EPTMetalopolis prone to close positions, why? - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
I apologize to everyone in this thread for taking the OP seriously. My mod senses are definitely off today. -- Chill | ||
|
ch33psh33p
7650 Posts
| ||
|
eLiE
Canada1039 Posts
I'll give the book example for clarity. If you flip a coin and it lands on one side 9 times out of 10, you can assume that the coin is likely rigged. Any less, and it's more likely that the coin landed the way it did due to chance. EDIT: frozenserpent beat me to it, but a higher sample size always improves generalizability | ||
|
Deja Thoris
South Africa646 Posts
On February 16 2011 04:52 magha wrote: Taking sample sizes of 100 would prove that nobody in history has ever won a lottery. I get your point but the sample size could increase to 1,000 and show the same trend, both in terms of starting positons and lottery winners. It proves that 100 or 1000 is an appropriate sample size for what he wanted to do. More is always better but sometimes enough is enough. | ||
|
Zedders
Canada450 Posts
On February 16 2011 04:52 magha wrote: Taking sample sizes of 100 would prove that nobody in history has ever won a lottery. there is a 1 in 1 million ++++ chance to win a lotttery ticket usually....theres a 1/3 chance that you will spawn close positions... | ||
|
ALPINA
3791 Posts
On February 16 2011 04:58 Frozenserpent wrote: People are fucking retarded and need to learn some basic statistics before they say something like "not big enough sample size". Even 50 can be sufficient to obtain a p-value < 5%. In this case, p-value is definitely low enough to reject the assumption that it's 1/3rd. Obviously if you want the exact ratios you'd want to expand on the larger sample size, but this is conclusive to determine that it's not 1/3rds. Sample size of 100 proves nothing. Don't call people retarded and get a clue about what you are talking. | ||
|
Lonyo
United Kingdom3884 Posts
21 close positions 15 close air 17 cross Which is pretty reasonable for random. All ladder games, saved indiscriminantly (I save all my replays). So @ OP, it's just you, although I did notice that it was a lot more even form the earlier replays (the 53 came from October to January). | ||
|
mesohawny
Canada193 Posts
I don't know why people are bothering to categorize close-air and "close"... they're both close, ones just a little closer by air... the ground distance is roughly the same... in this case the close positions would make up 3/4 of the games because there are more possibilities to spawn close positions, rather than just the ONE (or two if you count the reverse) for cross-positions. someone correct me if im wrong. | ||
|
TBO
Germany1350 Posts
On February 16 2011 04:58 Frozenserpent wrote: People are fucking retarded and need to learn some basic statistics before they say something like "not big enough sample size". Even 50 can be sufficient to obtain a p-value < 5%. In this case, p-value is definitely low enough to reject the assumption that it's 1/3rd. Obviously if you want the exact ratios you'd want to expand on the larger sample size, but this is conclusive to determine that it's not 1/3rds. The problem here is that you have millions of players who play 100 games on metalopolis and a few of them will get extreme results (and those will post in the forums), even if it is 1/3 chance. If you have 100.000 people throwing a coin 15 times, you will get quite a few (6 in average) who will get a 15-0 or 0-15 result. Only if lots of people get the same results as the topic creator, one could assume it is conclusive. | ||
|
tealc
109 Posts
| ||
|
Lobotomist
United States1541 Posts
| ||
|
Soma.bokforlag
Sweden448 Posts
On February 16 2011 04:58 Frozenserpent wrote: People are fucking retarded and need to learn some basic statistics before they say something like "not big enough sample size". Even 50 can be sufficient to obtain a p-value < 5%. In this case, p-value is definitely low enough to reject the assumption that it's 1/3rd. Obviously if you want the exact ratios you'd want to expand on the larger sample size, but this is conclusive to determine that it's not 1/3rds. you shouldnt call people retarded when you obviously doesnt understand statistics. if you make enough studdies some of them will turn out faulty results even if the method is correct 99.9% of the time. in this example, it is possible that the author of the thread felt "damn, i get alot of close positions" and therefore examined his stats.. the rest 99.99% of players which have a more even distribution never gave it a thought and probably are closer to correct ratios edit. TBO was quicker than me.. | ||
|
thrawn2112
United States6918 Posts
| ||
|
Immersion_
United Kingdom794 Posts
| ||
|
Deadeight
United Kingdom1629 Posts
