Tony/Skyler trivia question

[Rocket354]

Your attempt to assign motivation here makes the same mistake that shows up in many responses (both here and on Facebook) to the original question.

In the Tony/Sky case, the fact that we’re asking the question is itself evidence. If the data were typical or aligned with baseline expectations, there would be no question. Answering as if it were asked at random ignores that conditioning. (Some of you—like sixpack and skogstokig—are getting this.)

The same applies to FargoRate’s choices. The fact that we don’t split 7-ft and 9-ft ratings is itself evidence. If our goal were, as you suggest, short-term engagement or revenue, splitting them would be the obvious, economically superior move. We would get far more engagement by giving people what they think they want. The fact that we don’t do that is important evidence of something.

In both cases, the error is the same: ignoring the selection mechanism that produced the question and the policy, and treating highly informative behavior as if it carried no information at all.

Wow you are pompous and condescending.

You already provide the ability to split 7' and 9' in your own app. Although, admittedly, most reported games don't seem to have that distinction marked.

 

[iusedtoberich]

Vincent*

I smell a bet it’s been a while.

 

[Kris_b1104]

Your attempt to assign motivation here makes the same mistake that shows up in many responses (both here and on Facebook) to the original question.

In the Tony/Sky case, the fact that we’re asking the question is itself evidence. If the data were typical or aligned with baseline expectations, there would be no question. Answering as if it were asked at random ignores that conditioning. (Some of you—like sixpack and skogstokig—are getting this.)

The same applies to FargoRate’s choices. The fact that we don’t split 7-ft and 9-ft ratings is itself evidence. If our goal were, as you suggest, short-term engagement or revenue, splitting them would be the obvious, economically superior move. We would get far more engagement by giving people what they think they want. The fact that we don’t do that is important evidence of something.

In both cases, the error is the same: ignoring the selection mechanism that produced the question and the policy, and treating highly informative behavior as if it carried no information at all.

Cool story bro.

 

[mikepage]

Put this on facebook; let's see where the right answer shows up first.

****
Pure trivia question from the FargoRate database

There are 10 recorded matches between Tony Chohan and Skyler Woodward (7 one-pocket, 3 rotation).

Question: How many of these did Tony win?

Bonus: If Tony had any wins, how many were one-pocket vs rotation?

Curious to see the guesses.

Here are the results:

Tony won all 10 matches: 7 one-pocket and 3 rotation

 

[JPB2]

Here are the results:

Tony won all 10 matches: 7 one-pocket and 3 rotation

Just what the odds predict.

 

[bpeacock]

Here are the results:

Tony won all 10 matches: 7 one-pocket and 3 rotation

That is unexpected... Especially since Sky is 35 points above Tony on Fargo.

 

[jasonlaus]

My guess is.... nobody cares.

Fargo has become another word synonymous with the terms sandbagging and APA

Since when? Cause you say so?

 

[jasonlaus]

I smell a bet it’s been a while.

You better save your money and jump in the way back machine

 

[jasonlaus]

That is unexpected... Especially since Sky is 35 points above Tony on Fargo.

All Fargo is is a prediction, Tony has to win sometimes, if they all happen in a row it still doesn't prove Fargo wrong.

At least thats my take on it

 

[july9x]

Your attempt to assign motivation here makes the same mistake that shows up in many responses (both here and on Facebook) to the original question.

In the Tony/Sky case, the fact that we’re asking the question is itself evidence. If the data were typical or aligned with baseline expectations, there would be no question. Answering as if it were asked at random ignores that conditioning. (Some of you—like sixpack and skogstokig—are getting this.)

The same applies to FargoRate’s choices. The fact that we don’t split 7-ft and 9-ft ratings is itself evidence. If our goal were, as you suggest, short-term engagement or revenue, splitting them would be the obvious, economically superior move. We would get far more engagement by giving people what they think they want. The fact that we don’t do that is important evidence of something.

In both cases, the error is the same: ignoring the selection mechanism that produced the question and the policy, and treating highly informative behavior as if it carried no information at all.

View attachment 881945

View attachment 882046

I have a newbie question: How to obtain a FR if you never had one and there are no fargo reported tournaments near me, and the ones that within reasonable distance require 200+ robustness?