|
On October 11 2010 12:50 SiguR wrote:
Can you all stop arguing over pointless garbage and find out how cella is doing? If you want to discuss understandings of math or statistics, or the conspiracies behind the GSL's qualification rules, go make a thread for it.
Cella is now waiting for the result of cliiiiiides game in the bo16!
|
On October 11 2010 12:47 thesighter wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2010 12:42 Kishkumen wrote:On October 11 2010 12:36 thesighter wrote:On October 11 2010 12:34 Drathmar wrote:On October 11 2010 12:30 thesighter wrote:On October 11 2010 12:24 Fanatic-Templar wrote:On October 11 2010 12:15 thesighter wrote:On October 11 2010 12:08 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On October 11 2010 12:02 thesighter wrote:On October 11 2010 11:51 FuRong wrote:
If there are no upsets in these brackets then we're looking at getting four solid players qualified, which would be a contrast to the large number of randoms from the first two days.
Clide, oGsTop, Polt and JookToJung (I think Cella beating Clide would be a pretty big uspet)
--> three Terran and a Zerg
I think a lot of the brackets are going to be stacked like this today, but if you think about it then it kind of makes sense. Obviously most of the amateur players (who either study or have jobs) will choose to play on the weekend rather than on a weekday, so the result is that the Monday and Tuesday brackets have less amateurs and therefore are stacked with a higher percentage of pros. I'd put money on the fact that GOM intentionally stacked Monday and Tuesday, so that amateurs would have a better chance the first 2 days. They wanted to get a crop of new faces for season 2. No. No x1000. They have no reason to get a "new faces" if the new faces are bad. If anything, they'd benefit from spreading all of the talent out as best they could so the level of games are overall higher. Name recognition, past, and back story is how fans spring up. A constant group of new faces does not encourage it; it discourages it. Instead of having a rooting interest in a match you simply find yourself asking. "Who are these 2 randoms?" The stated purpose of these first couple GSLs is to find 96 players and seed them for 2011. So I think GOM would have a reason to give some new people a chance. By new people, I mean ex-WC3, ex-SC1, foreigners, etc.., who did not play in season 1 or who are clearly not as good as the season 1 qualifiers. 75% of the GSL season 1 qualifiers did not play in the first two days of the tourney. Take a look at the number of round of 32, round of 16 players in the first 2 days. Why are the last 2 days so stacked? Statistically, it's quite unlikely to be so far off the mean. As far as my own knowledge of such goes, "statistically" a single event does not constitute a significant sample size for statistics applying to such events. I mean, if you throw a six-sided die, what are the chances that it lands on any one number? 1/6. Therefore, the odds favour a single thrown die not landing on any number. Except it obviously doesn't work that way. This is not a single throw of a die. Assume that we toss a coin for each of the season 1 qualifiers. Heads days 1-2, tails days3-4. What is the probability of getting 75% heads in 64 tosses? cumulative binomial probability distribution use this calculator http://stattrek.com/Tables/Binomial.aspxThe chance of seeing >= 75% of the qualifiers in half the days is less than 1% of 1% eg this is non-random Except... guess what... its the chance of seeing 64 out of 2500 people in 2 days. If you don't understand the math, don't bother replying. Statistically, it's near impossible for the brackets to be this stacked if the seeding of the season 1 players was fair. Statistically if you take a subset of 64 people from a group of 2500, some of those subsets will be "improbable." Some of them will even have all 64 players playing on the same day. You can't say something isn't random because one of its subsets is somewhat improbable. All sets of statistics have very improbable subsets. Maybe it just happens that GSL1 qualifiers is one of those. And like I said before, there could be other non-conspiratorial variables at work that are affecting the distribution. Ehh.. I don't think you understand the math. This is an equivalent scenario. We've flipped a coin 64 times, and we've seen close to 75% heads. In what percentage of the scenarios, would we see this many heads? 0.01% if we do the math.
No, we've flipped a coin 2500 times. We only record 64 of those times (using your math) which skews the results by taking such a small size. If you looked at the bigger picture, it prolly was close to 50% when you take into account it being flipped 2500 times NOT 64. You CANNOT only look at 64, they did not just place 64 people randomly they placed 2500 of which those 64 were a part. You can not just look at the 64 people abstractly and act like the rest of the coin flips as you put it, didn't happen.
