Metatron is an obvious troll.

arun
seriously, i never said that luck can get you out of any situation.

luck is a major factor in a game does not mean that luck can do miracles.

Skill is an other factor

if i said;
no amount of skill can get you out of that situation
would you have said that comment?

This is what we call a Hasty Generalization fallacy.
'just because luck can't get you out of any situation then luck is not a major factor.'
See your mistake?
+ my claims on luck were about when above average players play, i see no above average player making such bad picks. So my argument is valid.

hennns it hurts my IQ just reading your posts.
so i will not reply to your posts until I see that you justify you crazy claims.
Until then, do not think that you are in any way right in your unfunded claims.

just to clarify,
In how science works(the argument i had), there are no opinions.
Those are well tested scientific methods to research something.
The scientific method is how science works and that is not an opinion, there are different approaches yes but they are all valid depending on the situation, claiming that they are not valid without supporting your claim is what we were arguing about.
Science does not work in mysterious ways like god/religion. There are procedures to be followed which are well tested and confirmed to be valid.

However science in itself is a never ending question.
Usually those geniuses that are true scientist(that follow the scientific method) are not recognized and called crazy or weirdos because people resist change.
It took Einstein all his life to get his theory of relativity accepted and it was really accepted after his death.

And since im finding so much resistance even for basic facts:
I will put an other one for you.

Not only science works that way but so does mathematics.

In maths you always try to find an unknown variable by simplifying the equation.
Usually putting a 0 as result to try to eliminate one(or more) of the unknowns so the equation is less complex and thus be able to find out one of the unknowns. Then substitute the found unknown to find the others.

All I was saying was to try and find the most simple of games and analyse those games to derive the basic factors.
this was done by using 0% luck games, using games where there are no mistakes, above average players, etc..
First u get the luck factor from there, then you apply it to the other games to find the other unknowns.

Edited 7/6/2014 22:22:11

It's not any situation. The situation was superior to player A due to his superior skill. His skill was enough to create a situation that luck couldn't save - skill was a larger factor than luck.

Now, show us some evidence. Find a ladder player, not from the very bottom of obvious reasons, and show us his last ten games (random sample). How many were decided by luck? We shall see.

you don't have to wait to see.

download any sampling of games.

you will find that luck was with the winner perhaps 9 out of 10 times.

Link us to your last 10 autogames.

Taxi driver, if luck determines the vast majority of your games, you are a bad player. Discussion closed.

flat denial with an insult and no argument.

a head like a potato for sure.

Vernita,

why not just admit you had to search through many games to find even one example of a bad luck victory?

Claims with refusal to actually link games supposedly won off luck.

Head like one that breathes in taxicab exhaust fumes for sure.

TaxiDriver, do us all a favor and think before you post the next time.

I didnt go through all my games, but statistically i had worse luck than my opponent in 50% of my games. That means that out of the let's say 60 games I have played, in 30 games i had inferior luck. Even if you assume all my losses have been games in which i had worse luck than my enemy, I would still be able to link you at least 15 games and not three like I did.

I really don`t understand the blockade in your mindset that lets you assume that luck is the predominant factor in deciding games, when the empirical evidence speaks a completely different language. Let me tell you, this is not a sign of heightened intelligence.


The reason I picked those games was the correlation of the following factors:

-No 0% straight luck settings (i played some of those)
-No random start positions (i joined some of those)
-Facing an skilled enough opponent (even though I played with a few exceptions only players with more than 65% win rate in 1on1, some were still too noob to be a good example)
-The bad luck is clearly evident for any half decent player

and finally of course

-I looked at them before I looked at other games (since i stopped looking after 3 examples)


There are plenty of players with more than thousand games played and with winrates of around 80%. Independent of their individual skill and if you dont assume they played thousands of games against themselves to manipulate the win rating that way, they clearly have been more skilled than their average opponent.
If you want to explain that by luck, you have a hard time, since the probability of having 5000 games with a 30% deviation of the expected median value, is much lower than you being eaten by a shark. In Tibet!

Edited 7/7/2014 16:12:19

Vernita,

you won't find such statistics on pickup games in the long run. Perhaps you might with smurf players using pre-set teams with cherry-picked maps and settings.

but you are not the only one finding it difficult to admit that their game history is rife with victories and losses that followed the luck. I'd wager it's true for virtually everyone.

I'm guessing that's why you posted mostly drops and time-outs and not real victories. Besides, even if you found one or two, you'll never admit you had to look through a dozen others to find it.

Why are you lot even arguing with this poor excuse of a troll? :/
Just ignore it, it'll go away eventually.

Hopefully he will be eaten by a shark in tibet.

Are you serious taxi driver?

There is luck involved (even in 0%), no one denies that. In the long run though luck evens out leaving skill as the differential. Poker has a lot more luck. Surely you aren't suggesting that the best poker players are just the luckiest ones?

Also, I dont beleive there are two players with exactly the same skill level. By our judgement it may seem that way but I don't think our analysis is really sophisticated enough to distinguish between very closely matched players.

How about you hit up the ladder? Or challenge someone to a series. I'll play you.

arun you are simply ignoring what i said.

His enemy was a noob in that game, his picks sucked, his gameplay and strategy sucked, he was just expanding without considering his opponent positioning advantage.

my claims are about above average players, if a skilled player plays a noob his skill will overpower the boob no matter how much luck is involved.

going back to the ratios i gave.

noob= full luck 50% out of 60% (for the same of argument, surly less)
noob= 5% skill(etc..) out of 40%

skilled player= 30% luck (average) out of 60%
skilled player= 35% skill out of 40%

noob= 55% chance of victory
skilled= 65% chance of victory

so even if my claims were only valid when above average players only, my ratios are still valid in a way.

Skill(etc...) is much more effective when playing against noobs then 40% in my opinion
but that was not the argument, you just changed subject.

Again I repeat:
You are doing a Hasty Generalization Fallacy.
'just because skill is a major factor vs noobs then skill is a major factor always'

Edited 7/7/2014 18:39:58

his skill will overpower the boob?

I am all about overpowering the boobs

IT WILL FIGHT BACK!!

Taxi, those were real wins. You're a fucking idiot. You tried arguing someone that got booted after having stalled for a month and had 6 territories to their opponents 28 income hadn't actually lost ffs.

It's not Taxi that needs their points answered. It's obvious he knows nothing.

Metatron, if luck is only the major factor with specifically skilled players then it is not the primary determinant. At the very least, this shows skill is the major factor. Skill is shown to be an even larger factor by the fact that out of at least 100 games, I've won about 10 games vs. top players. This has been said before, but it's fair to assume 50 games with bad luck for the top players. That means that in 80% of bad luck cases, skill trumped luck (as bad as I am, I am not a noob who expands mindlessly and picks 4 territories).

Edited 7/7/2014 21:51:39