Conquer Club

wicked wrote:Well let's see I've won ~87.78932716% of games on the Brazil map, so obviously I'm the best Brazil map player here, right? Because sample size doesn't matter!

your 8-15 on that map. nice try Robinette

Well I won the first game I played on X map, so I'm obviously the best player on that map. I mean I have a 1/32 chance of winning on any given map b/c there's 32 maps right? Is that how made up stats work?

Lemme try to explain in layman's terms.... say I have a 1 in 32 million chance of winning a certain lottery game. If I buy one ticket and win, then my winning percentage is 100% (1/1), but alas my chance of winning is still 1/32 million. Chance of winning DOES NOT equal winning percentage!

Assuming all else is equal, every player does have a 1 in 6 chance of winning a 6 player game. If I never win a 6 player game, I STILL have a 1 in 6 chance of winning the next one, even though my winning percentage is 0%. Your flawed logic sully is assuming all players win equally, i.e. every 6th time, which anyone who plays here can tell you just isn't true. If you have a 1 in 10 chance of winning the lottery and buy ten tickets, it doesn't mean you automatically win once. You may not win at all. Same thing applies here. If you play 6 6-player games, doesn't mean you automatically win once.

The ONLY way you can compare your winning percentage to an average winning percentage is to calculate that actual average winning percentage over a game type (all else held equal, i.e. same map, same number of players, same settings, etc...). What you'd need to do is calculate an average for all players across the site (taking out unrealistic games with deadbeats and things like that). THEN, when you have an average winning percentage for a certain game type, can you compare your winning percentage to it. It's a lot more complicated than you're making it out to be.

JOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:

wicked wrote:Well let's see I've won ~87.78932716% of games on the Brazil map, so obviously I'm the best Brazil map player here, right? Because sample size doesn't matter!

your 8-15 on that map. nice try Robinette

hahaha, I figured someone would check. Was a joke to try to make a point.

Wicked - I think you misunderstand the point that sully (and I) are making.

We are not saying that everyone will have a 1 in 6 record for 6 player games. But over every game on the entire site, there is a 16.67% win ratio.

It is quite simple:

When one 6 player game is played, 1 player wins, 5 lose. 16.67% win ratio.
When two 6 player games are played, 2 players win, 10 lose. 16.67% win ratio.
...
When 100 are played, 100 players win, 500 lose. 16.67% win ratio.

It is impossible for the average win ratio over the entire site to be any different.

However - for individual players of course not everyone will have the same win ratio. All we (and sorry sully if i misrepresent you) are saying is that when you add up all the wins and losses of individual players you have to arrive at an average win of 1 in 6 for a 6 player game, it is impossible to arrive at a different figure.

Back on topic:

So how do I start working towards my invite to this secret group? I LOVE secret societies!

They make my boring life seem special and fulfilled.

From what I can gather, you might want to stock up on mouthwash....



The real answer is: beats the f*ck out of me.... just keep playing singles games until you've got about 3000 points, at which point you'll presumably be contacted by a shadowy figure in a parking garage who will give you further instructions.

WOW... my most productive post EVER...
we brought this thread upto page 13 and nearly 3600 views!

Dang... I didn't realize just how much you guys REALLY CARE about this!!!

Well, I sure did create some excitement there... and obviously I bumped a few nerves... a bit more than I had intended, I will add.

Thankyou to everybody who posted... your expressions of outrage, support, and explanations were magnificant! But I especially appreciated the humor.... and as such, it would be appropriate to now bestow the SE HUMOR HONOR to the following posts:

GrazingCattle wrote:So how do I start working towards my invite to this secret group? I LOVE secret societies!

They make my boring life seem special and fulfilled.

Incandenza wrote:From what I can gather, you might want to stock up on mouthwash....

The real answer is: beats the f*ck out of me.... just keep playing singles games until you've got about 3000 points, at which point you'll presumably be contacted by a shadowy figure in a parking garage who will give you further instructions.

wicked wrote:Well I won the first game I played on X map, so I'm obviously the best player on that map. I mean I have a 1/32 chance of winning on any given map b/c there's 32 maps right? Is that how made up stats work?

Lemme try to explain in layman's terms.... say I have a 1 in 32 million chance of winning a certain lottery game. If I buy one ticket and win, then my winning percentage is 100% (1/1), but alas my chance of winning is still 1/32 million. Chance of winning DOES NOT equal winning percentage!

