Quote:

**PogoPogoPogoPogo**:

Some of the statistics are irrelevant assumptions used to prove my point.

Some of the statistics are basic math that don't need citation. Asking for me to cite a source that explains why if there is 1 troll in a match, he will be on the enemy team 55.6% of the time and on your team 44.4% of the time is as silly as asking me to cite a source for the mathematical fact that 2+2=4. I mean, that's the level of ridiculousness it is.

I don't care about your assumptions. Give me the facts regarding this. Don't rehash this line again. Give me something to substantiate it.

Quote:

**PogoPogoPogoPogo**:

I mean, if I told you that when you play a match-made game on Summoner's Rift, you wouldn't ask me to cite a source that says that each team would have 5 players, would you? No? Right.

No, I'd ask if there's some arbitrary match going on in the first place. Regardless, it wouldn't be a bad idea. A little independent verification never hurts.

Quote:

**PogoPogoPogoPogo**:

That's the level of fact we're dealing with when we're talking about the 55.6% and the 44.4%. If these are the numbers that are bothering you, then I will turn this thread into a math lesson and fully explain them.

What bothers me is the assumption that accompanies these numbers. Your "Oh the other team should get the only troll in the entire game more than you. Therefore no ELO hell" response somehow ignores the fact that there is usually more than one guy that's like this (Given the nature of Ranked). The fact that there may be anywhere from one, two, or three guys on both teams).

The numbers themselves are fine. But don't start with a naive assumption, do some simple math, then turn around and act as though the result you get has any bearing on the complex situation you intend to represent.

Quote:

**PogoPogoPogoPogo**:

If there is another number that is bothering you and you need me to explain where I got it from, then PLEASE let me know. I can explain 100% of my post. I didn't go into too much detail because I assume at least a certain level of knowledge so I don't want to bog the post down with too much over-explaining.

Explanations are always nice. They make sure everyone is on the same page.

Quote:

**PogoPogoPogoPogo**:

But there's no source to cite for any of the data in my post.

Then you've wasted my time and leave me no reason to respond to any more of this.