reasoning logic and discourse are parameters of critical thinking, which is the basis of AI. maybe you have the concept of math wrong.
1 Like
You are so sad and pathetic.
1 Like
maybe you failed to grasp what i said:
See? I beat you to it. Not surprising since you can’t math.
So, I want to clear something up first. If this whole thing was about groups, and you wanted a solo-queue, you could have saved yourself 4 years of heartache and a bunch of neo-namecalling by saying that outright. Most people would be in agreement with you. Those who weren’t would be making a totally different claim, not disputing terminology or tactics. I’m not saying you would have won, but you would have a very different group of people with you or against you and some change may have actually come about. Same with PBSR, though this one I think has a bit more nuance and no really correct answer, just various compromises.
I’m not going to bother arguing with you on your points above. I don’t play the game anymore and I won’t. I just want to make sure you understand two concepts that I really don’t think you understand, but maybe you do. I’m going to tell a couple of stories that have nothing to do with Overwatch. They’re just parables of concepts. If you don’t see any connection, don’t worry about it. Just think about the stories.
Story 1:
Two people are hanging out and wanting to play a game. All they have is a coin. They decide that they are going to play a game where they each flip a coin and the first one to 10 heads wins. They play 100 games, and of course the outcome is very close to 50/50 because it’s random chance. They are equally skilled at this game, because the game takes no actual skill.
Later, they buy a checkers set. Neither have played checkers, but they are both just as smart as each other, so they start playing checkers. Their skill started the same, at zero. They both learn at equal rates! And after 100 games, the outcome is very close to 50/50. They are equally skilled at this game, though the game does take some skill.
Later, they go to bet on the Super Bowl. The first bet they make is on the coin flip. They go to the bookie, they bet against each other, giving $50 each to the bookie. Only one of them can win, person A gets their $50 back plus $48 for winning, person B gets nothing, and the bookie keeps $2.
The bookie asks if they want to bet on the winner of the game. They both know A LOT about the teams in the Super Bowl. They’re experts. Maybe they have some inside knowledge. They know that Team 1 is way, way better than Team 2, but that the popular notion is that they’re about equally matched, for whatever reasons. The bookie, George, gives the same payouts as the coin flip. George can do this because he’s getting bets from other people that are about evenly matched on either side. Everyone looking at the prior results can’t make up their mind about who will win. But since our protagonists somehow know that Team 1 is a pro team and Team 2’s players got way too drunk last night, they empty their savings and put it all on Team 1.
Team 1 wins, of course, and they get their million dollars back and nearly a million more in payouts (bookies’ gotta eat!). To celebrate, they go home and decide to play tennis. One of them is a tennis pro, the other has never picked up a racket in their life. The pro says, “Hey, you wanna bet your half on the game?” The non-pro replies, “Nah, I’m not clairvoyant, but I can do math.”
Story 2:
Sally has a mess. Somehow, some way, Sally ended up with 5000 strips of paper, each of different lengths, and she has to sort them. Sally thinks about it for a second. How is she going to sort these papers? She realizes that she can just start putting the strips up next to each other, comparing them side by side. So she gets to work. She picks up two strips, puts them next to each other, and puts the longer one on the right and the shorter one on the left. Then she picks up another one, compares it to the leftmost one, and finds it’s longer. Then she compares it to the rightmost one and finds it shorter, so it gets placed in the middle.
On and on it goes, picking up a slip, comparing it one by one, putting it in its proper place. Finally, after a lot of hard work, it’s done. She has all 5000 pieces, painstakingly arranged by size, left to right. Sally is happy and satisfied, until disaster strikes!
The door opens and a big gust of wind blows the papers everywhere! George (yes, the bookie, but off duty) walks through the door and sees Sally crying. George tries to console Sally and learns of his part in her troubles and thinks he knows a way to help. George has a ruler, marked in millimeters and centimeters.
Sally is confused for a second, but George explains that Sally can just measure each piece of paper, write the number on it, and then do the same thing that she did before, except instead of comparing them directly one by one, she can sort them by the measured number. So Sally takes the ruler, grabs her pencil, and gets to work. Before too long she has them sorted again, but while it did save her some time, it didn’t save a lot of time. She thanks George, who leaves. Through the door. The same door. With the same result.
Fricking George.
However, since Sally has already measured and marked the strips of paper, she’s not so distraught. She just picks up the papers, looks at the number, and gets them all sorted by size without measurement or comparison. The hard work has already been done.
