# $3M or$500K?

« Prev
Topic
» Next
Topic
<12>
 Posts 14 Thanks 3 Joined 16 Feb '11 Email user Hi. Until recently, I've been thinking 'wow, there is a US$3M prize' for first place! However now I'm telling myself to revise my enthusiasm downwards... since it seems to me likely that no-one is going to beat the required 0.4 accuracy threshold. Hence the prize is really just US$500k. Not bad.... but not enough to retire on :( After nearly a month of submissions, the rate of improvement is already heading towards an asymptote that isn't 0.4. The best today is 0.461113. Admittedly we are still to get some more data supplied. But realistically I don't think that we're going to be able to get down to 0.4. That target is just too hard... Any other opinions? Personally I'd be happy to bet at 5-1 odds today that by the end of the competition no-one exceeds 0.4. Any takers?   (eg, I put up $50, you put up$10) Dave #1 / Posted 24 months ago
 Rank 84th Posts 60 Thanks 14 Joined 20 Mar '11 Email user I think the release of Labs and Rx data will have an impact on the predictions, but yes getting to 0.4 seems rough.  From what I can tell it looks like the leaders are barely 0.02 RMSLE better than an entry based solely on Age and Gender.  If Labs and Rx alone improve another 0.02 (I'm actually guessing that the Labs and Rx will be relatively less of an improvement than the initial data release, but who knows), we'd need an algorithm change to move another 0.04... judging from some of the graphs in the Netflix and other Kaggle competitions that's not unheard of, particuarly given the long time period, but definitely not easy. 5:1 is probably good odds, but I wouldn't make a bet until a while after the next data release. 0.4 seems like a good benchmark from Heritage's point of view -- it's certainly worth $2.5mil for the attempt (legal issues notwithstanding); I wonder how much effort they put in picking the number...? ---Chip #2 / Posted 24 months ago  Posts 253 Thanks 4 Joined 5 Aug '10 Email user I think that the leaders are even not 0.02 better than a submission that is based only on age and gender. #3 / Posted 24 months ago / Edited 24 months ago  Rank 31st Posts 292 Thanks 64 Joined 2 Mar '11 Email user I'll take the other side of that 5-1 bet. #4 / Posted 24 months ago  Posts 48 Thanks 15 Joined 26 Aug '10 Email user Me too! #5 / Posted 24 months ago  Rank 38th Posts 194 Thanks 90 Joined 9 Jul '10 Email user I think 0.40000 will be rough as well, but I will try and make due with$500k :) I figure I will have to win the progress prizes as well to supplement my income. I tend to think everything will be little baby steps, but we haven't seen the labs data yet (I agree with ChipMonkey on his guess that they will be less helpful than what we already have), and I am optimistic that over two years we can figure out quite a few ways to improve things. #6 / Posted 24 months ago
 William Cukierski Kaggle Admin Posts 339 Thanks 165 Joined 13 Oct '10 Email user I wonder whether the bottleneck on this competition will end up being the anonymization/granularity of the data. If you bin the data enough, you create an artificial, information-theoretic best error that wont be surpassed by anything but luck (think of the limiting case, where you are given that every patient was hospitalized between 0 and 365 days). The big question here is whether contestants are approaching such an artificial limit, or whether there is more to be gleaned from clever algorithms. In other words, is the inherent stochasticity of the system greater than the noise introduced by fuzzing the data? Either way, I think it's far too soon to call it here.  The Netflix prize wsa looking like a dubious threshold, until it wasn't. #7 / Posted 24 months ago
 Anthony Goldbloom (Kaggle) Competition Admin Kaggle Admin Posts 382 Thanks 72 Joined 20 Jan '10 Email user Further to Will's point, those who followed the Netflix Prize will remember the jump from the Simon Funk discovery. #8 / Posted 24 months ago
 Posts 3 Joined 27 Apr '11 Email user DaveC wrote: Any other opinions? Personally I'd be happy to bet at 5-1 odds today that by the end of the competition no-one exceeds 0.4. Any takers?   (eg, I put up $50, you put up$10) Dave Dave, Ill bet you $3mil I win the grand prize... ;) Kidding. I wish : ( #9 / Posted 24 months ago  Posts 65 Thanks 34 Joined 14 May '10 Email user Hi all! Nobody promised that earn three million easily! Good luck to all! #10 / Posted 24 months ago  Posts 42 Thanks 2 Joined 5 Apr '11 Email user I am only putting in another entry when I am sure I will go below 0.4000. More thought less calculation-that's my motto. #11 / Posted 24 months ago  Posts 52 Thanks 2 Joined 14 Mar '11 Email user Alexanderr, you may want to win the midway prizes!, first of which is this Aug end, you dont need to be below .4 , just in the top 2 of the leaderboard. So keep uploading! #12 / Posted 24 months ago  Posts 14 Thanks 3 Joined 16 Feb '11 Email user Considering the state of the lab and prescription data that we've now been given (which is to say the lack of any lab results and lack of any prescription data), I think my 5-1 wager is on the conservative side ! The chance that anyone will collect the$3M now strikes me as << 1%. Good luck everyone - slave away for 2 years on this endeavour, but remember the prize is $500K, not$3M. (although true enough, I'm only saying that to discourage as many of you as possible from competing, so as to improve my own chances of winning $500k :) DaveC #13 / Posted 23 months ago  Posts 103 Thanks 47 Joined 21 Jul '10 Email user DaveC wrote: Considering the state of the lab and prescription data that we've now been given (which is to say the lack of any lab results and lack of any prescription data), I think my 5-1 wager is on the conservative side ! The chance that anyone will collect the$3M now strikes me as << 1%. Good luck everyone - slave away for 2 years on this endeavour, but remember the prize is $500K, not$3M. (although true enough, I'm only saying that to discourage as many of you as possible from competing, so as to improve my own chances of winning \$500k :) DaveC I tentatively agree. The biggest bummer, in my view, is that this is a competition that is entirely about money -- in all likelihood. It won't change healthcare as was hoped. Perhaps it's too ambitious to try to predict a largely random event one year in advance. Maybe predicting one claim in advance would be more realistic. #14 / Posted 23 months ago
 Posts 2 Joined 21 Apr '11 Email user Dave, I'm good for that bet if you're still taking action. Mike N. #15 / Posted 23 months ago
<12>