Quote from: youfunnypeople on Today at 01:16:39 PM

Quote from: The_Prof on Today at 12:50:05 PM

Quote from: Bram24732 on Today at 11:47:19 AM

Quote from: youfunnypeople on Today at 11:34:09 AM

Quote from: Bram24732 on Today at 11:22:24 AM

The problem is you criticize a prediction model without having the parameters, so of course you'll get to the wrong conclusions.

The fact is it's you who made wrong conclusions Cheesy

I did not, we went for a risk / reward play based on the info we had. I don’t think it’s that hard to understand.

You know, if he actually hit it while competing with you it would make sense. This is unnecessary comments. While it's one thing to have our 2 favourite thread fillers arguing each other for... so many pages they both were doing their thing. But these are unnecessary comments. They don't seem to do anything but try to get a rise out of the receiver. Regardless of the outcome, chances are chances and sometimes the smallest chance is enough. Move on... Like Bram is trying to do. He still came out on top... by miles.

My point is simple: ignore people who state in public that they have calculated by using "smart" math that the prize is theirs and all other people have almost zero chances.
And this is not unnecessary comment.

No, on a statistical plot the chances were, due to scale of his operation, most likely theirs. The maths was accurate that all other parties, due to be so segmented and not working together, were highly unlikely to beat his operation. All random participants were taking into account. What cannot be taken into account is blind luck and random chance. If you know how to calculate that into anything then by all means well done.