Why must toxic players ruin my games?

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

AtheistGuy1

Senior Member

11-01-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by PogoPogoPogoPogo View Post
As a science major, I'd think you'd understand about sample sizes.

I'm not arguing that in ONE match, if both teams have an equal number of trolls, they have equal chances of winning. I'm admitting that for singular games, variance will be extraordinarily high.

I'm talking about over the course of a very large sample size. That's what all statistics (and science, by the way) deals with.

If you can't agree that over an extraordinarily large sample sizes, two teams identical teams will average out to the same number of wins, then you're going to have to explain to me how this is not the case.

Anything that can or will happen to one team causing them to lose that individual match is just as likely to happen to the other team, right?
Two perfectly cohesive teams will have as close to a 50/50 chance as the system will allow. This is because the system was made with this in mind. When you throw trolls in, you make assumptions. An extrapolation without corroboration is a baseless assertion and I do not need to entertain those.

The fun of science is that you can verify these predictions empirically. You do not make a positive claim without evidence. You do not shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic. And most importantly, you don't let your intuition guide you.

Now do you have anything to back up these assertions of yours?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

AtheistGuy1

Senior Member

11-01-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by PogoPogoPogoPogo View Post
That is, however, if you can either agree to the logical assumptions being made or prove them wrong. You can't just say you disagree without really proving them wrong.
This is what one calls a "false dichotomy" and "shifting the burden of proof." There's not much more I can say, sadly.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PogoPogoPogoPogo

Senior Member

11-01-2012

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

Apparently my logic isn't strong enough for you. You need to read and understand this mathematical principal before we can continue.

This law, which anyone familiar with science, scientific method, experiments, or any amount of moderately high law math, would be extraordinarily familiar with is what I'm using to suggest that these scenarios would result in an equal win rate for both teams.

The quality of player in the 9 spots filled by random players will, over time, average out. The only person who can individually make an impact on the win rate of either team (one team being defined as YOUR TEAM and the other team being defined as the ENEMY TEAM) is YOU, the person in question, the only person in match-making that is put on YOUR TEAM 100% of the time.



EDIT: In fact, I bet whatever Riot employees work with Ranked and the Elo system and so forth would confirm that it's the Law of Large Numbers that even allows Elo to work in the first place. If the Law of Large Numbers were untrue, or some broken mathematical theorem, then Elo simply wouldn't work. Basically, in order to prove Elo hell exists, you have to disprove the Law of Large Numbers, which has been around for some 500 years or so.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PogoPogoPogoPogo

Senior Member

11-01-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by AtheistGuy1 View Post
Two perfectly cohesive teams will have as close to a 50/50 chance as the system will allow.
Why is it that only two perfectly cohesive teams approach a 50% win-rate?

How come identically in-cohesive teams don't approach a 50% win-rate when playing against each other?


If we were to express cohesiveness as a percentage and let 100% cohesiveness represent "perfectly cohesive," then why is it that you will say that only when a 100% cohesive team plays a 100% cohesive team will they, after a large sample size of games, approach a 50% win rate?

Why won't an 80% cohesive team reach a 50% win rate over a large sample size of games against another 80% cohesive team?

Why won't a 60% cohesive team reach a 50% win rate over a large sample size of games against another 60% cohesive team?

Why won't a 40% cohesive team reach a 50% win rate over a large sample size of games against another 40% cohesive team?

Why won't a 20% cohesive team reach a 50% win rate over a large sample size of games against another 20% cohesive team?

I think these are fair questions that I'm asking you to answer, because common sense says that all of these conditions should meet this standard, and you're saying no, and saying "You don't have data." We're discussing theory. You use theory to try explaining every possible case.

Even in science, you first posit a hypothesis, then you test your hypothesis. And you test it more and more and more, and eventually it becomes a law (like the law of large numbers), but first scientists will have a philosophical discussion to come to a reasonable, testable hypothesis.

We're not to the testing stage yet. We're in the philosophical discussion to come to a hypothesis stage right now. I can make a logical argument that my case exists. I don't even need to worry about collecting data for it, because you can't even make a logical argument that my case doesn't exist.


EDIT: By the way, if you still disagree with me here, then I think you're about to walk yourself into a trap that still disproves Elo hell anyway. Just a fair warning.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Jimboob

Member

11-01-2012

Bro, same happened to me. Straight losing streaks for two days.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Foksy

Junior Member

11-01-2012

actually, pogo makes a lot of sense


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

AtheistGuy1

Senior Member

11-01-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by PogoPogoPogoPogo View Post
EDIT: By the way, if you still disagree with me here, then I think you're about to walk yourself into a trap that still disproves Elo hell anyway. Just a fair warning.
We're done, pogo. You want to shift the burden of proof on me and you refuse to substantiate your claims. I kept going at it to see if you could cite a single tidbit of info. Maybe it's a study, a chart, a graph, maybe even a passing remark by a RIOT employee. But apparently, you want me to accept your woo-woo assumptions on faith. you've admitted to both having no data to back up your claims, and not caring to find any (Which is the wrong way to go about it, but it's a damn sight better than this at least).

