There we go again....rank MM. WG unable to fix it forever

[amoncz]

Team wiht 48% avg WR definitely have no chance against team with WR 60%. WTH is wrong with this people? Why they don't fix it? 

[Dareios]

week 1. the 60%ers have not had time to qualify for higher leagues yet. working as intended.

[Navalpride33]

3 minutes ago, amoncz said:

Team wiht 48% avg WR definitely have no chance against team with WR 60%. WTH is wrong with this people? Why they don't fix it? 

Team WR  or individual WR... It doesn't matter or carry any weight on the outcome of a match.... Its not predetermined... Its not set in stone...

Any argument to the contrary is conjecture not based on the math...

[shinytrashcan]

12 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

Team WR  or individual WR... It doesn't matter or carry any weight on the outcome of a match.... Its not predetermined... Its not set in stone...

Any argument to the contrary is conjecture not based on the math...

While I agree that the outcome of a match is not predetermined, I'd say chances are the team with an average of 60% WR has a statistically better shot at winning than the 48% WR team. Then again, with 7 players a single unicum can shift the average significantly while not being able to carry the game.

Overall, the first sprint of ranked will always be full of these games as the separation into different leagues occurs over the first few sprints. Right now, we are in what you could call a calibration phase, so things will be weird. This was to be expected and is unavoidable given how the system is set up, so I don't get why people are mad/surprised all of a sudden. Just look at all the discussions going on over the first test season.

[Navalpride33]

21 minutes ago, shinytrashcan said:

I'd say chances are the team with an average of 60% WR has a statistically better shot at winning than the 48% WR team.

That deviation is very slim to hold up to scrutiny... Though you would think the norm of I'd rather be in the %60 WR fleet... The math behind it suggest the minicule changes, doesn't increase the chances of winning by that much..

---

Now, that was the math POV. from the psychological POV.. Those numbers are detrimental in the minds of players.. It causes the two extremes...

• It causes the %48 fleet to play a certain way (which is dependent on "who" makes up the fleet of %48)...
• It causes the %60 WR to play over-confidently.

From this, creates unique dynamic in forming and executing a game plan in match... 

---

In the famous words of Mike Tyson,

"Every boxer has a perfect plan and conditioning program until, they get punched in the mouth."

[shinytrashcan]

3 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

That deviation is very slim to hold up to scrutiny... Though you would think the norm of I'd rather be in the %60 WR fleet... The math behind it suggest the minicule changes, doesn't increase the chances by that much..

Well, if the players on team red have won 60% of their last games, and team green only 40% of their games, my money would very well be on team red. But we had this discussion about WR and statistics before I don't remember those too fondly.

As for the psychological consequences, I'd suggest to not run MM monitor if that is an issue. It certainly helps to avoid the salt.

[SirPent13]

15 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

That deviation is very slim to hold up to scrutiny... Though you would think the norm of I'd rather be in the %60 WR fleet... The math behind it suggest the minicule changes, doesn't increase the chances of winning by that much..

---

Now, that was the math POV.

How is it a math POV if you haven't shown any math whatsoever?

[Navalpride33]

6 minutes ago, shinytrashcan said:

Well, if the players on team red have won 60% of their last games, and team green only 48% of their games, my money would very well be on team red. But we had this discussion about WR and statistics before I don't remember those too fondly.

I have to point out Newton's 3 law of motion applies in this... You have to see (since the fleets are random)... The fleet trends...

IMO, the %60 fleet will fall sooner then the %40 fleet.

"What goes up, must come down"

---

Since we dont have the trends just random numbers of fleets.. Added the Randomness of the fleet composition to where you can't get team trends...

I can't give the automatic win to the %60 fleet... Based on the available math analysis...

[SirPent13]

9 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

I have to point out Newton's 3 law of motion applies in this... You have to see (since the fleets are random)... The fleet trends...

IMO, the %60 fleet will fall sooner then the %40 fleet.

"What goes up, must come down"

---

Since we dont have the trends just random numbers of fleets.. Added the Randomness of the fleet composition to where you can't get team trends...

I can't give the automatic win to the %60 fleet... Based on the available math analysis...

Newtons 3rd law of motion has nothing to do with this.

What you are describing is a perfect example of the Gambler's Fallacy, which is is the erroneous belief that if a particular event occurs more frequently than normal during the past it is less likely to happen in the future (or vice versa). Saying that since a team has won so much that they are bound to lose is statistically incorrect. 

No one said anything about an automatic win, but the team with the higher WR is going to win more often given a large enough sample size.

[anonym_Yx1Fyk0XyF74]

5 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

I have to point out Newton's 3 law of motion applies in this... You have to see (since the fleets are random)... The fleet trends...

IMO, the %60 fleet will fall sooner then the %40 fleet.

"What goes up, must come down"

---

Since we dont have the trends just random numbers of fleets.. Added the Randomness of the fleet composition to where you can't get team trends...

