by Here is our model simulation result for the last race of the season – women’s mass start in Oestersund, Sweden.
The main favourite is Tiril Eckhoff from Norway, who already won this season world cup trophy. Her chances to win estimated as 24%, while chances to climb the podium as 49%.
Second favourite for the race is Marte Olsbu Roeiseland, who won the pursuit race yesterday, with fifteen percent chance to win and 38% chance to get any medal.
The third favourite is Lisa Theresa Hauser from Germany with 14% chance to win the race and 37% for the podium.
Franziska Preuss from Germany has ten percent chance to get golden medal and 30% chance for any medal.
Italian Dorothea Wierer has 6% to win and 21% chance for top3 today.
Hanna Oeberg from Sweden is predicted to win in 4% of cases and 17% to get any medal.
Another Norwegian, Ingrid Landmark Tandrevold, has similar chances – four percent to win and 15% to get any medal.
Next two athletes in the table are from France – Anais Chevalier and Julia Simon – both have 4% chance to win and 13-14% to stand on podium today.
| Bib | Name | Country | Chances of various positions | Winning chance | Chance for a medal | Projected seconds behind |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ECKHOFF Tiril |
|
24% | 49% | 0s | |
| 2 | ROEISELAND Marte Olsbu |
|
15% | 38% | 13s | |
| 6 | HAUSER Lisa Theresa |
|
14% | 37% | 15s | |
| 5 | PREUSS Franziska |
|
10% | 30% | 22s | |
| 4 | WIERER Dorothea |
|
6% | 21% | 35s | |
| 3 | OEBERG Hanna |
|
5% | 17% | 46s | |
| 9 | TANDREVOLD Ingrid Landmark |
|
4% | 15% | 48s | |
| 8 | CHEVALIER Anais |
|
4% | 14% | 51s | |
| 13 | SIMON Julia |
|
4% | 13% | 57s | |
| 14 | PERSSON Linn |
|
2% | 10% | 59s | |
| 12 | OEBERG Elvira |
|
2% | 7% | 70s | |
| 7 | ALIMBEKAVA Dzinara |
|
2% | 8% | 70s | |
| 10 | HERRMANN Denise |
|
2% | 8% | 78s | |
| 15 | BRAISAZ Justine |
|
1% | 6% | 82s | |
| 18 | DZHYMA Juliya |
|
<1% | 2% | 91s | |
| 21 | KAISHEVA Uliana |
|
1% | 3% | 93s | |
| 17 | VITTOZZI Lisa |
|
<1% | 2% | 97s | |
| 25 | SOLA Hanna |
|
1% | 5% | 99s | |
| 11 | DAVIDOVA Marketa |
|
1% | 4% | 99s | |
| 23 | ZDOUC Dunja |
|
<1% | 2% | 100s | |
| 20 | KNOTTEN Karoline Offigstad |
|
<1% | 1% | 101s | |
| 24 | HINZ Vanessa |
|
<1% | 1% | 107s | |
| 19 | MIRONOVA Svetlana |
|
<1% | 2% | 109s | |
| 22 | HETTICH Janina |
|
<1% | 1% | 112s | |
| 30 | KRUCHINKINA Elena |
|
<1% | 1% | 120s | |
| 29 | BRORSSON Mona |
|
<1% | 1% | 124s | |
| 16 | BESCOND Anais |
|
<1% | 1% | 125s | |
| 26 | HAECKI Lena |
|
<1% | 1% | 126s | |
| 28 | TODOROVA Milena |
|
<1% | 1% | 130s | |
| 27 | KALKENBERG Emilie Aagheim |
|
<1% | <1% | 159s |
Related posts:
Kontiolahti BMW IBU Biathlon World Cup 28.11.2020 men 20km individual race preview
Kontiolahti BMW IBU Biathlon World Cup 28.11.2020 women 15km individual race preview
Kontiolahti BMW IBU Biathlon World Cup 29.11.2020 women 7.5km sprint race preview
Kontiolahti BMW IBU Biathlon World Cup 29.11.2020 men 10km sprint race preview
I have enjoyed checking your previews this season. Your website is the only I know who is doing something like that for biathlon. I think it is creative and good looking, however I am not impressed with the accuracy of your predictions. I think your simulation which makes those predictions is not very good. But thanks for launching these previews anyway. Wish you to improve before the next season.
Hi Mark,
Thanks for the kind words and for leaving a comment!
Regarding the less kind words about the perceived lack of accuracy of our model, I am curious what you base this on? It has taken several thousand working hours to get our model as good as it currently is. I can assure you that it is rather complex and takes a lot of factors into consideration before making predictions.
Could it be that part of the reason you feel our predictions are bad is simply hindsight bias? That everything seems easy and obvious when the race has been completed and the results are known?
Thank you for your reply. I did not say that the accuracy of your simulations is bad. I just don’t think that the accuracy is very good either. I appreciate that making good such simulations is difficult.
Maybe hindsight bias can be part of the reason why I am unimpressed. However, to use your predictions of the race above my comment, the ladies 12.5KM mass start, as an example. I know that I found your prediction of Eckhoff winning 24% of the time and that Eckhoff, Roeiseland and Hauser combined had more than a 50% chance of winning this race rather laughable. Considering how windy the conditions in Oestersund were the day of this race, I am rather sure that none of the athletes had anything close to a 24% chance of winning. Furthermore, I know I was thinking about what I wrote above well in advance of the race starting.
Bob Voulgaris who is well known for computer simulations of basketball, once said something along the lines of:
“Simulations not capable of beating the betting markets are not very valuable.”
I am confident that your biathlon simulations are incapable of beating the betting markets. You should not get too disheartened by this, even a huge website like 538 probably have a lot more sophisticated simulations than what you have made, have been shown to not even be close to beating the betting markets.
Keep up the good work, even if I am unimpressed by the accuracy of your simulations I enjoy looking at them before the races start 😉
Hi again Mark,
To be honest I am not in a good position to say anything definitive about the quality of our model. The only thing I know is how much time and effort has gone into making it and based on this I would be shocked if it is not very good.
No matter what you brought up a very interesting topic and as I know that one of our writers covering biathlon has done a lot of work on odds and probabilities in the past I will task him with writing an article about the performance of our biathlon model.