Warrior General Games

Originally posted by SunshineMan89
It's called an expected value. Puma isn't saying that you're guaranteed 3-4 games, he's saying that given that you have a 78% chance of having a good streaky day on any individual day, if you were to calculate the most likely scenario at the beginning of the season, it would involve you having several bad streaky days.

This is really basic statistics--you can't just as easily have 16 good games. That's a much lower probability. All we're doing is taking the summation of unrelated individual statistical events and looking at the probability distribution.

Obviously if you're calculating these probabilities halfway through the season the expected values change, but based on the number of games left, not conditional on the past results.


So if you wanted to give someone an accurate depiction of the costs and benefits of using Streaky, you could say 'in any given individual game you're highly likely to have a good day. However, over the course of a season you will most likely have anywhere from 3-5 bad days, with the number fluctuating depending on your luck. If you were to play the season an infinite number of times, on average you would have around 3.5 bad days.'

But to say that it's at all likely that someone will have 16 good days is false--there's a 98% chance it won't happen, and simply because it's happened to you doesn't mean it's an outcome someone should reasonably expect when choosing Streaky.




So, yes?

Originally posted by jakobnielsen
So, yes?

Yes.

jakob,

basically the only thing you need to know is this -- are you willing to accept a 5% increase to all your stats in an expected 12-13 games a season and a 5% decrease to all your stats in an expected 3-4? After that, it's an opinion thing. Most people would say yes.


I do not understand this thread at all. I'm pretty sure that one person in this thread took one statistics class once, for whatever reason, only retained one thing.


The rest of you, stop entertaining this foolishness

Yup,
still I did not hear many arguments, why is it good for D-line, opposed to O-line, compared to QB or whatever position one might draw into it, which I was kinda hoping for.

I did however enjoy the statistics

But...definetly adding streaky for D-line too

Originally posted by jakobnielsen
Yup,
still I did not hear many arguments, why is it good for D-line, opposed to O-line, compared to QB or whatever position one might draw into it, which I was kinda hoping for.

I did however enjoy the statistics

But...definetly adding streaky for D-line too

Ok, if that's what you want to hear.

It is good for the D-Line because you are getting a nice 5% boost on all the right attributes. I remind people all the time unless you're a starter and your DC force starters on 3rd and 4th downs, putting 15 VAs in Pass Rusher is a waste when you aren't even playing in those situations, or you rarely plays in those situations. Streaky, once you're boosted, is good for every play in the game that you are involved in.

Especially people with TechM that they don't realize most times opposing OL has almost as much agi as you have, and Streaky boost will help to increase your chance of being 10% more than the opponent OL and get that TechM activated.

Since Streaky boosts your stats across the board in the beginning of the game, it will also help your other boosts more: Bull Rusher/First Step/Tunnel Vision/Shed Block etc. that anything that uses your attribute points as calculations for bonuses, Streaky increases the effectiveness of that even more.

Of course mind you that this is all assuming you're on a good day, which is 78% chance for a good game every game. Are you willing to take that risk?

Originally posted by whatje
jakob,

basically the only thing you need to know is this -- are you willing to accept a 5% increase to all your stats in an expected 12-13 games a season and a 5% decrease to all your stats in an expected 3-4? After that, it's an opinion thing. Most people would say yes.


I do not understand this thread at all. I'm pretty sure that one person in this thread took one statistics class once, for whatever reason, only retained one thing.


The rest of you, stop entertaining this foolishness

It is real interesting that many people here can't see any logic and appreciate answers they don't understand, and resort to personal insults and attacks. Now that is a foolishness that I will not get involve with.

"are you willing to accept a 5% increase to all your stats in an expected 12-13 games a season and a 5% decrease to all your stats in an expected 3-4? "

Again this statement is misleading. If you mean "expected" that it *may* happen, then I guess yes. If you mean "expected" that it will definitely or very likely or highly likely or whatever you want to say, then the answer is no. Every player has their own luck and chances to work out. Statistics doesn't calculate and guarantees the likelihood of it happening, it only measures the overall chances of it happening, but however it happens it happens.

Like I said, most of my players had only 1 bad game all season, once once did one player had 2 bad games. Now, would I be shock if this season my Streaky players have 6 or 7 bad games? No, it happens.

But to tell people to "expect" 3-4 bad games is misleading. The best answer is to tell them you have 78% chance for good game and 22% chance for bad game for every individual game and are you willing to take the overall risk with those numbers in mind?

