PWillis
Joined: Dec 28, 2004
|
 Posted:
Jan 23, 2005 - 12:04 |
 
|
Hi all,
I think I should start this message by indicating that I understand that the luck indicator on JavaBBowl does not actually measure "luck". Nevertheless, in an effort to get some kind of use out of it, I thought I'd find out how effective it was at predicting who would win a game. I've tracked how many games I won/lost when I had a higher percentage than my opponent, and how many I've won/lost with a lower percentage than my opponent with the orc, human and wood elf teams that I have been playing with in Ranked since I found this site at Christmas. Here are the results (I've noticed that if the connection is lost and the game is rejoined then the statistic is reset, so I've not included those games):
I won 12% of games in which I was "unluckier" than my opponent
I drew 18% of games in which I was "unluckier" than my opponent
I lost 71% of games in which I was "unluckier" than my opponent
I won 73% of games in which I was "luckier" than my opponent
I haven't drawn and games in which I was "luckier" than my opponent
I lost 27% of games in which I was "luckier" than my opponent
The sample sizes are small, 17 "unlucky" games and 11 "lucky" games ( didn't list games in which the statistic was even because the sample size was very small. But this aside the luck statistic does seem to be a fairly good predictor of whether or not I am likely to win the game. I wonder whether this result would be true of all players, or whether it is a factor of my usual strategies/skills as a coach? This result also leads me to wonder if there are changes to my playing style that would make me more likely to end up with a higher percentage of wins in both categories, given that it seems to be a good predictor of whether I will win (given that it the gauge doesn't really measure luck)?
Any opinions on either of these questions? How well does your luck gauges (relative to your oponent's) predict whether you will win or lose.
PWillis |
|
|
Ladzurat
Joined: Aug 04, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 23, 2005 - 12:10 |
|
 |
_________________
God don't play dice with the universe
Last edited by Ladzurat on %b %23, %2005 - %13:%Jan; edited 1 time in total |
|
Pyro
Joined: Oct 31, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 23, 2005 - 12:14 |
|
I believe the 101% would be due to rounding. I think you messed up the addition of the second though. |
|
|
PWillis
Joined: Dec 28, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 23, 2005 - 12:16 |
|
(edit - Pyro beat me to it - yes, the 101% is due to rounding) |
|
|
Garaygos
Joined: Feb 24, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 23, 2005 - 12:48 |
|
well the problem is, you cannot know in advance wether a game will be "lucky" or "unlucky" for you... [I sure wish you could know  ]
all you can do is know wether you're currently winning or losing the match... but again since you're playing you're supposed to already know wether things are going well or not 
Thus, I don't see luck as a good predictor. I actually completely stopped looking at it anyway |
_________________
The statement below is true.
The statement above is false. |
|
PWillis
Joined: Dec 28, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 23, 2005 - 13:03 |
|
Maybe predictor was the wrong word. Obviously your can't use the gauge to predict whether you will win before hand, and don't need it to predict whether you will win mid-game.
What I am trying to get at is that "luck" (which is not the same as actual luck!) and winning seem to coincide. Therefore, if there a style of play that maximises your "luck" it would also seem to maximize your chance of winning. I don't really know about how the statistic is derived, but it seemed interesting and possibly worth looking into. |
|
|
Hovring
Joined: Oct 29, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 23, 2005 - 13:08 |
|
Interesting stat. Could be fun to get a larger sample. |
|
|
ZevinzeNompardi
Joined: Oct 25, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 23, 2005 - 13:15 |
|
ok, luck is not a good predictor, or nobody of us would admit that, anyway.
(we always win because we are good players, and lose for unluck, no?)
how does indicate luck?
how does it work?
does it consider that not all of the dice rolls have equal importance?
and that "just" a push can be more than enough in a lot of cases but surely not much in some, for example?
or that if i could make those 4+ before i did not need to succed in all those 2+ later?
just asking, anybody knows where all of this information lies?
i wouldn't try to hijack this if i knew where, or if! 
bye, thank you! |
|
|
mstrchef13
Joined: Dec 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 23, 2005 - 14:20 |
|
I'd like to know how "luck" is calculated by the client, anyway. Some things just don't seem to be appropriate when your "luck" changes. |
|
|
banana_fish900
Joined: Oct 13, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 23, 2005 - 14:55 |
|
There's a latent variable here. The meter is actually success %. So perhaps the kinds of rolls you attempted in your losses were less likely to succeed (either because you were forced into making some low probablilty moves or because you were just making some bad decisions). |
|
|
R_Spiskit
Joined: Nov 24, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 23, 2005 - 14:58 |
|
Assuming that we are all good coaches, and know what our plan is, then luck of the dice, IS the determinant factor.
I am happy with my play style and see no reason why I could not beat the best, providing we both got avearge dice rolls.
Give any retard 1000 sixes and he will beat the world champion. Obviously an exaggeration, but you see my point, the best player cannot beat amazing luck. |
|
|
banana_fish900
Joined: Oct 13, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 23, 2005 - 15:30 |
|
| R_Spiskit wrote: | | Assuming that we are all good coaches |
I don't think that assumption holds up. You've never played games where people reroll a neutral (double push) result for no reason? Where their first move is a 1d block when half their team is prone?
I don't think I'm the greatest coach, there are lots better than me, but I know I'm way better than some. |
|
|
ZevinzeNompardi
Joined: Oct 25, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 23, 2005 - 15:38 |
|
that's not the point, banana fish;
we know that given equal luck AND team there are coaches that are more actentive and others more distracted but we are speaking here of that luck factor;
i believe that luck does influence games between equally skilled players, and may give the strongest a hard time to prevail.
but i would like to drive the dicussion here about the factor, how it is calculated and how does it influence the average result.
to do what the starter of thi thread asked, in my (very few) games i'm
1-1-2 when the opponent gets more luck than me luck and
2-0 when i'm the luckyer.
and i would like to know how are the numbers calculated.
(and another thing: sorry if the tone of this mail appears to be more aggressive than i wanted it to be; this is noth my mothertongue!)
bye! |
|
|
Grumbledook
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 23, 2005 - 15:51 |
|
the luck thing just gives a % of the chances of passing any one single dice roll
ie if you fail a 2+ roll the luck will go down more than if you fail a 6+ roll
likewise it goes up more if you pass 6+ rolls than passing 2+ rolls
it can't take into fact how important a dice roll is in on the outcome of a match, it factors in every roll made, so even those pointless 1 dice blocks or inane dodge attempts that sometimes succeed but don't mean anything |
|
|
banana_fish900
Joined: Oct 13, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 23, 2005 - 15:52 |
|
| ZevinzeNompardi wrote: | that's not the point, banana fish;
we know that given equal luck AND team there are coaches that are more actentive and others more distracted but we are speaking here of that luck factor; |
That's a great point, but we're in the "wild" so to speak, and not controlling for coaching ability. You can't make claims about luck under the assumption of equal coaches. For that matter, luck could be the biggest contributor assuming it was a luck meter and not a success percent.
I don't know if my point is coming across, but you can actually set yourself up for a high success factor or low success factor based on the moves you make. |
|
|
|
|
Gnomes are trash
Search
