Mcdaddy, your joking right?

No Taxi. I didn't claim the games posted by autogame supremacy were negative luck.

I stated they were wins over average opponents. Consecutive wins at that, so not cherrypicked wins from a large chunk of games.

As such I am challenging you to show how I won those games due to luck since you claim: "Because in most games, luck is deciding victory."

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?

I totally agree with you luck decides victory in the long run, Good kid.

Good Kid,

the games you posted are just not relevant to the discussion. A string of victories in a row doesn't relate to the argument either.

I saw only ONE game in all you posted where you won despite significantly low luck.

I'm sure you have others. But I expect you are unlikely to admit they are a small minority.

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.

Edited 7/9/2014 17:49:43

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.

Edited 7/9/2014 19:56:02

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.

Edited 7/9/2014 19:32:11

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.

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 ...

Actually no, the computer never figured out where I was hidden. It was too busy playing with its swivel chair.

@MCMac none of those players are good.

Arun is a lot better than he used to be, but he's still a long shot from what I'd class as a good player, let alone a really good player, though I would describe him as above average at least.

@Metatron Your entire argument is just silly.

You keep restating that luck is the main factor when equally skilled players play.

This is beyond obvious. What's perhaps less obvious to you is that virtually no two players are equally skilled and that even the small differences between players make more difference than luck typically does.

Based on your above idea, a 90th percentile player should still beat a 60th percentile player close to 50% of the time since the outcome will still mostly be decided by luck since they're both above average. This is beyond ludicrous, and I think there's really only one good way to prove it to you:

Two questions:

1.) Do you consider yourself to be above average? (If so our games should be decided by luck, assuming that I am also above average in your eyes, if I am not you should win regardless of luck except for scenarios where I get extremely lucky)

2.) Will you play me a best of 9 series?

After playing the 5-9 games I challenge you to illustrate how the games were decided by luck as opposed to skill differences between you and me. If you can't do so there are only two reasons I can come to: You are acknowledging luck doesn't decide the majority of games, or you are acknowledging you are not an above average player, and as such are unfit to have any idea as to what decides specific games.

@Good Kid- who do you consider yourself average, below average, or above average
You forgot one thing people think differently but computer think the same.

I think you're not intelligent enough to bother responding to in the future.

@ good kid
wow finally you get something of what i'm talking about, it didn't seem beyond obvious for most people till page 8, since you are the first that acknowledged it and showed that you at least understood the part of statistics.

What you failed to understand is that my formula is per turn, not per game, though they can be extrapolated as applying per game.

And no, pro players have better chances at beating an above average player but not as much as you think.

And no, not 50%, you did not understand how the formula works.
50% was for statistics, the formula has nothing to do with statistics.
Statistics are not a good way of finding factors, they need to be filtered first and then maybe there might be a way. A hard and complex way which I won't get into here.

apply the formula I provided in the beginning and see the probability yourself:

above average player with (60/100 in skill) 0/40 skill difference;
0/20 skill
0/20 map knowledge/other small factors
30/60 Luck(average, the more luck the more probability rises)

=30% chance of victory when playing with players of above average or more.

Pro player with (95/100 in skill) 35/40 skill difference;

18/20 skill
17/20 map knowledge/other small factors
30/60 Luck(average, the more luck the more probability rises)

=65% chance of victory when playing with players of above average or more.

Apart that it is not silly until you show evidence to support your claim. OFC
You should learn to insult less before understanding exactly what you are talking about.

Skill is a factor and makes a difference but is not the major factor, that was my argument.

Luck is the major factor and you can apply it to any game and see for yourself that luck is a more effective factor when above average players play.

I can accept your challenge np

Edited 7/10/2014 01:43:06

The effect if luck should be weighted less. I'm above average yet look at my win rate. I don't play many noobs either.

about statistics, in your case arun i think that your stats might go up if your games were filtered
remove all the boots and the quick surrenders and the fun games.

filters don't just reduce the win rate but also increase it depend on the player's actions.
They remove the non serious games.

If a guy doesn't care about his rating and doesn't care if he leaves a boring game instead of finishing it, the filters would definitely increase his rating.

Also one has to count the time that you were a noob and deserved those statistics, but it is usually a short time for some.
Statistics are a bit complex thats why I said, they are the worst way to find the factors.

Edited 7/10/2014 02:44:12

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=6594150

Apparently most (good?) players would hit South America early, and then rush to West US border.

Or at least Metatron thinks they would.

Personally, I say nonsense, that'd be a ridiculously silly thing to do as far as I am concerned, and there was no reason to even touch South America unless it turned out that he wasn't in Africa.

He seems to think that his 1/2 picks were better than mine as well, I call BS there too. Turn 2 - 12 income trumps AA/SA, especially since AA/SA is a lot riskier with SA bordering Africa and CA.

What're others thoughts on the game?

how about saying that that game proved me right that luck is the major factor in that game.

who got first pick clearly would have won, not counting the luck on 3 vs 2 you had and my bad luck on my 3 vs 2 in the first turn

I did predict wrongly at turn 3 but it is a 50/50 chance that if you captured your bonuses at turn 2 you would match on w.us with a stack while expanding slowly but fast enough to capture the bonus asap in Australia.

btw you said best out of 10, bragging when you just won 1 by pure luck on picks shows how immature can one person be.

In fact since you are so childish, I won't play you anymore, so you can be happy with your noobish victory.
In my eyes you are not worth my time.
If you want to play me go and play the promotion/relegation leage, thats the only place I woud be forced to play a baby like you.

Edited 7/10/2014 04:15:41

Whoever got first pick won?

Eh, I don't agree.

Let's say you did:

You get Antarctica.
I get Australia and East China.
You get south America and West Russia.
I get Central Russia.

I don't see that as a sure loss for me. I see it as a less decisive win than what I got, but by no means a sure loss.