|
|
United States47024 Posts
On January 04 2015 18:41 Sufficiency wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2015 17:37 Zess wrote:
Sufficiency, you still haven't given any answer on how you expect to address the alternative hypothesis:
Gold leaders are harder to gain in 4.21 because the dragon doesn't give gold, so gold lead now is a better indicator of who is the better team, and thus better teams get more gold and then win more, rather than gold lead being more important and allowing a team to win more.
Right now all you've shown is that gold lead is a strong indicator of the better team (because the better team is the one that wins right?) and not "Consequently, once you do get a gold lead, it is actually a lot more valuable" I showed that gold lead is a good predictor of winning the game. With the 4.21 changes, it gold lead has become a better predictor if we keep the level of gold lead to be the same (e.g. 500-1000 lead). You can argue all you want that it's actually better team -> more gold -> win; at the end of the day you cannot directly measure how good a team is. The underlying causal relationship is really not that important.
Then you should spell that out clearly, because on TL, Reddit, and your blog you make the vague, generalizing statement that a gold lead in 4.21 is "more important". Which, either deliberately or accidentally, will be read as you implying that causal relationship, because people will interpret it as "more important for winning a game", not "more important for predicting the winner of a game".
|
GP vs Riven used to be the easiest matchup in the world, but since preseason she is just a nightmare...
|
On January 04 2015 08:10 gtrsrs wrote:
i don't know man, you're making a lot of logical fallacies here to make your point.
CLG didn't intentionally lose 6 games - it was 4, and they fielded a roster of ex-LCS players, not new prospects. these were also the last 4 games of the season, when CLG *already* had a locked playoff spot. so they put in 5 players that had nothing to lose, could act as spoilers, and weren't expected to win. absolutely no pressure - that's LITERALLY the opposite of what spending time on a new prospect is like. a new prospect plays in impactful games to see how they perform under pressure, has to impress immediately, etc.
This is one of the dumbest things I have ever read with regards to breeding talent in any competitive game/sport/job environment/anything.
Holy fuck I hope you just woefully misrepresented your point in text that bad.
|
i feel like the IE nerf is a huge gangplank nerf. 4 IE's no longer gives 100% crit chance 
|
On January 05 2015 00:09 red_ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2015 08:10 gtrsrs wrote:
i don't know man, you're making a lot of logical fallacies here to make your point.
CLG didn't intentionally lose 6 games - it was 4, and they fielded a roster of ex-LCS players, not new prospects. these were also the last 4 games of the season, when CLG *already* had a locked playoff spot. so they put in 5 players that had nothing to lose, could act as spoilers, and weren't expected to win. absolutely no pressure - that's LITERALLY the opposite of what spending time on a new prospect is like. a new prospect plays in impactful games to see how they perform under pressure, has to impress immediately, etc.
This is one of the dumbest things I have ever read with regards to breeding talent in any competitive game/sport/job environment/anything. Holy fuck I hope you just woefully misrepresented your point in text that bad.
I kind of agree. It seems pretty stupid to use new prospects in impactful games immediately (if you don't need to).
That's also the opposite of how it works in traditional sports. Usually new players get playtime in less important games (or less playtime in general in sports with substitutions) at the beginning.
|
On January 04 2015 16:32 Sufficiency wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2015 16:30 Goumindong wrote:On January 04 2015 16:07 Sufficiency wrote:On January 04 2015 15:54 Goumindong wrote:On January 04 2015 15:08 Sufficiency wrote:On January 04 2015 14:50 Goumindong wrote:So you might have a omitted variable bias if you didn't include who had dragons at 10 minutes. This wouldn't be necessary for the old data since dragon only increases gold. But otherwise because gold correlates with dragons and dragons correlate with winning you have to break it out (ideally as a dummy variable for each/summary stats). That being said you're confusing indicative with impactful. I would suggest that the impact at zero dragons is the same (after all nothing really is different at zero dragons between the patches) but that gold impact may be higher or lower depending on the absolute number of dragons on each side (because dragon multiplies some stats) If I give you the data can you analyze it "properly" according to your standard, then? Probably. It's been a while since I've had to work with raw data like that unfortunately. So I will have to relearn the code/programs. But if you want the short version you can do easily. Just do exactly what you're doing right now but for the new patch also separate out the data by dragons. So that you have 0-500 gold diff (has dragon) 0-500 gold diff (other team has dragon) and 0-500 (no dragons). The no dragons version is essentially the "even comparison of pre patch gold impact". Which, while its not the actual impact, will tell us whether or not the impact went appreciably up or down when compared to the prepatch value. Basically you're trying to fight against the alternate explanation; " the better team gets more gold because it's better, the gold helps but they were already better". With regards to the patch changes we expect that lower gold on this explanation increases the win rate more. "Now that dragons give no gold you have to be even better to get a big gold lead and so the same amount of gold lead indicates a better team and so higher win rate" Moreover making the big table gives us the information for the game that we really care about. Since we can count dragons as well as gold and counting both lets us be precise in the summary stats and get a better prediction after observing the first 10 minutes. Another option which has the reverse causation issues moreso but will give you a potentially better answer to the effect on dragon and gold is to do a logistic regression with the variables "gold diff, dragon dummies, gold diff * dragon dummies". Which would separate out the effect of gold the effect of dragons and the effect of dragons on gold. The difference between the gold effects from patch 1 to patch 2 would indicate a change in the impact of gold (I think that the "better team" effect would difference out, but not entirely sure) and you could then see better how the impact changes with dragons. I am super busy next week though so let me know if you can't run those. I believe the team wins more because they have visit Team Liquid at least once a week. I think I should also include a variable of how many times they visited Team Liquid during the last 72 hours. The gold and the player skills help, but ultimate it's because they visit Team Liquid that they are better players, and then because they are better players they get more gold. So you're saying that, as of champion select finishing, no team composition has an advantage over another? That, as of champion select, no team of players in ranked has an advantage over any other? An easy example. There are 5 players on team A all playing their mains and team B has 5 AD mains. Does team A or B have a better chance to win given the players mixed role mmr is the same? I would suggest that team a has a better win chance and that they will acquire gold because of that. What if team a has good counter picks and so easily wins lane. Does that effect the gold acquisition? Of course all that does. That is why it's hard to say that the win % at a gold difference is the impact. That doesn't mean we can't generalize from very specific summary stats but it does mean that the value we are looking at is a mix of the indication and the impact with no clear way to disentangle the two. If we don't care about disentangling them then you should be good to go. But you should still disentangle the effect of the dragons. I totally agree with what you said. But I also think we need to disentangle the effect of visiting TL. Or maybe the effect of being born in June. Or the effect of left-handedness. Or the effect of playing the game during the night instead of during the day. Or maybe they are Koreans! I think your suggested model is deeply flawed because it does not account for any of the aforementioned factors above. All of those above have deep, profound impact on gold acquisition.
