Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 5/26/2010THat is a copout Colonels, and you know it. Asking you to put your money where your mouth is, is a copout? Unbelievable what kinds of excuses you guys will come up with when you don't want to address something. I simply ask you to put numbers in the equation, and you refuse....a priceless microcosm of these boards. It is definitely, however, more than the sample size you normally bring up which is: One game. Put numbers to it sir.When someone talks about distributions being massively off over half a season, or over even the entire non conference schedule, that starts to get into possible significance. I've had that happen I am not going to play your game where you try to demand specific percentage benchmarks to use as strawmen. My game? Demanding specific percetnage benchmarks? Are you kidding? I asked you to tell me what a legitimate sample size is, because if you always say IOOG, then at what point is IOOG a problem? How many times does it have to happen. You have a habit of constantly complaining about ONE GAME. You have a habit of never entirely addressing my posts to you . or even two games as if they had any long term systemic significance.

Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 5/26/2010Its definitely more than one or two games. a number please? a percentage? Roundabout? . however, its obvious that its more than one game. The other part of the problem is that you act like ANYTHING unusual that happens in any of your games is the onset of Armageddon. This is your view of my gripes/arguments, and not necessarily the truth. This is how you've chosen to view what I've said and done. You exhibit the same mindset that finds something supernatural in picking up the phone and having the person you happened to be thinking about at the time call you at that time. A definitive statistical fallacy. Somebody's been thumbing through his old stats textbooks while on the can...

And it is a strawman, because you know very well that it isn't something you CAN put a specific number on. It varies. I never asked for a specific number...give me a roundabout number...give me something other than, I'm not answering your question so I don't look like an idiot.

However it is NOT one game, unless you are talking about something which is an obvious definitive TECHNICAL glitch. Such as?

Quote: Originally Posted By isack24 on 5/26/2010
Colonels, you do realize that the outcome of any one simulation based on a random generator, even when that generator has inputs to make it less random, is, by definition, random? Ok...

Over time, there should be correction based on odds. It's not much different than winning the lottery the first time I play. Against monumental odds, I might win, but that doesn't mean there is a flaw in the system. Over time, it's almost a foregone conclusion that I won't win again, and reality begins to reflect the odds. Comparing this game to the lottery isn't exactly apples to apples...

Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 5/26/2010
Colonels, you really think that your game here isn't utterly transparent? There's no game here, sorry.

And yes, I have read statistics books. Have you? It sure doesn't seem like it based on your assessments of probabilities. Your posts show no evidence of ever having cracked the cover of a statistics textbook. I understand how probabilities and randomness are supposed to work...my problem here lies within the quality of the company in question and their trustworthiness, not that I'm officially griping about either instance that happened, but tell me that a 1 LP 13 PER PG going 8-10 FG isn't ridiculous...I practically dare you. If you're not ****** about this happening, then you simply don't care. This is on the large outskirts of what should happen.

And no, Colonels, that isn't just my view. You are continually going to general quarters over isolated game incidents. That is actual fact in black and white. I and everyone else here has a right to be ****** off at what happens in these games. Most times, I'm just venting, but since you guys ALWAYS read into it more than it is, we get in these big arguments and it always becomes some attempt to get colonels to agree with everything we say, etc. You all just want for me to agree with you and tell you that you're right and I'm wrong, but the fact of the matter is, I don't believe that, and you guys kick and scream because I don't blindly accept your "explanations" as gospel. Its your choice, but if you'd stop wanting to fight me all the time, you might actually learn something. The forum arguments don't start because of my posts, but y'alls reaction to my posts...you guys are the one's that come here and drop the A-Bomb, I just reply to it.

I'm not answering your question because its idiotic and its not a question that has a single answer. Of course you wouldn't...you've shown yourself for who and what you are...this is what you always do...debating with you is incredibly underwhelming. The sample size varies, for example, with the probability of the event. Unless you have numbers or percentages, be gone...you're wasting my time.

Quote: Originally Posted By arssanguinus on 5/26/2010And the fact that you gave that response rather says it all, doesn't it?
What, the fact that the only thing you did was re-word my statement to say "I'm rubber you're glue"...really?

Quote: Originally Posted By arssanguinus on 5/26/2010WHy don't you explain, COlonels, why that little 'rant' of yours shouldn't and doesn't apply to yourself?

Are you somehow special and beyond such things?

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 5/26/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By isack24 on 5/26/2010

Colonels, you do realize that the outcome of any one simulation based on a random generator, even when that generator has inputs to make it less random, is, by definition, random? Ok...

Over time, there should be correction based on odds. It's not much different than winning the lottery the first time I play. Against monumental odds, I might win, but that doesn't mean there is a flaw in the system. Over time, it's almost a foregone conclusion that I won't win again, and reality begins to reflect the odds. Comparing this game to the lottery isn't exactly apples to apples...

Quote: Originally Posted By isack24 on 5/26/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 5/26/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By isack24 on 5/26/2010

Colonels, you do realize that the outcome of any one simulation based on a random generator, even when that generator has inputs to make it less random, is, by definition, random? Ok...

Over time, there should be correction based on odds. It's not much different than winning the lottery the first time I play. Against monumental odds, I might win, but that doesn't mean there is a flaw in the system. Over time, it's almost a foregone conclusion that I won't win again, and reality begins to reflect the odds. Comparing this game to the lottery isn't exactly apples to apples...

Well that's the kind of cop out you accuse other people of. When? Where?

Why isn't it? There odds of something occurring, and occasionally it occurs. The magnitude of the odds is irrelevant. The point is, over time, there is a result correction which approximates the correct odds. Because depending on which drawing(s) you're talking about, the lottery has much vaster odds than HD has...do you think there are any 1 in 70 million shots in WIS? They're just 2 rather different systems...HD isn't you picking a number or a set of numbers or having a computer easy/quick pick for you and seeing if they match what is drawn.

You could very well be correct. WiS's system may not actually approximate the real odds. But premising your theoretical flaw on one or two or ten games has a pretty major flaw itself, illustrated by the lottery example. I'm moreso ****** at the result than I am claiming that the engine is broken, and this is when your colonels19 bias shines through, because you no longer read what I say, you interpret what I say and try to make it into something that it was never meant to be. Tell me honestly that you wouldn't be ****** about your opponent going 8-10 from the field with a 1 LP 13 PER against a 46 and 74 DEF...honestly tell me that.