I can't give the automatic win to the %60 fleet... Based on the available math analysis...

what the hell are you talking about in this thread. A 7v7, one team with an average winrate of 60% the other with 48%: the 60% will most surely crush the 48%. What do you mean you think the 60% will "fall sooner" than the 40%? You think the team with the better players will be more likely to die first?

Newton's third law applies? lol dude how many beers have you had tonight?

[Torenico]

Let me guess, you were in the team with the 40%ers, because otherwise you wouldn't be here complaining, right?

Also why in the name of God are you even running MM Monitor? it should be considered self-harm at this point.

[Navalpride33]

13 minutes ago, SirPent13 said:

How is it a math POV if you haven't shown any math whatsoever? 

@shinytrashcan

 

Do you remember all the treads we had our math discussion on ??? Are they still in your past post history ???

---

The math comes from Maplesyrup stats page... In the last 3 years I've been monitoring the numbers... The deviation haven't changed that much...

[shinytrashcan]

5 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

I have to point out Newton's 3 law of motion applies in this... You have to see (since the fleets are random)... The fleet trends...

IMO, the %60 fleet will fall sooner then the %40 fleet. 

"What goes up, must come down"

"What goes up, must come down" is not a good way to think about Newton's 3rd law, I would argue it is even misleading. The third law, sometimes referred to as the "action-reaction-law" states that if body A exerts a force F_a on body B, then B is exerting a force F_b on A with equal magnitude but opposite sign: F_a = -F_b. So it has nothing to do with things going up, then falling down again.

In the context of this example, the first law (inertia) is more applicable, in that team on a roll (60%) will stay on a roll, unless acted upon (another good team).

So, if over a large ensemble of random teams a particular random team is constituted of players that, on average, won 60% of their last games I would say they have a high chance of winning the next game, too. It is of course not automatic, but the chances are high.

Again, we had all of this nonsense about WR being purely random before, and it is not true:

 

[SirPent13]

1 minute ago, shinytrashcan said:

"What goes up, must come down" is not a good way to think about Newton's 3rd law, I would argue it is even misleading. The third law, sometimes referred to as the "action-reaction-law" states that if body A exerts a force F_a on body B, then B is exerting a force F_b on A with equal magnitude but opposite sign: F_a = -F_b. So it has nothing to do with things going up, then falling down again.

In the context of this example, the first law (inertia) is more applicable, in that team on a roll (60%) will stay on a roll, unless acted upon (another good team).

So, if over a large ensemble of random teams a particular random team is constituted of players that, on average, won 60% of their last games I would say they have a high chance of winning the next game, too. It is of course not automatic, but the chances are high.

Again, we had all of this nonsense about WR being purely random before, and it is not true:

 

@Navalpride33 Is exhibiting a classic case of the Gambler's Fallacy, which I've described above. He also has no idea what he's talking about, and refuses to ever provide any actual numbers or info to back up his claims.

 

[SirPent13]

3 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

@shinytrashcan

 

Do you remember all the treads we had our math discussion on ??? Are they still in your past post history ???

---

The math comes from Maplesyrup stats page... In the last 3 years I've been monitoring the numbers... The deviation haven't changed that much...

I do remember the threads, and I remember you not actually showing any information to back up what you were saying.

Any random person can say "I've been watching the numbers, and they say this". Until you actually provide numbers to back up your arguments, there's no reason for anyone to listen to you.

[anonym_Yx1Fyk0XyF74]

1 minute ago, SirPent13 said:

I do remember the threads, and I remember you not actually showing any information to back up what you were saying.

Any random person can say "I've been watching the numbers, and they say this". Until you actually provide numbers to back up your arguments, there's no reason for anyone to listen to you.

What are the "numbers" he's even claiming to be looking at and what are the "deviations?"

[SirPent13]

Just now, JaeYuu80sevens said:

What are the "numbers" he's even claiming to be looking at and what are the "deviations?"

I really don't know. He says they are from Maplesyrup, which is an excellent site, but since he hasnt actually shown any of them, who knows.

 

[Navalpride33]

7 hours ago, shinytrashcan said:

7 hours ago, Navalpride33 said:

 

"What goes up, must come down" is not a good way to think about Newton's 3rd law, I would argue it is even misleading

Would it be misleading, in context, to use  Newton's 3rd law to state at a certain high WR (what goes up) the force of the basic premise of the game would force it down (thus conforming the 2nd part of the principle "must come down"). ??

The conditions for which governs the up and down movement of WR (regardless if its team or individual), haven't changed then we can expect (in principle) for the WR to eventually fall... Fall to the neutral or point of rest (which is the %90 percentile).

Am I viewing this more from the psychological POV using math ?

To where you are looking at it from a more math math angle ???

---

Can it be, we can both have 2 parallel POVs? Leading to similar conclusions ?

