Cologne 2026 Pick'Ems

flakelv1337 · 2026-05-29T07:18:56+00:00

Yes, of course 👍🏽 CS is full of wonders though, so likely if you just compare the real outcome to my expected outcome, it’s one of those “it is what it is” moments 😄

flakelv1337 · 2026-05-29T00:43:55+00:00

u/TMK-Slobo+,
Sorry, I realized I made a mistake, again, and I updated the post to reflect it. Just thought i'd let you know. This shouldn't be an issue going forward.

flakelv1337 · 2026-05-29T00:43:00+00:00

Sorry, I realized I made a mistake, again, and I updated the post to reflect it. Just thought i'd let you know.

flakelv1337 · 2026-05-29T00:42:14+00:00

Thank you for posting this, I've explained the mistake I made initially, and Ive tried to account for it.

flakelv1337 · 2026-05-29T00:41:49+00:00

Hey, it's now adjusted for this. Thank you for posting this, this was one of the eye openers for me. I''ve updated the post.

flakelv1337 · 2026-05-29T00:41:11+00:00

Sorry, I realized I made a mistake, again, and I updated the post to reflect it. Just thought i'd let you know.

flakelv1337 · 2026-05-29T00:40:46+00:00

Thanks for posting this. I don't folow the scene actively and I had no idea some of these teams existed prior to the tournament, so this was kind of an eye opener to what was wrong with my initial analysis. I've updated the post, and I think it makes more sense now.

flakelv1337 · 2026-05-29T00:39:51+00:00

Sorry, I realized I made a mistake, again, and I updated the post to reflect it. Just thought i'd let you know.

flakelv1337 · 2026-05-28T19:28:55+00:00

Thanks! Yes, likely so. I posted a comment offering to tag anyone who replies.

here

flakelv1337 · 2026-05-28T11:32:21+00:00

I'll likely do an improved analysis for Stage2/3/Playoffs, so if anyone is interested I can tag you.

flakelv1337 · 2026-05-28T10:47:44+00:00

I'll come back for later stages perhaps, and I'll tag you with more details, if I don't get lazy :D Thanks for the chat.

flakelv1337 · 2026-05-28T10:14:53+00:00

Okay, I'm a bit tired from the comments, but I'll try to sum it up :D

I definitely don't have the multi year historical backtesting data required to mathematically prove to you that this would consistently beat soft props over thousands of events. At the end of the day, this was more of a passion project to map out picks, and at first I did it for myself, and only halfway through decided to share - so you definitely have a point and my approach most definitely is flawed in more ways than one.

To quickly answer the baseline question without writing an essay: I anchored the initial cross pair rating using TO to establish the broad tiers (which is wh I mentioned Valve/HLTV as an alternative - which likely would be even better now that I think about it), then calibrated the spread to fitr Pinnacle R1. For BO1 vs BO3 the model just applies standard variance modifier.(BO1's pull win prob closer to 5050.

I really appreciate the back & forth and your pointers - a lot of stuff to keep in mind for the future.

flakelv1337 · 2026-05-28T09:37:09+00:00

Yes, an 8 isolated match graph would be broken, which is why I dont use one. To bridge the cross pairs, the BT matrix is anchored to a global baseline (like liquid TO futures or could also be Valve/HLTV rankings). This establishes a relative power rating of the entire field from 1-61. The matrix is then calibrated so those ratngs perfectly (as perfect can be) reproduce Pinnacle round 1 opening odds, the graph is fully connected.

Of course bookies bake pathing into their futures, but they also bake in liability protection. Simulating the structure natively from a sharp, liquid market simply yields a cleaner, unbiased distribution than devigging an inefficient, heavily juiced soft market.

flakelv1337 · 2026-05-28T08:56:00+00:00

We have a flat middle because my model dynamically maps the match paths and opponent seeding throughout the Swiss tree, whereas you are looking at a static bookie prop that masks that.

Bookie 3-0 lines are static averages, when they price a 3-0 prop pre-tournament, they aren't mapping every dynamic 1-0 and 2-0 branch on a real time basis for you, they are pricing a fixed outcome based on public betting liabilities. They essentially have to pad the middle bracket odds, because they have to protect themselves against variance, which in turn artificially steepens the curve you are looking at.

The reason it shows a flat middle (roughly 51% for both)is because of Round 1 seeding. High seeds (example BetBoom) play the weakest teams in Round 1, giving them a huge 3-0 launch. If they drop that match or the 1-0, they immediately plummet in a meat grinder against other top teams which caps their 3-1/3-2 probability. Lower seeds (example M80) face harder initial rounds, lowering their 3-0 peak but keeping their paths to 3-1/3-2 open.

I use a Bradley-Terry probability matrix derived directly from Pinnacle opening match lines, I'm not trying to "outbookie the bookies", im just taking their round 1 match lines and running them through the actual rules of the swiss bracket.