I can tell you quite simply why I think dragons are correlated with winning. Why would being left handed or visiting TL?(those effects, if they legitimately make you a better player would be nullified by MMR adjustments and so should have no effect). I can tell you quite simply how random chance gives some teams advantages over others at the same mmr (basically some teams will randomly have more people in their best role. Some teams will have people whose play styles mesh etc). But no such explanations exist for why those things correlate with individual game win probability.
If you don't care that is fine, but you're supposedly refuting an "impact" statement and not stating that a gold lead is more indicative of a higher win rate.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
causal direction is pretty important to figure out. across the two versions, first kill dragon presumably indicate the same difference in skill between the two teams, but one gives gold the other does not.
this really does not mean the gold lead is harder to achieve and therefore it is more impactful. it looks like this instead:
gold lead is harder to achieve, therefore achieving the same gold lead in 4.21 is a greater signal of the difference in skill between the teams.
the most problematic statement is really the one where you drew this connection between harder to achieve gold lead and it being more impactful. it really looks like a greater signal instead.
this reverse causality gets stronger therefore it needs to be isolated more.
|
|
|
On January 04 2015 08:10 gtrsrs wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2015 05:25 cLutZ wrote:
And these are the freaking teams that should be experimenting with new talent, which is why ghandi is just straight up wrong. CLG basically intentionally lost 6 games last season playing hotshot and friends. This means they could have experimented at least 6 games with a random talent. Ffs, TSM did the gleeb experiment for like half the session and made worlds.
The narrative that you can't possibly experiment is straight up wrong unless you suck. And we don't really care about them debuting talent, we want Crs.faker2.0, not Coast.impNA where he wastes a year of his prime trying to carry a useless set of teammates. i don't know man, you're making a lot of logical fallacies here to make your point. CLG didn't intentionally lose 6 games - it was 4, and they fielded a roster of ex-LCS players, not new prospects. these were also the last 4 games of the season, when CLG *already* had a locked playoff spot. so they put in 5 players that had nothing to lose, could act as spoilers, and weren't expected to win. absolutely no pressure - that's LITERALLY the opposite of what spending time on a new prospect is like. a new prospect plays in impactful games to see how they perform under pressure, has to impress immediately, etc. CLG *could* have used this time to seek new talent, but don't forget that they were looking to solve their problems by going to korea. sure, retrospectively, we can see why that didn't work, but they came up with that idea last-minute and it seemed right to them. seeking new talent wasn't their goal, cementing their existing talent was.
Those 4 games would have been a perfect opportunity to field some prospects. They were meaningless games (garbage minutes, they call it Basketball) and as such, the PERFECT opportunity to let them play and show off their potential.
Instead, CLG wasted the opportunity by letting a bunch of washed up former pros fuck around for 4 games.
Like, I get that they planned it last minute on whim, but these are the types of things that NA teams (if they're actually interested in growing the NA talent pool) should have planned ahead of time. If NA Teams were serious about winning, they would have some sort of farm system to groom new talent (B teams and the like), and then allow those players to play in meaningless games or in place of an A-teamer who is unable to play for a period of time.
I would assume it's a question of resources more than an unwillingness to put it into action. Because pro teams can't really be THAT stupid, can they?
|
On January 04 2015 18:49 Jek wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2015 17:21 Nemireck wrote:
Speaking of advantage after champ select, how long does it take to group team comps by win-rate? I know there's a shitload (millions?) of possible compositions, but how long would it take to crunch the raw data? How about groupings of 3 champions?
Can things of that nature be withdrawn from the data? If you group champions crudely by archetypes, for instance: Tank: Mundo, Maokai Poker: Xerath, Ziggs Bruiser: Jax, Irelia Support: Thresh, Janna ADC: Draaaaven, Drrraaaaven Assassin: Zed, Talon etc etc It should be fairly easy to run a ratio test to find the combination of archetypes with the highest win ratio. Granted it doesn't take into account yolo builds like AP GP and the likes, it could give a good indication if there's a trend of superior team compositions.
It should actually be even more simple than that.
If the data captures the champions being played, you simply group the 5 champs and their win rate together.
No doubt there will be comps that only have 1 or 2 games played, but other compositions should appear quite regularly.
You could even sub-categorize each composition to see their winrate vs other specific compositions.
The issue that I see when I envision all of this is that I imagine it would take quite a long time.
|
On January 04 2015 23:26 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2015 18:41 Sufficiency wrote:On January 04 2015 17:37 Zess wrote:
Sufficiency, you still haven't given any answer on how you expect to address the alternative hypothesis:
Gold leaders are harder to gain in 4.21 because the dragon doesn't give gold, so gold lead now is a better indicator of who is the better team, and thus better teams get more gold and then win more, rather than gold lead being more important and allowing a team to win more.
