient rouded up or downwards(All uneven country-coefficients resulted in a x.xxx5 team-coefficient)?? If we want to take the possibility of having it first halved and only then multiplied by .66 then we have to follow at least this initial rounding I guess. |
|
|