Survivor Throwback Polearms- GLAIVE IS THE POINTIEST STICK!

[Son of the Serpent]

If you want your item to win you should (at least from a math supported strategy) primarily vote down the leader if you are anyone other than the leader. This is because you dont want them to get too far ahead for you to get back to. Its the tiniest of nudges but that is actually the correct way if you are gonna try to support your strategy with math. By a not so very large margin that is how your vote can help your weapon the most. In the math sense.

Let us not speak of psychology though. Darkwaters. Here thar be monstoors.

 

[CleverNickName]

Nickname is wrong in a different way though.

All models are wrong.
Some are also useful.

-Some famous statistician, probably​

​

If you want your item to win you should (at least from a math supported strategy) primarily vote down the leader if you are anyone other than the leader. This is because you dont want them to get too far ahead for you to get back to. Its the tiniest of nudges but that is actually the correct way if you are gonna try to support your strategy with math. By a not so very large margin that is how your vote can help your weapon the most. In the math sense.

It seems counter-intuitive, but with downvotes being worth twice what an upvote is worth, it doesn't make an appreciable difference. (Just look at what has happened to the oh-so-insurmountable lead of the Bec de Corbin, in just 48 hours.) A large lead can matter, it just usually doesn't.

On the bright side you both made very good arguments and stayed quite civil.

@Harzel and I save our truly heated disagreements for vital, important matters, like the shape of sharp pieces of metal on a stick. Statistics? Meh. Grownups don't argue about silly stuff like that.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

All models are wrong.
Some are also useful.

-Some famous statistician, probably​

​

​

Caught me right in the middle of drinking coffee and i got a good chuckle which was causally linked to my tie having a bad weather incident.​

 

[Son of the Serpent]

A neurologist, a philosopher, and a statistician are asked the classic question about a tree falling in the forest. You can surmise the rest.
The neurologist says something about this being a perfect illustration of selection bias in reverse or something. It went over his head.
The philosopher says he cannot trust himself to give the answer because this pertains not to phenomena but to noumena.
The statistician says "well we could just check the log".
They all just look at him. "The log" says the questioner?
Well yeah. Weve only accounted for people as a demographic pool. We can check for any flattened squirels. They clearly wouldve heard it.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Bardiche 20
Bec de Corbin 15
Fauchard 20
Glaive 18
Halberd 18
Lochaber Axe 20
Lucern Hammer 12
Ranseur 14
Voulge 18

 

[Torquar]

Bardiche 20
Bec de Corbin 15
Fauchard 20
Glaive 19
Halberd 18
Lochaber Axe 18
Lucern Hammer 12
Ranseur 14
Voulge 18

 

[Tonguez]

Bardiche 20
Bec de Corbin 15
Fauchard 18
Glaive 19
Halberd 18
Lochaber Axe 18
Lucern Hammer 12
Ranseur 14
Voulge 19

 

[Harzel]

​

Caught me right in the middle of drinking coffee and i got a good chuckle which was causally linked to my tie having a bad weather incident.​

Are you certain it wasn't a coincidence? I mean, it's only one observation...

 

[Sadras]

@Harzel and I save our truly heated disagreements for vital, important matters, like the shape of sharp pieces of metal on a stick. Statistics? Meh. Grownups don't argue about silly stuff like that.

I find myself liking all the polearms and their amazing sounding names. How can one really have a favourite in this selection? Hence my only strategy for this thread is to penalise the current leader.

 

[Harzel]

@Harzel - I'm not infallible either, and this topic comes up pretty often. (Here is a link to the last time, in the infamous Appendix E Authors thread, which might better explain what I'm trying to say? I dunno. I'm on cold medicine at the moment and my brain is fuzzy.)

Sorry you're not feeling well.

It earned me some chastisement later in that same thread from @Lanefan (and rightly so because they are absolutely right: it kills the fun.)

Nah, it is the fun. @Lanefan, aka Lan-always-raining-on-someone-else's-parade-efan, is just a crank. (But we love him anyway.)

Your "no other factors matter" statement is wrong, though, because it doesn't consider two voters upvoting each other's downvote, which will increase the number of downvotes both options need to be removed from the list...which happens all the time, especially with the "Leader Penalty" thing (which is how I got onto this tangent in the first place.)

It is possible that "no other factors matter" did not accurately convey what I meant. But rather than writing paragraphs trying to be more exact, it's much shorter and serves the same end to just ask this. Do you believe that my formula is accurate? And by 'accurate' I do mean 'precisely correct in all cases'. So if you think not, that's a nice fat target - all we need is one counterexample.

OTOH, if you agree the formula is accurate, then our 'disagreement' must be a bit more subtle.

FWIW, in the examples in the post from the other thread that you linked, your calculations appear correct* to me and my formula is consistent with what you have for these examples.

I already regret bringing it up again. I have a lot of fun with mathematics, but I realize that most folks don't.

Meh, let the rabble skip over our posts if they are too dull to appreciate them.

* There's one small typo in the first example: in the Option n line, 'n-1' should be 'n-2'.