On February 16 2011 04:58 Frozenserpent wrote: People are fucking retarded and need to learn some basic statistics before they say something like "not big enough sample size". Even 50 can be sufficient to obtain a p-value < 5%. In this case, p-value is definitely low enough to reject the assumption that it's 1/3rd. Obviously if you want the exact ratios you'd want to expand on the larger sample size, but this is conclusive to determine that it's not 1/3rds. I know that if you analyse it statistically 100 samples is enough. The chance of getting that ratio is pretty low. And as Frozenserpent said the P value would be low. But (if I understand OPs post correctly) the sample was not random. He looked at his last 100 games that he'd played on it right? Or did he play an extra 100 games? Out of all the people who play it's pretty likely that this will have happened to someone. And when it does happen to someone that person will notice it. Would be good if there was a way to check this without checking individual replays. | ||
|
aristarchus
United States652 Posts
| ||
NonY
8751 Posts
On February 16 2011 05:02 TBO wrote: The problem here is that you have millions of players who play 100 games on metalopolis and a few of them will get extreme results (and those will post in the forums), even if it is 1/3 chance. If you have 100.000 people throwing a coin 15 times, you will get quite a few (6 in average) who will get a 15-0 or 0-15 result. Only if lots of people get the same results as the topic creator, one could assume it is conclusive. On February 16 2011 05:05 Soma.bokforlag wrote: you shouldnt call people retarded when you obviously doesnt understand statistics. if you make enough studdies some of them will turn out faulty results even if the method is correct 99.9% of the time. in this example, it is possible that the author of the thread felt "damn, i get alot of close positions" and therefore examined his stats.. the rest 99.99% of players which have a more even distribution never gave it a thought and probably are closer to correct ratios edit. TBO was quicker than me.. Ah, you guys aren't likely to get your PHD's when you can't even understand the OP's testing methods. He didn't examine the games that gave him the feeling that he got close positions. He got that feeling and ignored those games and loaded up 100 more games against the computer and recorded those results. | ||
|
Algar
United States27 Posts
I'm just glad to see other people as frustrated with these types of responses as I usually am. | ||
|
eLiE
Canada1039 Posts
On February 16 2011 05:02 TBO wrote: The problem here is that you have millions of players who play 100 games on metalopolis and a few of them will get extreme results (and those will post in the forums), even if it is 1/3 chance. If you have 100.000 people throwing a coin 15 times, you will get quite a few (6 in average) who will get a 15-0 or 0-15 result. Only if lots of people get the same results as the topic creator, one could assume it is conclusive. It doesn't matter who plays the games because the random spawn placement is standardized, and you're just looking at whether the map generally spawns people at close positions. It doesn't make sense that it would randomly pick people to always spawn close, and it's more likely to be a general problem, if there even is one (I don't think there is). And I wouldn't say 6 out of 100,000 people is a lot. That's 0.00006% of people hitting the jackpot, statistically insignificant. | ||
|
NonY
8751 Posts
On February 16 2011 05:09 aristarchus wrote: TBO wins the thread. This is definitely a statistically significant result, but I still don't believe it. Lots of people probably try this stuff, and a small number get really weird results and then post here. (This is a problem with academic research too - the way you settle it is to do more tests independently, and also to have some healthy skepticism about the likelihood that blizzard screwed something this simple up in that weird a way in the first place.) How does he win the thread? While he makes a relevant point, he hasn't provided the data to prove that the phenomenon he claims is happening is actually happening. At the moment, he's relying on faith that nothing has caused a problem in SC2's ability to give random positions on Metalopolis. | ||
|
ALPINA
3791 Posts
On February 16 2011 05:09 Liquid`Tyler wrote: Ah, you guys aren't likely to get your PHD's when you can't even understand the OP's testing methods. He didn't examine the games that gave him the feeling that he got close positions. He got that feeling and ignored those games and loaded up 100 more games against the computer and recorded those results. So he could still be wrong, 100 games cannot prove anything, can they? People are saying that even if the chance of getting close positions is 1/3 the statistics made from 100 games can still be wrong.. | ||
| ||