Right now all you've shown is that gold lead is a strong indicator of the better team (because the better team is the one that wins right?) and not "Consequently, once you do get a gold lead, it is actually a lot more valuable" I showed that gold lead is a good predictor of winning the game. With the 4.21 changes, it gold lead has become a better predictor if we keep the level of gold lead to be the same (e.g. 500-1000 lead). You can argue all you want that it's actually better team -> more gold -> win; at the end of the day you cannot directly measure how good a team is. The underlying causal relationship is really not that important. Then you should spell that out clearly, because on TL, Reddit, and your blog you make the vague, generalizing statement that a gold lead in 4.21 is "more important". Which, either deliberately or accidentally, will be read as you implying that causal relationship, because people will interpret it as "more important for winning a game", not "more important for predicting the winner of a game".
Gold lead is actually more important, because if you control the gold lead level you actually win more often. There is nothing vague about it and the statement is actually extremely fair.
Whether or not it's a causal relationship does not actually matter. The causality only comes in question if you try to intentionally increase your gold lead in an attempt to win more games.
|
On January 05 2015 00:50 Goumindong wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2015 16:32 Sufficiency wrote:On January 04 2015 16:30 Goumindong wrote:On January 04 2015 16:07 Sufficiency wrote:On January 04 2015 15:54 Goumindong wrote:On January 04 2015 15:08 Sufficiency wrote:On January 04 2015 14:50 Goumindong wrote:So you might have a omitted variable bias if you didn't include who had dragons at 10 minutes. This wouldn't be necessary for the old data since dragon only increases gold. But otherwise because gold correlates with dragons and dragons correlate with winning you have to break it out (ideally as a dummy variable for each/summary stats). That being said you're confusing indicative with impactful. I would suggest that the impact at zero dragons is the same (after all nothing really is different at zero dragons between the patches) but that gold impact may be higher or lower depending on the absolute number of dragons on each side (because dragon multiplies some stats) If I give you the data can you analyze it "properly" according to your standard, then? Probably. It's been a while since I've had to work with raw data like that unfortunately. So I will have to relearn the code/programs. But if you want the short version you can do easily. Just do exactly what you're doing right now but for the new patch also separate out the data by dragons. So that you have 0-500 gold diff (has dragon) 0-500 gold diff (other team has dragon) and 0-500 (no dragons). The no dragons version is essentially the "even comparison of pre patch gold impact". Which, while its not the actual impact, will tell us whether or not the impact went appreciably up or down when compared to the prepatch value. Basically you're trying to fight against the alternate explanation; " the better team gets more gold because it's better, the gold helps but they were already better". With regards to the patch changes we expect that lower gold on this explanation increases the win rate more. "Now that dragons give no gold you have to be even better to get a big gold lead and so the same amount of gold lead indicates a better team and so higher win rate" Moreover making the big table gives us the information for the game that we really care about. Since we can count dragons as well as gold and counting both lets us be precise in the summary stats and get a better prediction after observing the first 10 minutes. Another option which has the reverse causation issues moreso but will give you a potentially better answer to the effect on dragon and gold is to do a logistic regression with the variables "gold diff, dragon dummies, gold diff * dragon dummies". Which would separate out the effect of gold the effect of dragons and the effect of dragons on gold. The difference between the gold effects from patch 1 to patch 2 would indicate a change in the impact of gold (I think that the "better team" effect would difference out, but not entirely sure) and you could then see better how the impact changes with dragons. I am super busy next week though so let me know if you can't run those. I believe the team wins more because they have visit Team Liquid at least once a week. I think I should also include a variable of how many times they visited Team Liquid during the last 72 hours. The gold and the player skills help, but ultimate it's because they visit Team Liquid that they are better players, and then because they are better players they get more gold. So you're saying that, as of champion select finishing, no team composition has an advantage over another? That, as of champion select, no team of players in ranked has an advantage over any other? An easy example. There are 5 players on team A all playing their mains and team B has 5 AD mains. Does team A or B have a better chance to win given the players mixed role mmr is the same? I would suggest that team a has a better win chance and that they will acquire gold because of that. What if team a has good counter picks and so easily wins lane. Does that effect the gold acquisition? Of course all that does. That is why it's hard to say that the win % at a gold difference is the impact. That doesn't mean we can't generalize from very specific summary stats but it does mean that the value we are looking at is a mix of the indication and the impact with no clear way to disentangle the two. If we don't care about disentangling them then you should be good to go. But you should still disentangle the effect of the dragons. I totally agree with what you said. But I also think we need to disentangle the effect of visiting TL. Or maybe the effect of being born in June. Or the effect of left-handedness. Or the effect of playing the game during the night instead of during the day. Or maybe they are Koreans! I think your suggested model is deeply flawed because it does not account for any of the aforementioned factors above. All of those above have deep, profound impact on gold acquisition. I can tell you quite simply why I think dragons are correlated with winning. Why would being left handed or visiting TL?(those effects, if they legitimately make you a better player would be nullified by MMR adjustments and so should have no effect). I can tell you quite simply how random chance gives some teams advantages over others at the same mmr (basically some teams will randomly have more people in their best role. Some teams will have people whose play styles mesh etc). But no such explanations exist for why those things correlate with individual game win probability. If you don't care that is fine, but you're supposedly refuting an "impact" statement and not stating that a gold lead is more indicative of a higher win rate.
Let me ask you a different question: do you think smoking causes cancer?
