Forum
IF YOU WANNA SEE PROOF OF THE CURSE
|
fiero600 wrote
at 6:59 PM, Thursday December 16, 2010 EST
check this :
http://kdice.com/profile/19758944/stats I've played 40 competitive months. On the 36 months that my minimum score is "2500" or something around 2500 if i lost a couple games at the beginning of the month. Anyways, on these 36 membership months, every single one has a luck % above 48%. On the 4 months that my minimum score is "0" aka non-membership months... Dec. 2008, Jan. 2009, Nov. 2010, Dec. 2010 my luck % is 45.5% 46.2% 47% 44% Does anyone REALLY think that there's any chance even a SMALL chance that the 4 months that I didn't have membership are just by "chance" my only months that are under 48% ...and considerably so? I mean come on.. that's just silly. FFS look at MonteCarlo's account http://kdice.com/profile/7832549/stats Up until December 2008 (same month my luck dropped off omg what a surprise), Monte's (career top 3 at the time) LOWEST luck % was 48.5% Look at his month after that when he dropped membership 38% 45% 47% 45% 43% 46% 43% REALLY? His luck AGAIN by CHANCE went from every month >48% to every month <47% AFTER he cancelled membership. Gimme a break. |
|
|
fiero600 wrote
at 12:31 PM, Friday December 17, 2010 EST how can they not prove it? You really think that out of 40 months, the fact that the 36 i was a member have higher luck than the 4 i wasn't a member is just 'simply by chance' ?
You're a fool louis |
|
superxchloe wrote
at 3:04 PM, Friday December 17, 2010 EST if you really want to see a larger number of games with that low a luck percentage: http://kdice.com/profile/19031103/stats
|
|
montecarlo wrote
at 3:33 PM, Friday December 17, 2010 EST louis just has a strict definition of the word "proof". in the scientific community, if you want to prove something, you must prove significance, through some statistical test. eyeballing data isnt good enough. what skrum did in your original post WAS good enough, when he ran a deviation from the mean with a p-value of less than 0.001, or whatever it was. that is proof.
its sorta like how mods dont ban people because of a copy/pasted chatlog where they drop the N word. only screenshots will work. well maybe its not like that, but thats what i relate it to. |
|
|
superxchloe wrote
at 3:58 PM, Friday December 17, 2010 EST the p values even with df<10 are ridiculously small. When I ran it for chase, his luck was 43.2% over ten games and my handy dandy ti told me p=6.13x10^-12 or similar, given a global average of 49.2 with a standard deviation of about .46 based on data from the month of november. On Monday and Tuesday I plan on coming up with a better standard deviation though- incorporating all months since luck started being presented on the profile.
|
|
|
superxchloe wrote
at 4:01 PM, Friday December 17, 2010 EST also I've heard of 48s occurring; I'm sure someone has a screenshot somewhere. Additionally, Louis, chances of that occurring aren't zero. They're ridiculously small but they are not zero- you should know that. imho you are not one to complain about luck with 9 of your last ten games above 50%.
|
|
Gurgi wrote
at 6:12 PM, Friday December 17, 2010 EST when you had membership you wouldnt play games
|
|
dasfury wrote
at 7:43 PM, Friday December 17, 2010 EST im confused, is this trendz or fiero complaining?
|
|
MadHat_Sam wrote
at 7:51 PM, Friday December 17, 2010 EST I forgot how bad BJ's account is fucked.
|
|
|
fiero600 wrote
at 11:03 PM, Friday December 17, 2010 EST yeah him and bomb were fucked a lot longer than mine was fucked. but neither one of them ever bought memberships to see if their luck would change.
|
|
wishbone wrote
at 8:23 AM, Tuesday December 21, 2010 EST you're right, bomb did cry though, and monte got 6 stars. what a crazy day
|