What you should be asking is what is the chance that out of 2500 flips it lands on heads AT LEAST 45 times.
|
It is clear that qualifiers aren't random. But who wants random qualifiers anyway? And in which sports it is random? SC:BW? Did Flash&Jaedong meet each other in qualifiers ever? Did they meet even in 1/8 finals after they became big name players?
Does ManU play Barcelona in a knock-out against Barca in early stages?
It's simple, there's no random seeding because it's not what fans want to see. Nobody wants to see LotzePrime and Davit in round of 32, while Cool has been eliminated during qualifiers and nobody can even watch his games.
|
The supposed statistical masterminds in this thread crack me up.
Is there anything more updated than the link in the OP as far as who has qualified and been knocked out today?
|
On October 11 2010 12:47 thesighter wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2010 12:42 Kishkumen wrote:On October 11 2010 12:36 thesighter wrote:On October 11 2010 12:34 Drathmar wrote:On October 11 2010 12:30 thesighter wrote:On October 11 2010 12:24 Fanatic-Templar wrote:On October 11 2010 12:15 thesighter wrote:On October 11 2010 12:08 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On October 11 2010 12:02 thesighter wrote:On October 11 2010 11:51 FuRong wrote:
If there are no upsets in these brackets then we're looking at getting four solid players qualified, which would be a contrast to the large number of randoms from the first two days.
Clide, oGsTop, Polt and JookToJung (I think Cella beating Clide would be a pretty big uspet)
--> three Terran and a Zerg
I think a lot of the brackets are going to be stacked like this today, but if you think about it then it kind of makes sense. Obviously most of the amateur players (who either study or have jobs) will choose to play on the weekend rather than on a weekday, so the result is that the Monday and Tuesday brackets have less amateurs and therefore are stacked with a higher percentage of pros. I'd put money on the fact that GOM intentionally stacked Monday and Tuesday, so that amateurs would have a better chance the first 2 days. They wanted to get a crop of new faces for season 2. No. No x1000. They have no reason to get a "new faces" if the new faces are bad. If anything, they'd benefit from spreading all of the talent out as best they could so the level of games are overall higher. Name recognition, past, and back story is how fans spring up. A constant group of new faces does not encourage it; it discourages it. Instead of having a rooting interest in a match you simply find yourself asking. "Who are these 2 randoms?" The stated purpose of these first couple GSLs is to find 96 players and seed them for 2011. So I think GOM would have a reason to give some new people a chance. By new people, I mean ex-WC3, ex-SC1, foreigners, etc.., who did not play in season 1 or who are clearly not as good as the season 1 qualifiers. 75% of the GSL season 1 qualifiers did not play in the first two days of the tourney. Take a look at the number of round of 32, round of 16 players in the first 2 days. Why are the last 2 days so stacked? Statistically, it's quite unlikely to be so far off the mean. As far as my own knowledge of such goes, "statistically" a single event does not constitute a significant sample size for statistics applying to such events. I mean, if you throw a six-sided die, what are the chances that it lands on any one number? 1/6. Therefore, the odds favour a single thrown die not landing on any number. Except it obviously doesn't work that way. This is not a single throw of a die. Assume that we toss a coin for each of the season 1 qualifiers. Heads days 1-2, tails days3-4. What is the probability of getting 75% heads in 64 tosses? cumulative binomial probability distribution use this calculator http://stattrek.com/Tables/Binomial.aspxThe chance of seeing >= 75% of the qualifiers in half the days is less than 1% of 1% eg this is non-random Except... guess what... its the chance of seeing 64 out of 2500 people in 2 days. If you don't understand the math, don't bother replying. Statistically, it's near impossible for the brackets to be this stacked if the seeding of the season 1 players was fair. Statistically if you take a subset of 64 people from a group of 2500, some of those subsets will be "improbable." Some of them will even have all 64 players playing on the same day. You can't say something isn't random because one of its subsets is somewhat improbable. All sets of statistics have very improbable subsets. Maybe it just happens that GSL1 qualifiers is one of those. And like I said before, there could be other non-conspiratorial variables at work that are affecting the distribution. Ehh.. I don't think you understand the math. This is an equivalent scenario. We've flipped a coin 64 times, and we've seen close to 75% heads. In what percentage of the scenarios, would we see this many heads? 0.01% if we do the math.
