Super Elite Games

wicked · Post by **wicked** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 2:41 pm

sully800 wrote:As others said, the average number of wins in a 6 player singles game is of course 1/6.

huh? are you on crack? that's your chance of winning, not the average frequency of X-game types won.

sully800 · Post by **sully800** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 2:42 pm

And for those who haven't figured it out- the reason being above average in your win percentage is important is because having played an enormous number of games will get you plenty of points, but that doesn't take into account how often you actually win.

If you enter a game with clueless opponents and play blindly you will win 16.67% of the time. If you play skillfully against opponents that are relatively equal on skill then you should also win 16.67% of the time.

The only explanations for having a a below average % in any category you have played a decent amount is that you are-
a) a below average player for that game type
or
b) you have consistantly played a group of people that are better than you.

Neither of those situations makes you look like an exemplary player. Of course everyone has their faults and their strong points so perhaps 6 player singles games aren't the best place to compare. If you want a different category name your stats in that and then look at how you stack up against members of the SE. And I would like to note that I'm not trying to say JR is a terrible player or anything like that. I am trying to back up the the data that has already been stated. I'm sure he has other game types in which he is well above average or he wouldn't have as many points as he does, despite having played thousands of games.

Another way to think of that- if you were average in every game type you have ever played your score would be the average of all the opponents you have ever played. Now the average score of any player on this site is a bit about 1000 (because of the deadbeat new recruits who feed points into the system and never return to make it on the scoreboard) but just how high above 1000 I don't know. You also have to figure that the higher ranks generally play people with higher average scores so that would also make it higher. But you are simply not going to get above 3000 points by being average in everything because the average score of JR's opponents is well below the 3000 mark.

AAFitz · Post by **AAFitz** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 2:43 pm

I think we need some comic relief here....someone go through my 6 player escalating games and figure out the percent... I can almost guarantee Ive played more than even JR...certainly more than Robinette...but Im just guessing here...but if you figure out my percentage...you will get a good laugh....my signature says it all.

Ive used almost all my doubles and triples points playing the 6 player games. They just elude me. Ive messed up three of them, that I had no chance of losing, and countless, that I could have or should have won. Im not sure it will ever happen at this point, but if I ever get good at them, my score is going to absolutely sky rocket...(well, its possible)

wicked · Post by **wicked** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 2:44 pm

sully800 wrote:So I've won more games of that type than JR has despite the fact that he was played more than 2.5 times as many of them as I have.

Yes, of course it's easier to have a better record with a smaller sample size, that's expected. Perhaps you should look up statistical significance before posting useless stats.

sully800 · Post by **sully800** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 2:45 pm

wicked wrote:
sully800 wrote:As others said, the average number of wins in a 6 player singles game is of course 1/6.
huh? are you on crack? that's your chance of winning, not the average frequency of X-game types won.

For every 6 player game there is a single winner. Add up the statistics of every person on the site who has ever played a 6 player game. A few people will have won a lot more than 1/6th of the time. A lot will have won less than 1/6th of the time. The average will be 1/6.

If you'd like to explain why that is incorrect feel free, but I see nothing wrong with the logic. Of course I know that its your chance of winning, but by default the chance of winning has to correspond to the average frequency of games won in that game type.

sully800 · Post by **sully800** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 2:47 pm

wicked wrote:
sully800 wrote:So I've won more games of that type than JR has despite the fact that he was played more than 2.5 times as many of them as I have.
Yes, of course it's easier to have a better record with a smaller sample size, that's expected. Perhaps you should look up statistical significance before posting useless stats.

Forget about having a better record then! He has played 204 and won 32. I have played 80 and won 33. It doesn't matter if I play another 124 games and lose them all just so we'd have an equal sample size....I'd still have won more than him

Ah but of course, the statistics mean nothing.

Edit: Also, its easier to have a better record with a smaller sample size but its also easier to have a worse record. Having a large sample size shouldn't make your record worse, it should make it reflect the long run average more closely.

AAFitz · Post by **AAFitz** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 2:49 pm

sully800 wrote:
wicked wrote:
sully800 wrote:As others said, the average number of wins in a 6 player singles game is of course 1/6.
huh? are you on crack? that's your chance of winning, not the average frequency of X-game types won.
For every 6 player game there is a single winner. Add up the statistics of every person on the site who has ever played a 6 player game. A few people will have won a lot more than 1/6th of the time. A lot will have won a lot less than 1/6th of the time. The average will be 1/6.

If you'd like to explain why that is incorrect feel free, but I see nothing wrong with the logic. Of course I know that its your chance of winning, but by default the chance of winning has to correspond to the average frequency of games won in that game type.

