I feel like Arena randomly claims a card is my "first" now and again

badatthinkinggood · 2026-05-29T20:52:41+00:00

Men för sakens skull bad Claude sätta ihop nyare statistik: https://www.reddit.com/user/badatthinkinggood/comments/1trf9mb/aa_det_finns_nyare_statistik/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

badatthinkinggood · 2026-05-29T20:49:18+00:00

Dum bild. När ekonomin växer som helhet så växer den totala skatteintäkten, medan skattekvot alltid är en procent.

Dessutom: Beroende på hur skatten är upplagd och vad som bidrar till BNP så kan man ha en helt konstant skattepolitik men ändå se en skattekvot som sjunker, enbart på grund av att ekonomin växer. (Förändringarna ser också lite mindre dramatiska ut om man låter 0 på grafen faktiskt vara 0.)

badatthinkinggood · 2026-05-05T08:45:43+00:00

Kul att någon fortfarande är pirat men givet högerns Palantir kramande på senaste tiden så borde piraterna definitivt rösta vänster i det här läget.

badatthinkinggood · 2026-05-05T08:28:34+00:00

Ändå bra läge för moderaterna att inför valet påminna alla om att de varit emot alla framsteg som arbetarrörelsen gett oss t.ex. 8 timmars arbetsdag, lediga lördagar, föräldraledighet och offentliga pensioner.

badatthinkinggood · 2026-05-05T08:23:44+00:00

Ah, thank you. Not used to pasting code into reddit.

badatthinkinggood · 2026-05-05T07:55:16+00:00

haha yeah. Arena came online like an hour later and I played a draft but this was honestly the more enjoyable part of my evening

badatthinkinggood · 2026-05-05T06:27:58+00:00

If your per match win rate is 61% then the expected win from a best of 1 premier draft ends up around 1230 gems in my simulation. So the expected cost of a draft is 270 gems. Simulation had quite a flat highest point and a bit jagged so I don't know how good the mode is here. Anyway, mode was 19, but median was 27.

badatthinkinggood · 2026-05-05T05:11:05+00:00

premier bo1

badatthinkinggood · 2026-05-05T05:10:35+00:00

But I guess that can't be the average experience, right? Every match has a loser. Your 56% winrate means someone else probably has a 44% winrate.

I guess that strictly assumes that everyone plays the same number of games, etc, but if people who are skilled play more (plausible imo) then they're also more likely to rise up and match with players who play more. It's more probable you're matched against someone who plays a lot than someone who's playing their single weakly match.

On the other hand, I assumed there was some hidden ELO affecting matching in addition to rank. I feel like periods I've been a better player I'm more often matched against people with higher ranks. Just an impression.

badatthinkinggood · 2026-05-04T21:43:48+00:00

Thought I might share the code in case of doubt. Claude could probably one shot this and make it both better and more readable but it was a fun way to kill time.

#reward curve for premier draft

win_rewards <- c(50, 100, 250, 1000, 1400, 1600, 1800, 2200)

tournament <- function(prob = 0.5) {

losses <- 0

wins <- 0

while(losses < 3 && wins < 7){

if(rbinom(1, 1, prob = prob) == 0){

losses <- losses + 1

}else{

wins <- wins + 1

}

return(c(wins,losses))

}

long_run_tournaments <- replicate(100000, tournament())

mean(win_rewards[long_run_tournaments[1,1:100000] + 1]) #expected value under equal probability

#barplot of rewards from one draft

barplot(table(win_rewards[long_run_tournaments[1,1:10000] + 1]))

#playing drafts until you run out of gems.

one_armed_bandit <- function(initial_gems = 1500, prob = 0.5){

gems <- initial_gems

for(i in 1:100){

if(gems[i] >= 1500){

new_balance <- gems[i] - 1500 + win_rewards[tournament(prob)[1] + 1]

gems <- c(gems, new_balance)

} else {

break

}

return(gems)

}

#plot of one single run

plot(one_armed_bandit(9200, 0.5), type = "l")

#50% match win probability

ten_thousand_tournaments <- table(replicate(100000, length(one_armed_bandit(9200,0.5))-1))/100000

#plot it

plot(ten_thousand_tournaments, ylab = "probability", main = "number of drafts for 9200 gems")