Assuming all else is equal, every player does have a 1 in 6 chance of winning a 6 player game. If I never win a 6 player game, I STILL have a 1 in 6 chance of winning the next one, even though my winning percentage is 0%. Your flawed logic sully is assuming all players win equally, i.e. every 6th time, which anyone who plays here can tell you just isn't true. If you have a 1 in 10 chance of winning the lottery and buy ten tickets, it doesn't mean you automatically win once. You may not win at all. Same thing applies here. If you play 6 6-player games, doesn't mean you automatically win once.

The ONLY way you can compare your winning percentage to an average winning percentage is to calculate that actual average winning percentage over a game type (all else held equal, i.e. same map, same number of players, same settings, etc...). What you'd need to do is calculate an average for all players across the site (taking out unrealistic games with deadbeats and things like that). THEN, when you have an average winning percentage for a certain game type, can you compare your winning percentage to it. It's a lot more complicated than you're making it out to be.

If you actually read my post you'll see that's not the point I made at all.

I agree that with a small sample size its very easy to have a really good statistic. Just as its very easy to have a very bad statistic. The more games you play in that type the more your average win% will be weighted to its appropriate value. Of course, we all get that. That's also the reason that Robinette and JR have even worse %'s in games they have together. That's a very specific criteria, and since its only 15 games winning an additional game would make a big difference.

My point is that Johnny likes to say he has won the most singles games ever. He has also played many times more than most players so that fact doesn't mean much. I've won more 6 player singles games than he has despite the fact that he has played 2.5 times as many, which shows I am better at that type. On the other hand he mostly plays games with less than 6 players and is probably better than me overall at them. And I know he is much better at team games than I am. But since the SE founders have chosen 6 players singles escalating games as the game type to get admitted into the group, not having that type as your strong suit won't do much to get you in.

I like the attitude that AA has regarding this group, but I also like Molacole's spirit which is pretty much the opposite direction. Challenge any member of the group to any game you want and I hope that someone accepts the challenge and faces you. I personally am not a fan of team games, but I'll play singles with anyone. Which is also the reason I decided to play in the SE qualifying games because it has given me the oppurtunity to play with a great bunch of players. It doesn't mean I will only play with them, and I don't care if its called a clan or a war club or anything else. I don't care if people view it as snobbish or elitist because it functions in the same way that every other group of private games is meant to function (playing with people that you choose to play with).

Also Molacole- I understand your point about getting teamed up on in standard games, and that is very valid. Playing against cheaters or people who form alliances against you could certainly bring down your win %, but then again everyone on the site has to face that stuff. That's another reason why I like to play with the SE group and many other top players, or simply players that I like a lot even if their score isn't great- Playing with people you know or feel you can trust helps to make the game fair and lets you avoid being slighted by cheats and such. But if its not your cup of tea to play with such a group no one will force you either of course.

wicked wrote:Neph, all I did was quote Andy directly, saying SE was a clan. you're the one in a tizzy saying, omg, we're not a clan, please don't call us that. quite pathetic really. I understand your need to drag it out though. keep at it. I have better things to do.

mwahaha, more of the same, lost an argument, pretending not to care. wicky hun, i don't care if anyone thinks SE is a clan, i just care about the victory of sound logic. i'll break it down differently:

wicked: statement A
neph: it is possible that statement A actually misrepresents what andrew said
andrew: statement A does, in fact, misrepresent my meaning, at least partially b/c wicked ripped it out of context and used it for her own purposes

how do you not recognize this? i'm sure there is some validity to accusations of elitism among the SE members. but it would probably be good if you stopped voicing such concerns, wicked. you have your own obvious problems with arrogance (and your logic don't look so good, either).

wow kiddo, you really pull shit out of your ass everytime you type eh? I won't bother pointing out where you're wrong, b/c you're just going to believe what you want to believe anyway.

wicked wrote:wow kiddo, you really pull shit out of your ass everytime you type eh? I won't bother pointing out where you're wrong, b/c you're just going to believe what you want to believe anyway.

tee hee hee, i thought you were done with me? isn't it telling that when you can't make a thoughtful response you start calling people "kiddo" or "high-schooler"? then the typical teenage eyeroll, lmao

xoxoxoxo

no, it means I am done with you.

Genghis Khan CA wrote:Wicked - I think you misunderstand the point that sully (and I) are making.

We are not saying that everyone will have a 1 in 6 record for 6 player games. But over every game on the entire site, there is a 16.67% win ratio.

It is quite simple:

When one 6 player game is played, 1 player wins, 5 lose. 16.67% win ratio.
When two 6 player games are played, 2 players win, 10 lose. 16.67% win ratio.
...
When 100 are played, 100 players win, 500 lose. 16.67% win ratio.

It is impossible for the average win ratio over the entire site to be any different.

