| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Cyberonic
Germany80 Posts
On May 04 2012 15:34 arbitrageur wrote: LMAO. A criticism of the use of statistics with PURE WORDS. If this was an assignment topic in a statistics subject at university you would get 0%. So what you say is you need statistics to prove statistics are used wrongly? | ||
|
surfinbird1
Germany999 Posts
| ||
|
RoberP
United Kingdom101 Posts
99% of the time this deals with winrates and balance, 99% of the people commenting on it have no clue how to interpret these numbers Scumbag Drabzalver - rages at false statistics - makes up statistics in the first paragraph... | ||
|
Rannasha
Netherlands2398 Posts
| ||
|
Surili
United Kingdom1141 Posts
On May 04 2012 09:00 Cyberonic wrote: - Fallacy: advantages at certain times of matchups expressed in graphs There are also a lot of graphs posted which supposedly indicate that some races may have an advantage at certain matchups. Oh boy do people misread what these graphs mean. Take this bad boy. A naïve way to read it would simply be 'Hmm, Z has an early game advantage in ZvP, then it becomes about even, then P has a slight advantage up to the end, then Z again.', wrong; look closely, what does the graph actually say, it says this: IF a ZvP game ends in the 0-5 minute range, the chance is 60% it ends in Z's favour. Now the 'if' is so bloody important here, the game needn't end. Now, everyone of course realizes that that part is caused by early pools. Does Zerg really have a large advantage at that point? Can Zerg force a win at that point if they want to, are early pools overpowered? No, not at all, so what is going on? Imagine a ZvP, Z decides to 7pool, P doesn't scout soon enough, lings get in, kill every probe, traalalala, P GG's. Game over in the first 5 minutes in Z's favour. Okay, imagine a ZvP, Z decides to 7pool, P scouts in time, gets his wall up, damn, Z's like 'fuck man, shouldn't have done that'. But not necesarily GG's unless IdrA, the game goes on, Z however plays at such a disadvantage that in the next 5-10 minutes surely P will claim his victory unless P messes up. See the fallacy? That Z has that 'early game advantage' doesn't mean that Z is more powerful or that 7pools are too powerful, it just means that IF the game immediately ends due to a 7pool it will most likely be in Z's favour. If the 7pool fails, the game doesn't end at that point, Z will most likely stay in the game and play from a significant disadvantage to lose later. It is a grave statistical error of the magnitude of interpreting 'If a 8 year old child dies, the chance is the greatest he dies from a car swoop' as 'It is very likely 8 year old children die from car swoops'. The graph doesn't even say how likely it is that the game ends at certain intervals. For all you it's far more likely for P to win in the late game than in the mid game, even though the graph indicates that if the game ends in the late game, the chance is higher that Z takes it. And even so, that still says nothing about advantages of races at certain times. One would assume that if a race is likely to win at time X, that race enjoys an advantage slightly before that time, no? What would be far more intersting, though also not conclusive, would be a graph which outlines 'How large was the percentage of Z wins in ZvP at each interval', which is fundamentally different from 'at each interval, if the game ends, how often does it end into Z's favour in ZvP'. My bet is that because 7pools are actually quite rare, it would not at all show the huge spike for Z in the early game. But I do have to say that THIS section, was a very good point, that people completely misunderstand. Frankly i like any post that rejects that we have any real understanding of imbalance. | ||
|
GeneralSnoop
United States142 Posts
| ||
|
Chenz
Sweden1197 Posts
| ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
| ||
|
Roxor9999
Netherlands771 Posts
| ||
|
Grohg
United States243 Posts
Keep your ego in check...your high horse is a lot shorter than you think. If you'd stop to look up you'd be able to see that there are plenty of people on your level and above you and your pretentious comments. | ||
|
halfies
United Kingdom327 Posts
On May 04 2012 09:16 Ripper41 wrote: Well he explains... it's worse, he spelled it that way intentionally. still, he makes some good points in the substance of what he says. so hes spelling pretentious wrong because hes pretentious? oh the irony. he certainly doesnt seem to say anything wrong, but theres not much thats really enlightening either | ||
|
straycat
230 Posts
| ||
|
Chunhyang
Bangladesh1389 Posts
On May 04 2012 18:29 straycat wrote: Please, could you all stop being so insulted (wrongly insulted at that, since it was aimed at redditors in the first place) and actually try to read it? Contrary to what many have posted in their attempts to bring some of the hurt from their bleeding egos back to the proxied OP, it was an interesting read with interesting perspectives. That most people already knew. | ||
|
Cyberonic
Germany80 Posts
If that was true, why would there be so many posts containing balance whine with "supporting" their viewpoints by exactly the type of graphs criticized? | ||
|
KuKri
Germany168 Posts
On May 04 2012 18:55 Cyberonic wrote: If that was true, why would there be so many posts containing balance whine with "supporting" their viewpoints by exactly the type of graphs criticized? Hey, Mr. Statistician, your degree in statistics should give you the answer. | ||
|
XenoX101
Australia729 Posts
On May 04 2012 18:55 Cyberonic wrote: If that was true, why would there be so many posts containing balance whine with "supporting" their viewpoints by exactly the type of graphs criticized? This is the biggest issue I have with people saying this is 'common knowledge', if people were/are already well aware of the specific issues with these graphs (i.e. not just for example the general idea of what a confounding variable is) then many of the stat-pointing balance whine posts would either A) not exist or B) not be taken as seriously by the majority. Yet people freely point to these graphs as a beacon of balance truth whenever they get posted and nobody says a word. Also, if these issues were common knowledge, then why haven't statistic-based threads such as the 'win rate over game length' one addressed them specifically? This kind of scrutiny should be common practice in statistics threads, and if it isn't mentioned by the OP then posters should be critical of this kind of omission because of how integral it is to the meaningfulness of the statistics. The winrates post is an even worse example of a statistics thread, created completely devoid of any statistical analysis whatsoever and with very few people being critical of the graph and none of them being critical of the thread. Why do simple undeveloped threads always get removed yet simple undeveloped graphs persist? Regardless of whether people were aware of what OP said or not, it really needs to start being put into practice if we want to have proper discussions about trends in SC2. | ||
|
Cyberonic
Germany80 Posts
On May 04 2012 19:06 KuKri wrote: Hey, Mr. Statistician, your degree in statistics should give you the answer. haha, good point. However note that OP/author are not the same! | ||
|
Lord_Maximus
Denmark46 Posts
| ||
|
straycat
230 Posts
1. Sigh. 2. QED. | ||
|
C[h]ili
Germany167 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
OSC
OSC
Replay Cast
Escore
CrankTV Team League
OSC
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
