Let's talk MATHS

Multiplayer Discussion
11

‘Spectrum’ as a mathematical term means an entirely different thing (suddenly reminded be of the ‘standard variance’ incident, which was apparently an erroneous conflation of ‘standard deviation’ and ‘variance’, by the way). If you’re trying to explain ideas in your own words, that’s fine, but let’s just not confuse it with (mathematical) terminology.

By the way, technically, it does — the entire domain of the distribtution function. :grinning: Not that it’s very useful practically, of course…

Anyway, since you’ve mentioned it again — that by itself is not necessarily a problem, including mathematically rational decision-making (all that Bayesian ‘magic’ and whatnot… I think we’ve touched the subject slightly already).

No, it’s not. I’m merely pointing out that, on the most trivial level, in a zero-sum game like this, ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ riggings for many players would cancel out, and you wouldn’t see the effect; moreover, amalgamation of sets might introduce a new ‘bias’ (have you taken a look at the aforementioned Simpson’s paradox? I’d highly recommend it if you’re not familiar, it’s a good one), so simply having ‘bigger data’ might not necessarily make your results better — sometimes, in fact, quite the contrary, that was my point.

As a reference, even this would do:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox

A side note: I’ve been berating this dubious ‘source’, and for a good reason — if you look at anything even slightly sensitive, political etc, that WikiDumpster looks heavily curated at least or utter totalitarian propaganda at worst, so I wouldn’t trust it one bit, but a number of purely technical articles in the US version have apparently been written by students, enthusiasts etc citing actual decent books and literature, thus some material isn’t that bad there (and not that it’d interest many people but ‘nerds’ anyway, so there’s no point in machinations there) — in fact, it can occasionally be useful.

PS One more thing… Can’t believe I’m saying it, but I’m really glad it’s you who showed up in this topic. On the personal level, you might be… you :grinning: , but at least you can operate with facts and rational arguments (when not trolling and such, that is) — there’s that, and I do like conversations of this kind.

12

I didn’t say you would prove a negative. My example wasn’t to show how to prove the game isn’t rigged. That’s the negative. My example was to show how it is rigged, which isn’t a negative.

“prove the game isn’t rigged” = proving a negative claim
“prove the game is rigged” = proving a positive claim

So I don’t even know what you’re talking about when you reply to me saying the issue here is that you can’t really prove a negative with data. Yeah, I know. That’s why I didn’t say anything about proving a negative.

I said how many. Until your subjective data matches the objective data. Which is essentially meaningless because…

Yes, it is.

…your single deck experience will never be enough to make an overall case for the deck. Thus, you can’t take a single iteration of data within a whole to determine what the whole is.

So if you want a number, it’s whatever number matches the overall data. For some deck iterations it will be 100 games. For some deck iterations it will be 1000. For some it won’t get there even with 1,000,000 games. So it could be a number you reach and it could be a number you never reach.

This is basic statistics.

Given a pool of 1,000,000 participants (or whatever number you choose), some participants aren’t going to experience the average participant experience.

So asking “how many games until I see ______” Is like asking how many games does a participant have to play to see the average participant experience. There is no number. And asking for a number is just being unknowledgeable in how statistics work. You may as well be asking for what number do I count to in order to get to infinity.

And if you understand how statistics works and why this is the way it is and continue to say “The question is: how many”? then you are being dishonest. I’m going to assume you’re not dishonest and instead assume you’re just lacking understanding.

1 Like
13

Nope.

No formula, only empty words and assertive self-repetitions.

No, it isn’t. :grinning:

I dunno, get a decent university degree, take some courses or whatever… There are even books after all, although it might be hard for a layman to navigate through this rather complex subject.

Then it’s a perfectly reasonable question in terms described above.

In practice, such a question is raised, perhaps implicitly, all the time. “We’re seeing a peak in the spectrum here [talking about an example from particle physics again] at ‘three sigmas’, could that really be it? — Well, let’s gather data for ‘five sigmas’, then we’ll see whether it disappears or we’ll claim a discivery”, something like that.

14

With enough games, it can be a pretty good measure of how that deck operates under certain conditions.

