Alan in Montréal Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 So this decision kind of renders the Gamesbids.com Bid Index as being USELESS!!!. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafa Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 no. its an index. hence Chicago being a surprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 The truth is, the Bid Index is very consistently wrong -- not just w/ 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan in Montréal Posted October 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 no. its an index. hence Chicago being a surprise.It's an index which predicts which bid will win, and it supposedly takes into account non-rational factors, moods, IOC tendencies, etc. It has failed miserably here. Therefore, it is not worth paying attention to any longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altosax29b Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 It's an index which predicts which team will win, and it supposedly takes into account non-rational factors, moods, IOC tendencies, etc. It has failed miserably here. Therefore, it is not worth paying attention to any longer. It's about as unscientific of a predictor as you can formulate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceNarcissus Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 Any prediction mechanism has it's flaws, GBIndex is still pretty good at predicting margins, ratios, etc. even when the essential results are wrong. Nothing can predict the future exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guardian Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 I wonder if Around the Rings was any better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob2012 Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 Rio is top in Bidindex, or had you not noticed that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceNarcissus Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 Rio is top in Bidindex, or had you not noticed that? I was going to say that too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 SO much for the IOC's Evaluation Commission as well. Apparently the members do not want techically efficient Games!! P.S. Samaranch won't alive in 2016...not unless he makes a 2nd deal with the Devil!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan in Montréal Posted October 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 Rio is top in Bidindex, or had you not noticed that?Then you better hope that Rio wins. The point is that Chicago was rates extremely closely to Rio and in 2nd place. That was WAY off. I understand that no index can predict a winner, but if that's the case, you would hope that it's close. And if it's not close, then why bother with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob2012 Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 Chicago was first out, but for all you know it may have almost been a four way split in the first round. You're judging this way too early. If the voting numbers prove to be very close (as bidindex's are) and the winner is Rio (as bidindex predicts) then I'll be congratulating this site. Wait before you judge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan in Montréal Posted October 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 Wait before you judge. So in the end BidIndex was wrong on the placement of 3 of the 4 bidding cities. Indicated Chicago and Rio were the top two contenders. (wrong). Indicated Madrid was least favoured. (wrong). ...not very reliable. And now that's I've seen the final results - its was in fact almost completely inaccurate! Chicago's (embarrassing) 18 votes means that if BidIndex was close to being accurate, it would have place Chicago a distant 4th. Wow - totally messed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.