Im almost sure that adding that up will cut into her feedback moderation time....speaking of which...poor JR was the victim of another silly one...

wicked · Post by **wicked** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 2:50 pm

I'm not going to argue stats with a high schooler, when I'd rather be keeping abreast of the tragedy that happened today. Just know you're wrong.

sully800 · Post by **sully800** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 2:55 pm

wicked wrote:I'm not going to argue stats with a high schooler, when I'd rather be keeping abreast of the tragedy that happened today. Just know you're wrong.

'Just know you're wrong' seems like a great way to end an argument when you can't make a factual point. And while on the topic of facts, you might want to think again with the 'high schooler' quip.

poo-maker · Post by **poo-maker** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 3:08 pm

I've only completed 24 6 player standard games. I've won 6 of them. Feel free to comment on my immense greatness.

edit: I've won 9 out of 28 5 player games. Feel free to comment again on my immense greatness.

JOHNNYROCKET24 · Post by **JOHNNYROCKET24** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 3:47 pm

wicked wrote:
sully800 wrote:So I've won more games of that type than JR has despite the fact that he was played more than 2.5 times as many of them as I have.
Yes, of course it's easier to have a better record with a smaller sample size, that's expected. Perhaps you should look up statistical significance before posting useless stats.

I explained this 1,000 times

tahitiwahini · Post by **tahitiwahini** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 4:28 pm

sully800 wrote:
wicked wrote:I'm not going to argue stats with a high schooler, when I'd rather be keeping abreast of the tragedy that happened today. Just know you're wrong.
'Just know you're wrong' seems like a great way to end an argument when you can't make a factual point. And while on the topic of facts, you might want to think again with the 'high schooler' quip.

For what it's worth, I don't see the flaw in sully's logic or statistics. If I remember correctly basic statistics is taught in high school. If sully does seem to remember his basic statistics, maybe it's just because his memories are fresh.

qeee1 · Post by **qeee1** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 4:33 pm

tahitiwahini wrote:
sully800 wrote:
wicked wrote:I'm not going to argue stats with a high schooler, when I'd rather be keeping abreast of the tragedy that happened today. Just know you're wrong.
'Just know you're wrong' seems like a great way to end an argument when you can't make a factual point. And while on the topic of facts, you might want to think again with the 'high schooler' quip.
For what it's worth, I don't see the flaw in sully's logic or statistics. If I remember correctly basic statistics is taught in high school. If sully does seem to remember his basic statistics, maybe it's just because his memories are fresh.

Yes, I'm also in agreement with sully's statistics.

As for the rest I'm not too sure about the S.E. being good or bad. Most of the criticisms here are valid. I'm not sure it's a good thing that it exists.

AAFitz · Post by **AAFitz** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 5:22 pm

I dont see why anyone cares if it exists or if it doesnt...I suppose its the name that is the only thing that gets peoples attention, but for the most part, its just a place for the top players to go play together...I want to play with them...they are all great players...and I play them all as much as I can

the fact that they want to do this shouldnt bother anyone....wicked is clearly against it, but half of the games she plays are private too...no one cares who she likes to play in games....sometimes Im even in there...

...sometimes...shes a hell of a player...but I dont care who she plays or what she plays...I know the SE players dont care who she plays...why does she care who they play in games together....seems kind of silly to me.

All I know is I wasnt having much fun till the colonels games got started, but once they did, I had a blast with the game again...and probably started an extra 20 games at a time on average...how can that be bad for the site...is not keeping regular player happy not what it is all about?

Everyones always knocking what games everyone plays, who they play when they play, what types they play. It really is kind of funny. If people want to start groups and play together, and that makes them happy, then I say go for it. Unless you think the site is better off not allowing people to play what they want, or who they want. Maybe we should be mandated a certain number of games that we have to play. Pms will be sent out perhaps...fitz...looks like youre in to many doubles this week, we need you to join a private and a sergeant on the asia map with escalating cards or we will make a post against your games....

Its a silly example, but so is the discussion to a degree. Its just a group of players that play together. They have the highest scores in the game for the most part. Knocking those players for wanting to play the game together is not at all in the interest of the site.

Its just negativity based on jealousy and nothing more...because there is no harm done, so the only motivation to knock it really ca+n be jealousy...

so, now theres a nice little drama with everyone going back and forth...im better than you...hes better than you...she thinks shes better than you but isnt....

I hate to say it, but the only ones not being negative here are the SE players....they arent complaining about anything or anyone...they have a group of players that play together, and those who dont like it are crying about it, and finding every reason they can to knock it.

That to me seems bad to the site...not a group setting up some games together...

but I could be wrong...perhaps the complaining is much better....

and to be clear here...Im not reffering to JR...if I was a general, and third on here, I guarantee Id be mentioning the fact that I wasnt invited. And Im not saying he should be. Im just saying that his asking why he isnt is perfectly natural. Why anyone else cares, Im just not sure I understand. I dont see how its bad for the site in anyway.