This also explains why are some people so damn lucky when it comes to lottery, a simple google will show some people win more than once, even a few times, in lottery draws. Now statistically those are astronomical odds for that to happen (winning multiple lotteries), however, it happened.

Using numbers from averages, percentages, and making them absolute reality is one of the biggest mistakes that any person can make in society, and it also explains many bad decisions (especially finance and stock market) people make in their life time.

But hey, that's fine if you want to believe in numbers that you don't really understand, and go ahead with insulting others that just trying to help.

Originally posted by jakobnielsen
Yup,
still I did not hear many arguments, why is it good for D-line, opposed to O-line, compared to QB or whatever position one might draw into it, which I was kinda hoping for.

I did however enjoy the statistics

But...definetly adding streaky for D-line too

there's not really a reason it's good for DLine and not OLine. It's not any more or less effective for any position...but the consequences of a 'bad day' are amplified at certain positions, I think.

If your QB (if you only have one) has a bad day, it could end in a pretty disastrous sim for your team. This is probably somewhat negated by having multiple QBs, but could still be a big problem since there's very little way to adjust mid-game (maybe auto-adjust?).

A lot of people also worry about putting streaky on CBs and safeties, generally because they think a CB or safety on a bad streaky day will get torched and give up big plays.




Originally posted by BiggerBlue
It is real interesting that many people here can't see any logic and appreciate answers they don't understand, and resort to personal insults and attacks. Now that is a foolishness that I will not get involve with.

"are you willing to accept a 5% increase to all your stats in an expected 12-13 games a season and a 5% decrease to all your stats in an expected 3-4? "

Again this statement is misleading. If you mean "expected" that it *may* happen, then I guess yes. If you mean "expected" that it will definitely or very likely or highly likely or whatever you want to say, then the answer is no. Every player has their own luck and chances to work out. Statistics doesn't calculate and guarantees the likelihood of it happening, it only measures the overall chances of it happening, but however it happens it happens.

Like I said, most of my players had only 1 bad game all season, once once did one player had 2 bad games. Now, would I be shock if this season my Streaky players have 6 or 7 bad games? No, it happens.

But to tell people to "expect" 3-4 bad games is misleading. The best answer is to tell them you have 78% chance for good game and 22% chance for bad game for every individual game and are you willing to take the overall risk with those numbers in mind?

This also explains why are some people so damn lucky when it comes to lottery, a simple google will show some people win more than once, even a few times, in lottery draws. Now statistically those are astronomical odds for that to happen (winning multiple lotteries), however, it happened.

Using numbers from averages, percentages, and making them absolute reality is one of the biggest mistakes that any person can make in society, and it also explains many bad decisions (especially finance and stock market) people make in their life time.

But hey, that's fine if you want to believe in numbers that you don't really understand, and go ahead with insulting others that just trying to help.



i'm not even gonna respond to this with logic because i'm pretty thoroughly convinced that everyone here's just wasting effort trying to teach you something you refuse to learn.

however, if you feel 'personally attacked', i apologize.

And I guess you could make that argument for parts of the O-line also.

Your LT has a bad, away goes the weak side run game, and your QB sits on his ass a lot...

Originally posted by BiggerBlue
It is real interesting that many people here can't see any logic and appreciate answers they don't understand, and resort to personal insults and attacks. Now that is a foolishness that I will not get involve with.

"are you willing to accept a 5% increase to all your stats in an expected 12-13 games a season and a 5% decrease to all your stats in an expected 3-4? "

Again this statement is misleading. If you mean "expected" that it *may* happen, then I guess yes. If you mean "expected" that it will definitely or very likely or highly likely or whatever you want to say, then the answer is no. Every player has their own luck and chances to work out. Statistics doesn't calculate and guarantees the likelihood of it happening, it only measures the overall chances of it happening, but however it happens it happens.

Like I said, most of my players had only 1 bad game all season, once once did one player had 2 bad games. Now, would I be shock if this season my Streaky players have 6 or 7 bad games? No, it happens.

But to tell people to "expect" 3-4 bad games is misleading. The best answer is to tell them you have 78% chance for good game and 22% chance for bad game for every individual game and are you willing to take the overall risk with those numbers in mind?

This also explains why are some people so damn lucky when it comes to lottery, a simple google will show some people win more than once, even a few times, in lottery draws. Now statistically those are astronomical odds for that to happen (winning multiple lotteries), however, it happened.

