simonsez wrote: I can't help but notice that you hardly ever get 15% on your 5* pulls.
carrion pigeons wrote: simonsez wrote: I can't help but notice that you hardly ever get 15% on your 5* pulls. I can't help but notice you're complaining about plus or minus ONE cover.
Fightmastermpq wrote: carrion pigeons wrote: simonsez wrote: I can't help but notice that you hardly ever get 15% on your 5* pulls. I can't help but notice you're complaining about plus or minus ONE cover. I can't help but notice you're bad at math.
simonsez wrote: carrion pigeons wrote: simonsez wrote: I can't help but notice that you hardly ever get 15% on your 5* pulls. I can't help but notice you're complaining about plus or minus ONE cover. I can't but help but notice you insist on stalking my posts to add embarrassingly weak attempts at rebuttals. Don't be so lazy and try looking past his most hoard. I'm willing to bet that if you add them all up, his overall rate is statistically significantly lower than 15%.
simonsez wrote: I can't but help but notice you insist on stalking my posts to add embarrassingly weak attempts at rebuttals. Don't be so lazy and try looking past his most hoard. I'm willing to bet that if you add them all up, his overall rate is statistically significantly lower than 15%.
STOPTHIS wrote: Who is The No-Futzer? I can't figure it out and it's bugging more than it should. I've numbered it down to 5, but still am unsure.
carrion pigeons wrote: simonsez wrote: I can't but help but notice you insist on stalking my posts to add embarrassingly weak attempts at rebuttals. Don't be so lazy and try looking past his most hoard. I'm willing to bet that if you add them all up, his overall rate is statistically significantly lower than 15%. If by embarrassingly weak you mean objectively factual, and by stalking you mean finding the least reasonable post in any thread and then always finding it to be by the same person, then yeah. His stats are less than 15%. It continues to not be statistically significant by any objective mathematical standard you care to apply. (Specifically between 9 and 10 percent over a sample size of 165, which is a miniscule sample. We're still talking about an error term in the single digits.)
Wobby wrote: I've been hoarding quite awhile and I am only at 19 LTs and 600ish CP. How are you banking that much CP per season...
El Satanno wrote: STOPTHIS wrote: Who is The No-Futzer? I can't figure it out and it's bugging more than it should. I've numbered it down to 5, but still am unsure. Who indeed? carrion pigeons wrote: simonsez wrote: I can't but help but notice you insist on stalking my posts to add embarrassingly weak attempts at rebuttals. Don't be so lazy and try looking past his most hoard. I'm willing to bet that if you add them all up, his overall rate is statistically significantly lower than 15%. If by embarrassingly weak you mean objectively factual, and by stalking you mean finding the least reasonable post in any thread and then always finding it to be by the same person, then yeah. His stats are less than 15%. It continues to not be statistically significant by any objective mathematical standard you care to apply. (Specifically between 9 and 10 percent over a sample size of 165, which is a miniscule sample. We're still talking about an error term in the single digits.) What I find funny about this exchange is that since I've logged everything here, one only needs to do a little math to have the factual answer. Hell, this season I even posted the entire summary of my hoards! But I'll spare everyone the legwork. It only took me two minutes:Command Point 5* pulls Season XXII: 4/36, 11.1% Season XXXI: 4/30, 13.3% Season XXX: 1/35, 2.8% Season XXIX: 3/34, 8.8% Season XXVIII: 4/36, 16.9% Cumulative total: 16/171, 9.3% I think simonsez's heated series of replies earned him a (unwarranted) ban, so I'll say it for him: Significantly lower than 15%. Yes, you can go ahead and dismiss it as statistically insignificant. Bearing in mind that we're talking about a fraction of a fraction here: 15% advertised rate in what is easily the second-least-frequently pulled token type behind LT. We cannot possibly even guess what would qualify as significant unless we had an idea of what the sum total of CP pulls across the player base is. Obviously the devs aren't going to cough that number up. So yes, we're arguing about a difference of one (or two) covers, but each one is pretty important. Wobby wrote: I've been hoarding quite awhile and I am only at 19 LTs and 600ish CP. How are you banking that much CP per season... Top progression in all Versus events (plus placement), top progression in all Story events (plus placement), all node rewards in all Story events, 2* farm, all 3* champed for rewards, 20+ 4* champed for rewards, plus the odd alliance buy or VIP re-up. Aren't I just Captain Frickin' Cool?
OneLastGambit wrote: Careful with the wording, in the field of data analysis staistically significant doesn't mean what it means everywhere else. Statisical significance in data analysis is when it has been tested against the likelihood of said result happening by random chance being limited to a level of xx (commonly in research we use a level of 0.02 we hate the idea of random chance creating our results) if after applying said test your results are p<0.05 THEN we can say it's statistically significant. In every other walk of life when someone says significant they mean important. My apologies if you already knew the above info I'm not trying to condescending in any way , most people aren't aware of it (why the hell would you be unless it's your occupation?) Unless you've applied the applicable data analysis test on an appropriately large and representative number of participants Then one cannot say the results are statistically significant, one can only make guesses.