Mr Mauve Profile Blog Joined September 2010 United Kingdom 386 Posts #2 you little shiny star, this is brilliant.



Thank you! Hello! How are you today?

Caladan Profile Joined May 2008 Germany 1235 Posts #3



That said (not a criticism in general) probabilities don't really have anything to do with reality. Especially these don't lead to any predictions one could make. SC2 is just too dependend on randomness and how a player is playing on a certain day... it's way too complex, with too many factores involved, to be predicted (see all those "upsets" happening in every league at the moment). So probabilities are nice, but they have, in my opinion, zero to do with reality. But that's a bit of a general problem of stochastics/mathematics - pretending the world is not as complex as in reality it is.



But thanks for your contribution nevertheless. Thanks for your work!That said (not a criticism in general) probabilities don't really have anything to do with reality. Especially these don't lead to any predictions one could make. SC2 is just too dependend on randomness and how a player is playing on a certain day... it's way too complex, with too many factores involved, to be predicted (see all those "upsets" happening in every league at the moment). So probabilities are nice, but they have, in my opinion, zero to do with reality. But that's a bit of a general problem of stochastics/mathematics - pretending the world is not as complex as in reality it is.But thanks for your contribution nevertheless.

Die4Ever Profile Joined August 2010 United States 15974 Posts #4 On September 13 2013 21:01 Caladan wrote:

Thanks for your work!



That said (not a criticism in general) probabilities don't really have anything to do with reality. Especially these don't lead to any predictions one could make. SC2 is just too dependend on randomness and how a player is playing on a certain day... it's way too complex, with too many factores involved, to be predicted (see all those "upsets" happening in every league at the moment). So probabilities are nice, but they have, in my opinion, zero to do with reality. But that's a bit of a general problem of stochastics/mathematics - pretending the world is not as complex as in reality it is.



But thanks for your contribution nevertheless. Thanks for your work!That said (not a criticism in general) probabilities don't really have anything to do with reality. Especially these don't lead to any predictions one could make. SC2 is just too dependend on randomness and how a player is playing on a certain day... it's way too complex, with too many factores involved, to be predicted (see all those "upsets" happening in every league at the moment). So probabilities are nice, but they have, in my opinion, zero to do with reality. But that's a bit of a general problem of stochastics/mathematics - pretending the world is not as complex as in reality it is.But thanks for your contribution nevertheless.

I agree, haha, and this is why I included the events which help/hurt them qualifying for blizzcon. These will especially become more clear as we move forward with this WCS Season, for example at the season finals you might see that Flash MUST get at least 4th place to qualify (I didn't check if this is true, just an example). I agree, haha, and this is why I included the events which help/hurt them qualifying for blizzcon. These will especially become more clear as we move forward with this WCS Season, for example at the season finals you might see that Flash MUST get at least 4th place to qualify (I didn't check if this is true, just an example). "Expert"

TheBloodyDwarf Profile Blog Joined March 2012 Finland 7511 Posts #5 I have saw this sometime ago already? Something 2 weeks ago I saw this in TL Fusilero: "I still can't believe he did that, like dude what the fuck there's fandom and then there's what he did like holy shit. I still see it when I close my eyes." <- reaction to the original drunk santa post which later caught on

opisska Profile Blog Joined February 2011 Poland 8848 Posts #6 I still don't understand the "events" part - how do you chose which position to you single out? Take Revival for example: why just 16th places? Or does it mean 16th or better? The chance that someone gets an exact position is very small. Also, it would be helpful if you show not absolute, but relative values, because in this way you have to divide the numbers to see if the probabilities after the event are better or worse than overall.



This whole ordeal is very similiar to what I do at work at the moment: there is a shitload of simulated data and it is very diificult to look at them in a consistent way to extract sensible information. Thus, barring the almost 100%/0% people, the most valuable is actually the cutoff table, that was a briliant idea to include. You can see how the probability folds wuickly around the border area beteween 3000-3200 - it's kind of what you would expect naively, but here we see that the guess is right.



This will be getting more and more interesting with every match played! "Jeez, that's far from ideal." - Serral, the king of mild trashtalk

JKM Profile Joined November 2011 Denmark 419 Posts #7 Wow this is really awesome. Most of all I like the point cutoff table. It has annoyed me plenty when casters would talk about players being in trouble regarding blizzcon, when in fact they were just pulling numbers from their ass!



