| Started By | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
grassip.molehypogroup |
|||
|
What came first? The chicken or the chicken lo mein?
|
|||
Screerider |
|||
Dr Will Hatch two point oh wrote:That's what I've been saying all along. |
|||
Dr Will Hatch two point oh |
|||
|
We are nowhere with YOUR way of looking at things. I have been logical this entire time, and provide answers.
|
|||
Screerider |
|||
|
You've also been next to godlike. Don't forget that.
|
|||
Dr Will Hatch two point oh |
|||
|
?
|
|||
Gamemaster8888 |
|||
|
One thing to add though to this (which I am sure you said somewhere in the entire back and forth.)
|
|||
Dr Will Hatch two point oh |
|||
|
Right. I've brought this up as well as several other hit and run posters: the quiz is tantamount. I think Screerider has problems accepting that. Luck is an abstract concept that can be defined clearly, but we don't have a good one yet. Screerider and I look at things from two different perspectives. While Screerider thinks of terms like "skill" and "luck" in concrete, material terms that can be tested in a lab, I'm a bit more metaphysical because I view each game as self contained. |
|||
Gamemaster8888 |
|||
|
But to that though, while luck is an abstract concept, skill isen't.
I am a short, heavyset guy. I am not that physically strong, but I am mentally strong. I love reading and puzzle solving and I know I can do well on Survivor if I ever get on the show, mentally at least. But I won't win challenges if they involve strength. So I might need some luck to survive that show, but my skills will help me in my survival. Skill is a concrete thing. You can build on them, lose them, or be outclassed by someone with them, but it doesn't mean you will always win with them. |
|||
Screerider |
|||
Gamemaster8888 wrote:Perhaps. I would say that having a nose for the Mole > not having a nose for the Mole. Yep. Exactly what I've been saying. And no, I'm not saying "winner = luckiest player" in all cases. Just drawing the poker analogy to a one-time game like The Mole. For example, playing one poker game, amateur versus Phil Ivey, and amateur wins, we all admit the "best player" didn't win. The amateur won by luck, and therefore, the winner was the luckiest player. Of course, if Phil Ivey won, we'd say the "best player" won, not the "luckiest", but only because he has a body of work behind in that empirically shows he has the skills to repeatedly progress further in tournaments than the majority of poker enthusiasts, amateur and pro. We have "more data" on him. Also, in order to get the statistic that the amateur had only a 5/50 chance of beating Phil Ivey, that again comes from having "more data", like the amateur's record, or even a past session of 50 games between the two. Two unknowns out of the box would start evenly, neither "better" than the other, with the ultimate determination of which was the better player by having them play multiple games. One game just doesn't prove anything. |
|||
Dr Will Hatch two point oh |
|||
|
I have a problem with the nose for the Mole>not having a nose for the Mole principle. Since the quiz is what determines who wins and who loses,
seemingly arbitrary things like being extra careful not to press the wrong option becomes critical. It can't be compared to poker since there is such a
great amount of luck in it, moreso than The Mole.
|
|||
Gamemaster8888 |
|||
|
But you also control your actions in poker, as you do in the mole. So again, certain skills come in to play. If you can read people, calculate pot odds, etc.
in poker, that can erase the luck factor to a mere percentage thing, as in the card the player needs to hit to beat you, or vice cersa.
In the mole, not making a mistake is critical, but so is speed. That is why checking and double checking the quizzes as you answer them is important, as well as the journals. If you rush through it, you risk putting wrong answers. If you are meticulous but swift enough to check your answers twice, you may just survive. |
|||
Dr Will Hatch two point oh |
|||
|
Which is what Mark did. Noone is denying that he was a good quiz taker right?
|
|||
Screerider |
|||
|
Yes, despite knowing the least number of correct answers, he survived by luck. Perhaps if he'd known more correct answers, he wouldn't have put himself
in such a risky position. Better players mitigate things like that.
|
|||
Will |
|||
Dr Will Hatch two point oh wrote:He was better than Victoria, that's about as far as I would say about his quiz taking skills. |
|||
Dr Will Hatch two point oh |
|||
|
The point of the matter is that he survived every quiz. That is the only criteria to win.
|
|||
Etxeverria |
|||
Dr Will Hatch two point oh wrote: You are right, although he only beat out a couple of people that were eliminated by mere seconds. |
|||
Will |
|||
Dr Will Hatch two point oh wrote:No it isn't but arguing with you is like talking to a parrot so yeah I'll pass on this.
Last Edited By: Will
12/25/08 6:52 PM.
Edited 1 times.
|
|||
Dr Will Hatch two point oh |
|||
|
I'm repeating myself because this is an argument and neither yyou nor Screerider has presented a decent rebuttal. It's easy to just say that
"don't get it", but don't expect to win any other arguments or debates that way.
|
|||
Screerider |
|||
|
Well, we're repeating ourselves 'cuz you don't get it, and you won't win any debates if you can only see your side of things.
|
|||
Dr Will Hatch two point oh |
|||
|
This argument doesn't allow us to meet halfway. |
|||