[anonym_Yx1Fyk0XyF74]

9 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

Would it be misleading, in context, to use  Newton's 3rd law to state at a certain high WR (what goes up) the force of the basic premise of the game would force it down (thus conforming the 2nd part of the principle "must come down"). ??

The conditions for which governs the up and down movement of WR (regardless if its team or individual), haven't changed then we can expect (in principle) for the WR to eventually fall... Fall to the neutral or point of rest (which is the %90 percentile).

No, it wouldn't be misleading. It would demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the principles in question. You have no idea what you're talking about...

[Navalpride33]

15 minutes ago, SirPent13 said:

Gambler's Fallacy

Not at all...

1. I dont gamble.
2. After monitoring the numbers for 3 years... I never state one fleet is heads and the other is tails and that the next match is this... NO

What I am saying, WR is not fixed in stone to determine a win or loss  is automatic... I conclude it depends more on the trend of the fleet not the make up of the fleet..

The psychological factor is greater (yet ignored by those who swear by the numbers) then the WR alone...

The deviation of the numbers is very small in the 3 years I've been looking at them... So I can say with confidence, when it comes to the OP's example...

Its 50/50 at its must...

[SirPent13]

2 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

Would it be misleading, in context, to use  Newton's 3rd law to state at a certain high WR (what goes up) the force of the basic premise of the game would force it down (thus the 2nd part of the principle "must come down). ??

Yes, it would. This is a terrible way to state Newton's 3rd law, since N3L is; for every action, there is an equal, yet opposite reaction. Also, WR is not a physical object, so you cant think of it using physics equations, you must look at it statistically. And statistically, there is nothing to force the WR back down. 

2 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

The conditions for which governs the up and down movement of WR (regardless if its team or individual), haven't changed then we can expect (in principle) for the WR to eventually fall... Fall to the naturel or point of rest (which is the %90 percentile).

No, we can't expect this. Like I've said, there's nothing forcing the WR to fall, and in this case, your neutral point IS the current WR of the player/team.

 

[anonym_Yx1Fyk0XyF74]

3 minutes ago, SirPent13 said:

Yes, it would. This is a terrible way to state Newton's 3rd law, since N3L is; for every action, there is an equal, yet opposite reaction. Also, WR is not a physical object, so you cant think of it using physics equations, you must look at it statistically. And statistically, there is nothing to force the WR back down. 

No, we can't expect this. Like I've said, there's nothing forcing the WR to fall, and in this case, your neutral point IS the current WR of the player/team.

 

Pretty sure we're just being trolled here.

[SirPent13]

 

2 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

Its 50/50 at its must...

Its not 50/50, the better team has a better chance. 

3 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

Not at all...

1. I dont gamble.
2. After monitoring the numbers for 3 years... I never state one fleet is heads and the other is tails and that the next match is this... NO

What I am saying, WR is not fixed in stone to determine a win or loss  is automatic... I conclude it depends more on the trend of the fleet not the make up of the fleet..

"Gambler's Fallacy" is the name of the phenomenon, that's all, I'm not accusing you of being a gambler. It is just the statistical term for it. 

No one has said that the team with the higher WR has a 100% chance of winning. That's absolutely incorrect, and I agree on that point. But if thats the point you are making, then why haven't you just said that?!?!?

[shinytrashcan]

6 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

Would it be misleading, in context, to use  Newton's 3rd law to state at a certain high WR (what goes up) the force of the basic premise of the game would force it down (thus conforming the 2nd part of the principle "must come down"). ??

The conditions for which governs the up and down movement of WR (regardless if its team or individual), haven't changed then we can expect (in principle) for the WR to eventually fall... Fall to the neutral or point of rest (which is the %90 percentile).

Am I viewing this more from the psychological POV using math ?

To where you are looking at it from a more math math angle ???

---

Can it be, we can both have 2 parallel POVs? Leading to similar conclusions ?

Maybe, but I don't think so.

If the conditions for WR have not changed, why should we expect a change in WR then? Over the course of many battles, we can expect that the WR (how many battles won vs lost) for any given player will be a reflection of their relative ability of the game, compared to the rest of the player base. Some players will be better and thus have a higher WR, some player will be worse than the average and have lower WR. We have talked about it, plenty of people have argued about it, and speaking for myself I even ran the numbers to see if this basic premise would reproduce the numbers we see in game, which it did.

I really don't get why you constantly argue that every player should have a WR of 50%, and that anything above/below is temporary and should fall/rise again. If a player is, relatively speaking, better at the game as the vast majority of the playerbase, their average winrate should be higher over many battles. Simply because all the other factors average out and the only variable is the players ability.

[SirPent13]

1 minute ago, JaeYuu80sevens said:

Pretty sure we're just being trolled here.

I wish we were, but from having dealt with him in the past, he truly thinks he knows what he's talking about.