Why would he make himself even 1% more vulnerable to anything, or open himself up to even minor annoyances, when his arguments are rock solid and he can back up anything he says without caving into the logically illiterate population?
3 Likes
He doesn’t have to, but hiding match and post history still damages one’s credibility.
Cherry-picking data to support your point is not a solid argument.
1 Like
It only damages credibility in the eyes of logically illiterate people
There is literally nothing cherry picked about his data
In fact, if you read the data sets and analyses he provided in this topic, he explained how he went to great lengths to make sure the data wasnt cherry picked, and that is evident in the data
1 Like
He uses whatever “data” he thinks will supports his narrative at the time. If that metric doesn’t support his data later (different tournament, a month or two later in the same patch, etc) then he will abandon it for that period.
He also has a habit of misrepresenting statistics, as Asamu and others often point out.
1 Like
No he doesn’t.
In every post I can remember of his, he explains his data set and why it is sufficient for his analysis.
And then his topics are spammed with “bUt PrEmIeR tOuRnAmEnTs”
In fact it was the first argument you made in this very topic
now THAT is cherry picking
I don’t know if it was Asamu or not, but a lot of the gripes people have with his analyses are just wrong lol
1 Like
And then gets disputed to death.
It’s the highest level of play we have, and it’s relatively consistent.
1 Like
Lmao. Listen to this troll make apologies & excuses for internet harassment. Amazing.
It’s one thing being ignorant about privacy and it’s another to be a harassment apologist.
There were two possible explanations for why you might not respect privacy and we just eliminated the only innocent one. Bye bye!
1 Like
Where is the explanation?
And sorry, but just because you use adjectives like “poor” or “gigantic” doesn’t mean or prove anything.
Just an obvious example, I can say a million apples is a gigantic amount, but if we are talking about 1 million apples in a pile of 10 billion pears, that former number is nothing in comparison.
Either you prove it mathematically that supports your claim or you’re just full of bs.
If your going to say “you are clueless”, etc, that would prove my point that you know nothing of statistics because you have already completely avoided me testing you in statistics skills and claimed to be a stats major.
4 Likes
We’re in a thread where I prove professional results are in lockstep with GM/Masters results which covers basically 99.9999999999999% of high level games played, but he’s still crying that I cherry pick and ignore data that doesn’t support my conclusion.
He is 100% a troll or handicapped.
3 Likes
It’s comical that the one attempt (at least that i recall seeing) at contesting that excellent post you made about Pro results was literally “sure Protoss has an advantage but iTs NoT a BiG aDvAnTaGe” -_-
3 Likes
If you don’t want people to respond to you, don’t start discussions with them in the first place.
- Check post history, a record of one’s statements on this forum.
- Check match history.
Which one of those is incriminating again?
1 Like
Shifting burden of proof / mischaracterization of primary argument. You assume that anyone who wants privacy must be guilty of something which goes to show you are horrifically ignorant as to why privacy is important. Privacy is to stop the perpetrators, not to let them get away.
Secondly you can’t imagine how this information could be useful which is not an argument that it isn’t useful. By that reasoning rocket science is false because anti-vaxxers can’t add 2+2.
The general rule of thumb is that because you can’t know all possible ways information can be used against you, you must restrict your opponents access to any and all non essential information.
It’s literally SC2 strategy 101. No wonder you are in bronze league.
3 Likes
That’s like saying the game of basketball should have been balanced around Michael Jordan even though Jordan’s era was relatively weak for shooting guards and was in fact the golden era of centers. That’s just cherry picking. Actually your argument is even worse than the Jordan example.
By choosing only high level tournament winners (sample size too small for statistical significance), you are ignoring a FAR greater number of relevant data. That is the literal definition of cherry picking
Lmao. This guy is making the “aliens created triangles with ancient cities” argument. God I need to get a life. This is such a waste of time.
1 Like
That’s what I just don’t get about forum trolls and their “arguments”. They think that exasperatedly pointing at something while using dramatic language with no real substance constitutes “proof”. The truth is that they can’t articulate a logical/mathematical explanation to justify their feelings so they substitute outrage for it instead. Ex:
OMG BATZ HAS IGNORED PREMIER TOURNAMENTS AGAIN HOW COULD HE DO THAT IF HE WERENT BIASED?!?!?
^ Argument from outrage.
2 Likes
“but premier tournament wins!!!1” reminds me of Marco Rubio in the 2016 Republican debate. When Christie completely dismantled him and all Rubio could do was parrot “Obama knows exactly what he’s doing” over and over again like a broken record player
Yep, I had an argument with him where his proof that mass BCs beat lategame toss army is full of statements like
“rely entirely on” , “out-compete”, “has a strict edge”, “consistently deal with”
which is psychologically convincing to someone inexperienced, but in reality is just an oversimplification of the dynamic engagements of late game armies. We all know what beats what individually (you can do that on unit tester). But subjectively generalizing from that to the extreme conclusion that “Protoss stands no chance” when there is few to no pro games currently showing this as being true is just misleading. You need numerous examples of it being played out to actually conclude, cherry picking some games is not proof. It has to be something similar (or along those lines) to how Mech was against Zerg in late stages of HOTS for it to be definitive proof.
As far as I am concerned, this is just another unproven excuse for PPP to further buff lategame toss (or allow toss lategame to remain broken). We have already seen this happen with zerg lategame.
“OMG INFESTOR BROKEN, ZERG CAN JUST MAKE SPORE FOREST. WTF! NERF INFESTOR”.
Now that that is gone, zergs gets completely devastated by lategame toss death ball that just turtles and snipes hatcheries.
2 Likes
I’m not too familiar with Rubio but yeah he was absolutely destroyed there. DRUMPGH was pursing his lips in the background as if he were about to say “That one’s going to sting BIGLY!”
1 Like
You mean like the Void Ray?
That was one of the few debates I saw back then, as I was slaving away in the hospital at the time lol
I believe that debate happened at a point where rubio was gaining, and Christie and Rubio were going at it for much of the debate. Some say that Christie went after Rubio to help Trump (Tri state area connection? i dont know lol)