lol @ people hating on PR Rog's gameplay.

#31FabuIousPosted 2/5/2013 8:12:40 AM
Strawman xdddd dat high school debate 101
---
http://steamcommunity.com/id/toilethumor
psn : toilethumorr
#32RagingRicansPosted 2/5/2013 8:47:30 AM
TheSteelPhoenix posted...
ProzacIsBack posted...

You're quibbling over semantics now.

Rephrased as "is he the better player?", the answer is no.

If the question is "did the game pop up with Winner! and score him a point?", the answer is obviously yes; without consistency, however, who gives a ****.

The circumstances in which a lesser player can sneak out a win against overall much better players have been explained.

(which has nothing to do with pr rog 'cause rog is gdlk)


There is a massive difference between if someone 'deserved' a win and if 'is he the better player'. This has the trappings of what is called a 'straw man argument', in which you choose a different (more winnable) argument to attack instead of the one presented. But I don't really view this as an argument, as you no doubt do, because my post didn't require a response. It simply was a statement of fact.

This does however remind me of another problem, one that is of the same subordinate type (strategic consistency problems in choice systems).

Some 2 or 3 years ago when I was writing a text book on the subject, an interesting part of optimization was determining the weight of chance of success versus effectiveness of success. There are several other factors you have to take into account (binary outcomes versus variable outcomes, intensity of information stream, information availability, historical choice pattern, etc), but these two are enough to demonstrate the basic idea.

Essentially, the chance of success can be interchanged for effectiveness success only relative the sample size required of performance.

Let's say you are playing a game with a coin toss that can be tuned to give % outcomes on command. In this game, if the coin comes up heads, you get points, and tails, your opponent gets points. First one to some number of points will win.

Now if I gave you some options, which were:

1. 85% heads chance, 1 point for heads, 2 for tails. 10 points
2. 75% heads chance, 1 point for heads, 2 for tails, 1000 points.

In the first example, that seems like an easy one, you will win most of the time. In fact, if we lowered it to 66% it would come out about even, you winning half the games, him winning half the games.

In reality 85% has some inefficiency built in. The reason is its a 10 game sample with a opponent that needs to score half of what you have, you really only need about 82% to win convincingly. Many systems in life have the ability to reduce the chance of success for increased effectiveness of success, so here we can actually sacrifice 3% for some increase in points (assuming ceteris parabis, and that there isn't some choice that has better odds AND better effectiveness, we would just call that the better choice).

In the second example, we have a similar problem, but here with the 100 game sample, we actually would need about 79% to win convincingly. So we are short 4% here.

Just something to think about.


Straw man? Ain't know body got time for that!
---
PSN: RagingRicans. "There is always a little truth behind every "Kappa" - Fictional Hispanic man.
#33AegisIkanaPosted 2/5/2013 9:45:15 AM
I was wondering about where you went the other day.
---
PSN: TheVeldt;; Hsien Ko/Morrigan/Felicia; Morrigan/Sent/Dorm
Adapt what is useful, reject what is useless, and add what is specifically your own.
#34_tanjil_Posted 2/5/2013 1:09:49 PM
how can anyone hate the way PR Rog plays, he's almost always got a smile on his face. Jolly Canadians
#35_tanjil_Posted 2/5/2013 1:21:18 PM
oh yeah is the hate coming from FT10 or SCR Grand Finals? FT10 had mad levels of randomness from both players, but SCR GF was legit, just everything looks random when it's Wolverine
#36ProzacStylingsPosted 2/5/2013 4:03:06 PM
TheSteelPhoenix posted...
ProzacIsBack posted...

You're quibbling over semantics now.

Rephrased as "is he the better player?", the answer is no.

If the question is "did the game pop up with Winner! and score him a point?", the answer is obviously yes; without consistency, however, who gives a ****.

The circumstances in which a lesser player can sneak out a win against overall much better players have been explained.

(which has nothing to do with pr rog 'cause rog is gdlk)


There is a massive difference between if someone 'deserved' a win and if 'is he the better player'.


No, there isn't.

You know you're kind of a pretentious idiot, right?

:>
---
Quoth the server, "404"
#37TheSteelPhoenixPosted 2/5/2013 5:02:45 PM
ProzacStylings posted...
TheSteelPhoenix posted...
ProzacIsBack posted...

You're quibbling over semantics now.

Rephrased as "is he the better player?", the answer is no.

If the question is "did the game pop up with Winner! and score him a point?", the answer is obviously yes; without consistency, however, who gives a ****.

The circumstances in which a lesser player can sneak out a win against overall much better players have been explained.

(which has nothing to do with pr rog 'cause rog is gdlk)


There is a massive difference between if someone 'deserved' a win and if 'is he the better player'.


No, there isn't.

You know you're kind of a pretentious idiot, right?

:>


I've always wondered why you are so bitter/unlikable. Why do you feel so threatened by people? Obviously you care about other people, I've seen you go out of your way to help people on here that I assume are total strangers to you. Yet the first moment someone disagrees with you (or NOT disagrees with you in this case, I suspected what I wrote you agreed with which is why you tried to shift what we were talking about, because you wanted to win some imaginary argument that we weren't having), you become hostile, degrading, irascible. Is there something people can do to help you get past this?

Also, how isn't there a difference? 'Deserve' implies some sort of discontinuity, an exclusionary factor that shifted the 'is' from the 'ought'. The question of "is he a better player' is a straight evaluation, one that has an answer, even if the answer isn't easily gained.
---
lol
#38ProzacStylingsPosted 2/5/2013 5:55:05 PM
TheSteelPhoenix posted...
ProzacStylings posted...
TheSteelPhoenix posted...
ProzacIsBack posted...

