Re: Wordle
Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2022 7:17 pm
Wordle 413 3/6
The Unofficial and Independent Leyton Orient Message Board
https://lofcforum.com/forum1/phpBB3/
I initially read that as "height of A walkie talkie" and thinking "ouch harsh"Mick McQuaid wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 2:45 pm Right, found a scale that works. Probability of a three or less taken from a scrape of 15million twitter posts I found.
Drawn on a rather large graph:
Gshaw - roughly the height of the Walkie Talkie
Me and Lsn - about the height of the BT tower
Gtp - about the height of the Natwest Tower
Dunners - 8 Canada square
Spike - The Bishorn (really very good, in the top 4% of players)
Tuffers last 31 games - Cruising altitude of Concorde
Tuffers first hundred games - There and back to the furthest galaxy observed by the James Webb telescope 10 times (corrected as I realised I converted metres to astronomical units as if they were kilometres initially).
Please take this with a pinch of salt and in the spirit intended. I'm sure there's all kinds of flaws in my methodology, but anyway you look at it tuffers scores are off the scale. I know you're not suddenly going to say it's a fair cop, so we'll put it down to my dodgy maths and up the O's and all that.
Are you still bothering people ?Mick McQuaid wrote: ↑Sun Aug 07, 2022 12:15 pm
BoniO currently in low earth orbit just above the now defunct Envisat on my chart.
Libelous ! where is your proof ?
Your biggest flaw was calling someone a cheat but ignoring a plumbers alledged admittance of dating a school kidMick McQuaid wrote: ↑Sun Aug 07, 2022 12:37 pm Yes.
As I've said I think the biggest flaw in my method, particularly for small datasets, is that people take a punt on a guess rather than playing the game logically. On larger samples I think it's much more reliable. Hence why everyone else gets a sensible score.
For context, in the dataset of 15000000 I took the probability from you would expect 255,000 people to match BoniO. His score is unlikely but plausible (more so because its only 7 games).
For your score, if every person on earth played a game every second for a hundred million years you would expect 2 people to have the same luck.
Mick McQuaid wrote: ↑Sun Aug 07, 2022 12:37 pm Yes.
As I've said I think the biggest flaw in my method, particularly for small datasets, is that people take a punt on a guess rather than playing the game logically. On larger samples I think it's much more reliable. Hence why everyone else gets a sensible score.
For context, in the dataset of 15000000 I took the probability from you would expect 255,000 people to match BoniO. His score is unlikely but plausible (more so because its only 7 games).
For your score, if every person on earth played a game every second for a hundred million years you would expect 2 people to have the same luck.
So we know one is Tuffers, who is the other one?Mick McQuaid wrote: ↑Sun Aug 07, 2022 12:37 pm Yes.
As I've said I think the biggest flaw in my method, particularly for small datasets, is that people take a punt on a guess rather than playing the game logically. On larger samples I think it's much more reliable. Hence why everyone else gets a sensible score.
For context, in the dataset of 15000000 I took the probability from you would expect 255,000 people to match BoniO. His score is unlikely but plausible (more so because its only 7 games).
For your score, if every person on earth played a game every second for a hundred million years you would expect 2 people to have the same luck.