Sunday, September 19, 2010
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Probiotic Yogurt Starter
ChessCube, Cubits & Fortune
Bonsoir chères gens.
Ce soir, je partage avec vous la Vérité. Cette Vérité vous permettra de devenir riche en utilisant l'incompréhension des gens. C'est permis et légal, et non seulement ça mais c'est impossible réussir si les gens floués ne sont pas consentants, i.e. si vous réussissez, c'est que quelqu'un a accepté de se faire flouer.
ChessCube
ChessCube est un site où l'on peut jouer aux échecs en temps réel.
C'est un site qui at the base was free but now has a system of currency to purchase membership (which they are entitled to certain benefits) and other stuff like watching video lessons. This currency, which is the subject of this article, is called Cubits .
Cubits
The Cubits , as discussed above, are used to purchase memberships or privileges whatsoever on ChessCube.
As the real money, Cubits can (and should) be "bet" on the parties. In fact, quite simple: for each game each player puts a certain amount of Cubits (predefined choices) and the winner gets a portion of the pot, the rest being lost. (Note that this effectively means that ChessCube "recover" the Cubits purchased and simply keep the money - it's a rake ). If none is Cubits bet, each player loses 3 Cubits at the end of the game (winning or not).
Otherwise, the winner gets over his initial 90% to 97.5% of the down his opponent. For example, a game where each player puts 100 Cubits at stake, the winner could win 90 and the loser lose Cubits Cubits 100.
So far so good?
Level Game & ratings
Quantifying the talent of someone can be tedious. Quantify the talent of someone in a benchmark comparison to other players is simple. With a rating system (typically Elo rating) you can rank players by playing strength by assigning a numerical value to the assessment of their game this assessment fluctuates as the players play, and the fluctuation depends on several factors but mainly on its own evaluation and assessment of his opponent.
The formula used to ChessCube:
r_n where is the new symbol of the player, R_0 the player's initial rating, S the result of the game (1 for a win, 1 / 2 for a draw, 0 for a loss), D is the difference between the rating of the opponent and the player's score, and K an amplification factor used to determine the maximum number of points a player can win (or lose) in a game.
Usually, the value of the number of games played in a category (bullet, blitz, standard) and by category, unlike the usual places (32 on ICC, 15 to FIDE, ...). M'enfin.
The talent does not depend on the rating
Since I sometimes say to tell if someone is good or not we look at its rating. That's true but simply because the rating is the best indicator of talent that is available "easily". By cons, most people do not seem to realize that talent does not depend on the rating ; it's actually the opposite.
However, sometimes we have bad nights or whatever. Rating varies. The thing to understand is that the rating fluctuates around an indicator "real" which represents the talent inherent in all people. Each person has two sides (conceptually):
The formula indicates implied probability of victory
postulate: as the talent does not depend on the rating and the rating is the best indicator of skill for two players whose rating is currently at its most realistic form of Such a rating should be infinite number of games played between two players should not affect the ratings.
In this way, we can determine the implied probability of victory (or loss) for each player. For purposes of simplicity, we assume thereafter that are not zero (the zero tend to produce relatively stable results anyway).
Thus, for the parameters given above, it is necessary that the variation following part is average of 0. This implies that
After rearrangement and simplification:
S can take 3 values: 1 with probability p (win), 1 / 2 with probability 0 (by hypothesis ) and 0 with probability q (defeat). E (S) is therefore p which is what we seek.
The second term is calculated as badly expectancy 10 ^ (D/400) is disgusting. The function is slightly skewed to the right. For the purposes of our simulation, we take D = d = R_0 (opponent) - R_0. The error is below 0.5%. So we have everything we need to calculate a probability of victory.
sharing Cubits is almost independent ratings
As I wrote above, when you win a game, you earn between 90% and 97.5% of the original bet and lose 100% what has been bet. In other words, to win against someone much better than I do gives me [almost] nothing more than winning against someone much worse, the only difference being that I may touch 97.5% in the former situation and 90% in the second situation.
PLAN TO BECOME THE MAGIC RICH!
I am listed on this site about 2100. Using the formula found above, we find that the probability that I win a game against someone rated 1800 is about 85% (under current assumptions, we have p = 1 / (1 +10 ^ (-300 / 400)) = 0849 ...).
We will assume that I earn 90% of the down Cubits if I'm better than the next person and I earn 97.5% of the set if I am less well regarded. That means I could win 450 Cubits per game (if I win) or by losing 500 if I lose. To get a toss up in the end, I would have won 52.6316% of my games, which is well below the 85% implied.
CONCLUSION: you guessed it ... long-term play against the lost bring me to beauuuuucoup Cubits and my rating will not change (because my score is only my talent and my talent is beyond my rating). The
optimal strategy is simple: playing against players much worse than you for many Cubits.
