hiphippo65

hiphippo65 t1_iyorx5u wrote

The way it’s presented (x team reaches a certain level in xx% of simulations) you have a solid point. They necessarily have to add up to 100%. Even in factoring in rounding, it shouldn’t be off by 7%.

My guess is that it’s not in fact % of simulations, but instead % chance of reaching that level. Small difference in interpretation, doesn’t matter on the first round, but changes in the deeper rounds due to conditional probabilities. For example given Australia beats Argentina, their odds of reaching the semis is increased much more than say the USA beating the Netherlands.

1

hiphippo65 t1_iwum5us wrote

Even then that’s not a great metric. It’s only a good for identifying bias if we assume all interactions are the same. One where you stop someone for carrying a gun down the street va a traffic stop are going to be very different regardless of race. African Americans tend to live in more dangerous areas, so you’d expect encounters to lead to more incidents from that alone.

Ironically, in a world where police are told to be more sensitive to race, and to stop minorities less often, you’d expect shootings per encounter to go up, since less encounters are for smaller infractions.

10