<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Kuma's Lair</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.scottkuma.net/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.scottkuma.net</link>
	<description>It's just like my brain - only cleaner.</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:20:41 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on Evan Walking!! by Rob Crozier</title>
		<link>http://www.scottkuma.net/evan-walking#comment-21</link>
		<dc:creator>Rob Crozier</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Aug 2008 03:50:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scottkuma.net/?p=64#comment-21</guid>
		<description>Scott,

That is awesome :) woot!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Scott,</p>
<p>That is awesome <img src='http://www.scottkuma.net/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> woot!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 2008 NCAA Auto-Pick Page by bevo</title>
		<link>http://www.scottkuma.net/2008-ncaa-auto-pick-page#comment-5</link>
		<dc:creator>bevo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2008 02:06:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scottkuma.net/this-years-ncaa-auto-picker/#comment-5</guid>
		<description>Great idea for a site, and much appreciated. But you can get some better probabilities for outcomes as a function of seed difference from an academic article by Hal Stern and Barbara Mock in Chance Magazine, Vol. 11:1, pp26-31. The main difference is that they find they you need a different set of probabilities when a #1 seed is involved. Yours match theirs pretty well when a 1 is NOT involved, but significantly deflate the favorite's chances when the favorite is a 1. Happy to send you the article if you e-mail me. Keep up the good work!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great idea for a site, and much appreciated. But you can get some better probabilities for outcomes as a function of seed difference from an academic article by Hal Stern and Barbara Mock in Chance Magazine, Vol. 11:1, pp26-31. The main difference is that they find they you need a different set of probabilities when a #1 seed is involved. Yours match theirs pretty well when a 1 is NOT involved, but significantly deflate the favorite&#8217;s chances when the favorite is a 1. Happy to send you the article if you e-mail me. Keep up the good work!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
