EPTExtended Series - Page 4
| Blogs > motbob |
|
KillerDucky
United States498 Posts
| ||
|
ToD
France222 Posts
| ||
|
y0su
Finland7871 Posts
| ||
|
KissMeRed
United States96 Posts
We're at the 2014 MLG Winter Championship in Detroit, Michigan where 128 SC2 players from around the world are competing in the open bracket. At the request of a vocal internet minority, MLG has decided to conduct the tournament without the standard extended series rules. The player pool in uncharacteristically weak featuring only two Koreans. However, fans are still excited since they will get to witness some epic foreigner beatdowns coming from the hands of KT Rolster's  Flash and Samsung Khan's  Shine! Fast forwarding through the E-sports massacre, we are in Winner's Round 6 featuring none other than our two Korean heroes, Flash and Shine! Now Shine knows he can't possibly beat Flash in a standard game (0% win rate on ladder T.T), but he's been saving two of his most devious Zerg cheeses specifically for MLG Detroit! These cheeses are guaranteed wins for Shine! Since there is no extended series, and because he's smarter than Flash, Shine realizes the only way he can win this tournament is to purposely lose in Winner's Round 6 and save his cheeses for the impending Semifinals rematch. Once Flash sees the build orders, they will become useless. Shine executes two of his drones in Game 1 to go for a 4 pool and attempts a mass overlord 'blinding' strategy in Game 2, both of which end in losses. Flash take the series 2-0. Shine makes quick work of a non-Korean chump in Loser's Round 10 and gets ready for the semifinals rematch. Remember, Shine has two cheeses that are 100%, guaranteed map wins against Flash. Shine goes for his first cheese on Newkirk Redevelopment Precinct (yes, it's still in the map pool). MLG cuts the video feed halfway through the match, it's too much for the audience to handle. Shine wins Game 1. Game 2, Flash suffers the most horrifying loss of his career on Red (Sick) City and instead of typing the customary 'gg', he plunges his ruler into the face of the monitor in a fit of rage. Shine wins the series 2-0 and advances to the Grand Final! Flash is eliminated! The Grand Finals are about to begin, but there is one more twist. Shine and his competitor, ID: STXUncleDrew, shake hands. UncleDrew begins peeling back professional grade makeup to reveal that Shine's opponent is actually INnoVation in disguise!Men, women, and children all weep uncontrollably since they don't get to see a Flash vs Innovation finals. Then they log-on to Teamliquid.net to comment on a thread about why MLG should have upheld their extended series policy. The end. (Disclaimer: This is not a true story or vision of a real future. No disrespect to any players, maps, or tournaments referenced above.) | ||
|
Kovaz
Canada233 Posts
We have a GSL Ro32 group featuring: Innovation -Massive favorite, should crush everyone else in the group Minigun Vibe -Two decent players who are likely 50% against each other, very unlikely they beat innovation, very unlikely they lose to the last player MarineMan -random bronze player who should lose to everyone here With the matchups being: Innovation vs. MarineMan Minigun vs. Vibe Scenario A: Innovation 2-0 MarineMan Minigun 2-1 Vibe Innovation 2-0 Minigun Vibe 2-0 MarineMan Vibe 2-1 Minigun Innovation and Vibe advance. Scenario B: Innovation 2-0 MarineMan Vibe 2-1 Minigun Innovation 2-0 Vibe Minigun 2-0 MarineMan Minigun 2-1 Vibe Innovation and Minigun advance. Now, what's the difference between the two? In both cases, Minigun and Vibe are 1-1 (3-3 games) against each other. The only difference? In both cases the player who won the first match picked up a second loss against innovation, and was therefore eliminated. However, is it really fair to say that because Minigun beat MarineMan, and Vibe lost to Innovation, that Minigun > Vibe and should therefore advance? With extended series in the circumstance, whoever advances in second place is the one who wins the overall series between the two players, rather than who won the more recent series. | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
On July 23 2013 09:08 KillerDucky wrote: jalstar I agree with your math except that it is ignoring too many things. What do you think about the example I posted? Yeah I dunno how to do the complete simulation like you did without plugging in specific values. I think when you look at our posts together it becomes clear that what causes the discrepancy in results is that the better player isn't as likely to be sent to the loser's bracket in the first place. So if, as in your example, the worse player wins 10% of the time in the initial series, he'll actually have the extended series advantage more than 10% of the time because he's likely to be sent to the loser's bracket right away. So you and motbob are right, for 8 person tournaments. In a 128-player bracket things get much more complicated, and there's less likely to be an extended series in the first place. I'd still like to see the 8-player model done rigorously the way I did the 2-player model, I'm not really sure how to do that though. | ||
