| 1 |
You draw a line in the sand. Science tends to go with P = <.05.
|
1 |
You draw a line in the sand. Science tends to go with P = <.05.
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
There is a cost attached to making people play out the game. So long as the sum of games that are lost that would have been won is less than that cost, we should be closing out the games. If you've got 10 to 1 material advantage, what are your chances to lose?
|
3 |
There is a cost attached to making people play out the game. So long as the sum of games that are lost that would have been won is less than that cost, we should be closing out the games. If you've got 10 to 1 material advantage, what are your chances to lose?
|
| 4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 5 |
Ten to one just seems more than fair. That's one scorcher vs. one commander. That's one scorcher vs. ten scorchers. If I'm yet to see this comeback after playing so many games, what're the chances it's a meaningful possibility?
|
5 |
Ten to one just seems more than fair. That's one scorcher vs. one commander. That's one scorcher vs. ten scorchers. If I'm yet to see this comeback after playing so many games, what're the chances it's a meaningful possibility?
|
| 6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
| 7 |
It's
okay
if
we're
not
100%
on
point.
We
can
be
conservative.
It'd
just
be
nice
to
not
waste
time
everytime
someone's
feeling
stubborn.
|
7 |
If
a
game
is
lost
once
in
1000
when
it
should
have
been
won,
that's
an
acceptable
cost.
Hell,
even
the
best
hearthstone
players
can't
win
more
than
70%
of
the
time
due
to
the
inherent
chance
in
the
game.
1/1000
is
nothing.
|
B448099 7 on Titan-v2 (Multiplayer)