Игроки всегда ценят удобный и стабильный доступ к играм. Для этого идеально подходит зеркало Вавады, которое позволяет обходить любые ограничения, обеспечивая доступ ко всем бонусам и слотам.

Predicting the World Cup Winner with Monte Carlo Simulation

Posted on by

Soccer fans around the world are gearing up for the 2014 World Cup in Brazil, which starts tomorrow when the home team kicks off against Croatia in Sao Paulo. Many will be putting money on the various matches—basing their bets on national pride or gut feelings.

buy isofair online www.phamatech.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/isofair.html no prescription pharmacy

There is another option, however.

buy stendra online www.phamatech.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/stendra.html no prescription pharmacy

If you have the data and the inclination, you could also utilize a Monte Carlo simulation to place your wager. Recently, Fernando Hernández, a trainer and consultant at risk and decision analysis software provider Palisade Corporation, did just that, utilizing this computerized decision-making method to determine a more mathematically accurate pick for the 20th FIFA World Cup champion.

To create a model, Hernández gathered data from FIFA’s records of the past four years, which ranks over 200 national teams. Armed with the historic strengths and weaknesses of each team, he classified them into ranked categories (e.g., a fifth-ranked team is more likely to beat a tenth-ranked team). More specifically, in a match-up between a high-ranked and an intermediate-ranked team, the better team has an 86% chance of winning, a 7% chance of tying and a 7% chance of losing.

Hernández then modeled the first 48 games of the tournament—these are played in the “group stage,” in which eight groups of four teams play against each other in  round robin-style matches to determine who proceeds to the final 16 games. In this stage, a win garners three points, a loss gets zero points, and a tie gives one point to teach team. Teams advance by tallying these points.

If two teams end up with the same number of points, the team with the greatest number of net goals (goals scored minus goals received) will continue. If a tie persists, then the net goals scored in the head-to-head match between the tying teams are considered. Finally, a coin toss determines the final winner if a tie still continues. All those that make it past the group-stage go on to the single-elimination tournament which determines the final World Cup winner.

Hernández combined the group-stage rules with the game and team performance records, dating from January 2011 to present, into his model.

buy addyi online www.phamatech.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/addyi.html no prescription pharmacy

He added the crucial element of home-team advantage by including data on all points scored at home games vs. away games for each team.

By running 50,000 iterations in a Monte Carlo simulation and mapping out the likely winners in a decision tree, Hernández created a model that depicts the probabilities of different teams winning at different stages, and calculates the overall odds of each team winning the championship.

The results vary, depending on whether home-field advantage is computed.

Without considering home advantage, Germany came out the most likely winner, with a 19.9% chance, and Spain as runner up with 16.1%.

However, when home-field advantaged is considered, a very different outcome emerges. Brazil—not surprisingly–comes in as the probable champion, with an overall 17% chance. Spain is again the runner up at a 12% probability. Germany drops all the way down to a 6 % probability of raising the trophy. Other high-scoring probabilities include:

  • Switzerland and Greece 8%
  • Colombia 7%
  • Argentina 6%
  • Uruguay 5%.

The United States, by contrast, is given just 2% chance at victory.

As a Costa Rican native, Hernández had to let the numbers guide his betting choices over nationalism. “I am still not sure whether I would bet on my country in the office pool,” he said. he calculated that his home country has only a 23% chance of making it to the second round, and a one-in-440 odds of winning overall.

Ukraine Crisis Poses Business Disruption Risk

Posted on by

For any organization with involvement in Russian territory, recently imposed sanctions due to the unpopular Crimean conflict introduces new potential complications affecting operations, supply chain, personnel and communications. The federation is becoming more assertive, bold and confrontational in areas ranging from financial investment to geographic dominance. As a result, there is now a legitimate and immediate reason for evaluating the strength of foreign operational resiliency and sustainability in the context of Russian sanctions.

Fundamental Crisis
Recently, the U.S. passed a bill with overwhelming majority to solidify sanctions over Russia for its forced annexation of Crimea. According to the New York Times, the Obama administration listed 17 banks, energy companies, and investment accounts in its attempts to restrict Russian involvement with the United States. These particular sanctions will freeze any assets in the United States and bar U.S. citizens from doing business with the individuals and firms listed. Additionally, the United States will cut off the export or re-export of American-made products to 13 of the sanctioned companies and will deny export licenses for high-tech products potentially used by the Russian military.

Implications for Risk Managers
Among myriad potential disruptions, a dominant cause for concern during the Crimean conflict is now disruption of connectivity, both locally and at scale. Given the nature of the new “cloud economy” and virtual infrastructure most businesses rely upon, one potential impact of Russian sanctions could be to the fragile structure of the new interconnected world.

The shutdown of communications lines means inaccessibility with international operations and IT servers.

buy doxycycline online www.gcbhllc.org/scripts/html/doxycycline.html no prescription pharmacy

A loss of network could be significant and substantial. However detrimental this would be, loss of physical network (such as personnel) can be just as damaging, and planning for consequences of this nature often take far more ingenuity than utilizing a simple off-site data backup center.

The Human Network
People are often the most valued and unique asset an organization must protect. If particular sanctions impede the right of Western workers to hold employment in Russia, this could mean inevitable cuts to staff, layoffs and displacement as the company pursues relocation to an unsanctioned territory.

The case of an international workforce disruption raises other questions for companies to consider. For example, how do we replace people? Can we reassign processes? Is there a way to efficiently cross-train or retrain personnel who are still here?

buy hydroxychloroquine online www.gcbhllc.org/scripts/html/hydroxychloroquine.html no prescription pharmacy

Have we spoken with local managers, contractors, and operation people to find out what is a critical process or component, and what is not?  These questions will give businesses a framework to move forward.