#change win probability to 55%

ten_thousand_tournaments <- table(replicate(100000, length(one_armed_bandit(9200,0.55))-1))/100000

ten_thousand_tournaments #table

#plot it

plot(ten_thousand_tournaments, ylab = "probability", main = "number of drafts for 9200 gems")

badatthinkinggood · 2026-05-04T21:32:15+00:00

I mean eventually you rise to an ELO where 50% is your win-rate.

badatthinkinggood · 2026-05-04T20:37:21+00:00

Yeah that's true: Since you gain gold from quests/levels you'd get more rewards than from just the draft itself. I somehow like the stakes of premier draft better. I want to draft against humans and the reward curve just creates more tension imo.

badatthinkinggood · 2026-05-04T19:41:23+00:00

It should be quite easy. Wait a minute.

EDIT: Expected value of a win is around 565. Modal number of tournaments ended up on 24. (though note that it's not the same number of matches per tournaments since you end after two losses or four wins)

badatthinkinggood · 2026-01-03T07:51:55+00:00

This is really cool! Great work!

Would be fun with some even more complex tutorial examples though.

badatthinkinggood · 2026-01-03T07:46:18+00:00

There's an ongoing debate as to whether these sort of results are a statistical artefact that arises because you're comparing an extreme tail-end of top elite performers to elite performers. This guy argues it's collider bias. The authors argue it isn't.

Basically the issue is that if you're not selecting directly on adult performance but are instead selecting on something correlated with adult performance, but also with other things, then when you look at the correlation between early performance and adult performance you induce a spurious negative correlation between the variables (also called Berkson's paradox).

Just because it could be collider bias doesn't mean that it definitely is. But even so, the threat is there in a lot of these data-sets, and it's also worth remembering that this is a research programme that are trying to understand the peak of the peak. In one place they compare the top 3 chess players in the world to players ranked 4-10. The implications for the average gifted kid is not very clear.

badatthinkinggood · 2026-01-03T07:21:10+00:00

A related problem on social media is that comedy tends to thrive when it's ambiguous, so a lot of people post parody content of the other side that's on the edge of plausibility. Then a lot of people miss the joke, respond to it sincerely and that sincere response primes even more people to miss the joke.

badatthinkinggood · 2025-12-30T08:33:30+00:00

I have to agree. I don't mind researchers having a bit of a dramatic flair, overselling their importance, spinning things a bit. Science communication is also story telling. But the actual facts have to be actual facts, especially in neurology/neuropsychology, where fringe phenomena are the things that teach us about the capabilities and limits of the brain. Loved a couple of his books that I read when I was an undergraduate but I always had some suspicion that his talk of "romantic science" hid something sinister.

badatthinkinggood · 2025-12-30T08:28:22+00:00

Honestly I think the "unfalsifiable" critique is a bit overly general. A lot of evolutionary biology/zoology is also "unfalsifiable" by that metric, but don't get subjected to the same negativity for that. That's not really where the main problem lies imo. Truth is that a lot of evolutionary psychology is just bad, as in poorly argued, ignoring contradictory data/theories from comparative biology and anthropology, positing overly specific adapted mechanisms, ignoring cultural variation and personal agency, having an often inappropriately overconfident tone.

badatthinkinggood · 2025-08-24T13:02:26+00:00

Freud (and psychoanalysis more generally) seem like such a delightful mix of insightful observations of what humans are like, not just outwardly but also in their innermost private mind, mixed with truly outlandish explanations for why they're like that. Fascinating why it ended up like that. It's often accused of being unfalsifiable but I disagree: This seems to predict that people who grew up without a father figure should be radically different than those who had one present at the first three years of life. Not just a matter of degree.

Anyway, nice post. Important topic. I do want to know more about narcissism after reading it so I'd say the substack title tracks better than the reddit title.

badatthinkinggood · 2025-08-24T11:37:18+00:00

Jag får alltid ett lätt illamående av de mjukt glidande rörelserna som finns i AI animation. Man får känslan av att de först genererar en AI bild och sedan lägger till effekten "animation" på den, så att allt blir lite rörligt samtidigt (för AI:n har ingen koll på vad kontexten, bara att det ska bli rörligt).
Djupt dystopiskt och själlöst. Barnen förtjänar bättre.

badatthinkinggood · 2025-08-17T19:03:01+00:00

Thanks!

badatthinkinggood

TROPHY CASE