Smuggler Archive
Thread: Random prediction on slicing?
Page 6 of 6
SpinningCloud
Thu Jan 20, 2005 11:27 pm
#66
Why?
I simply couldn't stand to see the bread-and-butter archetypal post of the Smuggler Forum drop to the second page.
Xanatosxtreme
Wed Mar 09, 2005 10:23 pm
#67
Samaw wrote:
have you tried using a tell slice to see what color give is doing what at the time and then slicing the important weapon and only doing it if the color is the one that gave you damage on the tell slice or the opposite if the tell was a speed slice.
Cloudchasing wrote:
Samaw wrote:
Does anyone else feel that they can predict the weapon slice with about 80% accuracy?
Of course!!
I can predict with 50% accuracy that any slice on a weapon will be damage.
Once it is determined within 50% accuracy that it will be damage, I can the predict with a FULL 30% accuracy that the slice will be between 18% and 32%, possibly.
Dude, how much longer do we have to answer this QUESTION?!!!!!!!!
This man knows w t f he is talking about he sliced 3 dxr6s for me tonight and 1 sliced out 900 with a pu other 577 w/o a pu and the other 480 w/o pu.... So it does work no doubt about it
TomoRainer
Thu Mar 10, 2005 3:49 am
#69
You say she got three good slices in a row?? YE GODS, WE'VE BEEN WRONG ALL ALONG!!!!
The only testing of this with any significant sample size (100 slices, as documented earlier in the thread, I believe) turned out something like a 52% predictive rate, which in a sample that small is well within the standard deviation. Remarkably close to the completely random result that every other real slicing test has borne out, in fact.
I know humankind has an inborn bias against random systems, but 3 slices proves absolutely nothing. 100 slices is a fair sample, but even then I wouldn't consider it "proven" until someone documented a run of 1,000-10,000 slices. If a test that large came out with a predictive power of even 55%, I'd be suitably impressed, but there continues to be no evidence for this or any other method of slicing beyond totally random.
The only testing of this with any significant sample size (100 slices, as documented earlier in the thread, I believe) turned out something like a 52% predictive rate, which in a sample that small is well within the standard deviation. Remarkably close to the completely random result that every other real slicing test has borne out, in fact.
I know humankind has an inborn bias against random systems, but 3 slices proves absolutely nothing. 100 slices is a fair sample, but even then I wouldn't consider it "proven" until someone documented a run of 1,000-10,000 slices. If a test that large came out with a predictive power of even 55%, I'd be suitably impressed, but there continues to be no evidence for this or any other method of slicing beyond totally random.
Page 6 of 6