1 minute ago, TheItsyBitsySpider said:

I'm not talking about the points, points are fine in a two day event as every player still had to play games and win them, its the Strength of Schedule tie breakers i'm talking about. Since having a different player base sizes means more likely to be matched with higher ranking players in the swiss, favoring one group's SoS over the other on the tiebreaker. the Strength of Schedule they have would need to be erased or minimalized to better form less bias tiebreakers going into the Day 2 cut.


I'm more responding to things you say like "And again, your assertion that these two groups are from a different population just because you say so doesn't hold any merit.", because they actually are different populations. They are drawn from the same purchasable source, people buying tickets, but for the sake of Day2 they are two separate populations it is drawing players into. The players in Day1Z and Day1A are not competing against each other in their events, they are competing internally and contributing their top cuts to the Day 2 event. This means that they ARE different. Day1Z did not have a single identical player as Day1A. Your trying to treat the numbers like a survey when it is a competition. Going 6/0 on Day1Z does nothing to stop a player in Day1A from succeeding, because they are isolated competitions. The high rankers are being pulled into the Day 2 event, and that then becomes its own unique population.

If you're going to hold a blatantly hypocritical position then I'm going to call that position hypocritical. You don't get to claim that they're different populations but then argue to keep the most important data point while simultaneously tossing a significantly less important data point. You are straight out trying to have your cake and eat it too and it does not add up.

Additionally,

5 minutes ago, TheItsyBitsySpider said:

Since having a different player base sizes means more likely to be matched with higher ranking players in the swiss, favoring one group's SoS over the other on the tiebreaker.

This statement is just flat out false and is full of misconceptions. For one, the rate of pair-downs is not a function of size but rather a matter of how close the tournament is to an exponent of 2; at a perfect exponent of 2 there will be zero pair-downs, and at a distance in between pair-downs are maximized. For two, pair-downs do not have a net effect on the mean SOS. Pair-downs have a zero-sum effect; they hurt one player and help another. On the whole they completely wash out. They do increase the variance slightly, but that's it.

Finally, and most importantly, the effect that you describe here is not even in the same order of magnitude as the one I describe in the OP. If the goal is to create the fairest and least biased tournament possible then this doesn't even hold a candle to the realization that your SOS on day 2 is entirely determined by a single game that you are not a part of . It's not an aggregate of games, your first tiebreaker is actually just a coinflip. If you want to compare that to one day have a slightly higher variance on their SOS then fine, go ahead, but don't expect to get any traction from me.

This thread exemplifies why I don't participate in tournaments.

Is it just me or does anyone else want group 1B to all finish 4-2, or worse, just to makes this whole thing even more crazy?

2 minutes ago, Khift said:

If you're going to hold a blatantly hypocritical position then I'm going to call that position hypocritical.

I said nothing Hypocritical though... I said that the three day one groups are different populations, which they are, and thus when making a cut into a new day 2 event the stat that is used for scoring that cares the MOST about the specific populations should not be compared, because they are not equal populations.

Your stomping around because you don't want to acknowledge that they are different populations, despite actually being wrong. I cant help you there partner.

Tournament points and Strength of Schedule are different stats, you realize that right? The tournament points are solely your accomplishment, they are tied directly to your performance which is what the Day1 cut cares about. Strength of Schedule has NOTHING to do with your performance, it has to do with the performance of your opponents.

Quote

while simultaneously tossing a significantly less important data point

Strength of Schedule is very important, your own OP example proves it with the calculation that not al 6/2s will make the Cut so this WILL matter. Winning tournament points is a fixed thing, its just you winning/losing games. SoS takes information on your opposition, the very population you come from helps craft it. BECAUSE the three groups are unique populations the SoS of these separate groups ARE influenced slightly and different, and this effects DIRECTLY whether they get into the cut. As a result, removing the stat that is FAR more rooted in your group's population and allowing a more straight forward number, even if it has slightly less variance but is more accurate to the new combined population of Day2, IS fairer, there isn't really any more to say.

Funny enough, the guy trying to lecture on hypocrisy, is the guy that made the title of this thread state that its "Impossible to make top 16 as a 4/2" then goes on to describe that it Actually is possible.