Because I can give you the argument that smoking does NOT cause cancer using what you just wrote. Which, by the way, is what tobacco companies argue in court.
|
On January 05 2015 05:19 Sufficiency wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2015 00:50 Goumindong wrote:On January 04 2015 16:32 Sufficiency wrote:On January 04 2015 16:30 Goumindong wrote:On January 04 2015 16:07 Sufficiency wrote:On January 04 2015 15:54 Goumindong wrote:On January 04 2015 15:08 Sufficiency wrote:On January 04 2015 14:50 Goumindong wrote:So you might have a omitted variable bias if you didn't include who had dragons at 10 minutes. This wouldn't be necessary for the old data since dragon only increases gold. But otherwise because gold correlates with dragons and dragons correlate with winning you have to break it out (ideally as a dummy variable for each/summary stats). That being said you're confusing indicative with impactful. I would suggest that the impact at zero dragons is the same (after all nothing really is different at zero dragons between the patches) but that gold impact may be higher or lower depending on the absolute number of dragons on each side (because dragon multiplies some stats) If I give you the data can you analyze it "properly" according to your standard, then? Probably. It's been a while since I've had to work with raw data like that unfortunately. So I will have to relearn the code/programs. But if you want the short version you can do easily. Just do exactly what you're doing right now but for the new patch also separate out the data by dragons. So that you have 0-500 gold diff (has dragon) 0-500 gold diff (other team has dragon) and 0-500 (no dragons). The no dragons version is essentially the "even comparison of pre patch gold impact". Which, while its not the actual impact, will tell us whether or not the impact went appreciably up or down when compared to the prepatch value. Basically you're trying to fight against the alternate explanation; " the better team gets more gold because it's better, the gold helps but they were already better". With regards to the patch changes we expect that lower gold on this explanation increases the win rate more. "Now that dragons give no gold you have to be even better to get a big gold lead and so the same amount of gold lead indicates a better team and so higher win rate" Moreover making the big table gives us the information for the game that we really care about. Since we can count dragons as well as gold and counting both lets us be precise in the summary stats and get a better prediction after observing the first 10 minutes. Another option which has the reverse causation issues moreso but will give you a potentially better answer to the effect on dragon and gold is to do a logistic regression with the variables "gold diff, dragon dummies, gold diff * dragon dummies". Which would separate out the effect of gold the effect of dragons and the effect of dragons on gold. The difference between the gold effects from patch 1 to patch 2 would indicate a change in the impact of gold (I think that the "better team" effect would difference out, but not entirely sure) and you could then see better how the impact changes with dragons. I am super busy next week though so let me know if you can't run those. I believe the team wins more because they have visit Team Liquid at least once a week. I think I should also include a variable of how many times they visited Team Liquid during the last 72 hours. The gold and the player skills help, but ultimate it's because they visit Team Liquid that they are better players, and then because they are better players they get more gold. So you're saying that, as of champion select finishing, no team composition has an advantage over another? That, as of champion select, no team of players in ranked has an advantage over any other? An easy example. There are 5 players on team A all playing their mains and team B has 5 AD mains. Does team A or B have a better chance to win given the players mixed role mmr is the same? I would suggest that team a has a better win chance and that they will acquire gold because of that. What if team a has good counter picks and so easily wins lane. Does that effect the gold acquisition? Of course all that does. That is why it's hard to say that the win % at a gold difference is the impact. That doesn't mean we can't generalize from very specific summary stats but it does mean that the value we are looking at is a mix of the indication and the impact with no clear way to disentangle the two. If we don't care about disentangling them then you should be good to go. But you should still disentangle the effect of the dragons. I totally agree with what you said. But I also think we need to disentangle the effect of visiting TL. Or maybe the effect of being born in June. Or the effect of left-handedness. Or the effect of playing the game during the night instead of during the day. Or maybe they are Koreans! I think your suggested model is deeply flawed because it does not account for any of the aforementioned factors above. All of those above have deep, profound impact on gold acquisition. I can tell you quite simply why I think dragons are correlated with winning. Why would being left handed or visiting TL?(those effects, if they legitimately make you a better player would be nullified by MMR adjustments and so should have no effect). I can tell you quite simply how random chance gives some teams advantages over others at the same mmr (basically some teams will randomly have more people in their best role. Some teams will have people whose play styles mesh etc). But no such explanations exist for why those things correlate with individual game win probability. If you don't care that is fine, but you're supposedly refuting an "impact" statement and not stating that a gold lead is more indicative of a higher win rate. Let me ask you a different question: do you think smoking causes cancer? Because I can give you the argument that smoking does NOT cause cancer using what you just wrote.
"Smoking leads to increased chance of lung cancer" is a very different statement than "Smoking causes cancer."
|
On January 05 2015 05:22 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2015 05:19 Sufficiency wrote:On January 05 2015 00:50 Goumindong wrote:On January 04 2015 16:32 Sufficiency wrote:On January 04 2015 16:30 Goumindong wrote:On January 04 2015 16:07 Sufficiency wrote:On January 04 2015 15:54 Goumindong wrote:On January 04 2015 15:08 Sufficiency wrote:On January 04 2015 14:50 Goumindong wrote:So you might have a omitted variable bias if you didn't include who had dragons at 10 minutes. This wouldn't be necessary for the old data since dragon only increases gold. But otherwise because gold correlates with dragons and dragons correlate with winning you have to break it out (ideally as a dummy variable for each/summary stats). That being said you're confusing indicative with impactful. I would suggest that the impact at zero dragons is the same (after all nothing really is different at zero dragons between the patches) but that gold impact may be higher or lower depending on the absolute number of dragons on each side (because dragon multiplies some stats) If I give you the data can you analyze it "properly" according to your standard, then? Probably. It's been a while since I've had to work with raw data like that unfortunately. So I will have to relearn the code/programs. But if you want the short version you can do easily. Just do exactly what you're doing right now but for the new patch also separate out the data by dragons. So that you have 0-500 gold diff (has dragon) 0-500 gold diff (other team has dragon) and 0-500 (no dragons). The no dragons version is essentially the "even comparison of pre patch gold impact". Which, while its not the actual impact, will tell us whether or not the impact went appreciably up or down when compared to the prepatch value. Basically you're trying to fight against the alternate explanation; " the better team gets more gold because it's better, the gold helps but they were already better". With regards to the patch changes we expect that lower gold on this explanation increases the win rate more. "Now that dragons give no gold you have to be even better to get a big gold lead and so the same amount of gold lead indicates a better team and so higher win rate" Moreover making the big table gives us the information for the game that we really care about. Since we can count dragons as well as gold and counting both lets us be precise in the summary stats and get a better prediction after observing the first 10 minutes. Another option which has the reverse causation issues moreso but will give you a potentially better answer to the effect on dragon and gold is to do a logistic regression with the variables "gold diff, dragon dummies, gold diff * dragon dummies". Which would separate out the effect of gold the effect of dragons and the effect of dragons on gold. The difference between the gold effects from patch 1 to patch 2 would indicate a change in the impact of gold (I think that the "better team" effect would difference out, but not entirely sure) and you could then see better how the impact changes with dragons. I am super busy next week