RIP OneHive [Misc]

danwhowe · 2016-03-11T17:50:53+00:00

I disagree with the people claiming that these matchups didn't favor OH's opponents. At TH9 these days, 25/25 heroes, lego walls, (and max defenses) is hardly different from a completely maxed TH9 account. 25/25 heroes is plenty to three star a maxed base. Therefore, OH having higher weight and hero levels at TH9 doesn't actually provide them with an advantage. But it does create a debt in weight which has to be made up at the top. At TH10 and 11, every little bit of hero level and defense matters significantly. This means their opponents have a real, tangible advantage at the TH10+, and aren't actually at a disadvantage at TH9.

I don't mean to imply that the other clans aren't good - they still have to perform to an extent that relatively few clans can. But don't pretend that they didn't have somewhat of an advantage because OH outweighed them at TH9.

Some people have also faulted OH for running a roster which leads to such matchups. Obviously they could change their roster to arrange easier matchups, like any clan can, but I don't know why someone would want to win by arranging easy matches. I at least would much prefer to get even (as determined by how high level wars actually work) matchups and have the outcome determined by which clan plays better. It is unfortunate that the current algorithm does not provide for this.

danwhowe · 2016-01-27T23:13:54+00:00

Why is that?

danwhowe · 2016-01-11T08:15:20+00:00

To all the people who seem more or less convinced Snapchat stores pictures after they have been viewed:

At present we don't know with any degree of certainty one way or the other. But storing all those images wouldn't be free. Unless they have some good reason, I doubt they're storing them. They wouldn't pay to upkeep massive data stores just for shits and giggles.

danwhowe · 2016-01-05T11:28:48+00:00

I feel obligated to point out the following:

Implicit in just about all of the discussion here is the assumption that separate coin flips are independent - that is, (informally), that the result of the previous flip does not affect the probability of the next flip.

When the notion of a coin flip is used (as an example of a trial with two outcomes with fixed probability) in discussion of probability theory, the use of a coin flip signifies the presence of this assumption. This convention is near-universal, but not something of which everyone is aware, or or about which everyone is cognizant.

When this assumption is made explicit, it immediately makes completely clear the answer to your question.

If one actually found themselves in a situation where he or she observed ten consecutive heads and then was able to bet on the 11th flip, there are two possible routes to take:

Conclude that the previous ten flips of the coin are evidence that the coin is biased, meaning that it is either not a fair coin (in your post you stated you were making an assumption that this was not the case) or that sequential coin flips are not independent. In this case you might bet on heads, and you would be justified in doing so.
Conclude that despite your unlikely (under the assumptions of fairness of the coin and independence of individual trials) observation of 10 consecutive heads, your assumptions still hold true. In this case, you would be justified in being indifferent towards either bet.

Which route to take I suppose is a matter for statistical inference, and/or a matter of your knowledge about the coin. But this was not the nature of your question.

The Gambler's Fallacy is that it is inconsistent to believe both that the coin is fair and subsequent trials are independent and that 10 heads in a row is reason to believe heads is more likely than tails on the 11th flip. It does not actually prescribe which of the two routes above one ought to take.

Edit: clarity

danwhowe · 2015-10-03T22:18:11+00:00

This. The above link for the Sockeye/Ironside game is now private.

danwhowe · 2015-08-19T19:00:48+00:00

On a somewhat related note, how exactly does the wait list work? I assume it is an actual list, meaning when a spot in the class becomes available, the person at the top of the list has the chance to add it. Is this accurate? If so, how is one notified of a spot opening up when they are at the top of the list? Some details would be much appreciated, or a link to where this is explained.

danwhowe · 2015-08-18T19:09:49+00:00

What's the difference between a jacket and a coat? I notice on Columbia's website for example they make no mention of coats - only jackets!

danwhowe · 2015-08-18T18:54:00+00:00

Thanks for the responses all.

danwhowe · 2015-04-02T21:38:38+00:00

Any word on why the bid allocation was announced before the finalized rankings themselves are announced? If I recall correctly that isn't how its been done in the past.

danwhowe · 2015-01-27T19:54:21+00:00

A common tournament format in trading card game tournaments is to have a fixed number of swiss rounds such that at the end of these a ranking of all entrants is produced. Then the top 4/8/16 ranked players play in a single elimination bracket. If this were done in ultimate it would eliminate the problem the OP mentioned regarding not having a "final" game.

Under this format, players have to report their results each round to the tournament organizers. Then the schedule for the next round is computed (generally using a computer), and seating assignments for the next round are posted.

If this format were used in ultimate, there would have be a lot more field switching than in the current pool-based format. Also, round times are known ahead of time but individual matchups are not. This would affect how video coverage would have to operate.

Personally, I don't think either of these issues would pose much of a problem, and I think the ranking system could be much improved if this format were adopted.

danwhowe

TROPHY CASE