Gen 6 How Much Hax Should You Expect?

[Fixed]

sure the impirical probability will not be 70%...ever. That doesnt mean anything - the probability of it hitting is still 70%, no more and no less. You can never bet with or against probability because there is a 50/50 shot you are wrong. You are trying to say that despite the probability of something happening being 70% that we can bank on the actual probability going a certain direction - which is completely illogical and by general logic makes your argument completely irrelevant.
This is something the internet loves to do in my experience, i call it the 2+2=5 syndrome. the people love to overcomplicate simple logic by using a differentiated, biased logic and claiming simple stuff to be an illogical fallacy. The result is people doing unecessary work to not be right because they want to attempt to prove common logic wrong. IDK if its a i want to be cool thing or what but it is pointless and i find it pathetically half-minded. Rather than trying to overcomplicate something and assuming that the simple answer is incorrect, people need to try to justify the simple solution, there is no logic that suggests its wrong and in fact most logic says its right in this case.

really internet, stop assuming everything is wrong with little to no justification of such. It results in so much misinforment and people believing wrong things, sometimes on a much larger scale than this (i am looking at you, storm chase video from being safe from a tornado under a bridge (look it up)).

as stated above it doesnt take more than high school statistics to prove your hypothesis wrong, as physical calculations always trump theoretical logic (especially when its misled -.-)

It seems you don't understand high school statistics either. Piexplode's calculations have not disproved the hypothesis that Focus Blast's accuracy is lower than 70%, they merely show that it does not take an extreme amount of bad luck to get the given results assuming the accuracy is 70%.

It's completely ridiculous to have any doubts about the accuracy being 70% though, especially without any evidence. MoxieInfinite, do you really think the PS programmers accidentally made a typo in the accuracy or something?

 

[xJownage]

It seems you don't understand high school statistics either. Piexplode's calculations have not disproved the hypothesis that Focus Blast's accuracy is lower than 70%, they merely show that it does not take an extreme amount of bad luck to get the given results assuming the accuracy is 70%.

It's completely ridiculous to have any doubts about the accuracy being 70% though, especially without any evidence. MoxieInfinite, do you really think the PS programmers accidentally made a typo in the accuracy or something?

no, what i said was that there is a 50/50 chance that with a large sample size the result will be lower, and another close to 50/50 it will go the other way.

what i was saying was not that he was more likely to be wrong, but that he could not make an assumption that there is a more than 50% chance the number was lower.

 

[Disaster Area]

It's not what you said, but now that you have said what you meant clearly, what you're saying I agree with more or less (although I'm interested to know if you had a finite sample size whether the probability of one side of the other being bigger is actualy 50:50 (with reference to the expected value) although I think this probably comes under random walk theory - which is very fun - and it might not be the sace but tend to 50:50 as the sample size tends to infinity)

 

[xJownage]

It's not what you said, but now that you have said what you meant clearly, what you're saying I agree with more or less (although I'm interested to know if you had a finite sample size whether the probability of one side of the other being bigger is actualy 50:50 (with reference to the expected value) although I think this probably comes under random walk theory - which is very fun - and it might not be the sace but tend to 50:50 as the sample size tends to infinity)

i understand that theory and it works normally with lower sample sizes, the more samples the less differentiation. for example there can be a more than 50/50 chance one way or the other just talking about 2 focus blasts, as seen in the first post.

 

[Haruno]

If I don't get a crit every attack I make, a secondary effect with every move, and if my opp ever hits me with attacks with under 100% accuracy, then I can safely they hax'd the shit out of me.

 

[N64Gary]

i HATE the baton teams they are so lame, why does everyone need to be such a noob by using these so dumb i don't even know why the rule where u can only ave one baton passer isnt in ubers but it needs to be (not open for a argument)

 

[soorus]

I've calculated some more probabilities of attacks hitting/missing of 80, 85, 90 and 95% accuracy attacks hitting or missing over 10 turns.

80%:
X~B(10,0.8)
Hit 0/10 -> P(X=0)=(0.2)^10 = 0.0000001024
Hit 5/10 -> P(X=5)=(10C5)(0.8)^5(0.2)^5 = 0.02642411152
Hit 10/10 ->P(X=10) (0.8)^10 = 0.1073741824
Hit at least once = 1-P(X=0) = 0.9999999086
Miss at least once = 1-P(X=10) = 0.8926258176

85%
X~B(10,0.85)
Hit 0/10 -> P(X=0)= (0.15)^10 = 0.0000000057665
Hit 5/10 -> P(X=5)=(10C5)(0.85)^5(0.15)^5 = 0.008490855786
Hit 10/10 ->P(X=10) (0.85)^10 = 0.1968744043
Hit at least once = 1-P(X=0) = 0.9999999942445
Miss at least once = 1-P(X=10) = 0.8031255957

90%
X~B(10,0.9)
Hit 0/10 -> P(X=0)= (0.1)^10 = 0.0000000001
Hit 5/10 -> P(X=5)=(10C5)(0.9)^5(0.1)^5 = 0.0014880348
Hit 10/10 ->P(X=10) (0.9)^10 = 0.3486784401
Hit at least once = 1-P(X=0) = 0.9999999999
Miss at least once = 1-P(X=10) = 0.6513215599

95%
X~B(10,0.95)
Hit 0/10 -> P(X=0)= (0.05)^10 = 0.00000000000009765625
Hit 5/10 -> P(X=5)=(10C5)(0.95)^5(0.05)^5 = 0.00006093524883
Hit 10/10 ->P(X=10) (0.95)^10 = 0.5967369392
Hit at least once = 1-P(X=0) = Almost certain (not enough digits)
Miss at least once = 1-P(X=10) = 0.4012630608

 

[Minority]

I originally didn't bother calculating non-accurate moves over x number of turns (like I did with critical hits) because they won't be used enough per battle and because the PP values of these moves make it pointless to do so. For example, the two most common 80% acc moves are Stone Edge and Hydro Pump, and neither of these have 10 PP anyways, so there isn't really a point in finding their performance over, say, ten turns because you can't use them for ten turns in battle anyways (you can have two or more mons with these attacks, but even then you are unlikely to ever use them more than ten times per battle). The same is true for common 85% acc moves like Fire Blast and Bolt Strike which are again 8 PP.

The reason why I did them with criticals was to instill that when you take a low percentage of something happening and apply it to a long amount of time, that "unlikely" event becomes almost certain; it is also extremely important to how we look at defensive boosting moves such as Calm Mind, and especially in regards to something like Gothitelle. When you do the opposite and analyze the performance of a higher percentage of something over a long period of time, it just becomes even more pointlessly certain.

I think that something more interesting would be to cal the expected deviation from the theoretical accuracy of a non-accurate move based on how many times you will ever use it; the lower that value, the further away from the theoretical accuracy the empirical accuracy should be. Stone Edge is only 80% accuracy when used infinity times; so for all practical uses Stone Edge is not 80% accuracy. I want to know how big of a gap should be expected between the theoretical accuracy of Stone Edge and the empirical accuracy over 1,000 uses.