You're quibbling over semantics now.

Rephrased as "is he the better player?", the answer is no.

If the question is "did the game pop up with Winner! and score him a point?", the answer is obviously yes; without consistency, however, who gives a ****.

The circumstances in which a lesser player can sneak out a win against overall much better players have been explained.

(which has nothing to do with pr rog 'cause rog is gdlk)


There is a massive difference between if someone 'deserved' a win and if 'is he the better player'.


No, there isn't.

You know you're kind of a pretentious idiot, right?

:>


I've always wondered why you are so bitter/unlikable. Why do you feel so threatened by people? Obviously you care about other people, I've seen you go out of your way to help people on here that I assume are total strangers to you. Yet the first moment someone disagrees with you (or NOT disagrees with you in this case, I suspected what I wrote you agreed with which is why you tried to shift what we were talking about, because you wanted to win some imaginary argument that we weren't having), you become hostile, degrading, irascible. Is there something people can do to help you get past this?

Also, how isn't there a difference? 'Deserve' implies some sort of discontinuity, an exclusionary factor that shifted the 'is' from the 'ought'. The question of "is he a better player' is a straight evaluation, one that has an answer, even if the answer isn't easily gained.


I joke all day, which is the opposite of bitter.

Many people like my lulz, and my sharp, accurate advice, which is the opposite of unlikable.

Pretty much every thread and post you make is useless, full of analytical diatribes that have absolutely nothing to do with the game, and no one cares enough to read. Like the coin-flip example above. In fact, if I were a bettin' man, I'd chalk you up as a bobbly-headed vegan kid(allergic to half the planet lolz) who's parents didn't have the nuts to tell you to stop talking if you have nothing of merit to say.

People associate "who won" with "who is the better player" on a larger and longer scale.

Therefore, if a good player plays a bad player, they would say the Good Player deserves to win. Every time. Every time, the game's outcome should indicate the Better Player. So, if and when the less-good player wins, such as through the risk vs reward situations presented far above, they would say "he did not deserve to win", or "he did not deserve the win", because he wasn't overall the better player.

This is what people mean when they say "So and so didn't deserve the win".

Deserve: Verb
Do something or have or show qualities worthy of (reward or punishment)

They are saying that the qualities the player showed, were not indicative or worthy of success; a statement that would be true if the same qualities caused the player to lose more matches than it caused them to win in the future.

/you're still an idiot
---
Quoth the server, "404"
#39TheSteelPhoenixPosted 2/5/2013 6:01:25 PM
ProzacStylings posted...
TheSteelPhoenix posted...
ProzacStylings posted...
TheSteelPhoenix posted...
ProzacIsBack posted...

You're quibbling over semantics now.

Rephrased as "is he the better player?", the answer is no.

If the question is "did the game pop up with Winner! and score him a point?", the answer is obviously yes; without consistency, however, who gives a ****.

The circumstances in which a lesser player can sneak out a win against overall much better players have been explained.

(which has nothing to do with pr rog 'cause rog is gdlk)


There is a massive difference between if someone 'deserved' a win and if 'is he the better player'.


No, there isn't.

You know you're kind of a pretentious idiot, right?

:>


I've always wondered why you are so bitter/unlikable. Why do you feel so threatened by people? Obviously you care about other people, I've seen you go out of your way to help people on here that I assume are total strangers to you. Yet the first moment someone disagrees with you (or NOT disagrees with you in this case, I suspected what I wrote you agreed with which is why you tried to shift what we were talking about, because you wanted to win some imaginary argument that we weren't having), you become hostile, degrading, irascible. Is there something people can do to help you get past this?

Also, how isn't there a difference? 'Deserve' implies some sort of discontinuity, an exclusionary factor that shifted the 'is' from the 'ought'. The question of "is he a better player' is a straight evaluation, one that has an answer, even if the answer isn't easily gained.


I joke all day, which is the opposite of bitter.

Many people like my lulz, and my sharp, accurate advice, which is the opposite of unlikable.

Pretty much every thread and post you make is useless, full of analytical diatribes that have absolutely nothing to do with the game, and no one cares enough to read. Like the coin-flip example above. In fact, if I were a bettin' man, I'd chalk you up as a bobbly-headed vegan kid(allergic to half the planet lolz) who's parents didn't have the nuts to tell you to stop talking if you have nothing of merit to say.

People associate "who won" with "who is the better player" on a larger and longer scale.

Therefore, if a good player plays a bad player, they would say the Good Player deserves to win. Every time. Every time, the game's outcome should indicate the Better Player. So, if and when the less-good player wins, such as through the risk vs reward situations presented far above, they would say "he did not deserve to win", or "he did not deserve the win", because he wasn't overall the better player.

This is what people mean when they say "So and so didn't deserve the win".

Deserve: Verb
Do something or have or show qualities worthy of (reward or punishment)

They are saying that the qualities the player showed, were not indicative or worthy of success; a statement that would be true if the same qualities caused the player to lose more matches than it caused them to win in the future.

/you're still an idiot


lol, ok killer. You got me (sarcasm). Got an ego problem to feed eh? It's ok, I'm sure your parents loved you. Also you are still wrong, but I'll walk away, I learned long ago that you can start insulting back, or you can walk away. Stay cool online warrior.
---
lol
#40ProzacStylingsPosted 2/5/2013 6:02:19 PM
gg no re

:>
---
Quoth the server, "404"