There's a poll on the front page of the Phoenix website - http://www.phoenixcoyotes.com/ - asking which rookie has impressed you the most so far. Dave's in second place by thirty points; shall we give him a boost? :-)
Beeeej
It's in the lower left corner (in case anybody else has as much trouble finding it as I).
Nice new unis for the Coyotes. Very sharp.
He's pretty far behind; I think Gopher fans stuff polls as well as we do.
Since my post, he's gone up from 20.7% to 25.0%. We may never get him into first, but I think that's pretty good stuffing.
Beeeej
tip: just select it once and on the next page keep hitting f5 to refresh + resubmit. they obviously arent checking for multiple votes from the same person
we will not be beaten by the dirty rodents!!! ::rock::
say it with me now … M-E-D-I-O-C-R-E, mediocre, mediocre, goooooooo golfing?
anyone up for a round?
You really shouldn't have told me that. :-D
Beeeej
Way to go folks, LeNeveu winning the poll, 42% to 41.2%.
ok, i wrote a quick 10 line perl script..i'll let it run for a little while, already recorded a couple hundred votes. should make quick work of the competition.
Don't get too carried away - we want him to have a good lead, but not an absurdly ridiculous one that couldn't possibly have resulted from anything but ballot-stuffing.
Beeeej
[boring]I don't stuff in the USCHO Hobey Fraudfest and I'm not going to participate in this ballot stuffing either.[/boring]
(Though it has been persuasively argued that I don't really stop being boring.)
Lenny now pulling away with 56%. We have a lot of time on our collective hands....
Wow.... Lenny with 75.1% now.... make that 75.3%....75.4%... and counting/
75% !?!
We have clearly moved into absurd territory...
ok, i killed my software after it recorded around 5300 votes :)
Yeah, they won't notice that at all. ::twitch::
Beeeej
::drunk::80%!!!!!!::drunk::
One wonders if we shouldn't actually start voting for some of the other guys just to try to counteract the ballot-stuffing.
OK, come on people, let's be realistic here. It's a meaningless poll on a website. Nobody gives a crap if there's been ballot-stuffing. :-)
[Q]jmh30 Wrote:
OK, come on people, let's be realistic here. It's a meaningless poll on a website. Nobody gives a crap if there's been ballot-stuffing. [/q]
We don't need no stinkin' voices of reason here!!! :-P
[Q]jmh30 Wrote:
OK, come on people, let's be realistic here. It's a meaningless poll on a website. Nobody gives a crap if there's been ballot-stuffing. [/q]
Wait? This doesn't count toward All Star Game voting? Aw Man!
[Q]Beeeej Wrote:
Don't get too carried away - we want him to have a good lead, but not an absurdly ridiculous one that couldn't possibly have resulted from anything but ballot-stuffing.
Beeeej[/q]
Remember when we surprised CSTV with our um, vehement desire to see our semifinal live? The more chances we get to make people realize we're out there and dedicated, the better, I say. Someone at the Coyotes may notice that Lenny has fans who are dedicated enough to ballot-stuff, which might just filter down someplace useful. (Lord knows there are lots of sports bar operators who could stand to know Cornell hockey fans exist.)
[Q]ugarte Wrote:
(Though it has been persuasively argued that I don't really stop being boring.)[/q]
Did you say something? I nodded off... ;-)
[Q]pfibiger Wrote:
ok, i killed my software after it recorded around 5300 votes[/q]
C'mon, they'll realize it's ballot stuffing.
There aren't 5300 fans in Phoenix :-P
Well, I think we've successfully proven that we're completely nuts about Cornell Hockey. Well done, gentlemen, well done.
But iLenny is under 80% again! What kind of devotion does that show? ::laugh::
[Q]Pace Wrote:
Well, I think we've successfully proven that we're completely nuts about Cornell Hockey. Well done, gentlemen, well done.[/q]
That'll teach them to mess with us. Well, OK, they werent really mess with us...but...it'll teach them something.
It'll teach Phoenix PR staff to give the TV announcer lots of Leneveu / Cornell anecdotes the next time he starts and Phoenix is on TV.
85.5% ::nut:: ::nut:: ::nut:: ::nut::
I don't know if anyone is stuffing for Keith Ballard, but it's definitely taking a lot more raw votes to move the percentages :) ...Lenny's over 90% now, that oughta be good enough.
It has nothing to do with someone stuffing for one of the other three choices. It's simple math. Back when there were only 1,000 votes, a single vote for Lenny could move his total 0.1%. Now that there are 10,000, it takes about ten votes to move his total about 0.1%, no matter who those 10,000 votes are for.
Beeeej
[Q]Beeeej Wrote:
It has nothing to do with someone stuffing for one of the other three choices. It's simple math. Back when there were only 1,000 votes, a single vote for Lenny could move his total 0.1%. Now that there are 10,000, it takes about ten votes to move his total about 0.1%, no matter who those 10,000 votes are for.
Beeeej[/q]
Nope.
Take 3 cases:
a) Lenny has 0 of 10,000 votes.
b) Lenny has 2,500 of 10,000 votes.
c) Lenny has 5,000 of 10,000 votes.
Now add ten votes for Lenny. His percentage increases are, respectively:
a) .09990%
b) .07493%
c) .04995%
So, the number of votes it takes to move Lenny's percentage varies with both the number of total prior votes *and* the distribution.
The trivial case: how many votes does it take to move Lenny's percentage .1% if he had all 10,000 prior votes? ;-)
[Q]Trotsky Wrote:
[Q2]Beeeej Wrote:
It has nothing to do with someone stuffing for one of the other three choices. It's simple math. Back when there were only 1,000 votes, a single vote for Lenny could move his total 0.1%. Now that there are 10,000, it takes about ten votes to move his total about 0.1%, no matter who those 10,000 votes are for.
Beeeej[/Q]
Nope.
Take 3 cases:
a) Lenny has 0 of 10,000 votes.
b) Lenny has 2,500 of 10,000 votes.
c) Lenny has 5,000 of 10,000 votes.
Now add ten votes for Lenny. His percentage increases are, respectively:
a) .09990%
b) .07493%
c) .04995%
So, the number of votes it takes to move Lenny's percentage varies with both the number of total prior votes *and* the distribution.
The trivial case: how many votes does it take to move Lenny's percentage .1% if he had all 10,000 prior votes?
Edited 1 times. Last edit at 10/13/05 01:18AM by Trotsky.[/q]
trick question sorta, as he has 100% of the votes already so he cant go up...
but 10 votes for anyone else (either all for one person, or split up), will give 99.9% (dropping him by .1%)
Regardless of the exact numbers, however, the more total votes that have been cast, the more votes it will take to move Lenny's overall share of the votes, and this is true whether or not someone is also currently casting votes for one of the other choices.
My late-night exact math assumption was incorrect, but the general principle that refutes the prior poster's statement is still true.
Beeeej
If Lenny has
x votes out of
n total cast and he gains one additional, then the difference in old and new fractions is:
(v+1) v n(v+1) - v(n+1) nv+n-nv-1 n-v
----- - --- = --------------- = --------- = -------
(n+1) n n(n+1) n(n+1) n(n+1)
Thus it depends on both n and v.
You guys aren't actually having this conversation, are you? ::bang::
*Does best Ogre impression*
NERDS!!!!
Basically, you can't add averages to get a new average. But, Beeeej's general idea is correct.
What exactly were you expecting from a guy with a PhD in Aerospace Engineering and a passion for sports statistics?
Or, since the numbers are large, you can use calculus to do it approximately. If there are x votes for Lenny and y votes for other candidates, his percentage is
P = x/(x+y)
and the total number of votes is
N = x+y
So if we add one vote for Lenny, the approximate increase in P will be
Î"P =~ dP/dx * Î"x = y/(x+y)^2 * 1 = (1-P)/N
So the approximate gain per vote is the percentage of votes not for Lenny divided by the number of votes cast so far.
[Q]jtwcornell91 Wrote:
So the approximate gain per vote is the percentage of votes not for Lenny divided by the number of votes cast so far.[/q]
Actually, that's not an approximation, the gain per vote is exactly the percentage of votes not for Lenny divided by the number of votes cast so far.
[Q]jkahn Wrote:
[Q2]jtwcornell91 Wrote:
So the approximate gain per vote is the percentage of votes not for Lenny divided by the number of votes cast so far.[/Q]
Actually, that's not an approximation, the gain per vote is exactly the percentage of votes not for Lenny divided by the number of votes cast so far.[/q]
Okay, but the exact result makes a distinction between N and N+1. (It looks like the percentage in the numerator is taken before the vote you're making and the number of votes in the denominator is taken after you vote.)