So I found out today that I'm -4% on assaulting neutral 3v2 overall.
Assault -4% 65581 65591
I'm curious, is this a trend or anyone have it worse? I've seen basically an overall variance on rolls and against specific players at 3% the highest if I haven't played them much. But I've played a ton of neutrals and this was kinda insane to me
That seems astonishing to me. Worth looking at the maths of that at some point. It must be a few standard deviations away from normal. Utterly bizarre.
Best position - >>>> over there >>>>
Current position - here
iAmCaffeine wrote:how can you have almost 10% of the rolls in your favour and it's judged to be 0% overall?
Is that a serious question? If so....attackers advantage would be the reason. If you roll 100 vs 100: the attacker, on average, will have 15 survivors.
swimmerdude99 wrote:So I found out today that I'm -4% on assaulting neutral 3v2 overall.
Assault -4% 65581 65591
I'm curious, is this a trend or anyone have it worse? I've seen basically an overall variance on rolls and against specific players at 3% the highest if I haven't played them much. But I've played a ton of neutrals and this was kinda insane to me
What you got?
I am -4% on 3v2 and 3v1 with Neutrals (also around the same number of wins/losses as you).
I am -1% on 3v2, 3v1, and 1v2 against all opponents. I have some of the worst dice on this site, especially considering the fact that I am almost at 3.3M for 3v2 rolls and 500K for 3v1 rolls.
iAmCaffeine wrote:how can you have almost 10% of the rolls in your favour and it's judged to be 0% overall?
Is that a serious question? If so....attackers advantage would be the reason. If you roll 100 vs 100: the attacker, on average, will have 15 survivors.
iAmCaffeine wrote:how can you have almost 10% of the rolls in your favour and it's judged to be 0% overall?
Is that a serious question? If so....attackers advantage would be the reason. If you roll 100 vs 100: the attacker, on average, will have 15 survivors.
i should stop late night posting
While I do not always agree with your thinking, I find you to be an intelligent person. That is why your response caught me a bit off guard. Good to know it was lack of sleep or to much party favors that led to your response...
swimmerdude99 wrote:So I found out today that I'm -4% on assaulting neutral 3v2 overall.
Assault -4% 65581 65591
I'm curious, is this a trend or anyone have it worse? I've seen basically an overall variance on rolls and against specific players at 3% the highest if I haven't played them much. But I've played a ton of neutrals and this was kinda insane to me
What you got?
Pretty much same numbers as you against neutrals.
Assault -4% 65722/65694
For a while now I could not trust attackers advantage at all against neutrals. It is actually more the opposite
So yes something is broken somewhere. Or we just both need better connection to the top of cc
iAmCaffeine wrote:how can you have almost 10% of the rolls in your favour and it's judged to be 0% overall?
Is that a serious question? If so....attackers advantage would be the reason. If you roll 100 vs 100: the attacker, on average, will have 15 survivors.
i should stop late night posting
While I do not always agree with your thinking, I find you to be an intelligent person. That is why your response caught me a bit off guard. Good to know it was lack of sleep or to much party favors that led to your response...
that was probably the last compliment i expected from you. no partying in covid tho.
iAmCaffeine wrote:how can you have almost 10% of the rolls in your favour and it's judged to be 0% overall?
Is that a serious question? If so....attackers advantage would be the reason. If you roll 100 vs 100: the attacker, on average, will have 15 survivors.
i should stop late night posting
While I do not always agree with your thinking, I find you to be an intelligent person. That is why your response caught me a bit off guard. Good to know it was lack of sleep or to much party favors that led to your response...
that was probably the last compliment i expected from you. no partying in covid tho.
You can always still party alone... or at least that's what I've told myself for years...
swimmerdude99 wrote:So I found out today that I'm -4% on assaulting neutral 3v2 overall.
Assault -4% 65581 65591
I'm curious, is this a trend or anyone have it worse? I've seen basically an overall variance on rolls and against specific players at 3% the highest if I haven't played them much. But I've played a ton of neutrals and this was kinda insane to me
What you got?
I am -4% on 3v2 and 3v1 with Neutrals (also around the same number of wins/losses as you).
I am -1% on 3v2, 3v1, and 1v2 against all opponents. I have some of the worst dice on this site, especially considering the fact that I am almost at 3.3M for 3v2 rolls and 500K for 3v1 rolls.
So it's not just you.
dkmaster wrote:
swimmerdude99 wrote:So I found out today that I'm -4% on assaulting neutral 3v2 overall.
Assault -4% 65581 65591
I'm curious, is this a trend or anyone have it worse? I've seen basically an overall variance on rolls and against specific players at 3% the highest if I haven't played them much. But I've played a ton of neutrals and this was kinda insane to me
What you got?
Pretty much same numbers as you against neutrals.
Assault -4% 65722/65694
For a while now I could not trust attackers advantage at all against neutrals. It is actually more the opposite
So yes something is broken somewhere. Or we just both need better connection to the top of cc
So this is intriguing... either the information on the page is a bit off in how its calculating those odds... there is misreporting, or??? That's kinda odd, wonder how many players are close to this average or if there are some others that see it as positive rolls in 3v2 and for some reason just higher disparity/edge cases. But across Jsiz alone that is kinda crazy.