Upgrade Disable Compromise

[Secondwind]

WEll, I think you are amusing Secondwind... You yourself pointed out my point

So you're truly an idiot. You simply have no grasp on the english language.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Chance
"a possibility or probability of anything happening: a fifty-percent chance of success."

Let me repeat that. CHANCE: "a possibility or probability of anything happening: a fifty-percent chance of success."

You act as if it is stupid of Internet users to use chance and probability as one in the same... and that is because they are, as you yourself reference above.

Because they're so bloody retarded they can't understand the difference. Just because you can read, doesn't mean you can understand what you've read. Turning letters into the right noise doesn't mean you've comprehended anything.

You're the kind of person who doesn't understand correlation doesn't imply causation too I bet, people who can't wrap their head around probability never seem to get that one either.

I find it so very funny when people feel the need to insult and express disdain for those that are not as superior to one's skills and understandings to make one feel better about himself; being righteous... especially when those with perhaps a less of an understanding, are not necessarily incorrect.

And I find it hilarious when people think they're right when they can't even grasp the difference between chance and probability in statistics. I learned that in the third grade.

Yes, that is my problem.

Hey, I am no exception and am guilty too, probably by posting this, but I'll make the point... It's funny

I think your stupid, a complete idiot I call you, if you don't have over one million dollars in your bank. Stupid people, you don't understand the world. Wow, I feel better already.

Honestly, is English not your first language?

[techgump]

Name calling does nothing to answer it Secondwind, nor does make your case legit. It is more of a reflection of your lack of ability to make the claim, and therefore resort to name calling and brow beating to somehow justify yourself.
Well, moving on, I would still like my question answered on page 6 Darkas, when you find the time. Txs

[Secondwind]

But insisting on pointless semantics while ignoring context makes you right? No, sorry. Go flip a coin a few thousand times then maybe you'll figure out what the rest of us already understand.

If someone can't figure out what is meant when referring to statistics, the chance or probability, they're not even worth explaining the math to because as you showed for several pages, they'll continue to argue even when it's obvious to everyone else they're wrong.

[techgump]

Let's try this:
The chance of me kicking your ass in VW is damn good. And the probability of you losing and calling me names is equally as good.

[Secondwind]

Don't make me laugh. Play me in something where the majority of games aren't decided by luck, then we'll talk, fancy a game of chess?

[Robomajor]

Techgump is a pretty smart guy....and you just seem mostly arrogant.

[Secondwind]

Techgump is a pretty smart guy....and you just seem mostly arrogant.

If you haven't noticed I'm not here to make friends, what people think of me is irrelevant. I came to make a point, I did, now I'm having fun. The fact remains you're significantly more likely to win because of the reroll and people were trying to argue it 'wasn't a big deal'. The math very clearly shows it is, the fact that some needed to be shown the math to understand that it is speaks volumes.

I'm also more than slightly amused you consider taking several pages of posts before he even began to understand probability as "Pretty smart" though. I didn't realize intelligence directly correlated to how much someone liked you. Who knew.

[techgump]

Don't make me laugh. Play me in something where the majority of games aren't decided by luck, then we'll talk, fancy a game of chess?

1. The majority of the games ARE NOT decided by luck. Any experienced player will tell you this. So don't pussy out now.

The fact remains you're significantly more likely to win because of the reroll and people were trying to argue it 'wasn't a big deal'.

2. The real fact remains, this is still very arguable. The math is a curiosity, but does not prove the point of importance, as you should know that much more goes into calculating the worth (a big deal or not), such as when and how boosts are used. Overall, the way I use them, they are not as big of a deal as the math seems to show. And again, even doing the math, seeing how we do not know Lopdo's alog, experience may be the best indicator of usefulness... not the math.

3. You may understand this probability concept well, but I can say with 100% certainty that you are very naive in other aspects of life. This does not make you stupid or an idiot; thinking so just shows one's own naivety and ignorance.

I didn't realize intelligence directly correlated to how much someone liked you.

4. And what do you know about what basis Robomajor made his comment? I suppose you read minds too. In your words, "Who knew".

[Darkas]

By the way Gump, I already did it from both point of vue:

FROM OFFENDER
Offender's chance to win on first battle, 47%
Offender's chance to win on second battle having lost the first one, (1-0.47)*0.47=25%
47% + 25% = 72%
Therefore, the chance of the defender to win is 100%-72%=28%


FROM DEFENDER
Defender chance of winning, that means winning both fight: (1-0.47)*(1-0.47)=28%
Therefore, the chance of the offender to win is 100%-28%=72%

Guess what, it's symmetrical !
And before you instantly react saying "you're not using the same formula blabla", think about it: the formula gives you the chance of winning/losing two games in a row... it's not what we need in both cases, as the offender only have to win once =)

[techgump]

Clarity. Txs . Let's be clearer, this is for an attack boost only, not a defence boost.

That said, why are you adding the computation of both % of two rolls to come out with the final 72%. Would it not be a true statement to say that each roll comprises a total of 100%, and hence:

If the Offender's chance to win on first battle is 47%, then the Defender's is 53%
And if the Offender's chance to win on second battle having lost the first one is (1-0.47)*0.47=25%, then the Defenders is 75%

And if you are choosing to add the two % for defender over 2 rolls: 47% + 25% = 72%
then respectively over two rolls the defender has 53% + 75% = 128%.

It does not still seem correct to me that you are choosing to add the odds for the offender, and not doing so for the defender? This is where I still believe something does not seem right. I do believe you cannot chose to ignore the second roll of one player, while considering it for the other. As you can see, in considering the odds for both users, the odds percentage totals come out to 200% (because of each roll comprised of 100%). Yes, I get that the second roll may not happen, but if a second roll does happen (and you are considering it in your math as shown), then you must consider it happening on both sides... as you can not have a one sided battle.

Hence I do believe that this is still wrong, and that there must be a mean between the two rolls:
Offender: 47% + 25% = 72%. Then take the mean: 72/2 = 36%
and
Defender: 53%+ 75% = 128%. Then take the mean: 128/2 = 64%

36% + 64% = 100%

This makes sense to me, as these probabilities already consider a loss on the first roll in order to even consider adding the total of both rolls % odds!

And this is where my brain is tripping on your math, and seeing it clearly laid this way helped me isolate it. Once again, you cannot say an Offender's chance is 72%... without considering BOTH rolls... and hence you must, if you are going to consider both rolls for attacker to produce a %, consider it such for the defender, with a 128% chance . As I stated before, you cannot have a first or second roll without both a Offender and Defender.

Hence when you state 72%, you are in fact considering already a loss for the first roll and a chance at the second, and in doing so, MUST do the same for the Defender, in which again, is 128%.

Does anyone not see my point here? I feel like I am going crazy.