EPTRandom Mirror Match Up Percentages Off - Page 7
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
jeebuzzx
Canada365 Posts
| ||
|
Zeke50100
United States2220 Posts
| ||
|
JDub
United States976 Posts
On April 11 2011 05:33 jeebuzzx wrote: Again, this would have no effect on the percentage of mirror match-ups that a RANDOM PLAYER would get. If you play R, it doesn't matter what the distribution is for the races of your opponents. You should still expect ~33% mirror match-ups.map preferences might be affecting the ratio of races you face | ||
|
sansalvador
Austria308 Posts
| ||
|
shinarit
Hungary900 Posts
On April 11 2011 04:56 AmericanUmlaut wrote: This whole thread is incredible, but as a programmer, this post is my favorite. d Pseudo-random, by definition, is not random but statistically cannot be distinguished from random. A pseudo-random number generator that created numbers more evenly distributed than real random numbers would by that very fact reveal itself as non-random and could then be predicted to some extent without knowledge of the algorithm used ot generate the numbers. Thus, the generator would not be pseudo-random. Thus, you are full of crap. QED. I think you will be surprised and your world will be crushed: pseudo random generators are not random generators. They are ofcourse cannot be distinguished, but thats because random generator cannot be identified in a finite sample. But what we were talking about were the random generators of our computers. And if you ever tried one of them (as a programmer you should have, i know i did), they produce a very even distribution, even in low size sample. Real random CAN produce it as well, but it tends not to. So whats with the crap and all the crunchertalk? You demonstrate nothing, just throw in stuff everyone knows and which are irrelevant to the topic. | ||
|
Tim17
France39 Posts
| ||
|
Probe1
United States17920 Posts
Anyway, I seem to get a lot of mirror matches but i think random has a lot of weirdness about it. Last season I would pick random and get zerg 5-10 times in a row regardless of what my opponent was. I don't know if its perfect randomness and such. | ||
|
savagebeavers
Canada108 Posts
| ||
|
LambtrOn
United States671 Posts
| ||
|
JDub
United States976 Posts
On April 11 2011 05:41 savagebeavers wrote: I would say i hit about 75% zvz this season sitting at around mid master. Out of about 60 games i have hit 3 Terrans On April 11 2011 05:44 LambtrOn wrote: I wouldn't say I've had a lot of TvT recently. TvP on the other hand seems to be around 60-70% for me. Did either of you read the OP? This is about RANDOM PLAYERS ONLY. If you are hitting a lot of P that has nothing to do with the amount of mirror match-ups that a random player will see. You are posting in the wrong thread. | ||
|
Mastermind
Canada7096 Posts
edit: this didnt start in season 2 though. This has been going on for about 2 months I would say. | ||
|
AmericanUmlaut
Germany2577 Posts
On April 11 2011 05:37 shinarit wrote: I think you will be surprised and your world will be crushed: pseudo random generators are not random generators. They are ofcourse cannot be distinguished, but thats because random generator cannot be identified in a finite sample. But what we were talking about were the random generators of our computers. And if you ever tried one of them (as a programmer you should have, i know i did), they produce a very even distribution, even in low size sample. Real random CAN produce it as well, but it tends not to. So whats with the crap and all the crunchertalk? You demonstrate nothing, just throw in stuff everyone knows and which are irrelevant to the topic. I was pointing out that your comment on pseudorandom algorithms was logically contradictory, because a pseudorandom generator that could be shown to have a more even distribution of values than a truly random source of numbers would by definition not be pseudorandom. This demonstrates that you either don't understand the words that you are using, or you're intentionally saying things that aren't true. Your comment about pseudorandom behavior producing a very even distribution, "even in a low size sample," is a perfect example of the silliness of this entire thread, which probably only hasn't been closed yet because the mods were enjoying the TSL. No statistical observation based on a low sample size has any significance. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
On April 11 2011 05:29 CakeOrI)eath wrote: P vs + Show Spoiler + W L P 2 3 T 2 2 Z 5 4 T vs + Show Spoiler + W L P 2 1 T 4 4 Z 6 1 Z vs + Show Spoiler + W L P 0 3 T 2 1 Z 3 6 I've stared logging all my games since reset in a spreadsheet. When I first read your post I thought you were crazy, but my (admittedly small) dataset agrees with yours. 22/51 = 43% I'm so rusty on my statistics I can't give you a precise confidence interval, but I think its a safe guess that 43% is well within it. This means I still think you're crazy but I'll be interested in tracking this over the whole season. And you hit 11/51 P and 25/51 Z, so what's your point? You can't conclude jack shit from any of this data. | ||
|
Nazarid
United States445 Posts
| ||
|
darklordjac
Canada2231 Posts
| ||
|
OpAndroid
United States84 Posts
| ||
|
Zaqwert
United States411 Posts
It does this so zealously it seeks out patterns where none exist. Whether it's seeing shaes in the clouds or "patterns" in random numbers or events. There's always a "pattern" if you really want to find one. "omg a bunch of even numbers in a row" "omg a bunch of odd numbers in a row" "omg a bunch of multiples of X in a row" etc. Sample size, variance, etc. etc. Another thing to bear in mind is that there are hundreds of thousands of people playing. Just due to the sheer number there are going to be some people who have very rare looking things happen to them. | ||
|
Tossup
United States208 Posts
| ||
|
neSix
United States1772 Posts
I think 33% is not what you should be rolling for mirrors as random. I think it would be more like 11%, or 1/3 of 1/3. Allow me to explain: Assume your possible race is set X, containing A, B, C. Assume your opponents possible races are set Y, coincidentally also containing A, B, C. Assuming that a random value is picked from set X to determine your race, you have an approximately 33% chance of rolling any given race. If at the same time, your opponent's race is also determined by randomly pulling a value from set Y, they also have a 33% chance of rolling any given race. With these assumptions, I think we can state that you are 33% likely to get A from set X, but only 33% of THOSE times that A is pulled from set X will A also be pulled from set Y. Consequently, we must conclude that if you play random you should only be getting mirrors about 1/9 of the time (1/3 * 1/3). Is that not correct? Edit: I'm just pointing this out to say that (as you have correctly noted) if your sample size were big enough to be significant, mirror matchups for random players would be occurring statistically too often if it were more than 11%, not 33%. | ||
|
eVolvE342
157 Posts
| ||
| ||
