EPTTop Tier Korean ZvT and TvZ TLPD statistics - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
S2Glow
Singapore1042 Posts
| ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
On March 16 2012 11:35 xrapture wrote: Dongraegu 72% win rate vs P. No Terran close to this. Quick make thread! No Terran except Bomber, STC and others with 75+% Darn close the thread! | ||
|
andyrau
13015 Posts
how is that HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE, especially when tlpd factors in past w/l when T was completely dominant during 2011? | ||
|
hawthwang
United States107 Posts
| ||
|
Angel_
United States1617 Posts
and, i fail to see the point you are attempting to make? is this some sort of veiled zerg are underpowered in zvt because they have a lower win rate against top terrans than top terrans have in tvz high argument? | ||
|
neoghaleon55
United States7435 Posts
On March 16 2012 11:46 Angel_ wrote: tiny sample size. and, i fail to see the point you are attempting to make? is this some sort of veiled zerg are underpowered in zvt because they have a lower win rate against top terrans than top terrans have in tvz high argument? The sample size is fine. Go read the article posted in Edit 1 of the OP. | ||
|
neoghaleon55
United States7435 Posts
On March 16 2012 11:33 WeaponX.7 wrote: I find it very unlikely that these stats are all current patch... and therfore pretty useless. In that regards...the entire TLPD is useless and we should just discard it. I disagree. | ||
|
Corsica
Ukraine1854 Posts
On March 16 2012 11:24 Mentalizor wrote: When you "only" have a 50 game sample (DRG's ZvT is 50games) small mistakes, missmicroes can easilly cost 2-5 games. if just 5 games a lost due to mistakes, that will alter your statistics by 10% which is pretty much. Get bigger samples before comparing statistics. They are just not viable to look at. exactly this! The more games you play, the harder it is to keep higher ratio... Also the person who says that you lose 1/3 , and 64% is bad, go kill yourself, because these people play the best players in the world, so even when someone like DRG plays lower tier Korean he can lose at least 1 game... User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
MaNaVoId
492 Posts
| ||
|
Sayer
United States403 Posts
| ||
|
neoghaleon55
United States7435 Posts
On March 16 2012 11:49 Corsica wrote: exactly this! The more games you play, the harder it is to keep higher ratio... Also the person who says that you lose 1/3 , and 64% is bad, go kill yourself, because these people play the best players in the world, so even when someone like DRG plays lower tier Korean he can lose at least 1 game... I get the feeling you didn't read the opening post at all.... Take a deep breath, go read Edit 1 in the OP. and nobody's saying that 64% is bad. | ||
|
corpuscle
United States1967 Posts
On March 16 2012 11:41 hunts wrote: 64% may be good for a sub par player, but nnot for a champion like DRG or nestea Haha what? Flash has a 72% overall career winrate and he's considered the best player of all time. 64% is really good, it essentially means that win you almost every bo3 (winning 66% of your games means you average to 2-1) and it gets better for longer series | ||
|
Azarkon
United States21060 Posts
| ||
|
red4ce
United States7313 Posts
| ||
|
zefreak
United States2731 Posts
On March 16 2012 11:14 neoghaleon55 wrote: Edit 1: The optimal minimum sample size is 20. Above 20, the n value does not relevantly contribute over all (n-1) to the statistics. I'm sure you remember from your AP stats class and college. Here's an article to refresh your memory http://www.ime.usp.br/~abe/ICOTS7/Proceedings/PDFs/InvitedPapers/3J3_ALIA.pdf The statistics presented in the OP are greater than 20 sample sizes and thus are relevant. Are you stupid? The article you quoted is not relevant at all, as the assumptions made to arrive at 20 being the correct sample size is relevant only in that specific domain (national surveys or something, not sure where you found it or why you think it is applicable). Read Kahneman and Tversky's work on sample size and selection bias. 20 games played seems to be way short of the mark for any meaningful winrate analysis in starcraft, and your entire post is pretty much rendered worthless. | ||
|
schmutttt
Australia3856 Posts
| ||
|
00Visor
4337 Posts
So as a top zerg it is hard to maintain a good percentage if you play MMA/MVP/MKP/.. a lot. Terrans playing Zerg, there is DRG, Leenock, there was Nestea. But thats about it. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
Woops nvm you did! | ||
|
ETisME
12497 Posts
The over 20 requirement is for cluster analysis, something that you aren't doing because you are not trying to make any clusters out from the data set. The over 20 thing you talked about is just for normal hypothesis testing, which you aren't doing. You need to calculate out the optimal minimal sample size based upon your confidence interval etc in short, you need to calculate out a sample size that truely represent the population. Merely 50 games out of his entire ZvT history does not make sense | ||
|
ZjiublingZ
United Arab Emirates439 Posts
2) Even the best Zergs still lose to cute Terran all ins or timings that haven't been seen before or are very rare. Many of the best Terrans simply do not lose to Zerg all ins or timings. They might take damage, but they do not out right lose to it. Terran economies and armies grow more linearly, and thus they are a less fragile race in that sense, and Zerg has very few effective all ins/timings against Terran, which makes it much easier to account for them. Disclaimer: I am not implying anything about balance with #2 | ||
| ||
