Sahir said: >The questions on Black-Scholes and duopoly > models were much appreciated, but I fear that those two topics are > too obscure to take up entire questions. I'd been waiting for a Black-Scholes question since they did a whole Nova episode on it. Didn't seem obscure in that context; indeed it seemed really important - certainly worthy of a tossup. I might as well add to the pile of praise for ACF Nats. Roger did a fine job by me. It was a lot of fun and seemed reasonable to me, as it did to all the other veterans on this list (as, really, it should. If we were having problems, there would have been something wrong). But I wonder how the younger/not-so-ACF-hardened folks found it. Any of you who might be reading this care to comment? Yeah, bonuses could have been a bit easier. Top bonus conversion in the round-robin was Michigan's, with a bit over 18. This could have been a bit higher, as could have the median, which was in the 10-11 range. But this reflects on the packet writers rather than Roger; you know to write 'em easier (and earlier, and with more earth science/astronomy/pronunciation guides) next year. I was disappointed not to see the Tim Bowl schedule used. It would have been interesting to try, and would have prevented all of NAQT ICT/TRASHionals/ACF Nats from having (essentially) the same schedule. And it seemed wrong to have our round-robin win over Chicago carry over into the playoffs; they had the better record and should have been given the advantage based on that. These are minor points, though. Tim and Edmund and the UMCP folks and the other moderators did a good job. Overall, it was a lot of fun. All you less ACF-prone schools should give it a try next year. Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:46 AM EST EST