It will be interesting to see how real life compares to Aligulac-Monte Carlo simulaitons :-). 1338, one upping 1337

Die4Ever Profile Joined August 2010 United States 15974 Posts #8 On September 13 2013 21:07 opisska wrote:

I still don't understand the "events" part - how do you chose which position to you single out? Take Revival for example: why just 16th places? Or does it mean 16th or better? The chance that someone gets an exact position is very small. Also, it would be helpful if you show not absolute, but relative values, because in this way you have to divide the numbers to see if the probabilities after the event are better or worse than overall.



This whole ordeal is very similiar to what I do at work at the moment: there is a shitload of simulated data and it is very diificult to look at them in a consistent way to extract sensible information. Thus, barring the almost 100%/0% people, the most valuable is actually the cutoff table, that was a briliant idea to include. You can see how the probability folds wuickly around the border area beteween 3000-3200 - it's kind of what you would expect naively, but here we see that the guess is right.



This will be getting more and more interesting with every match played!

It does single out individual placings. I had it grouping the placings before like 16th to 4th place, but the code got kinda weird sometimes so I took it out for now. I may switch to using relative %s, if you guys can think of a good way to word the text for the events that would be helpful It does single out individual placings. I had it grouping the placings before like 16th to 4th place, but the code got kinda weird sometimes so I took it out for now. I may switch to using relative %s, if you guys can think of a good way to word the text for the events that would be helpful "Expert"

JustPassingBy Profile Blog Joined January 2011 10616 Posts #9 Wow, so many simulations. A miracle Aligulac didn't go down during that quasi-ddos! :o

But great job!

Die4Ever Profile Joined August 2010 United States 15974 Posts #10 On September 13 2013 21:07 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:

I have saw this sometime ago already? Something 2 weeks ago I saw this in TL

yes you might have, I was posting it in the background a bit as I was working on it yes you might have, I was posting it in the background a bit as I was working on it "Expert"

Die4Ever Profile Joined August 2010 United States 15974 Posts Last Edited: 2013-09-13 12:16:03 #11 On September 13 2013 21:14 JustPassingBy wrote:

Wow, so many simulations. A miracle Aligulac didn't go down during that quasi-ddos! :o

But great job!

It actually just loads the rating for each player, and then does the win% calculations on its own. But before I did that, just caching results of individual matches, it took about 10,000 http requests, and like 6 hours, to run a simulation. When I added in IEM it got way worse because it picked random players. It actually just loads the rating for each player, and then does the win% calculations on its own. But before I did that, just caching results of individual matches, it took about 10,000 http requests, and like 6 hours, to run a simulation. When I added in IEM it got way worse because it picked random players. "Expert"

opisska Profile Blog Joined February 2011 Poland 8848 Posts #12 On September 13 2013 21:12 Die4Ever wrote:

Show nested quote +

On September 13 2013 21:07 opisska wrote:

I still don't understand the "events" part - how do you chose which position to you single out? Take Revival for example: why just 16th places? Or does it mean 16th or better? The chance that someone gets an exact position is very small. Also, it would be helpful if you show not absolute, but relative values, because in this way you have to divide the numbers to see if the probabilities after the event are better or worse than overall.



This whole ordeal is very similiar to what I do at work at the moment: there is a shitload of simulated data and it is very diificult to look at them in a consistent way to extract sensible information. Thus, barring the almost 100%/0% people, the most valuable is actually the cutoff table, that was a briliant idea to include. You can see how the probability folds wuickly around the border area beteween 3000-3200 - it's kind of what you would expect naively, but here we see that the guess is right.



This will be getting more and more interesting with every match played!

It does single out individual placings. I had it grouping the placings before like 16th to 4th place, but the code got kinda weird sometimes so I took it out for now. I may switch to using relative %s, if you guys can think of a good way to word the text for the events that would be helpful It does single out individual placings. I had it grouping the placings before like 16th to 4th place, but the code got kinda weird sometimes so I took it out for now. I may switch to using relative %s, if you guys can think of a good way to word the text for the events that would be helpful



And I just realised how dumb I am, 16th place is not that unlikely in a tournament that doesn't do placement matches for losers ...



