Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
ad morgana works
lololol
So much win
it's not possible to get a 57% win rate with 50 games.
the thing you're missing is...does anybody see anything wrong with this?
i posted this on the lol forums and people found nothing wrong with it. my thread got closed to downvotes, lol.
more proof that the average league player is ********?
does anybody see anything wrong with this?
i posted this on the lol forums and people found nothing wrong with it. my thread got closed to downvotes, lol.
more proof that the average league player is ********?
I'm gonna guess that some Loss Forgiven's are skewing the numbers. The case is probably that they won't count as negatives against win rate but count towards the total used to calculate it.does anybody see anything wrong with this?
i posted this on the lol forums and people found nothing wrong with it. my thread got closed to downvotes, lol.
more proof that the average league player is ********?
Getting him fed becomes an issue in the higher summoner levels.
Which is why I killed him enough for him to finally buy armor while the others (Mostly Fiddlesticks and Maoki) I fed off of.
Look at his deaths compared to kills (That I allowed him to take alot which is where the 11 assists literally came from) and ask that question again.
I'm level 18 and have no runes yet... I just need another two levels of torture bad teammates and terrible internet.
sigging this
And what if it actually was? What would happen if, as probability would dictate, there was a person who had terrible teammates an unusually large amount of the time, and had lag issues the rest of the time?
Yeah, **** matchmaking and **** substandard internet for everything that doesn't cover.
most of the time it is, in my case.
aw, come on. you picked the wrong post this time. now it looks like you're trying too hard here.
Yeah, goddamn that dude is doing better than me in solo queue so he must be getting carried by those guys who never get bad teammates.
Law of Large Numbers, Jazriel. If you want to argue with possibly the fundamental law of probability, be my guest, but you aren't going to win it.
An "average" is essentially the peak of a bell curve. There are always outliers. There are always people at the far left and far right. People who get carried to an ELO they don't belong in, and people who are below the ELO they do belong in.
There is no reason to assume the Elo in LoL is a bell curve. In fact, I'd be willing to bet it's not a symmetrical bell curve. It most likely is a bi-modal curve due to the great amount of very low Elo players and the players at 1400 due to Elo decay. Any statistics you have for a bell curve are essentially null and void now.
Yes, there are outliers, but you are stretching the concept of it to new widths. This occurs when there is a small sample of games/actions taken. When the numbers are drastically increased, the probability of you having bad members on your team vs the other team having those crappy members is 50%. There may be streaks either way during that time, but as a whole after a substantial amount of games, it's 50%. This is true for everyone, independent of Elo or skill in the game. This isn't opinion, this is mathematics, founded on logic and the Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms of set theory. If you refute this, then this may be one of the greatest finding in the history of math.
Why am I not allowed to use the word 'average' as pertaining to an entire set, namely the players of LoL. It is a perfectly valid claim; any sort of quantitative statistics can use averages and the value of that average relates to the entire set. I don't know why you are averse to me using this valued term in our debate.
What fallacy? If two players were to play numerous matches against each other, and the first player won significantly more matches, would we label him the 'better' player or the 'worse' player? 'Better', obviously, because in this game, where the sole objective is to win the game, those who win more are considered 'better'. We did not create this labels arbitrarily and they have been used since the dawn of competition, online or real life. This is no fallacy.
Why not? You give this conclusion with no actual evidence or backing. On average (a solid average, due to millions of people playing this game and many more millions of games being played) the players with higher Elo will most likely win more games than those of lower Elo. This isn't opinion, it is fact and is represented by the wins and loses tallied by every player. And as you'll see from the previous paragraph, players that tend to win more through a sample of numerous games are considered 'better' players.
Here, you fail to acknowledge the games where you [everyone] plays poorly and happens to be carried. This happens with the same frequency as feeders on your team; matching does not have a bias towards you or any other player. Feeders can happen in relatively long streaks, but so can being carried and, by the LLN, the line will even out.