The equivalent scenario is that we flip a coin 2500 times and then choose a subset of 64 of those flips. Some of those subsets will be 64 heads; some of them will be 64 tails. The existence of those subsets is not proof that the data are "rigged." Improbable subsets are a necessary element of every statistical group.
Edit: We've cluttered this thread enough trying to debunk your conspiracy theories. If you'd like to continue the discussion, PM me.
User was warned for this post
|
The showdown is set. Clide and Cella are facing off in the ro8
|
On October 11 2010 12:52 proxY_ wrote:
The supposed statistical masterminds in this thread crack me up.
Is there anything more updated than the link in the OP as far as who has qualified and been knocked out today?
OP is pretty up to date, best just to have a look over the last 10 - 15 posts to get the latest (ignore the stats talk)
polt prime into bo4,
edit: now cella v clide!
|
Looks like Cliiiiiiiide (why are you so good Clide?) won his game, so Cella is next.
Edit: beaten
|
Can a mod please delete / move to new thread all the posts about flipping coins?
|
On October 11 2010 12:51 Fanatic-Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2010 12:43 thesighter wrote:On October 11 2010 12:38 Fanatic-Templar wrote:On October 11 2010 12:30 thesighter wrote:On October 11 2010 12:24 Fanatic-Templar wrote:On October 11 2010 12:15 thesighter wrote:On October 11 2010 12:08 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On October 11 2010 12:02 thesighter wrote:On October 11 2010 11:51 FuRong wrote:
If there are no upsets in these brackets then we're looking at getting four solid players qualified, which would be a contrast to the large number of randoms from the first two days.
Clide, oGsTop, Polt and JookToJung (I think Cella beating Clide would be a pretty big uspet)
--> three Terran and a Zerg
I think a lot of the brackets are going to be stacked like this today, but if you think about it then it kind of makes sense. Obviously most of the amateur players (who either study or have jobs) will choose to play on the weekend rather than on a weekday, so the result is that the Monday and Tuesday brackets have less amateurs and therefore are stacked with a higher percentage of pros. I'd put money on the fact that GOM intentionally stacked Monday and Tuesday, so that amateurs would have a better chance the first 2 days. They wanted to get a crop of new faces for season 2. No. No x1000. They have no reason to get a "new faces" if the new faces are bad. If anything, they'd benefit from spreading all of the talent out as best they could so the level of games are overall higher. Name recognition, past, and back story is how fans spring up. A constant group of new faces does not encourage it; it discourages it. Instead of having a rooting interest in a match you simply find yourself asking. "Who are these 2 randoms?" The stated purpose of these first couple GSLs is to find 96 players and seed them for 2011. So I think GOM would have a reason to give some new people a chance. By new people, I mean ex-WC3, ex-SC1, foreigners, etc.., who did not play in season 1 or who are clearly not as good as the season 1 qualifiers. 75% of the GSL season 1 qualifiers did not play in the first two days of the tourney. Take a look at the number of round of 32, round of 16 players in the first 2 days. Why are the last 2 days so stacked? Statistically, it's quite unlikely to be so far off the mean. As far as my own knowledge of such goes, "statistically" a single event does not constitute a significant sample size for statistics applying to such events. I mean, if you throw a six-sided die, what are the chances that it lands on any one number? 1/6. Therefore, the odds favour a single thrown die not landing on any number. Except it obviously doesn't work that way. This is not a single throw of a die. Assume that we toss a coin for each of the season 1 qualifiers. Heads days 1-2, tails days3-4. What is the probability of getting 75% heads in 64 tosses? cumulative binomial probability distribution use this calculator http://stattrek.com/Tables/Binomial.aspxThe chance of seeing >= 75% of the qualifiers in half the days is less than 1% of 1% eg this is non-random Actually, it is a single event - you're asserting that Gom is deliberately placing previous players in the last two days of qualifiers, based on the fact that in the one, solitary, single event in which Gom has had previously participating players, many have played in the last two days. Randomness can provide random results, but you state there is intent, and there is no basis for such claims. This is the scenario. If GOM was fair, a season 1 qualifier would have a 50% chance of playing in the first 2 days, a 50% chance of playing in the last 2 days. Given that near 3/4ths of the season 1 players were not seeded in the first 2 days, there is statistically a 99.99% chance that the placement of the players was non-random. You can draw your own conclusions. I just rolled a siz-sided die. I got a 2. If the die was fair, there is a 5/6 chance that I would have gotten a number that wasn't a two. And yet that is what I got. You can draw your own conclusions. You really don't understand how this works, do you? There is an equal probability for every possible arrangement of players in a random seeding. There is an unlikely of every player from GSL Open 1 playing on Day 1, just as there is an unlikely probability of them being perfectly distributed among 4 days - 16 each day. If we had hundreds of qualifiers, you would see that the number of players from the previous season would likely even out, or if they didn't, then perhaps you'd have a point. But with this single event to account for, your argument has no basis.
