Well, that is what I said, right? And disproves what you said. 100K games already, and the LOS is still nowhere near 0 or 1. No 0.99999... there. It nicely fluctuates around the range 0.16-0.84, as I predicted.Dann Corbit wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 7:39 pmHere are the first few lines of the raw data:
losses: 50099 wins: 49901 ties: 0 LOS: 0.265615 Elo diff: -0.687897
Look at that, A is not superior to B at all. But that means B has an LOS of 1-0.265615=0.734385
So, would you like to choose that one? It tells us that B looks stronger than A. And we have 100K games to prove it.
losses: 49948 wins: 50052 ties: 0 LOS: 0.628876 Elo diff: 0.361319
This one is only .6, so maybe a candidate you would like.
losses: 50060 wins: 49940 ties: 0 LOS: 0.352168 Elo diff: -0.416907
Again, A is not looking very strong here, but B is. 1-0.352168 =0.647832
losses: 50040 wins: 49960 ties: 0 LOS: 0.400141 Elo diff: -0.277938
B is .6
losses: 49872 wins: 50128 ties: 0 LOS: 0.790899 Elo diff: 0.889403
Not a bad cherry pick here.
losses: 50180 wins: 49820 ties: 0 LOS: 0.127473 Elo diff: -1.25073
Now we are getting somewhere. You should have told me to pick the 6th one, not the first.
losses: 50010 wins: 49990 ties: 0 LOS: 0.474785 Elo diff: -0.0694844
My goodness, even better. Let's choose the 7th.
Now try it for a match of a million games. Or a billion games. It won't go up.