463 replies to this topic

[Prototelis]

VonBruinwald, on 24 January 2020 - 02:05 PM, said:

You try that card a lot.

Go back a few posts and you might spot why I don't think you understand maths.

You try this card a lot.

Go back and review what was actually asked, what the word "insignificant," means, and why representing something that occurs extremely infrequently isn't worth representing in this model.

[VonBruinwald]

Prototelis, on 24 January 2020 - 02:17 PM, said:

You try this card a lot.

Go back and review what was actually asked, what the word "insignificant," means, and why representing something that occurs extremely infrequently isn't worth representing in this model.

You do realise your model is flawed from the get go right?

[Prototelis]

You do realize it isn't, right?

[VonBruinwald]

Prototelis, on 24 January 2020 - 03:17 PM, said:

You do realize it isn't, right?

It is; I'm just not elaborating on why.

[Prototelis]

You haven't elaborated on anything because you don't understand what Nascar is lol.

[VonBruinwald]

Prototelis, on 24 January 2020 - 03:22 PM, said:

You haven't elaborated on anything because you don't understand what Nascar is lol.

No, I just don't feel like correcting you.

You need to take a statistics class.

[Prototelis]

lol.

So you don't understand, at all. Cool.

[VonBruinwald]

Prototelis, on 24 January 2020 - 03:36 PM, said:

lol.

So you don't understand, at all. Cool.

No U.

See, I can argue like you to.

lol

[Prototelis]

Actually, you can't.

Because there are no semantics here to argue; and you don't understand what nascar actually is lol.

[VonBruinwald]

Prototelis, on 24 January 2020 - 03:53 PM, said:

Actually, you can't.

Because there are no semantics here to argue; and you don't understand what nascar actually is lol.

I'm not talking about semantics (which would actually cover what a nascar is).

I'm talking about definitions and statistics which you got wrong from the start.

[Prototelis]

Statistically insignificant anomalies don't need to be included in the model lewl.

My definition if nascar is not wrong lewl.

[VonBruinwald]

Prototelis, on 24 January 2020 - 04:02 PM, said:

Statistically insignificant anomalies don't need to be included in the model lewl.

My definition if nascar is not wrong lewl.

You need to go back and read what you wrote over multiple posts.

[Prototelis]

You need to go back and read what the question is, evaluate what nascar actually is, and understand what 100% isn't an unfaithful representation of 99.9... lewl.

[VonBruinwald]

Prototelis, on 24 January 2020 - 04:18 PM, said:

You need to go back and read what the question is, evaluate what nascar actually is, and understand what 100% isn't an unfaithful representation of 99.9... lewl.

Go back and read your original statement.

[Prototelis]

Why do you think I put the other bits in parenthesis lol. It isn't actually relevant to the statement dingus, because ties do not occur often enough to really be considered in the scenario.

lol

[VonBruinwald]

You know what, I'm just gonna drop it, because honestly, I don't think you can be helped.

[Prototelis]

Good.

I'm glad that you understand it take two teams to nascar, one team will probably lose, and that nascar works every time.

[Warning incoming Humble Dexterer]

Native Warrior, on 31 December 2019 - 03:42 PM, said:

Does nascar work???
meaning circling around certain maps to see who is left behind to pick off...

Depends on how fast you can run...


Happy New Lunar Year !

[MischiefSC]

Prototelis, on 24 January 2020 - 04:48 PM, said:

Good.

I'm glad that you understand it take two teams to nascar, one team will probably lose, and that nascar works every time.

We already went over that you're absolutely misrepresenting how statistics works. You're trying to claim the loss as a win because a match is binary so any loss is offset by a win. That or you're trying to qualify "always works" as just being "it happens when it happens", which would get your conclusion tossed out.

Statistics already accounts for results in a binary outcome, you have to account for each point (player) in the trial (match) and it's why to get an actual result for how successful Nascar is you'd need to get a big sample size to pick up how often some teams break off and hold or go mid, etc. Because your hypothesis of "Nascar always works" is incorrect and broken and would get tossed out of any statistics or analytics class. Repeating false information and incorrectly defines terms until people agree with you only works in marketing and politics.

[Prototelis]

No I'm not lol.

You don't understand what is being asked (question is vague), or what nascar is.

It takes two teams to nascar, one team will lose, nascar works all of the time.

Edited by Prototelis, 25 January 2020 - 04:45 PM.