Warrior General Games

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.



Dude, no offense, but you're misunderstanding the entire nature of statistics.

'this explains why so people are so damn lucky'

No, it doesn't. It just means that an event with a low probability of occurring will occasionally happen. Nobody is arguing that you're going to have three or four bad games automatically because of adding Streaky, but you're fooling yourself if you think there's a high probability of only having one or two bad Streaky days in a season. And you're giving out some really bad information. You kinda seem like the kind of person who buys lottery tickets because they won once in the past and believe that that means you'll win in the future.

So who thinks Bort f'd up the initial numbers for streaky thinking that a 15 point investment would get people to an 80% chance of a good day?

Originally posted by risico
So who thinks Bort f'd up the initial numbers for streaky thinking that a 15 point investment would get people to an 80% chance of a good day?

most likely was supposed to be that.

This thread delivers!!



btw I am still waiting for BiggerBlue to answer this question... (surely he skipped over it for a reason)

http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=4290584&page=3#38526540

When we are talking about some scientific facts like calculated odds we don't resort on using words like luck. BiggerBlue, please explain me luck scientifically so I can use it too on my future arguments

The only reason I wouldn't go for STreaky would be the situation my DT plays NT almost every down and my team has a schedule where there is 2-3 games that are must win, and for my NT to beat the crap out of the C/G who's he lined up on or even perform ok. If you know that the 5% penalty on those games could lead your team's loss then don't go for it. That's that

For it's roleplaying twist I like Streaky VEEERY much cause it adds spice to this game with an almost guaranteed overall bonus to the season. Sometimes it's better to see your player struggle when he's built well. It almost feels like they are not dots on the screen anymore

Originally posted by flipmo
When we are talking about some scientific facts like calculated odds we don't resort on using words like luck. BiggerBlue, please explain me luck scientifically so I can use it too on my future arguments

The only reason I wouldn't go for STreaky would be the situation my DT plays NT almost every down and my team has a schedule where there is 2-3 games that are must win, and for my NT to beat the crap out of the C/G who's he lined up on or even perform ok. If you know that the 5% penalty on those games could lead your team's loss then don't go for it. That's that

For it's roleplaying twist I like Streaky VEEERY much cause it adds spice to this game with an almost guaranteed overall bonus to the season. Sometimes it's better to see your player struggle when he's built well. It almost feels like they are not dots on the screen anymore



Percentages are averages, not predicting the future. If that were true, the world would be a very easy place to live in. I have pretty much ignore this thread because I am really tired of answering stupid questions in and out with people refusing to listen, but you seem to be genuine in seeking a dialogue, so I'll answer yours.

What I am trying to show, is that averages, like percentages, can be misleading if you take them in absolute terms. For example: a baseball player hits .350 batting average, that's 35%, that number says 35 hits per 100 at bats. However, that doesn't mean for the next 100 at bats he will definitely get 35 hits, or even a safe guess of between 30 to 40 hits. Anybody that watches baseball would know, a player can go on a hot streak and hit .500 (for the sake of argument 50 hits in 100 ABs) and then go on a really cold streak and hit .200 (20 hits the next 100 ABs), now, his "average" will still be 70 for 200 ABs = .350 percentage. But no way does that mean in 10 ABs he's sure to hit around 3.5 hits, or in 100 ABs he's sure to hit around 35 hits.

Same thing with saying 78% chance of having a good game. That's a percentage, but in no way you can predict the future by saying you will most likely have 3-4 bad games because of that 78%. Like I said, if percentages and averages can safely 90+% of the time give you a safe prediction of the future, the world will be a very simple place to live in.

This test can be easily run by individual basis: get 4 of the same marbles and one different marble. Take it out for 16 tries and report back how many times you got the different marble. I would bet if people in here really run the test (and not speak from their asses) we will get a wide variety of answers. Some would say 1 and others would say 5. By no means would I expect 90% of people here report the answer to be 3 or 4.

Like I said, averages are misleading if we try to apply it in reality in an absolute term. Each individual outcome is independent of the other. Just because you have 5 good games in a roll doesn't mean your 6th game has more of a chance of bad game than good game. Your 6th game the chance is still the same: 78% good and 22% bad.