motbob
United States12546 Posts
[00:12] <motbob> so i ran a bunch of simulations, took all the runs where there was a rematch, and saw who won the rematch [00:13] <motbob> it turned out that in the extended series universe, the better player had a lower winrate than in the non-extended universe [00:14] <motbob> but this didn't actually have anything to do with extended series! at least, not directly. [00:14] <motbob> let's say player 1 is better than player 2 [00:14] <motbob> if player 1 wins first round, player 2 has an x chance of making it through the loser's bracket to maybe get a rematch [00:15] <motbob> if player 2 wins the first round, player 1 has a greater than x chance of making it through, since he's a better player [00:15] <motbob> so rematches where player 2 has an advantage in an extended series happen more often [00:16] <motbob> explaning the difference So my second result has no meaning. I asked the wrong question of my workbook. Also Day9 explained what I was going to explain better than I could, thanks Day9. | ||
|
Severedevil
United States4839 Posts
It does not reward skill, merit, guts, or any other positive feature in the player. It rewards the passive attribute of being matched by the tournament with someone you'd beaten earlier, and the passive attribute of being lucky enough not to be matched against the person who beat you earlier (since Extended Series don't apply if you're still in the winner's bracket). So, we're explicitly rewarding players for bracket luck, and claiming this favors the better player? Better players aren't better at rolling bracket dice. C'mon. | ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
On July 23 2013 11:34 jalstar wrote: Yeah I dunno how to do the complete simulation like you did without plugging in specific values. I think when you look at our posts together it becomes clear that what causes the discrepancy in results is that the better player isn't as likely to be sent to the loser's bracket in the first place. So if, as in your example, the worse player wins 10% of the time in the initial series, he'll actually have the extended series advantage more than 10% of the time because he's likely to be sent to the loser's bracket right away. So you and motbob are right, for 8 person tournaments. In a 128-player bracket things get much more complicated, and there's less likely to be an extended series in the first place. I'd still like to see the 8-player model done rigorously the way I did the 2-player model, I'm not really sure how to do that though. That's part of the problem because for the guys who weren't originally favored in those matches and then they manage to pull off the upset are more susceptible to lose early on. Thus setting up the extended series to come into play a lot sooner. It happens very often. Extended series are very potent in the later stages as well. It happens very often when the Koreans meet too because they're always on the same war path. It's not so much luck Severedevil once you look at how the brackets are actually set-up. These players are going to keep running into one another. | ||
|
ZeroPageX
United States12 Posts
On July 23 2013 09:58 KissMeRed wrote: I've written a highly stylized story to convince everyone that Extended Series is the best rule ever implemented in tournament play. We're at the 2014 MLG Winter Championship in Detroit, Michigan where 128 SC2 players from around the world are competing in the open bracket. At the request of a vocal internet minority, MLG has decided to conduct the tournament without the standard extended series rules. The player pool in uncharacteristically weak featuring only two Koreans. However, fans are still excited since they will get to witness some epic foreigner beatdowns coming from the hands of KT Rolster's Flash and Samsung Khan's Shine! Fast forwarding through the E-sports massacre, we are in Winner's Round 6 featuring none other than our two Korean heroes, Flash and Shine! Now Shine knows he can't possibly beat Flash in a standard game (0% win rate on ladder T.T), but he's been saving two of his most devious Zerg cheeses specifically for MLG Detroit! These cheeses are guaranteed wins for Shine! Since there is no extended series, and because he's smarter than Flash, Shine realizes the only way he can win this tournament is to purposely lose in Winner's Round 6 and save his cheeses for the impending Semifinals rematch. Once Flash sees the build orders, they will become useless. Shine executes two of his drones in Game 1 to go for a 4 pool and attempts a mass overlord 'blinding' strategy in Game 2, both of which end in losses. Flash take the series 2-0. Shine makes quick work of a non-Korean chump in Loser's Round 10 and gets ready for the semifinals rematch. Remember, Shine has two cheeses that are 100%, guaranteed map