though so let me know if you can't run those. I believe the team wins more because they have visit Team Liquid at least once a week. I think I should also include a variable of how many times they visited Team Liquid during the last 72 hours. The gold and the player skills help, but ultimate it's because they visit Team Liquid that they are better players, and then because they are better players they get more gold. So you're saying that, as of champion select finishing, no team composition has an advantage over another? That, as of champion select, no team of players in ranked has an advantage over any other? An easy example. There are 5 players on team A all playing their mains and team B has 5 AD mains. Does team A or B have a better chance to win given the players mixed role mmr is the same? I would suggest that team a has a better win chance and that they will acquire gold because of that. What if team a has good counter picks and so easily wins lane. Does that effect the gold acquisition? Of course all that does. That is why it's hard to say that the win % at a gold difference is the impact. That doesn't mean we can't generalize from very specific summary stats but it does mean that the value we are looking at is a mix of the indication and the impact with no clear way to disentangle the two. If we don't care about disentangling them then you should be good to go. But you should still disentangle the effect of the dragons. I totally agree with what you said. But I also think we need to disentangle the effect of visiting TL. Or maybe the effect of being born in June. Or the effect of left-handedness. Or the effect of playing the game during the night instead of during the day. Or maybe they are Koreans! I think your suggested model is deeply flawed because it does not account for any of the aforementioned factors above. All of those above have deep, profound impact on gold acquisition. I can tell you quite simply why I think dragons are correlated with winning. Why would being left handed or visiting TL?(those effects, if they legitimately make you a better player would be nullified by MMR adjustments and so should have no effect). I can tell you quite simply how random chance gives some teams advantages over others at the same mmr (basically some teams will randomly have more people in their best role. Some teams will have people whose play styles mesh etc). But no such explanations exist for why those things correlate with individual game win probability. If you don't care that is fine, but you're supposedly refuting an "impact" statement and not stating that a gold lead is more indicative of a higher win rate. Let me ask you a different question: do you think smoking causes cancer? Because I can give you the argument that smoking does NOT cause cancer using what you just wrote. "Smoking leads to increased chance of lung cancer" is a very different statement than "Smoking causes cancer."
Let me rephrase then: gold lead increases chance of winning when comparing 4.21 to 4.19. Therefore, gold lead is more impactful.
|
On January 05 2015 05:26 Sufficiency wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2015 05:22 wei2coolman wrote:On January 05 2015 05:19 Sufficiency wrote:On January 05 2015 00:50 Goumindong wrote:On January 04 2015 16:32 Sufficiency wrote:On January 04 2015 16:30 Goumindong wrote:On January 04 2015 16:07 Sufficiency wrote:On January 04 2015 15:54 Goumindong wrote:On January 04 2015 15:08 Sufficiency wrote:On January 04 2015 14:50 Goumindong wrote:
[quote]
So you might have a omitted variable bias if you didn't include who had dragons at 10 minutes. This wouldn't be necessary for the old data since dragon only increases gold. But otherwise because gold correlates with dragons and dragons correlate with winning you have to break it out (ideally as a dummy variable for each/summary stats).
That being said you're confusing indicative with impactful. I would suggest that the impact at zero dragons is the same (after all nothing really is different at zero dragons between the patches) but that gold impact may be higher or lower depending on the absolute number of dragons on each side (because dragon multiplies some stats) If I give you the data can you analyze it "properly" according to your standard, then? Probably. It's been a while since I've had to work with raw data like that unfortunately. So I will have to relearn the code/programs. But if you want the short version you can do easily. Just do exactly what you're doing right now but for the new patch also separate out the data by dragons. So that you have 0-500 gold diff (has dragon) 0-500 gold diff (other team has dragon) and 0-500 (no dragons). The no dragons version is essentially the "even comparison of pre patch gold impact". Which, while its not the actual impact, will tell us whether or not the impact went appreciably up or down when compared to the prepatch value. Basically you're trying to fight against the alternate explanation; " the better team gets more gold because it's better, the gold helps but they were already better". With regards to the patch changes we expect that lower gold on this explanation increases the win rate more. "Now that dragons give no gold you have to be even better to get a big gold lead and so the same amount of gold lead indicates a better team and so higher win rate" Moreover making the big table gives us the information for the game that we really care about. Since we can count dragons as well as gold and counting both lets us be precise in the summary stats and get a better prediction after observing the first 10 minutes. Another option which has the reverse causation issues moreso but will give you a potentially better answer to the effect on dragon and gold is to do a logistic regression with the variables "gold diff, dragon dummies, gold diff * dragon dummies". Which would separate out the effect of gold the effect of dragons and the effect of dragons on gold. The difference between the gold effects from patch 1 to patch 2 would indicate a change in the impact of gold (I think that the "better team" effect would difference out, but not entirely sure) and you could then see better how the impact changes with dragons. I am super busy next week though so let me know if you can't run those. I believe the team wins more because they have visit Team Liquid at least once a week. I think I should also include a variable of how many times they visited Team Liquid during the last 72 hours. The gold and the player skills help, but ultimate it's because they visit Team Liquid that they are better players, and then because they are better players they get more gold. So you're saying that, as of champion select finishing, no team composition has an advantage over another? That, as of champion select, no team of players in ranked has an advantage over any other? An easy example. There are 5 players on team A all playing their mains and team B has 5 AD mains. Does team A or B have a better chance to win given the players mixed role mmr is the same? I would suggest that team a has a better win chance and that they will acquire gold because of that. What if team a has good counter picks and so easily wins lane. Does that effect the gold acquisition? Of course all that does. That is why it's hard to say that the win % at a gold difference is the impact. That doesn't mean we can't generalize from very specific summary stats but it does mean that the value we are looking at is a mix of the indication and the impact with no clear way to disentangle the two. If we don't care about disentangling them then you should be good to go. But you should still disentangle the effect of the dragons. I totally agree with what you said. But I also think we need to disentangle the effect of visiting TL. Or maybe the effect of being born in June. Or the effect of left-handedness. Or the effect of playing the game during the night instead of during the day. Or maybe they are Koreans! I think your suggested model is deeply flawed because it does not account for any of the aforementioned factors above. All of those above have deep, profound impact on gold acquisition. I can tell you quite simply why I think dragons are correlated with winning. Why would being left handed or visiting TL?(those effects, if they legitimately make you a better player would be nullified by MMR adjustments and so should have no effect). I can tell you quite simply how random chance gives some teams advantages over others at the same mmr (basically some teams will randomly have more people in their best role. Some teams will have people whose play styles mesh etc). But no such explanations exist for why those things correlate with individual game win probability. If you don't care that is fine, but you're supposedly refuting an "impact" statement and not stating that a gold lead is more indicative of a higher win rate. Let me ask you a different question: do you think smoking causes cancer? Because I can give you the argument that smoking does NOT cause cancer using what you just wrote. "Smoking leads to increased chance of lung cancer" is a very different statement than "Smoking causes cancer." Let me rephrase then: gold lead increases chance of winning when comparing 4.21 to 4.19. Therefore, gold lead is more impactful.