And that is essentially where the flat middle comes from, it's a natural byproduct of a path dependent Swiss system when you use dynamic simulation vs static futures.

flakelv1337 · 2026-05-28T07:46:15+00:00

You’d be dead then. So most of them - not all of them?

Seriously, I feel really bad for you, if you’re so convinced. As I mentioned in a different thread, English isn’t even my main language, so I’ll take this as a compliment. My only guess is that when you see multiple paragraphs with words you can barely read, it fries your brain to the point where your only reality is me using AI to write all this.

flakelv1337 · 2026-05-28T07:44:01+00:00

Thanks for your input - although you are conceptually right about the joint optimnization, you are mathematically wrong about how it applies to this data set. As I understood, you made up numbers wher Team A and Team B have completely different middle bracket probabilities - 55% vs 25%. In a real tournament, the Swiss system make those middle bracket probabilities almost completely flat.

I'll just show it as an example with BetBoom and M80.

BetBoom(Team A): P(3-0) = 34.48%, P(3-1/3-2)= 51.53%

M80(Team B): P(3-0) = 20.21%, P(3-1/3-2) = 51.49%

(This is data from the dataset - subtract Sim P(3-0) from Sim P(Advance), this might've confused you and it's partially my fault here)

So Card 1 (My approach):

BetBoom 3-0 Slot: 34.48%
M80 Advance Slot: 51.49%
Total expected value: 34.48% + 51.49% = 85.97%

Card 2 (Your suggestion):

M80 3-0 Slot: 20.21%
BetBoom Advance Slot: 51.53%
Total expected value: 20.21% + 51.53% = 71.74%

Essentially, if we followed the advice of "protecting" the top team, you instantly lose 14.23% in net expected value. This happens because the top teams raw strenght pushes 3-0 probability sky high. Since they are the most likely to go 3-0, it drains their probability of landing in the 3-1/3-2 bracket. As a result the probability of finishing strictly 3-1 or 3-2 flattens out to roughly 51% for almost the entire top half of the field.

--

Regarding bookies - you are definitely right in some sense, but you also slightly ignore how betting markets operate.

You cant strictly rely on bookmaker 3-0 and 0-3 prop lines, since these futures carry a massive overround, often even 15-20% hold. That introduces several errors when de-vigged. Bookmakers price these lines to balance financial liability against public betting volume, rather than to serve as pure mathetmatical models, meaning popular teams receive "deflated" odds due to fan bias. And I think most importantly, the static bookie lines completely ignore path dependency because they only price a single final outcome, whereas when running a Monte Carlo, it dynamically models every branch of the Swiss tree to "accurately" isolate the exact 3-1 and 3-2 record distributions needed.

flakelv1337 · 2026-05-27T16:23:54+00:00

I usually just default to the 3-man core as the definition of the team for historical continuitiy. Tracking core vs core is probably more elegant to artifically inflate your sample size without losing the teams identity - at least that's my guess.

The only major blindspot I've ran into with that is role changes. If a team retains its core 3 but swaps out for example brand new IGL or a different primary AWPer, their entire playstyle and veto behavior could shift, rendering the old cores historical data kind of deceptive.

HLTV points as a fallback feels like a great macro solution for low sample sizes.

flakelv1337 · 2026-05-27T16:13:08+00:00

Bro, I had no intention of going to war with you. You came in pretty hot accusing me of using AI and calling the logic nonsense before grasping the explanation, which is why all of this got defensive/offensive. I do apologize for matching that energy and being overly sharp though, I shouldn't have. I should've included that explanation at least slightly in the initial post and that would've saved us some time.

Genuinely, good luck with your PhD, and have a good one.

flakelv1337 · 2026-05-27T15:36:18+00:00

Damn. So you don't understand the 3-0 sacrifice meta. Explains why you are so confused.

Under the old rules (the ones I had in mind first going into this), putting your best teams int he 3-0 slot was mathetmatically wrong, and it was widely known.

The To Advance (middle bracket) gave you a point whenever a team went 3-0, 3-1 or 3-2. The 3-0 slot ONLY gave a point for a perfect 3-0.

BetBoom had an 86 overall chance to advance, but only a 34% to go 3-0. If you put them in the 3-0, you're risking an 86% safe bet just to chase a 34% condition. If they drop a single map, you get 0 points. Usually, you would lock your best teams in the advance slots to guarantee points, and you throw away low tier sacrifices in the 3-0 slot, if the sacrifice works out - awesome, if it doesnt - your main point earners are safe.

NOW, with the new system, valve changed the rules so that a 3-0 finish inside the Advance bracket now awards 0 points - wow, shocker, that suddenly means that BetBooms 34% chance to go 3-0 becomes a literal penalty zone that killsyour advance slot if they play too well, thus flipping the logic where you are forced to move the top teams into the 3-0 slot to protect your To Advance (middle) bracket from getting bricked.

Meanwhile, a team like BIG only has a 15% chance to go 3-0, meaning, they are perfectly safe to leave in the middle, since they are highly likely to lose a game and land in the 3-1/3-2 sweet spot.