wins against Flash. Shine goes for his first cheese on Newkirk Redevelopment Precinct (yes, it's still in the map pool). MLG cuts the video feed halfway through the match, it's too much for the audience to handle. Shine wins Game 1. Game 2, Flash suffers the most horrifying loss of his career on Red (Sick) City and instead of typing the customary 'gg', he plunges his ruler into the face of the monitor in a fit of rage. Shine wins the series 2-0 and advances to the Grand Final! Flash is eliminated! The Grand Finals are about to begin, but there is one more twist. Shine and his competitor, ID: STXUncleDrew, shake hands. UncleDrew begins peeling back professional grade makeup to reveal that Shine's opponent is actually INnoVation in disguise!Men, women, and children all weep uncontrollably since they don't get to see a Flash vs Innovation finals. Then they log-on to Teamliquid.net to comment on a thread about why MLG should have upheld their extended series policy. The end. (Disclaimer: This is not a true story or vision of a real future. No disrespect to any players, maps, or tournaments referenced above.) How did Flash wind up in the losers bracket? | ||
|
Passion
Netherlands1486 Posts
On July 23 2013 11:01 Kovaz wrote: I'm not sure what I think of extended series to be honest. I dislike the idea going too late into a tournament, especially occurring in the finals of a tournament, but I think it's a decent idea somewhat early on. Here's an example of a situation where I feel extended series help make a tournament more fair: We have a GSL Ro32 group featuring: Innovation -Massive favorite, should crush everyone else in the group Minigun Vibe -Two decent players who are likely 50% against each other, very unlikely they beat innovation, very unlikely they lose to the last player MarineMan -random bronze player who should lose to everyone here With the matchups being: Innovation vs. MarineMan Minigun vs. Vibe Scenario A: Innovation 2-0 MarineMan Minigun 2-1 Vibe Innovation 2-0 Minigun Vibe 2-0 MarineMan Vibe 2-1 Minigun Innovation and Vibe advance. Scenario B: Innovation 2-0 MarineMan Vibe 2-1 Minigun Innovation 2-0 Vibe Minigun 2-0 MarineMan Minigun 2-1 Vibe Innovation and Minigun advance. Now, what's the difference between the two? In both cases, Minigun and Vibe are 1-1 (3-3 games) against each other. The only difference? In both cases the player who won the first match picked up a second loss against innovation, and was therefore eliminated. However, is it really fair to say that because Minigun beat MarineMan, and Vibe lost to Innovation, that Minigun > Vibe and should therefore advance? With extended series in the circumstance, whoever advances in second place is the one who wins the overall series between the two players, rather than who won the more recent series. Now, what's the difference between the two? In the first case, Vibe wins the relevant game, in case two, Minigun does. If you falter when it matters most, you should be knocked out. | ||
|
Gowerly
United Kingdom916 Posts
You have 2 options on where you'll meet up with your opponent again: 1) Loser's Bracket 2) Grand Finals With fighting games, if you meet up in the loser's bracket, the game is treated like any other game. If you meet up in the grand final, you have to beat the guy in the winner's bracket in 2 Best of X games. However, this is the case whether you have played them or not. Personally, I think this is a great system, as it always gives an advantage to the "better" player. In any system where you have to play the same player twice, there'll always be a disadvantage to someone. Even in GSL format, you can get knocked out of your group after playing someone twice, even if you, effectively, beat them 3-2. This may have been said before, though. There's a lot of great stats here! | ||
|
KissMeRed
United States96 Posts
On July 23 2013 18:23 ZeroPageX wrote: How did Flash wind up in the losers bracket? He never goes to the losers bracket. I followed the most recent MLG format: http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2013_MLG_Spring_Championship When you lose in the semis coming from the winners bracket, you are just out. | ||
|
Arachne
South Africa426 Posts
On July 23 2013 09:12 ToD wrote: I really wish i hadn't been used as an example here Hehe Also, good read. A lot of it goes over my head sadly, since I should actually be following it. But I get the concepts, and I must agree (Day9's example was awesome) with the OP. Extended series seem to be detrimental. Also, lets not forget the actual effort going into winning an extended series if you are down actually adds onto the amount of games played vs your next opponent in the loser's bracket. If one player plays 0 extended series and another plays 1, that's an extra 2 minimum games that the other has had to play over the former. | ||
|
siri
Portugal129 Posts