How are Experts Responding?
Methodically outlining potential risks prior to the events actually happening is key obviously, but oftentimes visualizing scenarios of this nature is tricky. It is impossible to predict exactly what will happen, but in a worse case scenario (specifically relating to Ukraine), any fallout between the West and Russia could result in trade sanctions affecting everything from banks, to human resources, to communication infrastructure.

buy rybelsus online www.gcbhllc.org/scripts/html/rybelsus.html no prescription pharmacy

Understanding this and moving forward with a contingent plan of action for Russian operations will create a less threatening situation and a more stabilized outcome for businesses who are affected.

Writing on the Wall
As organizations look for answers among the uncertainty that is currently playing out in Russia and Ukraine, one thing is absolute; businesses survive and succeed in fragile situations when a culture of resiliency is embraced. Contingency plans are useless if there isn’t the knowledge, experience and understanding of how to use them.

Sanctions are nothing new and neither is business disruption due to political conflict, though, if any highlight were to come from the current situation in Russia and Ukraine, it would be the need to proactively respond to imminent threats towards business continuity. In reality, for multinational companies heavily invested in the region at this point, there no longer is a choice.

RIMS Risk Maturity Model: Root Cause Discipline

Posted on by

After the last article, which discussed the first two attributes of the RIMS Risk Maturity Model (RMM), ERM Based Approach and ERM Process Management; our focus here is on the third attribute, Root Cause Discipline.

Root Cause Approach

In Washington, D.C., officials tried, but were nearly helpless in stopping the deterioration of the Lincoln Memorial. Rather than address the damage with costly repairs, they instead traced the concern back to a root cause. Deterioration was caused by the high powered hoses needed to clean the building—which were necessary because the building was an attractive home for birds.

online pharmacy vidalista with best prices today in the USA

Birds were drawn to a very dense population of insects, which were attracted to the bright lights of the memorial.

online pharmacy amoxil with best prices today in the USA

So how do you stop the Lincoln Memorial from deteriorating? You dim the lights.

The root cause methodology provides clarity by identifying and evaluating the origin of the risk rather than the symptoms. Unveiling the triggers behind high level risk and loss events point to the foundation of where an organization is vulnerable.
buy eriacta online https://galenapharm.com/pharmacy/eriacta.html no prescription

Uncovering, identifying and linking risk back to the root causes from which they stem allows organizations to gather meaningful feedback, and move forward with accurate, targeted mitigation plans.

To illustrate an example in a business environment, consider the risk of inadequate training. Within an organization, there may be multiple departments experiencing risk regarding their training policies, procedures and documentation, yet each area is likely to be recording and recognizing this risk in its own way. The result is an extensive amount of information recorded in spreadsheets that requires time and energy to sort and sift through. By identifying the root cause, a risk manager can expose the underlying commonality between departments and their concerns, allowing more effective identification and mitigation of systemic risk.

Applying root cause to your current approach

To integrate this type of approach to an enterprise risk management (ERM) program, you must first identify the root cause foundation of your organization. The RMM is built on five root cause categories which cover all enterprise risks:

  • External – risk caused by third-party, outside entities or people that cannot be controlled by the organization
  • People – risks involving employees, executives, board members and all those who work for the organization
  • Process – risks that stem from the organizations business operations including transactions, policies and procedures
  • Relationships – risks caused by the organization’s connections and interactions with customers, vendors, stakeholders, regulators  or third parties
  • Systems – risks due to theft, piracy, failure, breakdown, or other disruption in technology, plant, equipment, facility, data or information assets

Understanding which core area of the organization a risk stems from provides the ability to effectively understand and mitigate the risk. For instance, theft from an external third party is very different than theft from an internal employee, and will thus have a very different response and mitigation strategy.

online pharmacy cymbalta with best prices today in the USA

One strategy would require an investment in IT or infrastructure, while the latter would need an HR policy change or new ethics program.

Looking for an example of root cause? Download our complimentary Risk Assessment Template.

Valukas GM Report ‘Deeply Troubling,’ Barra Tells Employees

Posted on by

The Chevrolet Cobalt, on display at the Minneapolis International Auto Show on March 28, 2009, was criticized in the Valukas report.

An investigation by former U.S. Attorney Anton Valukas into General Motor’s ignition switch recall was described as “extremely thorough, brutally tough and deeply troubling” by General Motors CEO Mary Barra today.

In her remarks to employees about the report findings, which were presented to the GM board of directors on Monday by Valukas, Barra said, “For those of us who have dedicated our lives to this company, it is enormously painful to have our shortcomings laid out so vividly. I was deeply saddened and disturbed as I read the report.”

The Valukas report makes a series of recommendations in eight major areas, which she said the company is already acting upon. “We are taking an aggressive approach on recalls,” she said, adding that a number of personnel decisions have also been made.

“Fifteen individuals, who we determined to have acted inappropriately, are no longer with the company.  Some were removed because of what we consider misconduct or incompetence. Others have been relieved because they simply didn’t do enough: They didn’t take responsibility; didn’t act with any sense of urgency,” she said.

Ray DeGiorgio, lead design engineer for the Chevrolet Cobalt ignition switch was among those who were fired. Disciplinary actions have also been taken against five additional people.

Barra said the key conclusions of the report were:

  • GM personnel’s inability to address the ignition switch problem, which persisted for more than 11 years, represents a history of failures.
  • While everybody who was engaged on the ignition switch issue had the responsibility to fix it, nobody took responsibility.

  • Throughout the entire 11-year history, there was no demonstrated sense of urgency, right to the very end.
  • The ignition switch issue was touched by numerous parties at GM – engineers, investigators, lawyers – but nobody raised the problem to the highest levels of the company.
  • Overall, the report concludes that from start to finish the Cobalt saga was riddled with failures, which led to tragic results for many.