You say pair downs are a 0 sum effect, a complete wash out... but then IMMEDIATLY contradict yourself by saying that it increases variance. Stop worrying about others for a bit and get your self straightened out first bud.

2 hours ago, Khift said:

Courtesy is reciprocated. You showed absolutely none and got none in response.

2 hours ago, Shu2jack said:

Thats....thats not how Courtesy operates. Thats not how a Samurai operates...

Courtesy is what we draw instead of weapons in a civilized society. And given the individual being slighted by Khift gave him the 1) courtesy of reading his whole post before responding and 2) gave him the courtesy of letting him know what was to follow was emotional, it is only Khift being discourteous.

24 minutes ago, TheItsyBitsySpider said:

The tournament points are solely your accomplishment

Your tournament points depend on the opponents you meet, because you're more likely to win against a weaker opponent (or favorable matchup) and lose against a stronger opponent (or unfavorable matchup). If the populations are different, then the tournament points don't mean anything either, because the same player with the same deck will have different results in different populations.

29 minutes ago, TheItsyBitsySpider said:

I said nothing Hypocritical though... I said that the three day one groups are different populations, which they are, and thus when making a cut into a new day 2 event the stat that is used for scoring that cares the MOST about the specific populations should not be compared, because they are not equal populations.

Your stomping around because you don't want to acknowledge that they are different populations, despite actually being wrong. I cant help you there partner.

Tournament points and Strength of Schedule are different stats, you realize that right? The tournament points are solely your accomplishment, they are tied directly to your performance which is what the Day1 cut cares about. Strength of Schedule has NOTHING to do with your performance, it has to do with the performance of your opponents.

Strength of Schedule is very important, your own OP example proves it with the calculation that not al 6/2s will make the Cut so this WILL matter. Winning tournament points is a fixed thing, its just you winning/losing games. SoS takes information on your opposition, the very population you come from helps craft it. BECAUSE the three groups are unique populations the SoS of these separate groups ARE influenced slightly and different, and this effects DIRECTLY whether they get into the cut. As a result, removing the stat that is FAR more rooted in your group's population and allowing a more straight forward number, even if it has slightly less variance but is more accurate to the new combined population of Day2, IS fairer, there isn't really any more to say.

Funny enough, the guy trying to lecture on hypocrisy, is the guy that made the title of this thread state that its "Impossible to make top 16 as a 4/2" then goes on to describe that it Actually is possible.

You say pair downs are a 0 sum effect, a complete wash out... but then IMMEDIATLY contradict yourself by saying that it increases variance. Stop worrying about others for a bit and get your self straightened out first bud.

How about we put our money where our mouth is, then? This claim of yours, that they are different populations, it's a testable claim. We can investigate this. We can use statistics to test whether or not it's a true statement. So, I did. I ran the SOS of 4-2 players through an ANOVA test to determine how likely these two samples come from the same population. Here are the results:

What does all this mean? In layman's terms, an ANOVA test functions by first making the assumption that the samples being tested are from the same population, and then it determines how often samples of this size that are created from the same population would be less similar to each other than the given samples are. Basically, if you create random samples from a normal distribution and you put them into buckets these two buckets will not actually be identical - there's going to be a measurable difference between the buckets each time. Similarly, there is a measurable difference between the buckets in our actual sample. So ANOVA compares the actual difference and asks how often will a random distribution create more difference than this. This is recorded as the P-value of the test. In our case, 89.9% of the time a pair of samples of this size created from the same population would be less similar to each other than these two samples are . Meaning that even if these were the same population these samples are actually absurdly close to one another, batting well above average.

For comparison, a reasonable first glance value for saying that two samples are not from the same population is a P-value of 5% or less. And people still get pretty queasy about that because it's still possible that that's just random variation. 89.9% utterly blows that out of the water.

So, no. We can soundly keep the null hypothesis that the two SOS samples are from the same population.

Quote

This claim of yours, that they are different populations, it's a testable claim.

Yep, do the two groups share the same players in the same distribution?

