Iccup adventures with replays and links - Page 2

On April 11 2010 15:28 JoeSaddles wrote:
didn't realize you checked their games also.. alright then the only thing that I disagree with is that LostChild and Galford should both be considered C+ or players (especially galford)

6-0 vs D-
4-0 vs D
8-0 vs D+
16-7 vs C-
2-2 vs C
1-2 vs C+

On April 11 2010 15:33 baller wrote:

ur prolly right about lostchild

galford is 3-3 this season vs C- when u played him, previous season B+? that strongly suggests someone played on his account. even if it was him, hes clearly nowhere near B+ shape now, going 50% winrate vs C- players :p

even assuming galford is C (he's C- now) amended record for u looks like:

u still belong at highest, C rank

nothing 2 be ashamed of there, C is a great rank. i never got to C, 90% of ppl don't get as high as C-.

On April 11 2010 15:34 JoeSaddles wrote:


you also have to take into consideration that you would have to check the records of every player HE lost to in order to see the quality of C- players that beat him, and then check the stats of the ones that beat them, etc.

it's very mathematical and precise but I think it's being biased against a few other factors

1. C (41-10, Saddles, you!)
2. C- (101-135), barely C- 3043
3. C- (89-119)
4. C- (19-2) probably C
5. C- (38-37)
6. C (29-9) possibly C+
7. C (35-26) between C-/C
8. C (51-37)
9. C- (no rec, but seems better than C-, probably C)
10. D (13-13) probably D+
11. C- (61-62)

On April 11 2010 15:38 JoeSaddles wrote:
That's really good work and a good point how you can show that people with "flashy" records don't really belong at certain ranks, they just beat up on lower competition to get there..

I also agree that the one dude I played who was like 195-195 was definitely one of the best players I've played, even though records should say otherwise...

really really sick analysis I can't wait till tomorrow so I can try to play more C players

On April 11 2010 15:40 baller wrote:

no?

galford's 11 losses:



he's not B+, not even close. he's probably C-, C at best

On April 11 2010 15:48 JoeSaddles wrote:
I think since a lot of ppl might read your analysis you should amend my record on the front page vs C+ players to 1-2 =)

On April 11 2010 16:26 KrAzYfoOL wrote:
hmm you're masturbating to match list far too early, reminds me of myself when I could never break the C+ barrier. I'd speculate about how many B-/B rank players I beat to get to C+ and suggested I was good enough to get those ranks.

Then some months later I mass gamed and realised I really couldn't break the C+ barrier, then finally after having stopped analysing my match list and just played the damn game I ended up getting to B- with an 85% win ratio and I could repeat this time and time again eventually getting B with a decent ratio.

On April 11 2010 16:26 KrAzYfoOL wrote:
hmm you're masturbating to match list far too early, reminds me of myself when I could never break the C+ barrier. I'd speculate about how many B-/B rank players I beat to get to C+ and suggested I was good enough to get those ranks.

Then some months later I mass gamed and realised I really couldn't break the C+ barrier, then finally after having stopped analysing my match list and just played the damned game I ended up getting to B- with an 85% win ratio and I could repeat this time and time again eventually getting B with a decent ratio.

On April 12 2010 00:52 JoeSaddles wrote:


I'm having trouble believing this ... link to account that shows B rank in past season??

B- with 85% win ratio?? thats like 55-12...........