As Christopher Hitchens once said: "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

Quote:
Originally Posted by xGNILRATSx View Post
actually, pogo makes a lot of sense
Statistics aren't intuitive to people. If it makes sense, it's a bit of a red flag.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PogoPogoPogoPogo

Senior Member

11-01-2012

AtheistGuy1, I'm proving that Elo hell exists in the only possible way you've ever proven to anyone that God does not exist. It's called an argument from logic. You have ZERO evidence that God doesn't exist. All you have are logical arguments that you think makes God's existence impossible.

I'm offering you the same thing. There's literally nothing wrong with my logic. I'm asking you questions. And based off YOUR answer to these questions, I'm following the logic through.


You're asserting that Elo hell exists. I'm claiming it does not exist. Now, with or without data, one thing that we know as an absolute matter of logical fact, we can not both be right. Elo hell can not simultaneously exist and not exist. It's a complete logical impossibility. I'm following the logic through. I'm making an argument from logic.

I'm using logic to prove to you that no matter what you believe, it's logically impossible for Elo hell to exist. Now, for me to finish proving it to you, you do have to answer my questions, but just because I know that the only possible logical outcome to this argument is that Elo hell doesn't exist doesn't mean that it's not true. I've already had this discussion. I need to hold your hand, remind you to tie your shoes, remind you to look both ways before you cross the street, and walk you step by insignificant little step all the way to the logical follow-through of this discussion, because it is inevitable.

And it's not an inevitable outcome because I say it is and therefore it's right. It's an inevitable outcome because I've already followed the logic all the way through. I've debated this with myself before ever debating it with anyone on these forums. I attempted at every angle to disprove the conclusion, so far I have failed.

And so far, you haven't offered anything that this logical proof hasn't already handled. Now, you maybe haven't seen the complete logical follow through, but I'm here, and I'm willing to walk you all the way through it.

But let me just say, particularly with your choice of summoner name, if you're making this decision here and now to blindly live in your faith that Elo hell exists because that makes you feel better about your skills as a gamer, then I want you to keep that in mind the next time you have that argument with anyone who believes in God and you're trying to disprove something that they have nothing but faith that exists. You have no evidence for the non-existence of God, all you have is a logical argument that pretty solidly questions the existence of God.

And that's where we're at with this debate.

You have the BELIEF that Elo hell exists.

I've got an extraordinarily solid argument AGAINST the argument for the existence of Elo hell. All you need to do is answer the questions as honestly as possible, and we'll get to the only place this conversation can possibly end, Elo hell does not exist.

So, this time, rather than even bothering to ask you to explain yourself if you say NO, I'll ask simply, yes or no,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paraphrasing myself
Does an 80% cohesive team reach a 50% win rate over a large sample size of games against another 80% cohesive team?

Does a 60% cohesive team reach a 50% win rate over a large sample size of games against another 60% cohesive team?

Does a 40% cohesive team reach a 50% win rate over a large sample size of games against another 40% cohesive team?

Does a 20% cohesive team reach a 50% win rate over a large sample size of games against another 20% cohesive team?
So, yes or no answer, that's all I'm asking for. I don't need you to provide any justification for your belief in the answer. And no matter how wrong I know your answer is, I'll continue the logical follow through of this argument using the assumption that your answer is right.

At this point, since you're going to be so stubborn with statistics and don't really seem to have a full understanding of exactly what statistics are, I'm going to make this a purely logical thought experiment.

So all I need to proceed to the next step of this logical thought experiment is what you believe to be the answer to those 4 yes or no questions in the quoted part.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

AtheistGuy1

Senior Member

11-01-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by PogoPogoPogoPogo View Post
AtheistGuy1, I'm proving that Elo hell exists in the only possible way you've ever proven to anyone that God does not exist. It's called an argument from logic. You have ZERO evidence that God doesn't exist. All you have are logical arguments that you think makes God's existence impossible.
I can only assume you've pulled this out of your ass as well. You only have a vague idea what my stance is on the subject. So tell me- how does it feel to be able to conjure up strawmen so quickly?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Roughly 6 Owls

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Member

11-01-2012

AtheistGuy1, the problem is that there isn't evidence. We aren't dealing with a statistic like "Syndra has a 27% win record." Though asking for proof is completely understandable, you're currently ignoring the fact that in this case, what you're asking for doesn't exist. And I doubt it ever will. We're making assumptions to come to a conclusion, and if our logic is sound throughout and leads us to an answer, we usually just let the assumptions be.

For instance, (I'm using a science example for your benefit) quantum mechanics calculations assume a thing called the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. It suggests that you can't precisely know two things (usually momentum and position) about a particle exactly at any given instant. Is it true? I have no idea. There is no proof that a particle cannot have it's position and momentum exactly determined at the same time. No one has ever done that for something on a quantum level. Is it used in calculations? Yes, all the time. Do people look at quantum mechanic calculations and ask if they have proof for using Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle? Not if they know what they're doing.

Essentially, you need to get over the fact that Pogogogogoog... doesn't have proof, because it's not needed. He's using an approximation (a pretty good one, though) to get a model of the real world. Will the model be exact? Probably not. Will it be close enough? Probably. This happens all the time in real life too: the ideal gas law is another example from science where assumptions are made to simplify things and get an end result that mostly agrees with real life.

@Pogogogoogogogo: if AtheistGuy1 is not being intentionally obtuse (or if he is), you might have to just drop this argument: AtheistGuy1 seems pretty set on dismissing your approximation because it makes any assumptions at all.