[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Réf. : [Bug-gnubg] Understanding the stats
From: |
Ian Shaw |
Subject: |
RE: Réf. : [Bug-gnubg] Understanding the stats |
Date: |
Fri, 22 Sep 2006 16:02:32 +0100 |
From:
Albert Silver
Sent: 22 September 2006 15:32
I think Albert has a
point. There are only four factors that prevent a game ending in a draw: Luck on
my rolls, Luck on opponent's rolls, errors in my play, errors in opponent's
play.
The way I read the
results below, Opponent won 3 points, but if he hadn't been so lucky he'd "only"
have won 1.958 points. However, he is still coming out ahead, which means that
he must have more net skill. However, the error analysis says Opponent was a
worse player.
Why does this contradiction exist?
It might be because luck
and errors are normalized to a 1-cube. For example errors on 2
cube are rated the same as errors on an 8-cube, even though they cost you less
equity.
I'm not sure how this
works its way through to the overall stats, where the result does depend on the
cube level (obviously).
-- Ian
I don't think you are understanding the problem. If he was worse,
but luckier, why is he the one with an advantage over me? Why should he have a
luck adjusted advantage of +0.279 points per game over me when he plays
*worse*?
Unless GNU is trying to convince me that it is better to play
worse than my opponents, that way I'll have a bigger edge over them than if I
were better.
Albert
On 9/22/06, address@hidden
<address@hidden
> wrote:
>I'm
trying to understand the money game stats, but clearly am having
>no
luck, so I'm requesting help.
Funny way to state your problem ... no
luck ... :))
>I played a session, albeit poorly, which I lost 10
points to 13 over
>7 games. According to the analysis, I played better
overall, better
>in checkers, and better with the cube. Despite this,
and despite
>losing, I am told I was the luckier of the two. Highly
disputable
IMHO.
>
> Opponent
Me
>Overall Statistics:
>Error rate
(total) -3.523
( -4.811) -2.269
( -3.939)
>Error rate (per
decision) -
25.7 ( -0.035) -14.2
(
-0.025)
>Equiv. Snowie error
rate
-
11.0
-7.1
>Overall
rating Casual
player Intermediate
>Actual
result +3.000
-3.000
>Luck adjusted
result
+1.958
- 1.958
>Advantage (actual) in
ppg
+0.4286 -
0.4286
>95% confidence interval
(ppg) 3.1388
3.1388
>Advantage (luck adjusted) in
ppg +0.2797 -
0.2797
>95% confidence interval
(ppg) 0.9709
0.9709
No, your opp was the luckier.
The actual result for him is
+3.000 while the luck adjusted result for him
is
+1.958 : +1.958 <
+3.000, this means that he had more luck than you.
Other way to see
it, his ACTUAL advantage in ppg is +0.4286 (that is equal
to +3.000points
/ 7games), but his luck adjusted advantage in ppg is
+0.2797 :
+0.2797
< +0.4286, this means that he has been luckier than you.
But
notice that the fact you played better has nothing to do with it.
You can
play better (have a lower error rate) and be the luckier of
the
two.
Luck does not depend on how you play, it depends only on
rolls.
- [Bug-gnubg] Understanding the stats, Albert Silver, 2006/09/21
- Réf. : [Bug-gnubg] Understanding the stats, Massimiliano . Maini, 2006/09/22
- Re: Réf. : [Bug-gnubg] Understanding the stats, Albert Silver, 2006/09/22
- RE: Réf. : [Bug-gnubg] Understanding the stats,
Ian Shaw <=
- Re: RE: Réf. : [Bug-gnubg] Understanding the stats, Massimiliano . Maini, 2006/09/22
- Re: Réf. : [Bug-gnubg] Understanding the stats, Christian Anthon, 2006/09/22
- Re: Réf. : [Bug-gnubg] Understanding the stats, Albert Silver, 2006/09/22
- Re: Réf. : [Bug-gnubg] Understanding the stats, Ian Shaw, 2006/09/23
- Message not available
- Fwd: Réf. : [Bug-gnubg] Understanding the stats, Robert-Jan Veldhuizen, 2006/09/23