Do you have Pearson's R value to back that up?
Also, less free objective gold on maps means you'd have to adjust scaling of gold values worth in predicting winners in game. Essentially comparing two different currencies, without taking scaling into account.
|
On January 05 2015 05:36 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2015 05:26 Sufficiency wrote:On January 05 2015 05:22 wei2coolman wrote:On January 05 2015 05:19 Sufficiency wrote:On January 05 2015 00:50 Goumindong wrote:On January 04 2015 16:32 Sufficiency wrote:On January 04 2015 16:30 Goumindong wrote:On January 04 2015 16:07 Sufficiency wrote:On January 04 2015 15:54 Goumindong wrote:On January 04 2015 15:08 Sufficiency wrote:
[quote]
If I give you the data can you analyze it "properly" according to your standard, then? Probably. It's been a while since I've had to work with raw data like that unfortunately. So I will have to relearn the code/programs. But if you want the short version you can do easily. Just do exactly what you're doing right now but for the new patch also separate out the data by dragons. So that you have 0-500 gold diff (has dragon) 0-500 gold diff (other team has dragon) and 0-500 (no dragons). The no dragons version is essentially the "even comparison of pre patch gold impact". Which, while its not the actual impact, will tell us whether or not the impact went appreciably up or down when compared to the prepatch value. Basically you're trying to fight against the alternate explanation; " the better team gets more gold because it's better, the gold helps but they were already better". With regards to the patch changes we expect that lower gold on this explanation increases the win rate more. "Now that dragons give no gold you have to be even better to get a big gold lead and so the same amount of gold lead indicates a better team and so higher win rate" Moreover making the big table gives us the information for the game that we really care about. Since we can count dragons as well as gold and counting both lets us be precise in the summary stats and get a better prediction after observing the first 10 minutes. Another option which has the reverse causation issues moreso but will give you a potentially better answer to the effect on dragon and gold is to do a logistic regression with the variables "gold diff, dragon dummies, gold diff * dragon dummies". Which would separate out the effect of gold the effect of dragons and the effect of dragons on gold. The difference between the gold effects from patch 1 to patch 2 would indicate a change in the impact of gold (I think that the "better team" effect would difference out, but not entirely sure) and you could then see better how the impact changes with dragons. I am super busy next week though so let me know if you can't run those. I believe the team wins more because they have visit Team Liquid at least once a week. I think I should also include a variable of how many times they visited Team Liquid during the last 72 hours. The gold and the player skills help, but ultimate it's because they visit Team Liquid that they are better players, and then because they are better players they get more gold. So you're saying that, as of champion select finishing, no team composition has an advantage over another? That, as of champion select, no team of players in ranked has an advantage over any other? An easy example. There are 5 players on team A all playing their mains and team B has 5 AD mains. Does team A or B have a better chance to win given the players mixed role mmr is the same? I would suggest that team a has a better win chance and that they will acquire gold because of that. What if team a has good counter picks and so easily wins lane. Does that effect the gold acquisition? Of course all that does. That is why it's hard to say that the win % at a gold difference is the impact. That doesn't mean we can't generalize from very specific summary stats but it does mean that the value we are looking at is a mix of the indication and the impact with no clear way to disentangle the two. If we don't care about disentangling them then you should be good to go. But you should still disentangle the effect of the dragons. I totally agree with what you said. But I also think we need to disentangle the effect of visiting TL. Or maybe the effect of being born in June. Or the effect of left-handedness. Or the effect of playing the game during the night instead of during the day. Or maybe they are Koreans! I think your suggested model is deeply flawed because it does not account for any of the aforementioned factors above. All of those above have deep, profound impact on gold acquisition. I can tell you quite simply why I think dragons are correlated with winning. Why would being left handed or visiting TL?(those effects, if they legitimately make you a better player would be nullified by MMR adjustments and so should have no effect). I can tell you quite simply how random chance gives some teams advantages over others at the same mmr (basically some teams will randomly have more people in their best role. Some teams will have people whose play styles mesh etc). But no such explanations exist for why those things correlate with individual game win probability. If you don't care that is fine, but you're supposedly refuting an "impact" statement and not stating that a gold lead is more indicative of a higher win rate. Let me ask you a different question: do you think smoking causes cancer? Because I can give you the argument that smoking does NOT cause cancer using what you just wrote. "Smoking leads to increased chance of lung cancer" is a very different statement than "Smoking causes cancer." Let me rephrase then: gold lead increases chance of winning when comparing 4.21 to 4.19. Therefore, gold lead is more impactful. Do you have Pearson's R value to back that up? Also, less free objective gold on maps means you'd have to adjust scaling of gold values worth in predicting winners in game. Essentially comparing two different currencies, without taking scaling into account.