Group 1A 123 players

Group 1Z 49 players

No? Ok, they are not the SAME population... unless your argument is going to have to get so general, so basic as to call them the same because they all have people playing in them, because that is the level your math is working towards. Which is hilarious as that means nothing when it comes down to tournament scoring structures. So if you want to try to say, "they are the same population because they have people in them," feel free man, it doesn't change that in this tournament structure they are unique populations for the sake of scoring, they cannot effect each other.

They are unique distributions, you cant treat them all as the same. These are three different sized groups, there is inherent variance built in. Treating each group as its own population is perfectly appropriate, I still don't understand what point you are trying to make regarding that?

IN FACT, you are also forgetting that these are not even random groups. Group 1Z was created when FFG opened the event up to more players filled with last minute entries, but 1A actually has spaces that are reserved for Hatamoto. Days 1A and 1B intentionally have players reputed by FFG as being better players put into them, they are not fully random, which throws another solid wrench into it.

28 minutes ago, Khudzlin said:

Your tournament points depend on the opponents you meet, because you're more likely to win against a weaker opponent (or favorable matchup) and lose against a stronger opponent (or unfavorable matchup). If the populations are different, then the tournament points don't mean anything either, because the same player with the same deck will have different results in different populations.

Yes, that can be argued, but this is a competition and the points are distributing the hard numbers of just who one and who lost. SoS is far more reliant on information that is defined by the populations we draw from. Its far easier to simply shoot down comparing SoS from different groups vs removing any basis for scoring period. I don't go that far down the rabit hole.

I'm sorry man, but you need to give it up. It's over. The claim has been tested. The distributions are identical to distributions derived from the same grand population. There's really nothing left to argue, short of you digging up more tournament data and doing further analysis yourself. You're welcome to do so, but I doubt it'll change anything. At this point you're just tilting at windmills.

As an athlete, I don't know how you WOULDN'T consider them different populations.

If I don't have access to them, they are not in the same population.

1 minute ago, Shu2jack said:

As an athlete, I don't know how you WOULDN'T consider them different populations.

If I don't have access to them, they are not in the same population.

Population has a different meaning statistically. Several groups of data can be said to be from the same population if they are indistinguishable from the overall group. If the barriers are merely arbitrary then they are from the same population.

1 minute ago, Khift said:

Population has a different meaning statistically. Several groups of data can be said to be from the same population if they are indistinguishable from the overall group. If the barriers are merely arbitrary then they are from the same population.

So statistics and reality differ?

Just now, Shu2jack said:

So statistics and reality differ?

You're the person who determines reality?

Can I lodge a complaint?

Just now, Khift said:

You're the person who determines reality?

Can I lodge a complaint?

Again, I'm an athlete. What I think doesn't determine the result.

23 minutes ago, Khift said:

The claim has been tested.

It hasn't, in fact you have just been reminded that your entire premise is faulty due to something a simple as non-random, non-equal groups, and your response is to act like none of that matters and just sit on your hill. I'm sorry mate... but saying "they are the same population because they have people" is quite silly, especially since you have to run that far away from the point.

1 minute ago, Khift said:

Several groups of data can be said to be from the same population if they are indistinguishable from the overall group.

But they ARE distinguishable, one is a randomized grouping of completely unique individuals and the other is a semi random grouping with selected participants included with unique individuals. People are completely unique and inherently are distinguishable, ESPECIALLY with a social competition of this small samplesizes. Your using a basic definition completely wrong and trying to apply it to a scenario it is completely inappropriate too.

And the funny part is that you know it too.

8 minutes ago, Khift said:

You're the person who determines reality?

Can I lodge a complaint?

And to be fair, you brought up that "populations" means somethimy different statistically.

Aren't the SOSs from all tournaments going to be roughly similar?

It is an internal measure within the tournament rather than a measure comparable across tournaments. If tournament A has children and tournament B has adults, the strength of schedules will be similar but you can't use SOS to compare participants across groups.

Random side question, are ties still worth 0 and losses worth 1?

8 minutes ago, Shu2jack said:

Again, I'm an athlete. What I think doesn't determine the result.

And statistics doesn't work any differently. Thinking doesn't have to do with it. The math does it for you; all you have to do is interpret it.

@TheItsyBitsySpider , I'm honestly getting embarrassed for you.