As for the text, the information about percent not qualifying is actually redundant (also, the initial information states only the positive chance, which already a good choice), I would put somethink like



"This happens in X% and changes his probability to qualify to Y% "



where Y is obviously the relative percentage (one could be fancy and say an estimate of the conditional probability) when "this" happens. And I just realised how dumb I am, 16th place is notunlikely in a tournament that doesn't do placement matches for losers ...As for the text, the information about percent not qualifying is actually redundant (also, the initial information states only the positive chance, which already a good choice), I would put somethink like"This happens in X% and changes his probability to qualify to Y% "where Y is obviously the relative percentage (one could be fancy and say an estimate of the conditional probability) when "this" happens. "Jeez, that's far from ideal." - Serral, the king of mild trashtalk

Grovbolle Profile Blog Joined July 2011 Denmark 3777 Posts #13 On September 13 2013 21:14 Die4Ever wrote:

Show nested quote +

On September 13 2013 21:14 JustPassingBy wrote:

Wow, so many simulations. A miracle Aligulac didn't go down during that quasi-ddos! :o

But great job!

It actually just loads the rating for each player, and then does the win% calculations on its own. But before I did that, just caching results of individual matches, it took about 10,000 http requests, and like 6 hours, to run a simulation. When I added in IEM it got way worse because it picked random players. It actually just loads the rating for each player, and then does the win% calculations on its own. But before I did that, just caching results of individual matches, it took about 10,000 http requests, and like 6 hours, to run a simulation. When I added in IEM it got way worse because it picked random players.

I did wonder what you wanted when you said you wanted to "scrape" aligulac. Good thing you didn't kill our server :D I did wonder what you wanted when you said you wanted to "scrape" aligulac. Good thing you didn't kill our server :D Lies, damned lies and statistics: http://aligulac.com

FrodaN Profile Blog Joined October 2010 740 Posts #14 Holy shite good work!! :D

DreamOen Profile Joined March 2010 Spain 1389 Posts #15 This work is impressive, at least we have an % idea now. Tester | MC | Crank | Flash | Jaedong | MVP

Shellshock Profile Blog Joined March 2011 United States 95642 Posts #16 isn't ViBE still in premier league? Moderator http://i.imgur.com/U4xwqmD.png

tar Profile Joined October 2010 Germany 990 Posts #17 this. is.amazing. thx for all the work! whoever I pick for my anti team turns gosu

Die4Ever Profile Joined August 2010 United States 15974 Posts Last Edited: 2013-09-13 13:03:44 #18 On September 13 2013 21:30 Shellshock wrote:

isn't ViBE still in premier league?

Ahhhh thanks, nice catch, I was using the premier status from before the WCS AM up and downs were completed. Fixing soon.

edit: it won't affect the actual stats much though, besides the fact that he could be selected for the IEM random brackets after I fix this



edit2: ok it will have some slight changes on some numbers, since it the liquidpedia page lists the minimum points they will earn at a tournament before it is done, so I made it exclude those points now since it calculates those by itself, new version will be up in 40 minutes or so Ahhhh thanks, nice catch, I was using the premier status from before the WCS AM up and downs were completed. Fixing soon.edit: it won't affect the actual stats much though, besides the fact that he could be selected for the IEM random brackets after I fix thisedit2: ok it will have some slight changes on some numbers, since it the liquidpedia page lists the minimum points they will earn at a tournament before it is done, so I made it exclude those points now since it calculates those by itself, new version will be up in 40 minutes or so "Expert"

Shellshock Profile Blog Joined March 2011 United States 95642 Posts #19 On September 13 2013 21:43 Die4Ever wrote:

Show nested quote +

On September 13 2013 21:30 Shellshock wrote:

isn't ViBE still in premier league?

Ahhhh thanks, nice catch, I was using the premier status from before the WCS AM up and downs were completed. Fixing soon.

edit: it won't affect the actual stats much though, besides the fact that he could be selected for the IEM random brackets after I fix this Ahhhh thanks, nice catch, I was using the premier status from before the WCS AM up and downs were completed. Fixing soon.edit: it won't affect the actual stats much though, besides the fact that he could be selected for the IEM random brackets after I fix this

huh. idk why he was the first person to stick out to me considering all of wcs am is listed there ^^ huh. idk why he was the first person to stick out to me considering all of wcs am is listed there ^^ Moderator http://i.imgur.com/U4xwqmD.png

Hryul Profile Blog Joined March 2011 Austria 2609 Posts #20 science. a useful skill toi have, keke! Countdown to victory: 1 200!

1 2 3 4 5 76 77 78 Next