Yes there are two different currencies, I am just arguing that gold in 4.21 is "worth more", not less, by looking at chance of winning after stratifying gold lead into the same levels/groups.
|
Anyway, my point is, criticizing an observational study by pointing out a hidden, unobservable, unverifiable confounding factor is deeply fallacious and anti-science, especially when a controlled experiment is not feasible.
As an example, I can argue the following:
All epidemiological data (i.e. pretty much all observational studies) shows a strong link between smoking and lung cancer - i..e smoking X number of cigarettes per day increases your risk of being diagnosed with lung cancer by Y%. But does it mean cigarettes cause lung cancer?
No, it does not. As a matter of fact, we believe that smoking is caused by the "MMR" factor within an individual - its exact composition and form we do not know, nor can we measure it. However, we believe the "MMR" factor causes smoking and lung cancer and it is the sole cause of both. As a result, one may see correlation between smoking and lung cancer, but smoking is not a cause of it. We do not know exactly what this "MMR" factor is or how to measure it, but we constructed in our heads since the tobacco companies paid us millions of dollars to defend them.
|
On January 05 2015 05:45 Sufficiency wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2015 05:36 wei2coolman wrote:On January 05 2015 05:26 Sufficiency wrote:On January 05 2015 05:22 wei2coolman wrote:On January 05 2015 05:19 Sufficiency wrote:On January 05 2015 00:50 Goumindong wrote:On January 04 2015 16:32 Sufficiency wrote:On January 04 2015 16:30 Goumindong wrote:On January 04 2015 16:07 Sufficiency wrote:On January 04 2015 15:54 Goumindong wrote:
[quote]
Probably. It's been a while since I've had to work with raw data like that unfortunately. So I will have to relearn the code/programs.
But if you want the short version you can do easily. Just do exactly what you're doing right now but for the new patch also separate out the data by dragons. So that you have 0-500 gold diff (has dragon) 0-500 gold diff (other team has dragon) and 0-500 (no dragons). The no dragons version is essentially the "even comparison of pre patch gold impact". Which, while its not the actual impact, will tell us whether or not the impact went appreciably up or down when compared to the prepatch value.
Basically you're trying to fight against the alternate explanation; "the better team gets more gold because it's better, the gold helps but they were already better". With regards to the patch changes we expect that lower gold on this explanation increases the win rate more. "Now that dragons give no gold you have to be even better to get a big gold lead and so the same amount of gold lead indicates a better team and so higher win rate"
Moreover making the big table gives us the information for the game that we really care about. Since we can count dragons as well as gold and counting both lets us be precise in the summary stats and get a better prediction after observing the first 10 minutes.
Another option which has the reverse causation issues moreso but will give you a potentially better answer to the effect on dragon and gold is to do a logistic regression with the variables "gold diff, dragon dummies, gold diff * dragon dummies". Which would separate out the effect of gold the effect of dragons and the effect of dragons on gold. The difference between the gold effects from patch 1 to patch 2 would indicate a change in the impact of gold (I think that the "better team" effect would difference out, but not entirely sure) and you could then see better how the impact changes with dragons.
I am super busy next week though so let me know if you can't run those. I believe the team wins more because they have visit Team Liquid at least once a week. I think I should also include a variable of how many times they visited Team Liquid during the last 72 hours. The gold and the player skills help, but ultimate it's because they visit Team Liquid that they are better players, and then because they are better players they get more gold. So you're saying that, as of champion select finishing, no team composition has an advantage over another? That, as of champion select, no team of players in ranked has an advantage over any other? An easy example. There are 5 players on team A all playing their mains and team B has 5 AD mains. Does team A or B have a better chance to win given the players mixed role mmr is the same? I would suggest that team a has a better win chance and that they will acquire gold because of that. What if team a has good counter picks and so easily wins lane. Does that effect the gold acquisition? Of course all that does. That is why it's hard to say that the win % at a gold difference is the impact. That doesn't mean we can't generalize from very specific summary stats but it does mean that the value we are looking at is a mix of the indication and the impact with no clear way to disentangle the two. If we don't care about disentangling them then you should be good to go. But you should still disentangle the effect of the dragons. I totally agree with what you said. But I also think we need to disentangle the effect of visiting TL. Or maybe the effect of being born in June. Or the effect of left-handedness. Or the effect of playing the game during the night instead of during the day. Or maybe they are Koreans! I think your suggested model is deeply flawed because it does not account for any of the aforementioned factors above. All of those above have deep, profound impact on gold acquisition. I can tell you quite simply why I think dragons are correlated with winning. Why would being left handed or visiting TL?(those effects, if they legitimately make you a better player would be nullified by MMR adjustments and so should have no effect). I can tell you quite simply how random chance gives some teams advantages over others at the same mmr (basically some teams will randomly have more people in their best role. Some teams will have people whose play styles mesh etc). But no such explanations exist for why those things correlate with individual game win probability. If you don't care that is fine, but you're supposedly refuting an "impact" statement and not stating that a gold lead is more indicative of a higher win rate. Let me ask you a different question: do you think smoking causes cancer? Because I can give you the argument that smoking does NOT cause cancer using what you just wrote. "Smoking leads to increased chance of lung cancer" is a very different statement than "Smoking causes cancer." Let me rephrase then: gold lead increases chance of winning when comparing 4.21 to 4.19. Therefore, gold lead is more impactful. Do you have Pearson's R value to back that up? Also, less free objective gold on maps means you'd have to adjust scaling of gold values worth in predicting winners in game. Essentially comparing two different currencies, without taking scaling into account. Yes there are two different currencies, I am just arguing that gold in 4.21 is "worth more", not less, by looking at chance of winning after stratifying gold lead into the same levels/groups.
and that's the problem.
