Then you haven’t participated in these threads long enough.
There is no good faith argument by the rigging whiners.
2 Likes
I don’t think other people being willing to “educate” you denotes a duty to take the time to learn their “knowledge.” So really, it’s just “educating yourself on a current topic of discussion.” You know very well I like to do this, but in my view I’m pretty much alone. Oh, people pretend they aren’t against it, but they base their opinions off feelings and are willfully ignorant to facts. Empiricism is all but dead in our culture, if it was ever even alive to begin with.
But really, I can’t realistically expect people to just drop what they’re doing today and crunch the numbers before they share how they feel.
I am thoroughly certain that they do. People would rather have been always right, then to be truly right. And there’s absolutely no difference in the feeling of having always been right, and in being wrong. At least, there isn’t until you collide with reality.
If this was a complicated subject, I might tend to agree. This subject is rather easy and it’s been explained in depth to the point that even a child could grasp it. At some point, one must stop trying to teach the dog to sit and realize that the dog knows how to sit, it simply does not want to.
The subject of whether matchmaking is rigged is roughly as complicated as whether God exists. It’s very similar, actually. You’ve got requests to prove a negative; you’ve got the argument that complexity could not have been generated by random chance; and you have people thinking they’re a whole lot better inside than they actually are.
I don’t mean to say that whether God exists is a complicated topic. It’s only slightly more challenging than understanding that Hojo from Final Fantasy 7 never was a real person. But I’m saying confirmation bias thoroughly infests even the simple.
And/or: it simply doesn’t want to know how. Which happens to have a very high correlation with not wanting to do it in the first place. So mostly “and” and very little “or.”
Highly, highly disagree. The subject of whether matchmaking is rigged is about as complicated as the Monty Hall problem.
From Wikipedia:
So in light of the above, I agree. The question of whether matchmaking is rigged and the Monty Hall problem are about equally complicated.
Yeah. Sounds like a bunch of people refusing to believe facts that are demonstrably accurate because they don’t understand basic math. I could explain the Monty Hall problem to a 10 year old and they’d understand it instantly. Anyone refusing to believe the method is simply being illogical.
Like I said, you can’t force the dog to sit. It has to want to sit. If someone doesn’t want to know the answer, you can’t force them to understand. It’s just willful ignorance at that point.
A bold claim. I suggest you try it out on a few and see how you do. I have three sons, 13 12 and 9, I agree with vos Savant if that wasn’t obvious, and so far I’ve only convinced one of them. My 12 year old is in advanced maths at school, and he held out on me on this for almost a full year.
All you need to do with the Monty Hall problem is exaggerate the problem to show how it works.
1 in 3 is the smallest and thus creates the biggest problem.
Tell someone you have 10 billion lottery tickets and only 1 is the winner.
Tell them to choose 1.
Then reveal the 9,999,999,998 other tickets that are false.
Ask them if they want to switch to the last remaining one.
It becomes instantly clear at this point that your odds are better to switch, because the odds of you choosing the right one right off the bat is 1 in 10 billion.
Most people who have a basic understanding of Math will switch.
If this scenario was presented to any Mathematician and they still didn’t see the point, I’d seriously question their credentials as a Mathematician (and so should everyone else).
I’ve never had this example fail on someone in person. It has always become immediately clear to anyone with a functional brain. Anyone trying to argue after this point is simply being stubborn, or as I said before, doesn’t want to sit.
Matchmaking being rigged also has a similar scenario I’ve presented on these very forums. The answer becomes obvious and the people here refuse to answer the question because they see where their logic fails. They simply move on or move goal posts. It really is that easy.
That’s a rather brilliant method. The kind that backs up bold claims.
2 Likes
I learned it years back from a debate and thought the exact same thing. I used to be on the fence with the Monty Hall problem because everyone always gave examples using 1/3 and 2/3. After you hear it that way, there can really be no doubt. Wish I could give credit to the debater I heard it from, but it’s been too long. I believe it might have been Matt Dillahunty.
But, whining about something where you’re objectively, provably wrong and where others are providing you with contradicting information does give you a duty to learn their knowledge. Otherwise, you’re just a stubborn troll.
This isn’t some epistemological dilemma worthy of serious thought. It’s about whether you value your own ignorance more than truth.
2 Likes
Bingo.
List of the streamers and clips required.
The key to understanding is knowing whether the reveals are informed or random.
I suspect that the computer simulation part is a bit of an urban myth, because you wouldn’t need to run that program, the flawed thinking becomes clear as soon as your start designing the code.
You should just silence these critics once and for all dude. As you say you can prove your theory using hsreplay and comparing overall popularity of decks vs matchups for specific decks, but it’s easier than you think, so here’s the step by step.
- google hsreplay and choose the first search result
- select the the meta tab->by class
- note down the popularity of each deck
- select the matchups tab
- go through each row or column and total the number of games for each deck type
- divide the number of games played against a particular deck by the total to get a %
- compare the % you just calculated to the deck’s popularity, that you noted in step 3.
Please post your results and lay the smackdown.
1 Like
I type less words 
20 char
1 Like
87.5% less words, by my calculations. 
1 Like