Racial Distribution in Patch 1.0 - Diamond Ladder - Page 20

On September 03 2010 10:44 Tray wrote:


Dude you are incredibly stupid. My analysis is correct. Assuming Terran should make up 33% of the distrubtion at the top is NOT correct. It should be EQUAL to the total % of players that play terran. Period. It's not debatable.

As the sample drops, the error in the 'real' value increases and becomes less accurate. Period.

Stay in school.

On September 03 2010 10:47 ReplayArk wrote:
@Tray n^(-1/2) is not exponential while e^(n) is.

Dude you are incredibly stupid. My analysis is correct. Assuming Terran should make up 33% of the distrubtion at the top is NOT correct. It should be EQUAL to the total % of players that play terran. Period. It's not debatable.

As the sample drops, the error in the 'real' value increases and becomes less accurate. Period.

Stay in school.

On September 03 2010 10:53 pileopoop wrote:


The game isn't supposed to balanced around a 10000 sample size its supposed to be balanced around the top top top tier which may be 250 people or less. the currents stats say Terran is most represented in top tier, meaning that in the given time its easier to learn, play, and be pro as terran, which is an overpowered quality.

On September 03 2010 10:56 Tray wrote:


This is not a correct statement. Blizzard is not balancing the game around statistically insignificant data.

Likely they are using data of a majority of Diamond and then looking at individual games from tournaments and very top ranked players to try to manually spot what we refer to as 'cheese' and 'abuse.' This is because the game is evolving and probably does so from the top down. So you could make an argument that the top players have figured out how to abuse terran, but you would need more data than we have her to prove it. As I just showed, the error in the higher level samples makes that data incredbly volitile.

On September 03 2010 10:55 blacktoss wrote:


Ok, genius. So you're disputing the hypothesis instead of the statistics.

So don't try to argue statistics when your point has nothing to do with the statistics. You think the conclusion does not yield any information about the distribution of players. That has nothing to do with the methodology used or the mathematics used.

And yet you act like a complete jackass and argue the statistics. You say "no they are wrong". No, they are right. Your point is completely orthogonal to that. So I'm going to just assume you are the worst communicator in the world, especially since you have the manners of a seventh grader.

Also, just because the confidence intervals are wider and your p value is going to smaller than if sigma were small, you can still test the hypothesis and draw conclusions.

So stop being a complete asshole, you know a lot of fancy words, but your understanding of them is near nil. You don't know how to interpret values like sigma or p or r or a confidence interval. You know what they are but you have no idea how to interpret them.

So in every single way, you come off as a prick who doesn't know how to put together his own argument.

ANYWAY

Go ahead and find the total proportion of Terran in the entire SC2 population and then test the hypothesis that 1300+ diamond players follow that proportion. Go ahead, show us your gosu statistical acumen. Or are you going to dodge and continue to strut around like a cock?

On September 03 2010 10:59 pileopoop wrote:


Making a balance changed with current data isn't going to ruin the game. At worst Terran will start getting rolled and you can balance again.

On September 03 2010 10:44 Tray wrote:
Dude you are incredibly stupid. My analysis is correct. Assuming Terran should make up 33% of the distrubtion at the top is NOT correct. It should be EQUAL to the total % of players that play terran. Period. It's not debatable.

As the sample drops, the error in the 'real' value increases and becomes less accurate. Period.

Stay in school.

On September 03 2010 05:16 Acritter wrote:
t: 365200 36.6%

On September 03 2010 11:06 Sentient wrote:


Tray, I'm going to show you are wrong beyond a reasonable doubt. I will use the calculator found here: http://stattrek.com/Tables/Binomial.aspx

This calculator does not rely on binomial distributions. It uses discrete calculations, just as the ladder behaves.

From the spreadsheet linked earlier, there are 27862 players with 600 or more points in diamond. Terran makes up 30.6% of that. Thus we can treat the success of a Terran player as 30.6%, or .306%. In other words, if player skill is equally distribute (and you said yourself that we should assume this), 30.6% of the top 25 players should be Terran.

So we plug .306 as the "Probability of success on a single trial", because this is the fraction of Terran players. Number of trials is 20, because that is the edge of the ladder ranking we are looking at. There are 10 Terran players in the top 20 as of right now (sc2ranks.com). This is the number of successes.

Now press the calculate button. We are interested in Cumulative Probability: P(X >= 10). It will spit out 0.0544, or about 5%. In other words, there is a ~5% chance for 10 of the top 20 to be Terran. In other other words, there is a 95% probably that the distribution of Terrans in the top 20 is not due to chance. This is good enough for scientific publication.

Sample size has nothing to do with it. Plug in a fake coin flip. Let's say our number events is 2, and we have 2 hits. Probability of success is 0.5. The odds of getting 2 (or more, but that's irrelevent here) is 0.25. Thus I could say with 75% certainty that the dice were rigged. I will be right 75% of the time and wrong 25% of the time. That's how it works.