The beauty of it is that most people prefer to play against players better than yourself. I do not even have trouble playing against 1800, and everyone only see the fire.
But Philip, there is certainly a flaw somewhere in your reasoning, it can not be true. Not
friends ... it works. I know because there is not too long ago I Cubits 3.000. I now have 6,500. It's enough to buy 1 month membership (the rates being 4.950 for 1 month, 3 months to 9.950, 14.950 for 1 year). At Cubits 1.000 per dollar, I am raking the big bucks .
I enjoyed making simulations with Excel with the same data as those described here (my actual score = 2100, actual odds of my opponent = 1800, K = 50, probability of win = 85% = 3,000 initial balance, by putting part = 500).
For simulation I look now:
As expected, the rating does not move hardly (it fluctuates around the "real talent"), and the balance is constantly increasing on average.
Ce soir, je partage avec vous la Vérité. Cette Vérité vous permettra de devenir riche en utilisant l'incompréhension des gens. C'est permis et légal, et non seulement ça mais c'est impossible réussir si les gens floués ne sont pas consentants, i.e. si vous réussissez, c'est que quelqu'un a accepté de se faire flouer.
ChessCube
ChessCube est un site où l'on peut jouer aux échecs en temps réel.
C'est un site qui at the base was free but now has a system of currency to purchase membership (which they are entitled to certain benefits) and other stuff like watching video lessons. This currency, which is the subject of this article, is called Cubits .
Cubits
The Cubits , as discussed above, are used to purchase memberships or privileges whatsoever on ChessCube.
As the real money, Cubits can (and should) be "bet" on the parties. In fact, quite simple: for each game each player puts a certain amount of Cubits (predefined choices) and the winner gets a portion of the pot, the rest being lost. (Note that this effectively means that ChessCube "recover" the Cubits purchased and simply keep the money - it's a rake ). If none is Cubits bet, each player loses 3 Cubits at the end of the game (winning or not).
Otherwise, the winner gets over his initial 90% to 97.5% of the down his opponent. For example, a game where each player puts 100 Cubits at stake, the winner could win 90 and the loser lose Cubits Cubits 100.
So far so good?
Level Game & ratings
Quantifying the talent of someone can be tedious. Quantify the talent of someone in a benchmark comparison to other players is simple. With a rating system (typically Elo rating) you can rank players by playing strength by assigning a numerical value to the assessment of their game this assessment fluctuates as the players play, and the fluctuation depends on several factors but mainly on its own evaluation and assessment of his opponent.
The formula used to ChessCube:
r_n where is the new symbol of the player, R_0 the player's initial rating, S the result of the game (1 for a win, 1 / 2 for a draw, 0 for a loss), D is the difference between the rating of the opponent and the player's score, and K an amplification factor used to determine the maximum number of points a player can win (or lose) in a game.
Usually, the value of the number of games played in a category (bullet, blitz, standard) and by category, unlike the usual places (32 on ICC, 15 to FIDE, ...). M'enfin.
The talent does not depend on the rating
Since I sometimes say to tell if someone is good or not we look at its rating. That's true but simply because the rating is the best indicator of talent that is available "easily". By cons, most people do not seem to realize that talent does not depend on the rating ; it's actually the opposite.
However, sometimes we have bad nights or whatever. Rating varies. The thing to understand is that the rating fluctuates around an indicator "real" which represents the talent inherent in all people. Each person has two sides (conceptually):
- Its current rating
- His score actually representing real talent
The formula indicates implied probability of victory
postulate: as the talent does not depend on the rating and the rating is the best indicator of skill for two players whose rating is currently at its most realistic form of Such a rating should be infinite number of games played between two players should not affect the ratings.
In this way, we can determine the implied probability of victory (or loss) for each player. For purposes of simplicity, we assume thereafter that are not zero (the zero tend to produce relatively stable results anyway).
Thus, for the parameters given above, it is necessary that the variation following part is average of 0. This implies that
After rearrangement and simplification:
S can take 3 values: 1 with probability p (win), 1 / 2 with probability 0 (by hypothesis ) and 0 with probability q (defeat). E (S) is therefore p which is what we seek.
The second term is calculated as badly expectancy 10 ^ (D/400) is disgusting. The function is slightly skewed to the right. For the purposes of our simulation, we take D = d = R_0 (opponent) - R_0. The error is below 0.5%. So we have everything we need to calculate a probability of victory.
sharing Cubits is almost independent ratings
As I wrote above, when you win a game, you earn between 90% and 97.5% of the original bet and lose 100% what has been bet. In other words, to win against someone much better than I do gives me [almost] nothing more than winning against someone much worse, the only difference being that I may touch 97.5% in the former situation and 90% in the second situation.