Casinos are really betting on people are suckers of averages. When I play roulette I can't believe people double- triple- down on black just because it shows up red 5 straight times, because they would say to each other: "black is due", no it's not, it's the same freaking chance as if it's 5 straight blacks. Each spin is independent of the previous spin.

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


Ah, the wonders of a normal distribution graph... If only everyone in this thread understood it...

Originally posted by BiggerBlue
Percentages are averages, not predicting the future. If that were true, the world would be a very easy place to live in.



You've got to be trolling.

Nobody is saying you are guaranteed 3-4 bad games by choosing Streaky, They are saying that probabilistically this is the most likely outcome. It is far, far, more likely than having 0 or 1 bad games.

Seriously, what don't you understand about this?

Originally posted by SunshineMan89
You've got to be trolling.o_O

Nobody is saying you are guaranteed 3-4 bad games by choosing Streaky, They are saying that probabilistically this is the most likely outcome. It is far, far, more likely than having 0 or 1 bad games.

Seriously, what don't you understand about this?

Right on. Think about a doctor saying to he's patient that statistics show that people in the current condition of the patient have a 78% chance of surviving with an immediate surgery and the same statistic show that 22% of the over 1 million patients taht have gone with surgery have died under the knife. Without the surgery the patient has only days left.
Going with the surgery When I would be in that situation I wouldn't start whining about how the past can't predict my future and such. Heck yeah there's a chance of dying but it's life. Nothings more certain than death and the probabilities of dying inreases every morning I wake up

BiggerBlue, either you are not letting go of your beliefs and go down with them, or you are just a bit thick..

Originally posted by BiggerBlue
There is no argument


Originally posted by BiggerBlue

I know people argue



Originally posted by BiggerBlue

If something is likely to happen 80% of the time each day, it is very possible and highly likely that all 16 games you're on a Good streak.

^ 1.6053% probability
Originally posted by BiggerBlue
Same thing with saying 78% chance of having a good game. That's a percentage, but in no way you can predict the future by saying you will most likely have 3-4 bad games because of that 78%


Ya know, before you start calling people idiots...you should really understand what probability means before debating with them. You clearly have no idea what probabilities are used for, or how to interpret results.

Originally posted by SunshineMan89
You've got to be trolling.o_O

i thought so, but i'm not so sure anymore lol

thread delivers again!

Originally posted by jakobnielsen
thread delivers again!

Tru Dat !!

Originally posted by Hagalaz
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..

This proves my point.

When you add up the games you are likely to have 0 bad games, 1 bad games, and 2 bad games it's a large amount and a significant chance you'll fall into that category. Thus proving my point that Streaky at 15 will likely earn you the chance of 0, 1, or 2 bad games, which is exactly my personal experiences.

Now, of course the chance for 3 to 4 to 5 are great too, but my point is exactly that, your chance for 0-2 bad games is as good as 3, or 4 or 5 and even 6 if you're unlucky enough.

It's funny watching a bunch of people keep not realizing how to interpret statistics and use the numbers the wrong way and keep on reaffirming each other's wrong premises and conclusions.

If this thread wins at anything it's the ignorance of people's understanding of advance mathematics.

Originally posted by BiggerBlue
This proves my point.

When you add up the games you are likely to have 0 bad games, 1 bad games, and 2 bad games it's a large amount and a significant chance you'll fall into that category. Thus proving my point that Streaky at 15 will likely earn you the chance of 0, 1, or 2 bad games, which is exactly my personal experiences.

Now, of course the chance for 3 to 4 to 5 are great too, but my point is exactly that, your chance for 0-2 bad games is as good as 3, or 4 or 5 and even 6 if you're unlucky enough.

It's funny watching a bunch of people keep not realizing how to interpret statistics and use the numbers the wrong way and keep on reaffirming each other's wrong premises and conclusions.

If this thread wins at anything it's the ignorance of people's understanding of advance mathematics.



You've got people working in the field telling you you are wrong. People who HAVE worked in the field telling you you are wrong.

I don't know what you want more, but I'm giving up. Be wrong all you want! It is your prerogative. Everyone else here will keep making good use of probabilities and statistics to make their choices both in this game and the real world.