2012
2012-07-09 21:28:39
rating 1.6
27 coaches online • Server time: 10:54
* * * Did you know? The best passer is Cherrystone Hotpack with 656 completions.
Recent Forum Topics  Disturbing presence ... | Main coach page | Increasing the max R... |
2012-07-09 21:28:39
12 votes, rating 1.6
12 votes, rating 1.6
I won't ever talk about probabilities /No voy a hablar mas de probabilidades
Because I have discovered that karma is nice with me.
I've been losing my last matches in fumbbl (see? I've learned to spell it) whith really bad luck and I havent argued about it. And today, in real world, I've been picking up the ball among people and with pouring rain as if I had glue in my hands.
So life goes on.
Ah, by the way, for all the statisctic lover around here In all the matches I've played in fumbbl I have received 141 fouls and the refs (if there were any anytime) have spotted 23 fouls. Any comment :-)
Porque he descubierto que el karma es bueno conmigo.
He estado perdiendo los ultimos partidos de fumbbl con muy mala folla y no me lo he tomado mal. Y hoy, en el mundo real (TM) he estado cogiendo balones del suelo entre multitudes y con lluvia intensa como si tuviera pegamento en los guantes.
Asi que la vida sigue.
Ah, por cierto, amantes de la estadistica, En lo que llevo en fummbl he recibido 141 faltas y los arbitros, si es que ha venido alguno a mis partidos, han visto 23. ¿Algún comentario al respecto?
I've been losing my last matches in fumbbl (see? I've learned to spell it) whith really bad luck and I havent argued about it. And today, in real world, I've been picking up the ball among people and with pouring rain as if I had glue in my hands.
So life goes on.
Ah, by the way, for all the statisctic lover around here In all the matches I've played in fumbbl I have received 141 fouls and the refs (if there were any anytime) have spotted 23 fouls. Any comment :-)
Porque he descubierto que el karma es bueno conmigo.
He estado perdiendo los ultimos partidos de fumbbl con muy mala folla y no me lo he tomado mal. Y hoy, en el mundo real (TM) he estado cogiendo balones del suelo entre multitudes y con lluvia intensa como si tuviera pegamento en los guantes.
Asi que la vida sigue.
Ah, por cierto, amantes de la estadistica, En lo que llevo en fummbl he recibido 141 faltas y los arbitros, si es que ha venido alguno a mis partidos, han visto 23. ¿Algún comentario al respecto?
Comments
Posted by pythrr on 2012-07-09 21:36:32
my only comment is that 141 fouls is far too small a sample to be statistically relevant to the RNG on fumbbl as a whole.
Posted by Garion on 2012-07-09 21:51:48
learned to spell what? I'm confused... Losing only has 1 O not 2?
Posted by grendel2410 on 2012-07-09 22:23:29
I think 141 rolls is a good sample. Or at least not "far too small".
Try doing 141 rolls with real dices and then tell me. It wont take you more than 10 minutes and you'll see how close is the result to 1/3...(Which is aprox the probability of getting a double in 4 dices)
And Garion, yes, you look confused, but we dont really mind and still love you.
Try doing 141 rolls with real dices and then tell me. It wont take you more than 10 minutes and you'll see how close is the result to 1/3...(Which is aprox the probability of getting a double in 4 dices)
And Garion, yes, you look confused, but we dont really mind and still love you.
Posted by licker on 2012-07-09 22:29:07
Ummm...
Obviously, not all fouls are 2 pairs of dice, no reason to assume it should be anywhere close to 1/3
That you are nearly exactly at 1/6 is pretty cool though.
Obviously, not all fouls are 2 pairs of dice, no reason to assume it should be anywhere close to 1/3
That you are nearly exactly at 1/6 is pretty cool though.
Posted by dode74 on 2012-07-09 22:31:24
Your odds of being sent off vary between 1/6 and 11/36 depending on the AV of the target after adjustment for assists (assuming you'll not choose to break AV on a 1+1 roll with DP and and adjusted AV of 2 or less).
http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af259/dode74/Foulgraph2.png
23 from 141 is just under 1/6 (23 from 138 would have been exactly 1/6).
Where's the problem?
http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af259/dode74/Foulgraph2.png
23 from 141 is just under 1/6 (23 from 138 would have been exactly 1/6).
Where's the problem?
Posted by grendel2410 on 2012-07-10 10:44:36
You were right and I have checked the fouls again. from 141, 136 passed the armour (AV7 and always with people sorrounding the guy) so its 23 out of 136 which is almost 1/6.
I thought that was a problem, but well, if you says it's not...
As I said before, when people play different here that with real dices something is wrong. And people do, cause with real dices there are not so many fouls as they spot 1/3 of them (close)
I thought that was a problem, but well, if you says it's not...
As I said before, when people play different here that with real dices something is wrong. And people do, cause with real dices there are not so many fouls as they spot 1/3 of them (close)
Posted by zakatan on 2012-07-30 14:19:30
Si te has repasado todas las faltas para ver cuantas pasaron, el problema no está en los dados. Es que estás paranoico.
Posted by the_Sage on 2012-08-01 11:55:41
Your logic is flawed. You assume that the only difference between fumbbl and tabletop is the RNG.
For one thing: people on tabletop face their opponent. And the week after. They drink beers with them. They foul less because not fouling is the nice thing to do. People online foul more because it's open and anonymous, and the optimal thing to do.
A further flaw: what exactly do you think the RNG does? It produces numbers between 1 and 6. So claiming that it produces too few clusters would suggest too few snake eyes as well. Or do you propose that it specifically produces few doubles when fouling, but not when performing other actions?
For one thing: people on tabletop face their opponent. And the week after. They drink beers with them. They foul less because not fouling is the nice thing to do. People online foul more because it's open and anonymous, and the optimal thing to do.
A further flaw: what exactly do you think the RNG does? It produces numbers between 1 and 6. So claiming that it produces too few clusters would suggest too few snake eyes as well. Or do you propose that it specifically produces few doubles when fouling, but not when performing other actions?