PLAN TO BECOME THE MAGIC RICH!
I am listed on this site about 2100. Using the formula found above, we find that the probability that I win a game against someone rated 1800 is about 85% (under current assumptions, we have p = 1 / (1 +10 ^ (-300 / 400)) = 0849 ...).
We will assume that I earn 90% of the down Cubits if I'm better than the next person and I earn 97.5% of the set if I am less well regarded. That means I could win 450 Cubits per game (if I win) or by losing 500 if I lose. To get a toss up in the end, I would have won 52.6316% of my games, which is well below the 85% implied.
CONCLUSION: you guessed it ... long-term play against the lost bring me to beauuuuucoup Cubits and my rating will not change (because my score is only my talent and my talent is beyond my rating). The
optimal strategy is simple: playing against players much worse than you for many Cubits.
The beauty of it is that most people prefer to play against players better than yourself. I do not even have trouble playing against 1800, and everyone only see the fire.
But Philip, there is certainly a flaw somewhere in your reasoning, it can not be true. Not
friends ... it works. I know because there is not too long ago I Cubits 3.000. I now have 6,500. It's enough to buy 1 month membership (the rates being 4.950 for 1 month, 3 months to 9.950, 14.950 for 1 year). At Cubits 1.000 per dollar, I am raking the big bucks .
I enjoyed making simulations with Excel with the same data as those described here (my actual score = 2100, actual odds of my opponent = 1800, K = 50, probability of win = 85% = 3,000 initial balance, by putting part = 500).
For simulation I look now:
- Balance after 5 games: 4,300
- Cote after 5 games: 2077
- Balance after 10 games: 5,600
- Cote after 10 games: 2075
- Balance after 20 games: 9.150 Cote
- after 20 games: 2101
- Balance after 50 games: 16,000 Rating
- after 50 games: 2051
- ... Balance after
- 5.000 parts: 1,516,940
- 5.000 parts after Cote: 2084
As expected, the rating does not move hardly (it fluctuates around the "real talent"), and the balance is constantly increasing on average.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Welcome Notes For Guests For The Wedding
GRP Fens and Val Joly - Saturday, October 23, 2010 - Travel
Saturday, October 23: Trail GRP Fens and Val Joly
95 km - from the site of the Collegiate Avesnes on Helpe at 9:00
first shipment performed in 1:20 p.m. by Jerome L. Jean, Sebastien Laurent, Philippe & T Oliv (abandonment of the 40th kilometer Jerome B. Moy accompanied by bicycle)
photo album: http://picasaweb.google .com / oharduin / GRPFagnesValJoly #
please visit these sites to relive our adventures or immerse yourself coming through the sights and stories told:
Second Volume of our epic avesnois this time with the discovery of the eastern part of the territory, Valjoly, also called the Little Switzerland North . Let you take him to the discovery of the green forests where groves and peaceful hide cool fountains and mysterious shrines and chapels while keeping in mind the memory of a rich industrial past, crossing the mighty but now remains heavy and cumbersome ... Small
curiosity Clairfayt passage through, the culmination of the area with an altitude of 238m!
map:
Profile:
Saturday, October 23: Trail GRP Fens and Val Joly
95 km - from the site of the Collegiate Avesnes on Helpe at 9:00
first shipment performed in 1:20 p.m. by Jerome L. Jean, Sebastien Laurent, Philippe & T Oliv (abandonment of the 40th kilometer Jerome B. Moy accompanied by bicycle)
photo album: http://picasaweb.google .com / oharduin / GRPFagnesValJoly #
please visit these sites to relive our adventures or immerse yourself coming through the sights and stories told:
http://ot.solrezis.free.fr/communes.htm
The "phenomenon chapels " Avesnois date in the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries. They adorn the edges of pastures, away from the house or crossed paths and it is not uncommon to find in the middle of a field. They testify to a popular devotion and were reared in a private capacity thanks to a healing for protection during an epidemic or remember a family member disappeared ...
Second Volume of our epic avesnois this time with the discovery of the eastern part of the territory, Valjoly, also called the Little Switzerland North . Let you take him to the discovery of the green forests where groves and peaceful hide cool fountains and mysterious shrines and chapels while keeping in mind the memory of a rich industrial past, crossing the mighty but now remains heavy and cumbersome ... Small
curiosity Clairfayt passage through, the culmination of the area with an altitude of 238m!
map:
Profile:
Friday, September 10, 2010
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Monitor Signalcaple Is Not Connected
In The Know: Are Tests Biased Against Students Who Don't Give A Shit?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)