On January 05 2015 05:46 Sufficiency wrote:
Anyway, my point is, criticizing an observational study by pointing out a hidden, unobservable, unverifiable confounding factor is deeply fallacious and anti-science, especially when a controlled experiment is not feasible.
As an example, I can argue the following:
All epidemiological data (i.e. pretty much all observational studies) shows a strong link between smoking and lung cancer - i..e smoking X number of cigarettes per day increases your risk of being diagnosed with lung cancer by Y%. But does it mean cigarettes cause lung cancer?
No, it does not. As a matter of fact, we believe that smoking is caused by the "MMR" factor within an individual - its exact composition and form we do not know, nor can we measure it. However, we believe the "MMR" factor causes smoking and lung cancer and it is the sole cause of both. As a result, one may see correlation between smoking and lung cancer, but smoking is not a cause of it. We do not know exactly what this "MMR" factor is or how to measure it, but we constructed in our heads since the tobacco companies paid us millions of dollars to defend them.
Actually that it is very scientific. That's why it's so hard to prove things in Science, because the rigors of standards to come to a conclusion is very high. So while you may call it "anti-science", it is actually very scientific.
|
On January 05 2015 05:49 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2015 05:45 Sufficiency wrote:On January 05 2015 05:36 wei2coolman wrote:On January 05 2015 05:26 Sufficiency wrote:On January 05 2015 05:22 wei2coolman wrote:On January 05 2015 05:19 Sufficiency wrote:On January 05 2015 00:50 Goumindong wrote:On January 04 2015 16:32 Sufficiency wrote:On January 04 2015 16:30 Goumindong wrote:On January 04 2015 16:07 Sufficiency wrote:
[quote]
I believe the team wins more because they have visit Team Liquid at least once a week. I think I should also include a variable of how many times they visited Team Liquid during the last 72 hours. The gold and the player skills help, but ultimate it's because they visit Team Liquid that they are better players, and then because they are better players they get more gold. So you're saying that, as of champion select finishing, no team composition has an advantage over another? That, as of champion select, no team of players in ranked has an advantage over any other? An easy example. There are 5 players on team A all playing their mains and team B has 5 AD mains. Does team A or B have a better chance to win given the players mixed role mmr is the same? I would suggest that team a has a better win chance and that they will acquire gold because of that. What if team a has good counter picks and so easily wins lane. Does that effect the gold acquisition? Of course all that does. That is why it's hard to say that the win % at a gold difference is the impact. That doesn't mean we can't generalize from very specific summary stats but it does mean that the value we are looking at is a mix of the indication and the impact with no clear way to disentangle the two. If we don't care about disentangling them then you should be good to go. But you should still disentangle the effect of the dragons. I totally agree with what you said. But I also think we need to disentangle the effect of visiting TL. Or maybe the effect of being born in June. Or the effect of left-handedness. Or the effect of playing the game during the night instead of during the day. Or maybe they are Koreans! I think your suggested model is deeply flawed because it does not account for any of the aforementioned factors above. All of those above have deep, profound impact on gold acquisition. I can tell you quite simply why I think dragons are correlated with winning. Why would being left handed or visiting TL?(those effects, if they legitimately make you a better player would be nullified by MMR adjustments and so should have no effect). I can tell you quite simply how random chance gives some teams advantages over others at the same mmr (basically some teams will randomly have more people in their best role. Some teams will have people whose play styles mesh etc). But no such explanations exist for why those things correlate with individual game win probability. If you don't care that is fine, but you're supposedly refuting an "impact" statement and not stating that a gold lead is more indicative of a higher win rate. Let me ask you a different question: do you think smoking causes cancer? Because I can give you the argument that smoking does NOT cause cancer using what you just wrote. "Smoking leads to increased chance of lung cancer" is a very different statement than "Smoking causes cancer." Let me rephrase then: gold lead increases chance of winning when comparing 4.21 to 4.19. Therefore, gold lead is more impactful. Do you have Pearson's R value to back that up? Also, less free objective gold on maps means you'd have to adjust scaling of gold values worth in predicting winners in game. Essentially comparing two different currencies, without taking scaling into account. Yes there are two different currencies, I am just arguing that gold in 4.21 is "worth more", not less, by looking at chance of winning after stratifying gold lead into the same levels/groups. and that's the problem. Show nested quote +On January 05 2015 05:46 Sufficiency wrote:
Anyway, my point is, criticizing an observational study by pointing out a hidden, unobservable, unverifiable confounding factor is deeply fallacious and anti-science, especially when a controlled experiment is not feasible.
As an example, I can argue the following:
All epidemiological data (i.e. pretty much all observational studies) shows a strong link between smoking and lung cancer - i..e smoking X number of cigarettes per day increases your risk of being diagnosed with lung cancer by Y%. But does it mean cigarettes cause lung cancer?
No, it does not. As a matter of fact, we believe that smoking is caused by the "MMR" factor within an individual - its exact composition and form we do not know, nor can we measure it. However, we believe the "MMR" factor causes smoking and lung cancer and it is the sole cause of both. As a result, one may see correlation between smoking and lung cancer, but smoking is not a cause of it. We do not know exactly what this "MMR" factor is or how to measure it, but we constructed in our heads since the tobacco companies paid us millions of dollars to defend them. Actually that it is very scientific. That's why it's so hard to prove things in Science, because the rigors of standards to come to a conclusion is very high. So while you may call it "anti-science", it is actually very scientific.
No my argument about smoking is not scientific at all. A scientific theory needs to be falsifiable.
|
I hate to have to agree with Sufficiency on something, but wei2coolman you're an idiot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
