Monte-Carlo Simulation of SC2 Ladder

Nope, your calculations are wrong. You are altering which player is player A and player B in the elo algorithm. Swap the two and your calculations will be correct.

The mean in the elo algorithm is a completely arbitrary number. You seem to be very confused by this. I can set it to -10 or +1000 or -10000000 and the system functions fine regardless.

LOL

I encourage you to actually look at the math of the elo algorithm. You are simply spouting nonsense.

Here you go, kid:

If any algorithm can produce any output, then there is no such thing as a correct algorithm. You said all simulations are wrong.

You think me saying I could fake a graph = me saying all graphs are fake?

What? Are you serious?

1 Like

Yes and I showed how utterly absurd that position is, and you backed down and now you are back tracking. If making correct predictions doesnā€™t constitute proof, then youā€™ve rejected the concept of proof.

No, you specifically agreed your model, by itself, doesnā€™t prove causation. Your model is only the first step, and requires testing and verification before we can consider its validity.

1 Like

Thereā€™s that double standard again. Being able to replicate the SC2 ladder data using the actual mechanics of the ladder, by tuning some parameters, is creating a ā€œfakeā€ graph to you.

To everyone else itā€™s tested and verified hypothesis.

Thats not what I said. Holy crap this is exhausting. Lets go back. I asked for proof that I said ā€œall predictive algorithms are useless.ā€

Your ā€œproofā€ was me saying Iā€™m capable of faking a graph.

So, back to my point (again). That quote does not suggest I think all predictive algorithms are fake.

Do you have a rebuttal, or are you just going to jump to another tangent?

1 Like

And I showed it to you. You said any algorithm can output any result. That means there are no correct algorithms.

No I didnā€™t. I said I can create a false algorithm capable of outputing my desired result.

That is not even remotely close to saying all predictive algorithms are fake.

1 Like

Iā€™ll give you an hour to produce an algorithm that outputs the SC2 ladder data. Iā€™ll wait.

Tangent again. I asked for proof I said what you claim I said. Because your claim of what I said was so ridiculously outrageous, and so far exaggerated from my actual claim, that Iā€™ve lost all confidence in your ability to accurately evaluate anything. Let alone your ability to understand how data can be manipulated to achieve a desired result.

1 Like

Itā€™s not a tangent. Itā€™s asking you to back up your claim with proof. You said you can use the wrong algorithm to get the right answer. So, do it.

You need proof predictive analysis can be wrongā€¦literally just google ā€œhow predictive analytics can fail.ā€ Iā€™m not doing your homework for you. This isnā€™t hard.

1 Like

Let me get this right. We are supposed to believe you can create a fake algorithm that can get the right answer, even though you havenā€™t done it, while simultaneously discounting the fact that my algorithm isnā€™t fake and has done it? :thinking:

I see you didnā€™t even bother googling lol.

Iā€™m done with this. Mr ā€œI know math but donā€™t know the wrong method can sometimes still get the right answer.ā€ Lol. Ridiculous.

1 Like

ā€œBatz is wrong without proof, even though he proved he is right. I am right without proof.ā€

FYI, coming from someone who works in this industry, itā€™s incredibly difficult to get the right answer even with the right algorithm. You are full of it if you think you can replicate a complex, volatile system like this using the wrong algorithm.

I appreciate you tried Sir AntiSora.

Also, this isnā€™t predictive analytics, kiddo. This is descriptive analytics.

He canā€™t even get basic terminology right, but he sure did try, that is for sure.

This batz character is a nutcase with several personality disorders. Reasoning with it is a waste of your time, and only serves to feed into this weird narcissistsā€™ forum liar game. The only interesting result of playing along is guessing whether or not it actually believes the excrement it slings on the forums, day in and day out. But it has limitless time to dedicate to half truths and word salads, and will declare victory as soon as the ā€˜normieā€™ itā€™s ā€˜debatingā€™ realizes their time by contrast has value.

1 Like