For example, you state your rank, how variable that rank is (average deviation, let’s say, not to try to dabble with exact terminology - means how much does it oscillate around your current rank) and a couple of more variables just in case (server of play, your usual finishes) which can under some circumstances impact the rank of winrate (for example fresh account/server = a lot of bots, not fresh account on old server = more precise)…

…and then you can be sure of your data more than what you read from aggregate data websites, because they’re not collected under those specific conditions only, but other conditions which impact the data’s precision.

If I can hit, for example, top 200 with sludgelock with a winrate of 59% consistently on more servers (obviously I can’t, not anymore), that means that everyone under those circumstance can switch to sludgelock and reach that same statistic with enough games, and unchanging circumstances (no meta shifting).

That’s also, btw, why I always include my rank when I talk about stuff. It’s not because I like to flex, but because I feel like those are neccessary additions to explain under which circumstances that’s possible.

I mean I do like to flex, but I rather open a new thread to do it, rather than use other topics.

15

Ugh… Again, how many exactly and so on?

Am I the only one here dealing in terms such as the binomial distribution and so on, rather than vague and vacuous verbal equilibristics?

16

Nothing vague and vacuous here, this is practical, it’s not theoretical.

You’re continuously trying to apply actuarial mathematics in a place where it has no business to be. This is some basic statistics, and it’s actually useful, unlike your failed attempts of what you clearly don’t understand if it brought you the idea that the game is rigged.

You can feel flattered I even replied to you. It won’t happen again.

1 Like
17

Lo and behold: some anonymous guy on the forum has just claimed to have brought down the entire progress of humanity in this particular discipline, which deals exactly with problems such as this one. :rofl: Well, how do I put it: I don’t think so. :grinning:

Ha! ’ Remember this day, for you are graced with my presence.’

:rofl: Here comes this promise… again.

18

Don’t fall for the trap. There isn’t a set number. You saying “with enough games” is hinting a specific number exists. No such specific number exists statistically, and that’s what he wants you to give.

This is why I’m now avoiding this discussion further with this individual now. They are either purposefully dishonest or stubbornly ignorant. Despite giving the benefit of the doubt earlier, I’m no longer certain which now.

It’s asking an unanswerable question similar to asking someone to tell you the exact person in history that started speaking Italian. No such person exists even though the start of Italian existed. And when you say no such person existed, the person acts like they win the argument because you can’t answer it because the answer doesn’t exist. It’s one of the most lamest tactics in debates and that’s exactly what he’s doing.

It’s dishonest. There is no set number statistically.

Just ignore and move on.

3 Likes
19

The biggest of these circumstances is that you are you, and very few if any people are like you. It is a critical error to simply assume that oneself is normal, and that therefore one’s experience can be generalized as normal. You need to first investigate what normal is, and see to what extent you match it.

You can’t just assume that something conforms to a bell curve. I’d imagine that if everyone played the same number of games, then a random win-loss record per player would fit such a distribution… but players do not play the same number of games, so I don’t see where there’s a binomial distribution to be had.

1 Like
20

I can explain to anyone how I play sludgelock and why, and people can repeat it.

That’s basically what coaching does xD

Jesus. Imagine all that wall of text for literally nothing of practical importance? You really want back on ignore list?

21

I don’t doubt this.

I doubt that they could do so consistently.

But hey, I’m just speculating. Try coaching five people — preferably with a different deck, given the meta — and see how many of them can match your achievements. I’m guessing one in five, but I’d be happy to be wrong.

In every field where coaching is a thing, the majority of those coached fail to be exceptional. I mean nothing personal against you specifically.

22

Nothing in OP’s post requires a formula.
They are asking a generic beginner question about math.
Throwing formulas at their face without explaining the link with their question would not serve any purpose unless you try to make yourself look more intelligent than you are.

You literaly quote the notion of large in my reply.

That link is a message of your own, none of the previous persons of this current thread have replied to the topic you linked, beside yourself. Are you the very vocal participant with clueless opinion ? Because I fail to understand the purpose of devaluating your own messages.

And you’ve apparently got no notion of what a discussion should look like.
If you tell me I’m wrong, the least would be to elaborate why I’m wrong.

