|
OP should fix CellaWerra's info. He is #9 in NA server not Korean server.
|
Maybe this can be added to OP? Maybe added with a few more questions.
GSL Qualifier thread FAQ
+ Show Spoiler +
I can't find a stream anywhere, where is the link for the stream?
The Qualifiers aren't streamed.
When are Huk and Ret going to play?
Huk and Ret aren't participating in GSL2. They will be coming over for later GSLs.
How many people qualify from each bracket?
2 People qualify from each bracket. 2 from A-1, 2 from A-2, 2 from B-1 etc.
How many more days are left for qualifying?
Today and tomorrow are the last days for qualifying
Has player _______ qualified yet?
Check the OP for a list of notable players who have qualified or failed to qualify.
|
United States7481 Posts
|
On October 11 2010 12:36 thesighter wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On October 11 2010 12:38 Fanatic-Templar wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On October 11 2010 12:30 thesighter wrote:Show nested quote +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
Where do you come up with these useless statistics from?
75% of the R64 qualifiers is 48.25 (round to 48 for simplicity)
So what your saying is there is a less than 1% of 1% chance that the following outcome occurs;
"16 GSL1 Qualifiers will play on the first 2 days and 48 GSL 1 Qualifiers will play on the last 2 days"
Less than 1% of 1% chance? Are you kidding me?
|
Here's a thought: Maybe they started seeding guys as soon as they signed up in some pre-determined number of brackets at random. Since a lot of teams probably signed up together they get clumped into the same general brackets. Then when more people sign up they create entirely new brackets and start filling those in. Except maybe those guys suck a little more or are less known than others.
|
Someone failed statistics class...
|
Can you stop filling thread with pointless statistics.
|
On October 11 2010 12:42 Kishkumen wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On October 11 2010 12:38 figq wrote:
So.... Clide and Cella are in the same half-bracket, which means only 1 of them can be in GSL 2.
Crazy tournament rules are crazy. oO
I hope CLIIIIIIIIIDE gets in for Tastosis sake, but +1 hamburger for CeLLa!
Zerg fighting!
|
|
|
On October 11 2010 12:40 dRaW wrote:
go clide and cella! unfortunately they can't go both :/
|
United States7481 Posts
JookToJung's opponent in the ro8,  Love, is either very good (2107), pretty good (1730), or decent (1511), depending on which Love he is.
|
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? 0.00001% if we do the math.
This is not coin flipping. Assuming binomial probability distribution is incorrect. End of story.
Let's not derail the thread anymore.
|
Guys get back on topic... (just know that any ORDER of the 2500 players has just as good odds as occuring as any other ORDER) fuck we could have had the gsl 1 - 64 all in the same bracket. it is just as likely as what we have now)
polt prime advances to the Bo4!
|
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.
|
So wonder if Cella can advance I hope so need more zerg!
|
On October 11 2010 12:43 thesighter wrote:Show nested quote +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.
EDIT: Dropping the subject...
|
On October 11 2010 12:49 Penetrates 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? 0.00001% if we do the math. This is not coin flipping. Assuming binomial probability distribution is incorrect. End of story. Let's not derail the thread anymore.
Actually, it is.. if the seeding was random, a player has an equal chance of playing on any day of the tourney.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