I love my little tangents....dont worry...they arent half as serious as they seem

Molacole · Post by **Molacole** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 6:20 pm

sully800 wrote:
Molacole wrote:What is average on CC? How did you find that figure because everyone knows your figures would be horribly inaccurate. Good luck to Anyone trying to get the average win/loss percentage of this site...

You're basically saying 15.7% and 17.8% for each category is below an average that you don't even know exists.

All you did was say that your own winning average is 14.3% while playing against johnnyrockets and his overall average is 15.7%.

Considering you're super elite your winning percentage must not be"below average" (ie 15.7%,17.8%) so IF your winning average is above 14.3% when you're not playing johnny then all you've really showed anyone is that johnny lowers your winning percentage. Well done johnny!
As others said, the average number of wins in a 6 player singles game is of course 1/6. I'm not sure why that is so hard to figure out, or why you would say she doesn't know the average even exists.

Anyway, Robinette has won 50/158 6 player singles games, which is 31.64%. Well above the average 16.66% and over double JR's winning rate of 15.7% (source: Robinette). JR has played 46 more games of that type than Robinette yet she has won 18 more games than him.

Oh and by the way: I have won 33/80 6 player standard games for a win rate of 41.25%. So I've won more games of that type than JR has despite the fact that he was played more than 2.5 times as many of them as I have. And I'm sure if you looked at some of the other SE players their stats would trump mine for this type.

As others said, the average number of wins in a 6 player singles game is of course 1/6. I'm not sure why that is so hard to figure out, or why you would say she doesn't know the average even exists.

yeah that works pretty good until people leave the site and throw the figures off. If everybody continued to play and keep playing then yeah that would be the easy answer, but considering people leave the site the numbers would change drastically depending on their win loss percentage and it will have an impact on the overall average of the community. Basically what I'm saying is the current average of the site is a lot more complex than 100/6.

example

6 players on conquer club
out of the 6 players player 1 wins all of the games and has 100% win loss ratio, he gets bored, quits and the average rank of the community now becomes 0% win loss ratio. This is why it's not as easy as the lazy approach of 100/6 so yeah blah blah blah...

AK_iceman · Post by **AK_iceman** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 6:23 pm

I got invited to join, but I didn't want to.

Molacole · Post by **Molacole** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 6:26 pm

[quote="sully800"]The only explanations for having a a below average % in any category you have played a decent amount is that you are-
a) a below average player for that game type
or
b) you have consistantly played a group of people that are better than you. [quote]

wow that's a pretty big assumption...

how about option C where you seem to end up in many games where people truce within the first 3 rounds and alliances are not your style. I personally will never make an alliance in a game. In fact the last standard game I played was on world 2.0 and had 3 people truce against me and another guy while we had shit for bonuses. I dropped my borders flooding the troops into attack position and suicided on the guy who broke my bonus up. That's just how I play and luckily I ended up with the win. That is the reason I think standard games suck ass and usually only play triples...

Molacole · Post by **Molacole** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 6:30 pm

AK_iceman wrote:I got invited to join, but I didn't want to.

lol same I laughed when blitz told me I have to try out in escilating 6 player standard games... That's like one lucky round of dice and the game is yours.

Molacole · Post by **Molacole** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 6:52 pm

AAFitz wrote:I dont see why anyone cares if it exists or if it doesnt...I suppose its the name that is the only thing that gets peoples attention, but for the most part, its just a place for the top players to go play together...I want to play with them...they are all great players...and I play them all as much as I can

I think the attention is coming from the promoters self declaring themselves super elite and forcing people to try out to qualify. I personally think it reflects the community in a poor way because for one oustanding player to ask another outstanding player if he wants to be part of the super elite then inform them they need to try out.

That would be like the person getting invited saying yeah I'll join if you can play me and 4 of my friends in a standard game and impress us. Or better yet it would be like what I'm doing...

I've made a point ot inform the super elite of my triples games that are private and have 3 colonels waiting for a challenge from the best of the best. Not a single game has been joined from any of them and you expect me to take this self declared super elitists group seriously (and even consider trying out)? I'm having fun ruffling their feathers and trying to egg them on. I mean seriously now you want to play good players and I know a lot of them play triples (BLITZ) but yeah none of them seem to be looking for a challenge.

I'm not saying our team will sweep them or even win the majority, but I know they will all be well played games so I don't see why they're not taking advantage of it.

You can't just run around saying you're the best and expect people to stand by and agree with you...

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 6:55 pm

Molacole wrote: You can't just run around saying you're the best and expect people to stand by and agree with you...