If you want to make the argument that because of Hatamotos the two aren't comparable then guess what - that also means that tournament points need to go. At which point we have a two round tournament with 100 people in it and we're determining the top cut by rolling the dice.

In order for your argument to hold any water at all you need to come up with an argument that supports the claim that tournament points can be kept but SOS can't. Your one attempt at doing that was making the claim that a day with a different quantity of players would result in an unfair SOS advantage to people in one pod. This was tested and it was shown that that is not the case. You will not get more, or less, or different SOS distributions because of player count.

You need to come up with an argument that supports keeping tournament points but doesn't support keeping SOS and so far you have utterly failed to do so. Every argument you've put forward either is more applicable to tournament points than it is to SOS, or doesn't shake out statistically. And until you can come up with something with merit I'm done responding to this inane train of thought.

Ok, let me try and explain the concept of statistical population with the best of my abilities and how it applies or doesn't apply in this situation.

A population is a group, let's say all L5R players.

Then take three different groups of these players, you can assume the same statistical results will appear among the three groups, . So if you have 1000 players, , then take three groups of 100 players from them, and each group has 1/7th of the player for each clan, you can assume each clan among the 1000 players have roughly 1/7 of the players. That's how surveys work.

Now, they could be treated as the same population because they are, in fact, members of the same overall group (l5r players). The only problem is sample size. The bigger they are, the more statistically relevant they are. The magical number is usually around a 1000. No matter how big your overall population is, take 1000 random people in it and you can assume they represent the total population, 95% of the time. Now, the actual calculations are much more complex and not that simple, but can be used as a good rule of thumb.

49 people are never statistically significant, and like it was mentionned before, some of these groups weren't selected at random, therefore cannot be treated as the same population.

6 minutes ago, Bazleebub said:

Aren't the SOSs from all tournaments going to be roughly similar?

It is an internal measure within the tournament rather than a measure comparable across tournaments. If tournament A has children and tournament B has adults, the strength of schedules will be similar but you can't use SOS to compare participants across groups.

They are, yes. This is true. But the problem is that if your argument is that skill is what is differing then SOS isn't what needs to be dropped but rather tournament points -- which are instead kept. If skill is (approximately) the same, then both can be kept. if it isn't, then neither can be kept. Here, we've got a situation where we're keeping one but tossing the other and there's absolutely no good reason for it. My ANOVA test was to disprove @TheItsyBitsySpider 's claim that SOS values would differ between the two days by virtue of population count and therefore give an advantage to one of the days. That claim is what was shown to be (probably) false.

Disregarding all the back and forth ad this has devolved to about unique populations...

Khift, I appreciate your math and the effort put in. It's nice to see arguments constructed from data. However, I feel the biggest flaw in your argument is a non sequitur fallacy that the only reason for allowing people who cannot mathematically make the Day 2 cut is 'cruelty'. You are not taking into account that there are more reasons for playing than making the day 2 cut. I wont re-enumerate them here as they have already been stated in previous posts.

I think the conclusion of cruelty is projecting sadism without corresponding evidence.

4 minutes ago, Khift said:

And statistics doesn't work any differently. Thinking doesn't have to do with it. The math does it for you; all you have to do is interpret

And there is the issue.

3 minutes ago, Khift said:

They are, yes. This is true. But the problem is that if your argument is that skill is what is differing then SOS isn't what needs to be dropped but rather tournament points -- which are instead kept. If skill is (approximately) the same, then both can be kept. if it isn't, then neither can be kept. Here, we've got a situation where we're keeping one but tossing the other and there's absolutely no good reason for it. My ANOVA test was to disprove @TheItsyBitsySpider 's claim that SOS values would differ between the two days by virtue of population count and therefore give an advantage to one of the days. That claim is what was shown to be (probably) false.

My argument is that you've completed an ANOVA to show that the number of Apples doesn't differ from the number of Oranges. You are correct that the numbers in each group are the same, but you need to be aware that the units in each group count different things. I'm not saying FFG have done a good job and I'm not making any suggestion on how best to proceed. I actually believe your core point, that the current system is flawed, is correct but your admittedly excellent stats are based on a flawed assumption.