Incorrect. You've never taken a stats class, so I don't think you understand the concept of a cumulative distribution . Do a z-test on the probability of seeing at least 75% of the players in the 2nd half of the tourney.
|
On October 11 2010 12:54 jaycee wrote:
Can a mod please delete / move to new thread all the posts about flipping coins?
does it really matter? you can just check the OP if you want to know whose qualified.
|
|
|
Hope springs eternal in the human breast! Cella fighting!
|
On October 11 2010 12:53 Kishkumen wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2010 12:47 thesighter wrote:On October 11 2010 12:42 Kishkumen wrote:On October 11 2010 12:36 thesighter wrote:On October 11 2010 12:34 Drathmar wrote:On October 11 2010 12:30 thesighter wrote:On October 11 2010 12:24 Fanatic-Templar wrote:On October 11 2010 12:15 thesighter wrote:On October 11 2010 12:08 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On October 11 2010 12:02 thesighter wrote:
[quote]
I'd put money on the fact that GOM intentionally stacked Monday and Tuesday, so that amateurs would have a better chance the first 2 days. They wanted to get a crop of new faces for season 2. No. No x1000. They have no reason to get a "new faces" if the new faces are bad. If anything, they'd benefit from spreading all of the talent out as best they could so the level of games are overall higher. Name recognition, past, and back story is how fans spring up. A constant group of new faces does not encourage it; it discourages it. Instead of having a rooting interest in a match you simply find yourself asking. "Who are these 2 randoms?" The stated purpose of these first couple GSLs is to find 96 players and seed them for 2011. So I think GOM would have a reason to give some new people a chance. By new people, I mean ex-WC3, ex-SC1, foreigners, etc.., who did not play in season 1 or who are clearly not as good as the season 1 qualifiers. 75% of the GSL season 1 qualifiers did not play in the first two days of the tourney. Take a look at the number of round of 32, round of 16 players in the first 2 days. Why are the last 2 days so stacked? Statistically, it's quite unlikely to be so far off the mean. As far as my own knowledge of such goes, "statistically" a single event does not constitute a significant sample size for statistics applying to such events. I mean, if you throw a six-sided die, what are the chances that it lands on any one number? 1/6. Therefore, the odds favour a single thrown die not landing on any number. Except it obviously doesn't work that way. This is not a single throw of a die. Assume that we toss a coin for each of the season 1 qualifiers. Heads days 1-2, tails days3-4. What is the probability of getting 75% heads in 64 tosses? cumulative binomial probability distribution use this calculator http://stattrek.com/Tables/Binomial.aspxThe chance of seeing >= 75% of the qualifiers in half the days is less than 1% of 1% eg this is non-random Except... guess what... its the chance of seeing 64 out of 2500 people in 2 days. If you don't understand the math, don't bother replying. Statistically, it's near impossible for the brackets to be this stacked if the seeding of the season 1 players was fair. Statistically if you take a subset of 64 people from a group of 2500, some of those subsets will be "improbable." Some of them will even have all 64 players playing on the same day. You can't say something isn't random because one of its subsets is somewhat improbable. All sets of statistics have very improbable subsets. Maybe it just happens that GSL1 qualifiers is one of those. And like I said before, there could be other non-conspiratorial variables at work that are affecting the distribution. Ehh.. I don't think you understand the math. This is an equivalent scenario. We've flipped a coin 64 times, and we've seen close to 75% heads. In what percentage of the scenarios, would we see this many heads? 0.01% if we do the math. The equivalent scenario is that we flip a coin 2500 times and then choose a subset of 64 of those flips. Some of those subsets will be 64 heads; some of them will be 64 tails. The existence of those subsets is not proof that the data are "rigged." Improbable subsets are a necessary element of every statistical group.
You don't understand the difference between a binomial or cumulative binomial distribution. Look up some coin flipping examples on google or wikipedia.
