14 coaches online • Server time: 02:51
Forum Chat
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Making Assassins mor...goto Post New Team Page Betagoto Post ramchop takes on the...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
sk8bcn



Joined: Apr 13, 2004

Post   Posted: Jan 05, 2006 - 18:57 Reply with quote Back to top

So finally I did understood it right! Biggie is a mathematician as me and I thought to myself:

"Their aren't discussing about the possibility that the RNG countebalance bad luck with a good stream when they didn't take time to make calculation about the probabilities such things occur, are they??? After reading Biggie it seems it's the case!!

ps: hyphotes means????

_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes
Mezir



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Jan 05, 2006 - 19:07 Reply with quote Back to top

sk8bcn: Which is what I've been trying to point out all the time, that the good and bad streams occur with the same frequency as they would in true random, which I believe my test program has now shown to be true. Smile

And I believe that by 'hyptes' BiggieB means the test that tests the hypothesis.

_________________
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day; set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
sk8bcn



Joined: Apr 13, 2004

Post   Posted: Jan 05, 2006 - 22:58 Reply with quote Back to top

then I am with you Mez' . Well not too much though, you know you have 2 major flaw DD3.5 and comming from Belgium

_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes
gallahbrains



Joined: Jan 06, 2006

Post   Posted: Jan 06, 2006 - 00:36 Reply with quote Back to top

Rynkky wrote:
Vicimus, you may want to recheck your proggie. 500% sounds quite high to me..

Quote:

500000 psuedorandom numbers were just generated.
These numbers were organised into 10000 consecutive sets. Each sets contains 50 psuedorandom numbers.

A good stream averages above 3.9
A bad stream averages below 3.1
A good stream occurred 4.4% of the time.
A bad stream occurred 500% of the time.


I pressed refresh about a thousand times and can't recreate that problem.

Also, as far as I worked it out a good team and bad stream should occur in real life about ~4.5% of the time and the program recreates that almost perfectly.
Mezir



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Jan 06, 2006 - 00:40 Reply with quote Back to top

More on the same subject in this thread, containing more tests and their results.

_________________
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day; set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.


Last edited by Mezir on %b %06, %2006 - %13:%Jan; edited 2 times in total
Rynkky



Joined: Aug 03, 2004

Post   Posted: Jan 06, 2006 - 12:54 Reply with quote Back to top

gallahbrains wrote:
Rynkky wrote:
Vicimus, you may want to recheck your proggie. 500% sounds quite high to me..

Quote:

500000 psuedorandom numbers were just generated.
These numbers were organised into 10000 consecutive sets. Each sets contains 50 psuedorandom numbers.

A good stream averages above 3.9
A bad stream averages below 3.1
A good stream occurred 4.4% of the time.
A bad stream occurred 500% of the time.


I pressed refresh about a thousand times and can't recreate that problem.

Also, as far as I worked it out a good team and bad stream should occur in real life about ~4.5% of the time and the program recreates that almost perfectly.


Maybe he (she?) fixed it? Don't know .. I tried again and now I am getting correct-looking results.
Display posts from previous:     
 Jump to:   
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic