bwig said: No offense to the creator, but to me, this is no new tactic. Especially not the new no1 Listing. If it provided any better results it would work for me. But one thing changed to no1 with no effect at all shouldn´t even be listed in my honest opinion. @FM Arena Expand
Hi, dont'worry ahah, i just applied CF(S) + IF(A) from A Smile's tactic to previous versions of 424 Classic, with FBs, TakeMoreRisks on AF, etc... By the way i'm just trying to find out the best possible tactic, and by now 424 looks most promising way, so tweaking small PI/TIs is the only thing i can think to discover something better, i decided to invest my two daily uploads to explore this path, and it's normal that with the 9600 games accuracy some tactics show same results, but how can we know it before testing them?
Cherknam said: I'm confused. How can the minimum RNG score for the 3.0 test be higher than the maximum RNG score for the 2.0 test, if the match engine and the tactic are the same? Surely at least one of these RNG calculations is incorrect. Expand
they changed some attributes in the database, it leads to differents tests and the "real score" of the tactic (the mean of the several tests) is different, so the confidence intervals could haven't intersection, like in this case
What does make you think that it was skipped? Expand
Hi, don't need to rush obviously, just thought it because having uploaded both at same time i believed that they would have been tested together, but if it isn't the case it isn't absolutely a problem, i'm not hurry at all ahah
Hi, dont'worry ahah, i just applied CF(S) + IF(A) from A Smile's tactic to previous versions of 424 Classic, with FBs, TakeMoreRisks on AF, etc... By the way i'm just trying to find out the best possible tactic, and by now 424 looks most promising way, so tweaking small PI/TIs is the only thing i can think to discover something better, i decided to invest my two daily uploads to explore this path, and it's normal that with the 9600 games accuracy some tactics show same results, but how can we know it before testing them?
Usually they perform worse than IFs, but it would be interesting to use them with WB and Underlaps like 424 Icebreaker imo
just uploaded it, let's see, pretty excited tbh ahah
Credits to @A Smile
going to spend my today's uploads to explore that, just wondering if adding only invite crosses or also using PF instead of Cf e.e
they changed some attributes in the database, it leads to differents tests and the "real score" of the tactic (the mean of the several tests) is different, so the confidence intervals could haven't intersection, like in this case
wow it looks fair! thank you!
What does make you think that it was skipped?
Hi, don't need to rush obviously, just thought it because having uploaded both at same time i believed that they would have been tested together, but if it isn't the case it isn't absolutely a problem, i'm not hurry at all ahah