You either talk about mine and contradict yourself, or talk about the wikipedia one, your own source, and don’t make sens.

If I were to explain the difference betwene statistics and probabilities to a beginner, it would look like
“Probabilities are the real odds of an event to occure, given beforehand.
Whereas statistics are the data you collect after the event has occured.
From statistics you can try to deduce the probabilities, since on the long run they should align with the probabilities”
But you’re not the type of user that tries to explain things :slight_smile:

You may have great information on the subject, but you have absolutely no will to help beginners understand anything, you’re just here to shove your knowledge (or at least your google search skill) in the face of people. You don’t care about the level of the person you’re talking to, you don’t adapt and you just expect any one to have your level of comprehension of the topic. Talk about being vocal.

23

You sound a little silly rattling off stats textbook terms…

1 Like
24

Reading their posts, they come off as pretty unbalanced. There is little good to come out of engaging with unbalanced people.

… of replying to sparky at all.

1 Like
25

no way calls to action to ignore someone when they werent befuddled with your other tactics of trying to shame and confuse them with wordsalads wordbuffets and wordtroughs…

Gosh I guess my deck tracker was lying when it showed the last 8 priests all illuminated on 1… get Neptulon on 5 and res res res.

Same exact plays over and over and over until I quit playing again.

Like the 12 giants on t4…

over and over and over until I quit.

Hellya on 4

Brann on 6

OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER…

30 CARDS DOESNT MATTER 40 NO BIG DEAL.

Play RENO DECK… see plagues.

Change to slow deck get aggro change back get combo…

Try another deck…

Priest 0 mana discover t1

Neptulon for 5

OVER AND OVER AND OVER…

Deck Tracker shows the truth.

“Bro there is no number of games you can play to show anything you dont know how statistics works bro”

“Everyone ignore this one who knows maths armed with vocabulary”

26

Rigging possible? Yes. What boggles my mind is that I don’t see these strange, very unlikely situations. :thinking: I remain skeptical. Not calling anyone a liar, only that my experience hasn’t demonstrated rigging.

27

Their can be no discussion with bad actors.

They dont want a discussion because it will boil down eventually to

“billionaires rigging the game thats stupid”

While everyone looks around to see the opposite in every facet of life…

“They dont use frustration mechanics to sell cards”

As you get rolled by the latest aggros and

Helya 4

Brann 5-6

How would they sell new cards if streamer has Helya buried 12 games in a row…

Clearly it makes sense to have helya pop on 4 if you want to sell plague decks.

“We see you are making a lot of gold from quests”

“We are changing that because we really care about you”

28

I by no means am a fan of billionaires. I don’t believe billionaires should exist. I understand your distrust entirely. Do you by chance have images of your deck tracker you can share?

29

Images hmm…

That was from several years ago. No I dont have them.

But at that time I didnt realize how many games in a row, when facing priest they had played the exact same hands in the same way on the exact same turns…

Till I looked at the tracker. 8 neptulons on 5 in a row…

What makes more sense…

I log on to lie because Im mad about losing?

or

Production company makes movies but also runs the review sites and pay people to be on the forums all day saying how great everything is…

“You guys should go watch movie x its awesome”

Movie x is garbage wrapped in feces… people scratch heads…

Me in the back.

“HEY uh you know maybe that guy is lying and doesnt actually like this new Snow White movie at all… BUT HE NEEEDS YOU TO WATCH IT”

For some reason…

30

I don’t know how old you are, but at my age in life, I find it to be quite useful for one’s own sanity to ignore people who are willfully ignorant.

It’s best not to engage with people who cannot comprehend the lesson being taught.

I’m also at the stage in my life where I can humbly admit when I’m wrong and do it quite often in these very forums. Thus, I accept that it’s also possible that maybe they are ignorant not because they want to be but because I’m not good at conveying my message to where it’s crystal clear.

So whichever scenario it is, whether they are blissfully happy being wrong at not knowing they are wrong, or I’m a bad teacher, it’s best for me to no longer engage with them, is it not?

Either way, continuing to debate with them is futile.

2 Likes