However - for individual players of course not everyone will have the same win ratio. All we (and sorry sully if i misrepresent you) are saying is that when you add up all the wins and losses of individual players you have to arrive at an average win of 1 in 6 for a 6 player game, it is impossible to arrive at a different figure.

just for future reference you take the second number on the right side of the decimal point and use it to round the first number to the right of the decimal point so it's actually 16.7% not 16.67. 5 or higher gets rounded up and 4 and lower does not increase the number.

ghangis what you're saying is absolutely true to a certain extent. The problem is that I could play 100 games with all deadbeats and win all of them giving me a 100% winning percentage as an individual, but to get the current average of the site you would have to disreagrd every single one of my wins that does not include active players thus giving me 0 games played.

The only realistic way and relatively accurate way would be to total up the wins only including ranked players above major or better and count those games only. Then you will have a more accurate figure, but not a true representation of current win loss % of the site. So like I said originally Good luck to Anyone trying to get the average win/loss percentage of this site...

Molacole wrote:just for future reference you take the second number on the right side of the decimal point and use it to round the first number to the right of the decimal point so it's actually 16.7% not 16.67. 5 or higher gets rounded up and 4 and lower does not increase the number.

ghangis what you're saying is absolutely true to a certain extent. The problem is that I could play 100 games with all deadbeats and win all of them giving me a 100% winning percentage as an individual, but to get the current average of the site you would have to disreagrd every single one of my wins that does not include active players thus giving me 0 games played.

The only realistic way and relatively accurate way would be to total up the wins only including ranked players above major or better and count those games only. Then you will have a more accurate figure, but not a true representation of current win loss % of the site. So like I said originally Good luck to Anyone trying to get the average win/loss percentage of this site...

OK - well we are quibling over definition now - in my opinion a deadbeat has lost a game, in yours a deadbeat should be excluded. Lets just agree to disagree. Not arguing that a good player shouldn't have a different winning % (although i note your argument re: including games with majors and above only would support me since there would be no deadbeats and hence 5 losers to every winner).

And in relation to rounding - i was simply rounding to 2 decimal places - 16.66666666 etc rounds to 16.7; 16.67; 16.667 etc depending on how many decimal places you round to

I know how to use numbers - I'm an accountant and did advanced maths at school and university.

sully800 wrote:Also Molacole- I understand your point about getting teamed up on in standard games, and that is very valid. Playing against cheaters or people who form alliances against you could certainly bring down your win %, but then again everyone on the site has to face that stuff. That's another reason why I like to play with the SE group and many other top players, or simply players that I like a lot even if their score isn't great- Playing with people you know or feel you can trust helps to make the game fair and lets you avoid being slighted by cheats and such. But if its not your cup of tea to play with such a group no one will force you either of course.

yeah everybody has to deal with the same chances of ending up with people with that play style, but the only way to compete is to play their game and pretty much manipulate all the other players to do what you want them to. I've resorted to it a couple times and after winning the game I realised my playing tactics had little to do with the outcome of the game. I could join a 6 player game with average or maybe even above average players and manipulate the hell out of them and walk away with a few easy wins, but that's just not my style so I avoid it.

For that same reason I was interested in your super elite club because I saw a chance to play against people where none of the second rate strategies came into play and it was more about troop placement and every individual trying to control the balance in their favor with troop placement instead of words. I also saw a chance to get some advanced triples games going and to see how I stack up against the top ranked or skilled players on the site. UNfortunately I hate escilating games and think it's more about luck than skill because one lucky roll of the dice could ruin what would otherwise have been a long drawn out high skilled and tactical game. Those games become more about cards than anything else and that is the type of game your super elitist group endorses...

oh for the record johnny and I have a 100% win loss ratio in triples games and I would play on his team against anybody on this site and not think twice about it. I've even made poor moves in our games to see if he catches them and he picks up the slack I left. To me that's super elite status. Understanding the game and knowing what your next best move will be is what seperates the best from the rest...

Genghis Khan CA wrote:

Molacole wrote:just for future reference you take the second number on the right side of the decimal point and use it to round the first number to the right of the decimal point so it's actually 16.7% not 16.67. 5 or higher gets rounded up and 4 and lower does not increase the number.

ghangis what you're saying is absolutely true to a certain extent. The problem is that I could play 100 games with all deadbeats and win all of them giving me a 100% winning percentage as an individual, but to get the current average of the site you would have to disreagrd every single one of my wins that does not include active players thus giving me 0 games played.

