BuzzerBeater Forums

Help - English > 47 training minutes?

47 training minutes?

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
11
187726.3 in reply to 187726.1
Date: 6/19/2011 7:47:53 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
2020
I think it would be more like 95%. You shouldn't even notice the setback.

This Post:
11
187726.4 in reply to 187726.3
Date: 6/19/2011 8:08:21 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
2828
since the minutes to percentage correlation is exponential and not linear, i'd agree that 80% is a more realistic estimation..

This Post:
00
187726.6 in reply to 187726.4
Date: 6/20/2011 4:09:05 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
345345
since the minutes to percentage correlation is exponential and not linear, i'd agree that 80% is a more realistic estimation..



Unfortunately if it is truly exponential it should go much lower, 60%. That's what exponential means:)

However, i'm not sure who can confirm this.

This Post:
22
187726.7 in reply to 187726.6
Date: 6/20/2011 4:19:56 PM
Phoenix_Suns
III.5
Overall Posts Rated:
176176
Unfortunately if it is truly exponential it should go much lower, 60%. That's what exponential means:)


Too many people throw in numbers that are absolutely wild guesses. New managers tend to believe what is said in here.

1. Exponential can mean anything (about 98% of training would be straight proportional).
2. No one except the BBs can confirm that. And they have not been willing to blab out that for some years now.

3. Personally I cannot believe that it has such a great effect. 47 minutes sound ok for me. But it tends to be less than 98% of training.

This Post:
00
187726.8 in reply to 187726.7
Date: 6/20/2011 4:27:23 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
345345
Everything we do here is a wild guess. The real thing is that no one knows for certain. One thing we know for sure is 48+ is the way to go

My trainee got 39 minutes in One on One in F last week, and popped in JS(It was the 4th week of one on one, so it was right on queue)

This Post:
11
187726.9 in reply to 187726.4
Date: 6/25/2011 1:22:32 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
147147
These guesses are horrendous.

If the training model is exponential, and 48 minutes is 100% training, then the math works out like this:

48^2 = 2304

47^2 = 2209


So, percent of training achieved = 2209/2304 = 95.88%

This Post:
00
187726.10 in reply to 187726.9
Date: 6/25/2011 2:21:11 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
345345
I don't want to be the nerd or anything... but exponential in maths is really like....

2^48=281474976710656
2^47=140737488355328

Thus => 50%. That is was exponential really means

But I seriously doubt that this is the case, and the difference between 47 and 48 is more like 5-10%, so your guess should be right:)

This Post:
00
187726.11 in reply to 187726.10
Date: 6/25/2011 3:01:28 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
959959
isn't exponential everything with an exponential funktion "^"

This Post:
00
187726.12 in reply to 187726.11
Date: 6/25/2011 3:23:14 AM
Phoenix_Suns
III.5
Overall Posts Rated:
176176
isn't exponential everything with an exponential funktion "^"


That´s how WE learn it in Germany. But maybe we are just taught wrong.

This Post:
00
187726.13 in reply to 187726.11
Date: 6/25/2011 3:29:09 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
345345
That´s how WE learn it in Germany. But maybe we are just taught wrong.

So, what Romanians are idiots? please stop right there


isn't exponential everything with an exponential funktion "^"


well, yeah, but your supposed to exponentiate the same base, not a different base. I'm not sure what are the math terms in English for this, but if you put like Arthur said:

48^2 = 2304

47^2 = 2209

it's a different function, it's like calling f(x) and g(x)
instead what i said was:

2^48=281474976710656
2^47=140737488355328


f(47) and f(48). Get it, now? This is what I was trying to say. I agree that some may disagree with me, but never mock my intelligence, no one should be aloud to do that.

Advertisement