Using numbers from averages, percentages, and making them absolute reality is one of the biggest mistakes that any person can make in society, and it also explains many bad decisions (especially finance and stock market) people make in their life time.

But hey, that's fine if you want to believe in numbers that you don't really understand, and go ahead with insulting others that just trying to help.



You don't know what expected means. Shhhh. Stop trying to confuse people.

Originally posted by BiggerBlue
It is real interesting that many people here can't see any logic and appreciate answers they don't understand, and resort to personal insults and attacks. Now that is a foolishness that I will not get involve with.



Hmm. Who resorted to personal insults?

Let's see....

Insult:
Originally posted by BiggerBlue
It's obvious I need to talk in kindergarten language, so I will


More Insults:
Originally posted by BiggerBlue
I seriously hope you don't care about it because I'm tired of trying to teach simple math to a... well.... let's just hope you're not out of public school system yet because clearly the nation has failed you if you did.
...
Please please tell me you're not stupid enough to say ...

Originally posted by jakobnielsen
Yup,
still I did not hear many arguments, why is it good for D-line, opposed to O-line, compared to QB or whatever position one might draw into it, which I was kinda hoping for.jakob, here's how you think of it:

For a player, you have a really high chance of a good day and a low chance of a bad day. So, the question is: for which positions is a bad day a REALLY bad thing, and for which positions is a bad day able to be masked?

For example, WRs having bad days are fine, they just don't get targeted and only WRs on good days get targeted. Similarly, for DL if you're thinking about pass rushing it's ok if a DL has a bad day because at worst, he just gets blocked more.

On the flip side, when a CB has a bad day, he's going to get picked on because of what the QB targets (sort of like being on the opposite side of Revis Island).

So for your position, think about whether the loss of having a bad day is much worse than the gain of having a good day. That tells you whether Streaky is useful.

Originally posted by BiggerBlue


"are you willing to accept a 5% increase to all your stats in an expected 12-13 games a season and a 5% decrease to all your stats in an expected 3-4? "


But to tell people to "expect" 3-4 bad games is misleading.

But hey, that's fine if you want to believe in numbers that you don't really understand, and go ahead with insulting others that just trying to help.



The first sentence represents exactly the choice that you are making.

The second sentence is a very reasonable expectation and not misleading at all.

It's obvious from this thread that you are relying on "gut instinct" or some phenomenon other than math or statistics. That's fine, Vegas would go out of business if it weren't for folks like you.

But don't confuse whatever it is you are saying with math or statistics because you are dead wrong in that arena.

Some fun (and accurate) facts about 15 points in streaky:

Your chance of making your streaky roll for three consecutive games in a row is 47%

Your chance of making your streaky roll for 16 games in a row is 1.9%

The single most likely result is that you will have exactly 13 success and 3 failures, and the chances of this are 23.5%

The chance of having 4 or fewer failures is 73%.

The chance of have 3 or fewer failures is 52%.

The chance of having 2 or fewer failures is 28%.


Dem's da facts, folks...don't let anyone tell you different

I'm sure this wont do anything to convince BiggerBlue but I simulated over a million pretend dots (using excel) and counted how many bad games each dot had in a season. Here are my results:

0 Bad Games - 16053
1 Bad Games - 76762
2 Bad Games - 171032
3 Bad Games - 238812
4 Bad Games - 231933
5 Bad Games - 166693
6 Bad Games - 91199
7 Bad Games - 38702
8 Bad Games - 13023
9 Bad Games - 3507
10 Bad Games - 720
11 Bad Games - 125
12 Bad Games - 13
13 Bad Games - 1
14 Bad Games - 0
15 Bad Games - 0
16 Bad Games - 0

Originally posted by Dollarbill13
I'm sure this wont do anything to convince BiggerBlue but I simulated over a million pretend dots (using excel) and counted how many bad games each dot had in a season. Here are my results:

0 Bad Games - 16053
1 Bad Games - 76762
2 Bad Games - 171032
3 Bad Games - 238812
4 Bad Games - 231933
5 Bad Games - 166693
6 Bad Games - 91199
7 Bad Games - 38702
8 Bad Games - 13023
9 Bad Games - 3507
10 Bad Games - 720
11 Bad Games - 125
12 Bad Games - 13
13 Bad Games - 1
14 Bad Games - 0
15 Bad Games - 0
16 Bad Games - 0


There was one REALLY UNLUCKY dot there LOL