We're talking a lot more than 75% certainty. 95% certainty. The distribution of players falls outside what would be expected by chance, and sample size has nothing to do with it. (Ignoring the fact that this isn't technically a sample but is rather the complete reality.)

There are only three reasonable explanations:
1. We are in the 5% zone, and this Terran distribution is really just a fluke.
2. Terran is overpowered.
3. Skilled players tend to play Terran more than the other races, and skill distribution is not equal (which was one of our key assumptions).

This is math and it is fact. The Terran distribution falls outside random chance. I am 95% sure of this statement, which is a lot better than you can provide.

On September 03 2010 11:07 Acritter wrote:


This is the percentage of Terran players in all of Starcraft 2. It is not even close to being accurately represented in upper Diamond League. Tray, please stop telling us all to compare this to data that has already been obtained and which contradicts your points. The fact remains that the high proportion of Terran players in upper Diamond cannot be dismissed as an outlier.

On September 03 2010 10:40 blacktoss wrote:


Here's the kicker genius: You're fighting a straw man. The claim made was that Terran make up a disproportionate number of high level diamond players such that the deviation from an even distribution is not due to random chance.

The claim is CORRECT. The math is CORRECT. You are the one coming in here and putting words in peoples' mouths and then saying "haha no u r rong I will now insult you".

I don't think you know how statistics works at all. The hypothesis tested was the hypothesis that Terran should make up 33% of the racial distribution in high diamond league (I am not sure if he took into account Random). The statistical test he used showed with high confidence that this hypothesis was false. End of story that is all the reasoning used.

You talk about statistical insignificance but your criticism does not address the point's validity, it attacks it on the basis that "it is not the right hypothesis". Sorry, but that does not say anything about the conclusion drawn.



Once again, you are full of shit. You come in here saying you are better than anyone else, throw around a few big words, and then cite google and say "hurdy hur".

It doesn't matter if the variance is high, because when YOU DO THE ACTUAL TEST (instead of bullshitting with jargon), you find that p is very high. So high in fact that you MUST discard the hypothesis that "Terran is not overrepresented in high diamond". You can say "WELL SIGMA IS HIGH" but it doesn't matter. Statistical tests are robust. They take sigma into account.

I am beginning to feel like you don't know anything about statistics at all.

On September 03 2010 11:20 Tray wrote:


The 'fact' is that it is dismissed as an outlier. Without any debate. Those numbers are not relevant. Use your value in the guy above me's calculation. You will see that you cannot say with a 95% certainty that they are overrepresented. Period.

Goodbye idiots. I hope they lock this thread because people are only getting dumber coming here.

On September 03 2010 11:18 Tray wrote:
You're right, this is math. But this is not a correct analysis. You're actually arguing something completely different. I know you're not very smart so you don't probably know that. You probably think you compared the same thing as me.

You're taking the expected number of terrans per player to be .3. Thus if there are 20 people you're saying that 6 of them are expected to be Terran. The actual number is 10 in this case so you're saying that since that's 4 points away from 6, it only has a 5% chance to be true.

Now lets take the real number of % of players who play Terran. 40%. Using your same analysis we would expect out of the top 20 people, 8 of them should be Terran. Now do your cumulative probability and tell me that it's still outside the norm.

On September 03 2010 11:18 Tray wrote:


You're right, this is math. But this is not a correct analysis. You're actually arguing something completely different. I know you're not very smart so you don't probably know that. You probably think you compared the same thing as me.

You're taking the expected number of terrans per player to be .3. Thus if there are 20 people you're saying that 6 of them are expected to be Terran. The actual number is 10 in this case so you're saying that since that's 4 points away from 6, it only has a 5% chance to be true.

Now lets take the real number of % of players who play Terran. 40%. Using your same analysis we would expect out of the top 20 people, 8 of them should be Terran. Now do your cumulative probability and tell me that it's still outside the norm.

There I just used your own analysis to prove you wrong. Feel free to do me now with mine from before.

On September 03 2010 10:44 Tray wrote:


Dude you are incredibly stupid. My analysis is correct. Assuming Terran should make up 33% of the distrubtion at the top is NOT correct. It should be EQUAL to the total % of players that play terran. Period. It's not debatable.

As the sample drops, the error in the 'real' value increases and becomes less accurate. Period.

Stay in school.

On September 03 2010 11:01 Tray wrote:
These numbers take into account the total race distribution relative to the % of people that play that race. This however does not include the error.

To find the error simply take the equation I just gave, 1/ sqroot(n) to find the error in those numbers. Now I forget from here if you would have to divide it by 3, or do a more complicated statistical analysis to figure out how much error applies to each normalized race %, but I'm sure if you read the wikipedia page on sampling you can figure out the right way to account for it.

It doesn't matter though because it's obvious from how much the error increases as the sample drops that the 'real' numbers will vary so much at the low population it'll look something like this (with 95% confidence interval); T = 10-50%, Z = 5-35%, P = 10-50%. Very obviously not reliable data because of the huge volitility. More complicated analysis can be done, but it's not necessary.