If you like my stories, hit like and smash that subscribe button, and maybe I’ll write more!
2 Likes
No, the whole thing is not about groups. Groups are only one aspect of it. Overwatch’s algorithmic handicapping applies to solo queue players as well as groups.
Why do you say “of course the outcome is very close to 50/50?” This is not a given, in theory nor in practice. In a set of 100 flips, by ‘random chance’ the split could be as much as 100/0. And probably the outcome would be far from 50/50 in many other cases.
I like your stories, but they don’t relate to Overwatch or algorithmic handicapping in any way that I can tell.
1 Like
It’s most certainly a given in theory. In practice, you’re trying really, really, really hard to argue and not putting any effort into understanding.
Make it 1000.
Make it 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.
Make it whatever it takes for you to understand my point.
And if you really think that an infinite number of hypothetical coin flips can reasonably result in a purely one-sided outcome, that tells me all I need to know about your abilities to comprehend.
In actuality, I just think you’ve never tried to understand. You have feelings and you try to justify them.
I suspected as much.
1 Like
Can you just summarize them with some facts that defends rigging, rigged systems, fake ladder shams, or otherwise? Can you offer something that proves how the dev statements and official patents can’t possibly be in OW?
We’re up to that point - having proved it’s hard-rigged, having shown how microsoft is pro-rigging just like atvi. And we’re trying to get the rigging out of OW1/2. Let’s not hold the conversation back or harm the community. Many gamers don’t realize it’s rigged but once they do they want out. I don’t know of many who want back in “omg thankfully it’s rigged whew” - except the whitelisted CC who depend on easyclaps for viewers and cash.
Your theory can make this assumption, but it would be wrong. And anyone who has ever counted coin flips (perhaps for a grade school class project) knows from practice that it’s wrong. Unless their results happened to show the pattern you describe, which is statistically unlikely.
I don’t know what you mean by “in practice.” Stop saying things that are wrong and I’ll stop arguing.
You think flipping a coin a billion time will likely create something other than a near (but not exact, of course) 50% split?
Actually, using significant digits, it would create an exact 50% split given enough iterations.
I’m done here.
I can’t discuss these things with someone who has such a poor grasp on reality.
1 Like
You didn’t say a billion, you said one hundred. You gave an example and made a wrong assertion about it.
We can talk about your ‘billion coin flip’ thought experiment if you want. In a set of 1,000,000,000, what do you think would constitute a “very close/near” split?
I don’t even have words. Well, I do, but they would result in a ban.
1 Like
Say what’s in your heart.
We can talk about your ‘billion coin flip’ thought experiment if you want. In a set of 1,000,000,000, what do you think would constitute a “very close/near” split?
No.
Just no.
You’re not thinking. You’re not discussing in good faith. You deserve no more respect from me.
1 Like
The question is perfectly reasonable. It even has a range of answers I would consider correct, to varying degrees. And if you weren’t so afraid to think about it, you might venture a guess. But I guess you are just another intellectual coward.
Sure man, if it makes you feel better. I’m running away with my tail between my internet legs.
3 Likes
Sure seems like it…
Does anyone else want to take a stab at it? What would you say is a “near” 50/50 split, in a set of 1,000,000,000 coin flips? In 100 sets of 1,000,000,000, how many sets do you think are likely to be within that margin?
These are not ‘gotcha’ questions. This is a real thought experiment that we can do and talk about. It’s also a practical experiment that has been done before in the real world.
It’s not.
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=probability+of+getting+5000000+heads+in+10000000+flips+of+a+fair+coin
The 99.9% confidence interval of a fair coin flipped a billion times is 49.8% to 50.2%. Which is 50% using significant digits.
This is not a question of what is reasonable or likely. This has been studied for literally millennia.
No one cares what you “think” or what you find “acceptable”. I’m sorry for all the times I kinda defended you. I thought you were wrong, but I didn’t think you were mean or stupid.
I see now that I was wrong the entire time.
3 Likes
Yet it is what we are talking about…
That sounds about right. What is the ‘confidence interval’ of a set of 100 coin flips?
You’ve been wrong about a lot of things.
This is a forum post about people wanting to break the laws of statistics and make everyone have above a 50% winrate.
2 Likes
You are wrong about the purpose of the thread, but with regards to the topic of algorithmic handicapping there is a grain of truth to this. MMR brings everyone’s winrate closer to 50%, because it effectively randomizes match results.