The only realistic way and relatively accurate way would be to total up the wins only including ranked players above major or better and count those games only. Then you will have a more accurate figure, but not a true representation of current win loss % of the site. So like I said originally Good luck to Anyone trying to get the average win/loss percentage of this site...

OK - well we are quibling over definition now - in my opinion a deadbeat has lost a game, in yours a deadbeat should be excluded. Lets just agree to disagree. Not arguing that a good player shouldn't have a different winning % (although i note your argument re: including games with majors and above only would support me since there would be no deadbeats and hence 5 losers to every winner).

And in relation to rounding - i was simply rounding to 2 decimal places - 16.66666666 etc rounds to 16.7; 16.67; 16.667 etc depending on how many decimal places you round to

I know how to use numbers - I'm an accountant and did advanced maths at school and university.

lol yeah I'm sure you do, but I seem to be a patronizing smart ass when I know I'm right and somebody argues with me about it.

deadbeat or no deadbeat it all comes down to current active members. If the top 50 players on the site quit the overall average of the community would take a huge blow to win loss percentage.

I'll agree to disagree only to stop the argueing in the post, but for nothing else.

hehe - for the record I think you're alright molacole

Agreed that if we're talking about current active members only, the 1 in 6 ratio is not correct. Happy to leave it at that now.

Genghis Khan CA wrote:
And in relation to rounding - i was simply rounding to 2 decimal places - 16.66666666 etc rounds to 16.7; 16.67; 16.667 etc depending on how many decimal places you round to

I know how to use numbers - I'm an accountant and did advanced maths at school and university.

And as I'm sure you both know technical notation for infinite numbers is to add a dot above the beginning and the end of the recurring pattern...

Buggered how you do that with an ascii keyset though!?

C.
...........
PS 16.6

lol - this thread has become a maths lesson...

Molacole wrote:lol yeah I'm sure you do, but I seem to be a patronizing smart ass when I know I'm right and somebody argues with me about it.

Yes, that's been my experience with you. Here's a thought: maybe somebody is arguing with you because, despite the fact that you know you're right, you're not. Of course, being wrong is not that serious an offence but when you couple it with being a patronizing smart ass you will find that people find it extremely difficult to give you a pass when you're wrong.

Genghis Khan CA wrote: in my opinion a deadbeat has lost a game, in yours a deadbeat should be excluded.

nonono, deadbeats for the most part don't even play but one round or so. you didn't "beat" them, they stopped playing, so including those games only pads your win %. And since the rules since the site started have changed on getting points from deadbeats (and surrenders), you'd have to exclude those games when calculating an average win % for game type. And I don't think majors and above would cut it to exclude all deadbeats either, as that's just not the case.

wicked wrote:

JOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:

wicked wrote:Well let's see I've won ~87.78932716% of games on the Brazil map, so obviously I'm the best Brazil map player here, right? Because sample size doesn't matter!

your 8-15 on that map. nice try Robinette

hahaha, I figured someone would check. Was a joke to try to make a point.

I double checked and saw that you are 6-0 on that map on Sundays in the month of October. Nobody will ever top that. Great job !

tahitiwahini wrote:

Molacole wrote:lol yeah I'm sure you do, but I seem to be a patronizing smart ass when I know I'm right and somebody argues with me about it.

Yes, that's been my experience with you. Here's a thought: maybe somebody is arguing with you because, despite the fact that you know you're right, you're not. Of course, being wrong is not that serious an offence but when you couple it with being a patronizing smart ass you will find that people find it extremely difficult to give you a pass when you're wrong.

omg you again the guy who claims biased over a word free from bias...

I actually considered replyiing to your response with an explination, but I realized you'll just stop posting when you realize how dumb you look. Go check that other thread because you never answered my question lol get lost little timmy

JOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:

wicked wrote:

JOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:

wicked wrote:Well let's see I've won ~87.78932716% of games on the Brazil map, so obviously I'm the best Brazil map player here, right? Because sample size doesn't matter!

your 8-15 on that map. nice try Robinette

hahaha, I figured someone would check. Was a joke to try to make a point.

I double checked and saw that you are 6-0 on that map on Sundays in the month of October. Nobody will ever top that. Great job !

Molacole wrote:I actually considered replyiing to your response with an explination, but I realized you'll just stop posting when you realize how dumb you look. Go check that other thread because you never answered my question lol get lost little timmy:lol:

Well, you're showing tremendous progress Molacole. You've admitted to being a patronizing smart ass. Now if we can just get you to work on putting more emphasis on the "smart" and less on the "ass" we will be able to tolerate the patronizing better.

Here's the thread Molacole wants everyone to check out:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16296

It is a dazzling display of patronizing smart assery, I have to give him props about that.