The match against {wwd}gg is just about over...Just waiting for him to surrender. We are starting up a 2nd one too. GL next game.

And to clarify this is my only account. No alt Trolling for me. :)

my 1v1 69% average sit down mother trucker.

black lotus, your despicable comment shows makes me think you're arrogant and boastful. Can i challenge you to a 1v1 Strategic?

Oh the irony,so sweet so sweet.Cough*Hypocrite*cough

Damn, still 7 out of 11, Falcon doesn't have a high enough 1v1% to be listed :( Does his 1v1 rating being 200 higher than yours qualify him as your superior Aranka?

Hardly...but if that is your criteria then go for it.

Personally I'm more of a team player who enjoys playing various maps. People already know how I feel about the standard 1vs1 template.

Look at tournies in which they change the maps every match and/or try uncommon maps...in those I think I belong to the top tier players (top 4 on average in tournies)

Who cares about 1v1 win%? I could win like %90 of mine if I just did auto games and bad open tournaments. It isn't hard to pad stats if you really want to.

Exactly ^ ;)

I highly doubt you'd win 90% of autogames unless you specifically went out of your way to avoid joining games with opponents over 50% 1v1.

You're 3-10 against people over 1800 rating and 4-16 vs. people over 1700.

You'd get at least 1 in 10 opponents who either has over a 1700 rating, or would be capable of having a rating that high if they were a member, and even against lower rated opponents you have lost another 33 games.

49 ladder losses in 113 games, 57% winrate, or 65% vs people under 1700 rating.

You'd need to be at least 80% vs. the under 1700 crowd to come close to 90% on autogames unless hand-picking your games I reckon. That'd require being about one and a half times as good as you currently are (80% loses 20 out of 100, you lose 35, nearly twice as many, I'd consider someone with 80% 1v1 to be 58% better than someone with 65% assuming they played the same people).

Well, you are assuming I have gotten no better than when I joined the ladder for the first time. In my last 50 games I am winning %62 of them.

And most players in auto games are worse than even bad ladder players.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. My point remains that win% can be padded.

chris is right, he could easily get 90-95% win rate in auto games

iron you behave like an arrogant child yourself, shut up and sit down

wait... you are an arrogant child. forget it

@WLV

You don't play autogames, and you've always looked down upon those that do and hugely underestimated them.

Chris could not win 90% of autogames, neither could you.

Grumpy Cat has a 93% 1v1 winrate, and has mostly played autogames.

13Chris37 is far, far, out of ChrisCMU's league - he's also far out of your league.

When your winrate was last visible it was slightly over 50%.

People with 90% winrate should probably be the only people dictating who could and couldn't get such winrates, people with 50-60% making such speculation is like an amateur basketball player telling Michael Jordan in his prime what he needed to do to improve,

The saying, "It takes one to know one." is very much true in nearly all instances of life. The only people that know what it takes to reach the top are the people that have been there.

I had a 90% 1vs1 record before I focused on facing lots of top tier players. Does this make me a top player then or does it mean warlightvet is correct ?

You had a 80% 1v1 months ago before you were a member, it hasn't ever fluctuated much that I recall.

I also doubt that most, let alone all, your 1v1 games are strategic 1v1.

When did I say I was in the same league as CHRIS?

You didn't.

I used him as a comparison because he has an account that has 90-95% 1v1. ie. He's the baseline of how good someone would likely need to be to win 90-95%.

Y'know, posting as my main accidentally instead of my trollish alt probably wasn't the best idea of the day.

main - yeah, right..

BUSTED.

black lotus, my win rate hasn't changed by a single % since i took them off my profile (because they were heavy and encumbering), it's at 62% in 1V1.
I played autogames before and won about 80% of them and that was a good while ago, i wasn't nearly as good as i am now.
I certainly don't look down on people who play autogames, it's just that membership offers better options for practicing strategic 1V1, open games with high win rate requirements. I've never really cared about win rate myself, i often surrender the tutoring games for example when they're over because some people do care. As long as i'm over 60% i'm happy, since a lot of open games require a 60% 1V1 win rate.
When playing autogames you get a lot of "free" wins because people who are opening the multiplayer tab for the first time tend to join them, to try out the game, and either just play horribly or get booted.

Winning 80% isn't that difficult, even if you try and avoid the brand new players (by checking stats of people before accepting so as to avoid the people that won't be any sort of challenge at all), but I consider winning 90% to require being twice as good as someone that wins 80%, and 95% to require being twice as good as is needed to win 90%.

ie. The 95% player loses 5 per 100, whereas the 80% player loses 20, as such I'd consider the player winning 95% to be approximately 4 times better than the player winning 80% since they're losing 1/4th as many games. The closer you get to 100% the more extreme this affect becomes, where someone winning 97-98% is once again twice as good ag s someone winning 95% (this is all assuming that the people in question play the same caliber of opponent).

I think there are a lot of people that can win 80% of autogames, just not many that can win 90%, and incredibly few that can win over 95%.

If I intentionally try to avoid the complete newbies, and people with under 40%-50% 1v1 I can win 90%+, but if I do my best to avoid the "free games" I tend to hover around 80%-90%.

Summer plays autogames occasionally with an alt (not sure if she wants it named so not mentioning which account it is) and it is only at 90% 1v1, and I think she's at least as good as you are at 1v1, and better than ChrisCMU is.