If you always answer that your number is lower, you definitely have exactly 50% accuracy, right? So ROB isn’t constraining you to less than 50% accuracy.
Even without that section, the modeling of your evaluation as a mapping from input number to a binary “you will say that this number is higher than the other” result is pretty binding. If ROB knows (or can infer) your mapping/algorithm, it can just pick numbers for which you’re wrong, every time.
Which turns this into a “whoever knows the other’s algorithm better, wins” situation.
Yeah, I was confused. I was thinking you had to state a probability of having the larger number (rather than a binary guess) and try to get better than chance according to some scoring rule.
I don’t see how 2 is true.
If you always answer that your number is lower, you definitely have exactly 50% accuracy, right? So ROB isn’t constraining you to less than 50% accuracy.
Even without that section, the modeling of your evaluation as a mapping from input number to a binary “you will say that this number is higher than the other” result is pretty binding. If ROB knows (or can infer) your mapping/algorithm, it can just pick numbers for which you’re wrong, every time.
Which turns this into a “whoever knows the other’s algorithm better, wins” situation.
Yeah, I was confused. I was thinking you had to state a probability of having the larger number (rather than a binary guess) and try to get better than chance according to some scoring rule.