Jump to content

Weekend RNG. Gathering of data.

  • Please log in to reply
61 replies to this topic

BP_OMowe #61 Posted 10 November 2017 - 09:44 PM


  • Player
  • 24764 battles
  • 2,047
  • [-GY-] -GY-
  • Member since:

View PostJigabachi, on 07 November 2017 - 11:13 AM, said:

Hint: If you can't prove it, it most likely doesn't exist.

View PostJigabachi, on 07 November 2017 - 12:19 PM, said:

The whole Internet is 90% facepalm. That happens if you are allowed to hide behind anonymity.


I can not prove that the Earth is round, or that Donald Trump is the president of the U.S.A.

Trump is however not anonymous.


k1k0sha #62 Posted 13 November 2017 - 09:41 PM


  • Player
  • 475 battles
  • 6
  • Member since:

View PostJigabachi, on 09 November 2017 - 12:50 PM, said:

No, if you have a game with that many variables, 200 matches isn't anywhere near enough. Add another zero and we might have enough data to discuss.

And you are trying to show trends based on only a few matches with bad WR (while completely ignoring the opposite).


Amount of variables in the game absolutely doesn't matter. The only important thing is what is the magnitude of deviation you are after. To detect anomaly of 10-20% this is more than enough. I'm not ignoring the opposite, by the way :) Some times it "decides" that you are in a favor and then you have enormously high  winrates, like the past two days: above 70% victory, in 70 battles. I really don't play that good.Today, 30% win rate. Its artificially trying to balance out the "days of favor" but the keyword is ARTIFICIALLY. Your initial chances of winning are biased and that's the key point. 

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users