I'm the best... I wonder who is going to agree?!

C.

AAFitz · Post by **AAFitz** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 7:24 pm

Molacole wrote:
AAFitz wrote:I dont see why anyone cares if it exists or if it doesnt...I suppose its the name that is the only thing that gets peoples attention, but for the most part, its just a place for the top players to go play together...I want to play with them...they are all great players...and I play them all as much as I can
I think the attention is coming from the promoters self declaring themselves super elite and forcing people to try out to qualify. I personally think it reflects the community in a poor way because for one oustanding player to ask another outstanding player if he wants to be part of the super elite then inform them they need to try out.

That would be like the person getting invited saying yeah I'll join if you can play me and 4 of my friends in a standard game and impress us. Or better yet it would be like what I'm doing...

I've made a point ot inform the super elite of my triples games that are private and have 3 colonels waiting for a challenge from the best of the best. Not a single game has been joined from any of them and you expect me to take this self declared super elitists group seriously (and even consider trying out)? I'm having fun ruffling their feathers and trying to egg them on. I mean seriously now you want to play good players and I know a lot of them play triples (BLITZ) but yeah none of them seem to be looking for a challenge.

I'm not saying our team will sweep them or even win the majority, but I know they will all be well played games so I don't see why they're not taking advantage of it.

You can't just run around saying you're the best and expect people to stand by and agree with you...

I like the response. Nothing wrong with a little competitive stab obviously...that is good for the site and all part of the game...nothing like offering a game to those you disagree with...sometimes the best games....and if youre simply saying you dont think they are the best on the site...thats fine too... I was more pointing out that there is nothing inherently wrong for those players to want to play in games with each other.

I personally would love the opportunity to play those players on a regular basis...most I play anyways...but to join them easily would be fun...

I do think they have the right to play together and choose who they play with...and as far as qualifying...I dont see anything wrong with it...Ive only lost 15 of them or so....6 player escalating is not exactly my strong suit...but i would love to play the doubles and trips games, as I really do have some experience with those...

and as far as posting most games won percentages etc..I think thats inherently good for the site too...It inspires players to try to get better, to try to increase such scores, which increases competition which is what this game is all about...

JOHNNYROCKET24 · Post by **JOHNNYROCKET24** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 7:33 pm

Molacole wrote:
AAFitz wrote:I dont see why anyone cares if it exists or if it doesnt...I suppose its the name that is the only thing that gets peoples attention, but for the most part, its just a place for the top players to go play together...I want to play with them...they are all great players...and I play them all as much as I can
I think the attention is coming from the promoters self declaring themselves super elite and forcing people to try out to qualify. I personally think it reflects the community in a poor way because for one oustanding player to ask another outstanding player if he wants to be part of the super elite then inform them they need to try out.

That would be like the person getting invited saying yeah I'll join if you can play me and 4 of my friends in a standard game and impress us. Or better yet it would be like what I'm doing...

I've made a point ot inform the super elite of my triples games that are private and have 3 colonels waiting for a challenge from the best of the best. Not a single game has been joined from any of them and you expect me to take this self declared super elitists group seriously (and even consider trying out)? I'm having fun ruffling their feathers and trying to egg them on. I mean seriously now you want to play good players and I know a lot of them play triples (BLITZ) but yeah none of them seem to be looking for a challenge.

I'm not saying our team will sweep them or even win the majority, but I know they will all be well played games so I don't see why they're not taking advantage of it.

You can't just run around saying you're the best and expect people to stand by and agree with you...

totaly agree with you. theres players in that group that are only majors and im not declared elite beacuse a couple of them dont like me. im telling you, its a popularity vote. theres players in there that played only 100 games and were permitted to join. how can you tell what the player can accomplish after only 100 games ? these players may have 200 games now, but the same logic still applies. than you got the points per game thing. well we all know you start with 1,000 points and the more games you play, it automatically decreases. I mean jesus, even I dont win every game. than you got, well you play mostly partner games and not singles. why would that matter? its always something. if anything, its turned into a laughing stock. its ashame for the players in that group that really deserve it.

wicked · Post by **wicked** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:07 pm

Well let's see I've won ~87.78932716% of games on the Brazil map, so obviously I'm the best Brazil map player here, right? Because sample size doesn't matter!

AAFitz · Post by **AAFitz** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:08 pm

wicked wrote:Well let's see I've won ~87.78932716% of games on the Brazil map, so obviously I'm the best Brazil map player here!

congrats!

CBlake · Post by **CBlake** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:11 pm

wicked wrote:Well let's see I've won ~87.78932716% of games on the Brazil map, so obviously I'm the best Brazil map player here, right? Because sample size doesn't matter!

Ive won like 96 percent of that one