plasmoid wrote:Mike - as for the BBRC data, I believe the answer has been given in this very thread. More on that tomorrow.
If so, then it suggests that the BBRC was working from low-meaning data, which would certainly explain why their resulting decisions created a ruleset you, and others, feel the need to "fix", though, again, I point out that using the same methods they did is likely to result in something just as flawed.
Darkson wrote:Oh sure, cos a game is as important as any of those things.
Not as important, no, but since using proper statistical analysis is not significantly tougher than just making shit up, there's no reason not to use those same methods. Your repeated objection to that fact suggests that you think its like mountain climbing, or tiger dentistry, which is really just a result of you not understanding it.
Summary - you're taking the standpoint that anything you don't understand is obviously unimportant. That takes it from ignorance to beligerant ignorance.
Darkson wrote:I game for fun, you troll for fun. I couldn't give a damn if the maths are "right", if it's not fun because it doesn't feel right, then I change it. I assume you feel the same way about your trolling?
My postings are straight on topic, unlike your typical contributions to these threads, or any on Cyanide's forums, etc. Trolling is just making comments to stir up ill-will and get angry responses and/or taking opposing viewpoints to someone not because you hold those opposing beliefs but because you want to fight with them. The only person who is "trolling" in this thread is Koadah.
Pluisje wrote:To show how strong the demands for significance are, I calculated the results of the 1,500 matches of Amazons vs Dwarf and Chaos Dwarves. Average was 0,4101, Sd 0,0365, Av+2*Sd=0,4831. Not significantly outside the 45-55%. So there is no evidence Amazons lose more against Dwarves .
If you're using a computer to do your calculations, you may want to go past "SD x 2" for your CI. We use that in casual conversation because nobody is going to bust out a calculator or charts to give the exact numbers... but you can get considerably more accurate.
Also, you don't have evidence that "Amazons don't lose more against Dwarves". First off, the numbers you gave are, in fact, significantly outside the range... the CI is the specific measure of significance, you don't find the upper limit and then eyeball whether its "close enough" to something else. What your numbers suggest is that the win% versus dwarves falls OUTSIDE the expected T1 range with 96% confidence.
This also doesn't mean "Amazons lose 'more' against dwarves", that sort'v thing would require an ANOVA and follow-up tests. It just tells us that in whatever dataset you were using, the amazon win% versus dwarves falls under 45%, and we're 96% certain that can be generalized to the population the sample represents.
You should get yourself a copy of PSPP (an open-source, though less powerful clone of SPSS) and work with that... or get a copy of SPSS by whatever means you're comfortable with. Certainly SPSS will do all the necessary calculations for you, and PSPP does quite a few of them... I've only used it a little bit, though.
Lunchab1es wrote:If there ever was a thorough, meaningful statistical analysis on BB (taking match ups, TV levels etc into account) it's the kind of thing I would love to read through.
There has been some analysis done on the fairly decent-sized datasets from FUMBBL and FOL, across the past 2-3 years. Analysis is pretty specific, though, so... only specific questions have been looked at.
garion wrote:This statistical analysis is all pointless, it will not change how any of the 3 people who have created house rules approaches their changes.
No, it is you who continues to miss the point. You're not required to engage in statistical analysis to make your houserules. You will, however, be called to task on your lack of analysis if you try to claim that your houserules are data driven, and serve to address issues in specifically statistical imbalances in the game, as "NTBB" has.
garion wrote:FYI I do understand statistics, they are just clearly bollocks in a game with as many variables, especially when one of the most important of which is coaching ability and others include house ruled leagues to draw conclusion from and tiny sample sizes from other sources.
What a crock 'o crap. You and Darkson should found a "Who needs math when we have the Bible?" group. You can burn calculators and follow your hearts to the promised land.
Again, these are mathematical tools used to evaluate life or death issues, from drug effects to disaster planning to epidemic mapping and so on. But no, I'm sure this board game is outside its scope because it has WAY more variables and impossible to measure influences.