|If this isn't the sort of monkey who would|
like Eurovision, I don't know what is
What's more, with no British interest to worry about, UK fans can sit back and enjoy the delightfully difficult game of guessing who will make it to the main event. After the first semi-final on Tuesday social media (well, the media I socialize with, at any rate) was awash with people proudly declaring how many of the 10 finalists they correctly predicted, with 7 out of 10 widely considered a 'good' performance. But is it really?
On face value 70% does sound pretty respectable: that's a first class degree at most universities, after all. Reframing the problem, however, can change our perspective. Predicting who will go through is equivalent to predicting who will crash out, and with only 16 countries competing on Tuesday, spotting 7 out of 10 qualifiers is the same as getting just 3 of 6 losers correct. All of a sudden things aren't quite so impressive.
Overall, the monkeys would get on surprisingly well. Around 40% of them would, for example, manage that 7 out of 10 many people seemed quite proud of. Even my own performance of 9 out of 10, which I was really rather happy with (despite my copy book being blotted by the Netherlands, of all things), only puts me in the top 1% of monkeys. Not so impressive after all.
Unsurprisingly, with an extra country in contention, prediction gets a *lot* harder. As such, I think 7 out of 10, placing you in the top quarter of monkeys, could be considered a reasonable performance. 8 out of 10 would get a statistician interested, while 9 or 10 would suggest you should spend less time reading this and more time at the bookies (or maybe just outdoors). Or you could just sit back, relax, and succumb to Eurosong Fever.