| |
BGonline.org Forums
Does everybody here know this?
Posted By: Jack Mack In Response To: Does everybody here know this? (Timothy Chow)
Date: Saturday, 20 August 2016, at 8:50 p.m.
I re-read the whole tread and many other related threads in RGB and can see that you are not being truthful here.
You say: "Murat the non-troll, in effect, wants to bet that the PR difference between two players A and B is an imperfect indication of the probability that A beats B. This is what I claim that "everybody knows" and that nobody is interested in betting against."
Well, *in effect", is not true that Murat wants to bet on PR being an *imperfect* .
It wasn't Murat but it was you who used the negliging word *imperfect* and he chased you down, asking you put a number on it, until he made you say what he wanted to make you say (i.e. that PR is not just imperfect but completely useless as an indication of winning probabilites).
For example, in response to Paul, Murat wrote: -------------------------------------- "If the discrepancy is only a few percentage points, I would not object to your saying "so what?".
But what is my ER suggests I should win 20% and yet I end up winning 60%...?
That would be a pretty damn good proof that your ER calculations are nothing but hallucinated garbage! --------------------------------------
If you will deny it all, you can give a clear recap answer here to this question:
On a scale of 100 on PR being an an indication of winning probabilites, going down from 100% (perfect) towards 0% (hallucination), at what point would you start using the word *imperfect*, at what point further down would you switch to a different word (and what word?), and at what low enough point would you *agree with Murat* (as you did in the previously referenced RGB article)?
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.