Or use this: http://stattrek.com/Tables/Binomial.aspx
|
On October 11 2010 12:54 thesighter wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2010 12:51 Fanatic-Templar wrote:On October 11 2010 12:43 thesighter wrote:On October 11 2010 12:38 Fanatic-Templar wrote:On October 11 2010 12:30 thesighter wrote:On October 11 2010 12:24 Fanatic-Templar wrote:On October 11 2010 12:15 thesighter wrote:On October 11 2010 12:08 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On October 11 2010 12:02 thesighter wrote:On October 11 2010 11:51 FuRong wrote:
If there are no upsets in these brackets then we're looking at getting four solid players qualified, which would be a contrast to the large number of randoms from the first two days.
Clide, oGsTop, Polt and JookToJung (I think Cella beating Clide would be a pretty big uspet)
--> three Terran and a Zerg
I think a lot of the brackets are going to be stacked like this today, but if you think about it then it kind of makes sense. Obviously most of the amateur players (who either study or have jobs) will choose to play on the weekend rather than on a weekday, so the result is that the Monday and Tuesday brackets have less amateurs and therefore are stacked with a higher percentage of pros. I'd put money on the fact that GOM intentionally stacked Monday and Tuesday, so that amateurs would have a better chance the first 2 days. They wanted to get a crop of new faces for season 2. No. No x1000. They have no reason to get a "new faces" if the new faces are bad. If anything, they'd benefit from spreading all of the talent out as best they could so the level of games are overall higher. Name recognition, past, and back story is how fans spring up. A constant group of new faces does not encourage it; it discourages it. Instead of having a rooting interest in a match you simply find yourself asking. "Who are these 2 randoms?" The stated purpose of these first couple GSLs is to find 96 players and seed them for 2011. So I think GOM would have a reason to give some new people a chance. By new people, I mean ex-WC3, ex-SC1, foreigners, etc.., who did not play in season 1 or who are clearly not as good as the season 1 qualifiers. 75% of the GSL season 1 qualifiers did not play in the first two days of the tourney. Take a look at the number of round of 32, round of 16 players in the first 2 days. Why are the last 2 days so stacked? Statistically, it's quite unlikely to be so far off the mean. As far as my own knowledge of such goes, "statistically" a single event does not constitute a significant sample size for statistics applying to such events. I mean, if you throw a six-sided die, what are the chances that it lands on any one number? 1/6. Therefore, the odds favour a single thrown die not landing on any number. Except it obviously doesn't work that way. This is not a single throw of a die. Assume that we toss a coin for each of the season 1 qualifiers. Heads days 1-2, tails days3-4. What is the probability of getting 75% heads in 64 tosses? cumulative binomial probability distribution use this calculator http://stattrek.com/Tables/Binomial.aspxThe chance of seeing >= 75% of the qualifiers in half the days is less than 1% of 1% eg this is non-random Actually, it is a single event - you're asserting that Gom is deliberately placing previous players in the last two days of qualifiers, based on the fact that in the one, solitary, single event in which Gom has had previously participating players, many have played in the last two days. Randomness can provide random results, but you state there is intent, and there is no basis for such claims. This is the scenario. If GOM was fair, a season 1 qualifier would have a 50% chance of playing in the first 2 days, a 50% chance of playing in the last 2 days. Given that near 3/4ths of the season 1 players were not seeded in the first 2 days, there is statistically a 99.99% chance that the placement of the players was non-random. You can draw your own conclusions. I just rolled a siz-sided die. I got a 2. If the die was fair, there is a 5/6 chance that I would have gotten a number that wasn't a two. And yet that is what I got. You can draw your own conclusions. You really don't understand how this works, do you? There is an equal probability for every possible arrangement of players in a random seeding. There is an unlikely of every player from GSL Open 1 playing on Day 1, just as there is an unlikely probability of them being perfectly distributed among 4 days - 16 each day. If we had hundreds of qualifiers, you would see that the number of players from the previous season would likely even out, or if they didn't, then perhaps you'd have a point. But with this single event to account for, your argument has no basis. Incorrect. You've never taken a stats class, so I don't think you understand the concept of a cumulative distribution . Do a z-test on the probability of seeing at least 75% of the players in the 2nd half of the tourney.
Except it isn't 75% of the players. THERE ARE 2500 PLAYERS NOT 64. Which invalidates your whole argument.
