Luck determines a small number of games between good or great players. But usually, one simply out picks or outplays the other. I will link you to many games tommorrow to prove my point. Lets look at most of the recent games between 1900+ players. Most will be decided by skill, not luck.
There was 1 other, but he disappeared and it was a boot-win so it wasn't linked. Regardless that's 13 games won vs. opponents with 50%+ winrate (in many cases much higher). All wins, obviously all won without any losses in between as this account has lost 1 game ever, and it was its most recent game.
You claim that games between average or above skilled players luck determines most games. As such me winning 13 such games in a row should be impossible, since no matter how much better than them I am they should be good enough to beat me if I get unlucky.
when you are drunk you are not consistant period so it effects your statistics period
Unless you prove to me that statistics without filtering are reliable your claim is unfounded and not supported with evidence or anything.
You failed to address the factors directly that i pointed out and focused on mood only which you were proven wrong. Unless you accept that you failed in this or supply some evidence to support your claim I'm done replying to you.
JSA, I think you missed some of my points. Most people take for-granted some luck factors which happen in every single game. I'm not saying that most games are decided by luck(that's statistics) but that luck is a more effective factor then skill when above average players play. I demonstrated this in my early posts that 1 single lucky move can decide the game, no matter how much superior skill the enemy has.
Good kid i said the exact opposite, YOU DON'T WIN BY LUCK YOU WIN BY CONSISTENT PLAYING OR EXPERIENCE. I said your luck increases/develops in the elite player from winning so much.And that even mean who gets their Picks first.(This game is based on the part of the 8% of the brain we already use but Chess is a different thing altogether :D!)Good Kid please don't come up with the excuse of abstract thinking/concepts in this game of Warlight.
Fine..I am joking; so when you play against an AI not a computer doesn't the AI know where you are. Therefore the computer knows your moves and the exact placement of the player just like the computer that beat Kasparov and Blue the computer in Jeopardy. and if that isn't reason enough explain ladder stats to me?
Games I have significantly low luck are a minority. This is true, most games luck is relatively even for both players, which is why it decides the outcome of very few games.
I linked the games from autogame supremacy because you stated most games are decided by luck.
That account has few games, so to link that many wins over good opponents was to make it clear that the account was winning every game vs. good opponents and not just me handpicking a series of wins which had a bunch of losses mixed in. Whereas if this account linked 20 wins over good people it'd be more likely you'd claim that it had lost just as many games vs. similarly skilled opponents when I was less lucky and wasn't showing.
As such it puts the burden of proving that I won those games on autogame supremacy due to me being excessively lucky, because the alternative would be to admit that the majority of the games were in fact not decided by luck as opposed to your earlier claim.
But the chance if winning consecutive games gets lower and lower and lower to the point where it is too unlikely to be due to coincidence - therefore luck cannot be such a large factor. How can a player play a thousand games, lose only 200 with every game mostly decided by luck? It's laughable.
as i said before, those are not coincidences at all
if you play noobs/average players, play with your team, boot wins, etc.. those are just added to your normal victories.
while when playing closely matched opponents the ratio will be 1:1 or 50% eventually after enough games.
That is why we are talking about above average player games. Statistics don't take that into account.
So those "coincidence" games(as you call them) are not part of your ratios but are being added to your ratios. since above average players tend to have more victories, boot wins, etc... then losses for those reasons.
The statistics are incorrect.
They need to be filtered. Analysed individually to make a proper statistical analysis.
And it is a fact that most games of most players are against noobs/average players. So the statistics would change drastically once the filters are applied.
apart from the noobs/average players factor in the statistics there are other factors that cannot be ignored.
eg: Like team work games where you win games because your team work is better not because you are actually skilled(for 2 vs 2 and above)
So the idea of 800/1000 wins due to skill is just an illusion, when it is filtered from the noobs and all the factors I mentioned, it will be more of a 50% wins or in that area.
Exactly the ratio one would expect if luck was the main factor.
A concept that seems that i took it for-granted that is obvious, clearly I came to realize that it is not so obvious.
When we say above average player games, we are dealing with games of a certain level.
thus to make it very clear;
if a player maximum skill level is 100/100.
An Above average player should be above 60/100.
which means, any moves which are basics, that even a player at average level can do are not considered as skill.
so what is really happening is that when we are talking about above average players we are taking their skill difference from 60/100 upwards, to 100/100
thus we don't need to include the 60 anymore, we just use 0 as the lowest and 40/40 as the best.
eg:
player 1 = 65/100 ==> 5/40 player 2 = 85/100 ==> 25/40 player 3 = 95/100 ==> 35/40
These are not percentages % we are just cutting the bottom part(noobs/average players)
This is under the assumption that above average don't do basic mistakes(eg all picks in the same place unless no better option available is a mistake not done by above average players unless they are drunk :P)
So we are considering skill difference in my early posts.
Metatron is a genius!!! I have versed players who had low 1v1 and 2v2 stats but they play really good like General Arun, {NL} Christian, and Cheeseturtle to name a few. Melatron is right the stats should be filtered! You can't judge a book by its' cover.
