I’m sorry, but which part of your argument was mathematical at all?
All I see is “sample 1, sample 2” and that smells like more statistics to me. Oh, and:
Yeah, some, arts as well!
What I wrote was mathematics. What you wrote is statistics, and since your statistics breaks mathematical laws, I won’t even bother replying with anything more substantial.
Your dunning kruger will just shrug it off, anyway.
Name them.
Ah, so statistics must be mathematics where fingerpainting is prohibited.
There hasn’t been any substance yet.
Already did:
And your reply to that was:
While in fact, you’re the one who’s consistently showing mathematical ignorance (and not just mathematical, mind you).
The point of my example was the general law of numbers and how they behave with division. As far as I know, ALL the methods used in coming up with this report included a division of numbers, which means this law holds, and can’t be ignored.
I didn’t equalize the substracted win/loss number to prove something about statistics, but about numbers in general. Since statistics relies on mathematics, that law should hold either way.
A sample of Rainbow Shaman’s 555 games will always have a higher winrate than the exact same sample of 3064 Rainbow Shaman games. That is a mathematical fact.
In this case we don’t have two exact samples to compare to prove that the law holds. You’re supposed to be sane enough to know that the law still holds, nevertheless.
Hence, putting a sample of 555 games on the same ranking list as a sample of 3064 games is what you can call “mathematical ignorance”. Arguing here with me against something so obvious, is mathematical ignorance (give or take a few more issues).
Please tell me you’re kidding. You can’t actually believe this. You misspoke, try again.
I don’t have to believe anything, I literally posted the proof xD
I can only add “On average” to the sentence to make it more precise, but I thought that was self-explainable. It’s statistics, ofc we’ll talk about averages.
But unless you know a way to calculate a win rate without dividing numbers, it’s clear to everyone that you can’t compare samples with such different sizes and hope to get a picture which accurately describes reality.
block altair and move on, please dont let a second week get ruined by his antics.
anyways, any thoughts on rogue post-miniset?
It takes 2 to hijack a thread with arguments (or in this case, more)
So the accurate, unbiased, un-passive-aggressive way of saying what you said would be:
“Please, you two, don’t ruin another thread”
First off, if Shaman won 294 games out of 555 for a winrate of 52.97%, the logically we can separate that larger sample into two almost equal samples. I say “almost equal” because 555 is an odd number. We’d need to put the extra loss in one sample or the other, so we’d have one set that goes 147-130 and another that goes 147-131. The 147-130 is a total sample of 277 games with a 53.07% winrate. So the sample sized increased from 277 to 555 but the overall winrate WENT DOWN.
This happens all the time. If you actually keep track of your games and look at your spreadsheet change, you should literally see this effect happening in real time.
Secondly, Vicious Syndicate does NOT calculate overall winrate by taking the raw number of a deck’s wins in the data and dividing it by total number of games that deck played in the data. They calculate it as the sum of the products of the deck’s matchup winrates and opponent deck popularity. It’s purely a coincidence that 294/555 is equal to 0.5307 to four significant digits, because that is NOT the formula being used in the first place. You are not even in the same ballpark.
Blocking someone robs you of the adrenaline rush that comes from replying to those you disagree with.
That’s why I don’t block.
Shhh vent you’re being a buzzkill
You mean, all the time when you try to break 1 sample with odd number of games into two? Yeah, as expected, because one of the samples has more losses than the other xD
See? This is why my example had the Wins - Losses put equal - only when the dimension you’re trying to compare things on are equal, can you make a comparison.
Your calculation is meaningless. It’s not a proof of anything.
If anything, it’s a proof of what I’m saying.
You meant to say “does not JUST calculate…”, because you can’t do this:
without calculating the winrates of each deck’s matchup, which again includes division, which again is subject to the universal law.
Try again.
Oh, and:
Miles closer than you are to the truth, unfortunately.
We’ll get there if you keep trying, fair and square, eventually. It’s when you resort to manipulation and misquoting where problems begin to arise.
You’re forgetting you’re arguing with someone who will dismiss a low play rate of a deck and in another post try to convince people their even lower play rate deck statistics is significant enough to consider it a top 100 deck.
You’re simply not arguing with someone who is being honest and all their posts have proven it thus far.
that explains so much about you.
You must really feel no shame when you say that to a guy who literally caught you lying about my rank and called you out on that xD
Like, how does that work? Life without shame? How do you learn from your mistakes?
Oh, I see, you don’t.
You didn’t catch me in anything. You are the one who got caught and you’re projecting to make yourself feel better.
You can keep telling yourself that so you feel better about it, but the truth is out there.
Want proof that you’re dishonest, yet again?
You claimed you blocked me yet here you are again replying to me.
You just can’t help yourself.
Oh look it already devolved into the same thing just like you said it would last time.
Luckily i no longer get notified by the insanity.
This is why I didn’t post the VS stuff on Thursday lol
Oh, I see, you’re also having troubles with reading comprehension nowadays. No problem, lemme help you.
You said to Scrotie:
And then I said, to you, about scrotie:
See? You said that TO scrotie, hence, my sentence was also about you and scrotie, not myself.
So yeah, technically, I also caught you lying, but that doesn’t count, so of course I wasn’t referring to myself. It’s crazy how you can’t even read properly and yet you wanna argue?
Literally.
I did, and when I said it it was true. I just changed my mind and unblocked you.
And even if I didn’t, I could still see your messages, so what you thought is a proof of my dishonesty, wouldn’t even be a proof if it was correct xD
Your logic isn’t working. Your reading comprehension is bad.
I wish you get better soon.
No they don’t.
The point is that VS is not using a sample size of… actually I have no idea where you pulled 555 from. The point is that, for Legend stats in #303, they’re pulling data from separate samples with sizes of 116, 121, 131, 133, 144, 202, 208, 219, 231, 251, 287, 424, 440, and about 183000, plus an unknown number of samples of size below 100 each that they do not deign to publish, and plugging all of those results into a big ole formula.
Do each of those numbers from each sample start by dividing hits from total games? Yep. But my point wasn’t that, my point here is that you’re acting like there’s one sample size involved when there isn’t.
Schyla was incorrect as I saw that you were on the leaderboards as Altair with a rank of 550 at the time, ending the month in the low 300s. I posted to that effect at the time. I very much doubt that Schyla was lying.
There is still no place for calling people liars on this forum. That goes for you too, Schyla. I’ve been a little mean to Altair about what he thinks, but I’ve never implied that he’s being disingenuous; I am saying that he actually believes in this dumb stuff. I don’t think Terrence Howard is lying either.
Seems like you got up on the wrong side of the bed today.
I’m just teasing you.
Clearly, everyone is here to disagree with each other.
No conversation comes from two people just mirroring one another.
I’m just suggesting you relax a little and enjoy the bickering.