User was warned for this post
|
On October 11 2010 12:45 Pekkz wrote:
Can you stop filling thread with pointless statistics.
I agree with this. This thread is for finding out about who has actually advanced to GSL2, not what each player's mathematical chance to qualify will be.
|
oGsTop vs ITViewpoint for spot in the 64
|
On October 11 2010 12:56 Drathmar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2010 12:54 thesighter wrote:On October 11 2010 12:51 Fanatic-Templar wrote:On October 11 2010 12:43 thesighter wrote:On October 11 2010 12:38 Fanatic-Templar wrote:On October 11 2010 12:30 thesighter wrote:On October 11 2010 12:24 Fanatic-Templar wrote:On October 11 2010 12:15 thesighter wrote:On October 11 2010 12:08 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On October 11 2010 12:02 thesighter wrote:
[quote]
I'd put money on the fact that GOM intentionally stacked Monday and Tuesday, so that amateurs would have a better chance the first 2 days. They wanted to get a crop of new faces for season 2. No. No x1000. They have no reason to get a "new faces" if the new faces are bad. If anything, they'd benefit from spreading all of the talent out as best they could so the level of games are overall higher. Name recognition, past, and back story is how fans spring up. A constant group of new faces does not encourage it; it discourages it. Instead of having a rooting interest in a match you simply find yourself asking. "Who are these 2 randoms?" The stated purpose of these first couple GSLs is to find 96 players and seed them for 2011. So I think GOM would have a reason to give some new people a chance. By new people, I mean ex-WC3, ex-SC1, foreigners, etc.., who did not play in season 1 or who are clearly not as good as the season 1 qualifiers. 75% of the GSL season 1 qualifiers did not play in the first two days of the tourney. Take a look at the number of round of 32, round of 16 players in the first 2 days. Why are the last 2 days so stacked? Statistically, it's quite unlikely to be so far off the mean. As far as my own knowledge of such goes, "statistically" a single event does not constitute a significant sample size for statistics applying to such events. I mean, if you throw a six-sided die, what are the chances that it lands on any one number? 1/6. Therefore, the odds favour a single thrown die not landing on any number. Except it obviously doesn't work that way. This is not a single throw of a die. Assume that we toss a coin for each of the season 1 qualifiers. Heads days 1-2, tails days3-4. What is the probability of getting 75% heads in 64 tosses? cumulative binomial probability distribution use this calculator http://stattrek.com/Tables/Binomial.aspxThe chance of seeing >= 75% of the qualifiers in half the days is less than 1% of 1% eg this is non-random Actually, it is a single event - you're asserting that Gom is deliberately placing previous players in the last two days of qualifiers, based on the fact that in the one, solitary, single event in which Gom has had previously participating players, many have played in the last two days. Randomness can provide random results, but you state there is intent, and there is no basis for such claims. This is the scenario. If GOM was fair, a season 1 qualifier would have a 50% chance of playing in the first 2 days, a 50% chance of playing in the last 2 days. Given that near 3/4ths of the season 1 players were not seeded in the first 2 days, there is statistically a 99.99% chance that the placement of the players was non-random. You can draw your own conclusions. I just rolled a siz-sided die. I got a 2. If the die was fair, there is a 5/6 chance that I would have gotten a number that wasn't a two. And yet that is what I got. You can draw your own conclusions. You really don't understand how this works, do you? There is an equal probability for every possible arrangement of players in a random seeding. There is an unlikely of every player from GSL Open 1 playing on Day 1, just as there is an unlikely probability of them being perfectly distributed among 4 days - 16 each day. If we had hundreds of qualifiers, you would see that the number of players from the previous season would likely even out, or if they didn't, then perhaps you'd have a point. But with this single event to account for, your argument has no basis. Incorrect. You've never taken a stats class, so I don't think you understand the concept of a cumulative distribution . Do a z-test on the probability of seeing at least 75% of the players in the 2nd half of the tourney. Except it isn't 75% of the players. THERE ARE 2500 PLAYERS NOT 64. Which invalidates your whole argument.
That's just bad trolling on your part. I'm referring to 75% of the 64 season 1 qualifiers.
|
There really should be bans for people throwing retarded incorrect math around.
|
I wish motbob were indeed a banling. Things would be a lot nicer in this thread.
And what is the basis for everyone regarding Clide so highly? I only know that he was hyped up a lot by Tastosis, but lost in the RO64.
Cella <3
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
