Sigh, there are two players/monsters/characters
A deals 20 damage and hits 50% of the time, has 10 hp and always goes first.
B deals 10 damage and hits 100% of the time, and has 20 hp
So who wins?
Weighted adverage say B always wins when in fact B only wins 50% of the time. Geez this isn't rocket surgery. I can't belive you didn't get it the first time I sure did.
That's not a link. That is a further demonstration of your complete lack of comprehension regarding maths.
For instance, this example isn't 'weighted averages'. Weighted averages are used with
one set of numbers (Protip: this is a link). It's not used to compare two sets of numbers to each other, as you are using it here. It's used to get a weighted average of one set of numbers, which can then be compared to the weighted average of the other set. If biology quizzes are worth 20% of a grade, but algebra quizzes are worth 15% of a grade, there are no direct comparisons that can be made with that information, other than algebra quizzes are worth less of the algebra grade than biology quizzes are worth for the biology grade.
Player A hits 50% of the time, dealing 20points per hit. Over a span of time, that would work out to be 10points per round. So the weighting is 50% hit and 50% not hit. The hit item = 20, the not hit item = 0. The average of 20 and 0 is 10. Because there are two items in the list, and the average of two items is (A+B)/2.
It would be different if there was a 60% chance to hit. That would average out to 12 points per round instead. Now there are actually 10 items in the list. Six of them are 'hit', which equals 20 points. Four of them are 'not hit' which equals zero points. 6x20 = 120, 4x0=0, (120+0)/10 = 12. But because it works out the same, and it's easier, we just multiply the 60% by the total, 20, and get the same result. Alternately, you could multiply 20 by 40%, but then you have to subtract that from the original amount, 20. An extra step that isn't needed, because it works out the first way.
Player B hits 100% of the time. This is not a weighted average. It doesn't even belong in here. If Biology quizzes are worth 100% of your grade, there is no average. That's your grade. It's also the flaw in this argument. It appears to you that weighted averages are dishonest, because you aren't actually using weighted averages. You are using one weighted average and one 'certainty'.
Clearly, discussing weighted averages requires one to actually use weighted averages in the discussion, not certainties, not normal averages, not the median, mean or range.
Again, feel free to post an actual link that shows how weighted averages are intellectually dishonest. Just make sure the link actually talks about weighted averages. Otherwise, it would be... well, intellectually dishonest.