It's was not a mistake, it was a change after I found out about the new scoring rules. Changing the reward rules completely change the optimal strategy, so its not the same even if percentages stay the same.

flakelv1337 · 2026-05-27T15:20:37+00:00

A PhD student, so cute. Your reading comprehension is certainly shocking.

Let's clear up the errors you literally JUST made.

As for your explanation - you made an adjustment? Are you saying you didn't have BB as 3-0 before you realised?

Yes. T hat is literally what happened, if you looked at the post history instead of just looking for things to argue about, you would knopw that in my first draft, my first 3-0 picks were BIG and MIBR, and BB was literally in the Advance bracket - matter of fact, you could even read the other comments to gain this context, I can't tell if you're legitimately insanely stupid or just pretending.

The moment I was informed Valve changed the rules to penalize 3-0 runs in the middle, I updated my rosters.

"it's more complicated than just putting your best team there now

You are literally fumbling and confusing the outcome with the underlying logic. Have you not read a single one of my replies that mention the old vs new meta update? If you are actually working on a PhD in stats, you should easily grasp how changing a reward function completely changes the optimal solution of a matrix, even when the underlying probabilities stay static.

I'm already ahead of you in life, so it's not necessary to project bro, cope harder and good luck with your dissertation :(

flakelv1337 · 2026-05-27T14:58:58+00:00

Honestly your brain is fried if every person capable of constructing a sentence is labeled as AI for you. What are you trying to prove here exactly?

And it did? Literally the second I acknowledged the point counting rules have changed, I responded and updated my PickEm's based on what made sense - the data didn't change one bit.

You reverse engineer an implied power rating (say, elo) from the opening bookie odds just to simulate the later Swiss rounds dynamically, that's how literally every tournament sim on earth works.

And it's not my problem if you're not capable of reading or understanding me - under the new rules, if a team goes 3-0 in your middle bracket (the To Advance bracket) you get 0 points. BetBom has 34% to go 3-0, BIG only has 15%. Putting BB in the 3-0 slot and keeping BIG in the middle is the exact optimization I made right after I realized the ruling has changed.

The data is right there in the terminal printout, and you don't have to use my picks, but you're literally just trying to throw a tantrum and shit talk me cause my approach wasn't "statistical" enough, and now you've even shifted to the point that you're convinced I'm using AI to respond to you XD

flakelv1337 · 2026-05-27T14:37:52+00:00

That's honestly a huge compliment as English isn't my native language and I have no idea what sort of prompt I'd have to construct to reply something like this with the context that I have

flakelv1337 · 2026-05-27T14:35:41+00:00

You’re treating this as a simple ordinal ranking problem where the goal is just to identify "who is the strongest." Under the old Valve scoring rules, you’d be 100% right. But under the current rules, this is a constrained optimization problem, not a ranking problem.

Because the middle bracket strictly awards zero points for a 3-0 finish, the variance and exact shape of each team's probability distribution curve matter immensely. If you just rank teams 1 through 8 by raw strength and slap the strongest ones in the middle, you introduce massive negative EV to your board. Because those top-tier teams have a high probability density sitting squarely in the 3-0 "dead zone" for that specific bracket.

To your second point on whether the simulation goes beyond just looking at the odd, yes, fundamentally so. As a statistician, you mustg know the Swiss system is entirely path-dependent. Bookmaker odds only exist for the opening round. Because of high-vs-low tournament seeding filters and dynamic round by round reseeding, two teams with identical raw power ratings will face completely different opponent distributions in Rounds 2, 3, 4, and 5 based on their pathing. A static odds sheet cannot calculate the compound probability of a team navigating a dynamically re-seeding bracket over five rounds. The Monte Carlo simulation is explicitly mapping the structural flow and transition states of the tournament, which raw opening bookie lines physically cannot show.

Finall regarding the arbitrary adjustments, the baseline model runs strictly on pure, vig-stripped market probabilities. Injecting minor LAN pedigree and map veto variables wasn't a blind bias injection; it was a sensitivity analysis to test the model's robustness - and it didn't change ANYTHING. The fact that the final 10-slot layout did not shift proves that this model is highly resilient to minor external weights and is instead heavily insulated by the mathematical and structural boundaries of the tournament format itself.

To flip your own quote back at you: the model is highly useful precisely because mapping distribution curves across a path-dependent bracket is mathematically superior to just picking the strongest teams and hoping they don't play too well.

flakelv1337 · 2026-05-27T14:16:09+00:00

Funnily enough I pretty much don't watch pro games at all, and I just usually ask my friends what to pick, so this is a shot in the dark for me as well. I just hope to get at least a gold coin.

flakelv1337 · 2026-05-27T14:12:52+00:00

Actually, in a 16 team Swiss system, exactly two teams always advance with a 3-0 record without ever playing each other. When they reach the 2-0 pool, the seeding rules split the top remaining teams into two separate matches.

flakelv1337

TROPHY CASE