Extended series was made so the better player was the one who advances, and it is already explained here by KissMeRed but somehow ppl still keep on putting useless math into this. If player A wins 2-0 then loses 3-2 in loser bracket HOW CAN you HONESTLY say that B is the better player when he lost more games than he won vs A?? madness This whole thread is flawed because you suppose player A is better than B before they even played. Guess what, the better player is the ONE WHO WINS the match not the one who was given some random % pre-game win rate. If you want to reduce fluke the only way to do it is by making the 2 players play more games. BO1 has obviously more flukes, BO3 has less, BO7 has even lesser and so on. Theres no other way to reduce fluke. What extended series does is put the 2 players in a BO7 instead of BO3 thus reducing the chances of happening fluke. If your "GOOD" player loses in a BO7 vs the "BAD" maybe he isnt so GOOD after all. | ||
|
Darkwhite
Norway352 Posts
| ||
|
ASoo
2865 Posts
On July 24 2013 02:37 siri wrote: If your "GOOD" player loses in a BO7 vs the "BAD" maybe he isnt so GOOD after all. So, it's like this: The analysis presented in this thread is based on an assumption: Tournaments are tools for determining which players are better than other players. In this context, the "better" player is the one who, if the two players played infinity matches against one another, would win the majority of those matches. That's a pretty intuitive definition of being the better player, right? Tournaments have to exist because, since we live in the real world, we can't have our players play infinity matches. Instead, we have to infer which player is better from the imperfect evidence we can derive from the finite number of games they actually play. That evidence is imperfect because there's no guarantee that the better player will win any given game (or any given BoX series). Tournament organizers and spectators already intuitively understand this logic, even if they don't think about the statistics behind it. This is why we consider series with more games (Bo5's and Bo7's) to be more reliable indicators of who the better player is than those with less games. Everybody knows that a weak player can knock out a strong player in a Bo1; this is why. Motbob's analysis, and Day[9]'s explanation of why it works that way, demonstrate that tournaments with extended series rules are won by the player who would win a Best of Infinity series less often than tournaments without extended series rules. Given the assumptions the analysis is based on, that's equivalent to saying compared to non-extended series tournaments, extended series tournaments are worse tools for determining which players are better than other players. ----- It's possible you disagree with some of the assumptions here. It's possible, for instance, that you think it's more important for tournaments to be sources of entertainment than it is for them to be inferential tools about player skill, and it's possible you find underdog stories more entertaining than the better player winning all the time. If that's the case, it makes sense for you to like extended series. But, for the purpose of determining which of two players would win in a Best of Infinity series, the analysis in the OP really does demonstrate that extended series are counter-productive. No nonsensical bs whatsoever. Just truth. | ||
|
siri
Portugal129 Posts
ok, lets change the tournament format for a bit. Lets say instead of 2 brackets theres 3: -winners -middle -losers And player A and B face each other in those 3 and the scores were 2-0, 2-0, 1-2 Its 5-2 between A and B but player B (without ES) will go on to the next round. Now lets put 4 brackets, now its 7-2 and A will still get eliminated. Now lets make it BO5, its 11-3 and again, B advances. Do you think this is the best and fair way to determine the best between two players? Because what i see, is B getting a few fluke wins in the last BOx and because of that, eliminating A, who was smashing him the whole tournment. This is what mlg_LEE is trying to protect against. You said it yourself, the only way to determine the best player minimizing flukes is by increasing the number of games they play. This is what ES does. Instead of deciding who the best player is on a BO3 forgetting all that just happened in the tournment, they increase it to a BO5/7 thus reducing flukes. Extended series is about protecting the best player between 2 people. Not the one who won the last bo3. | ||
|
renlynn
United States276 Posts
On July 23 2013 07:19 StarStruck wrote: That usually happens if they're really, really good players with a strong playbook. You know who also came back in extended series? Leenock. He was on fire that time though. If someone gets red hot at a LAN good luck taking them out. if you're referring to him winning the finals from the lower bracket, that wasn't coming back in extended series, because he had no prior history there. that was him benefiting from the one time in MLG where extended series favors the lower bracket. normal double elimination would reset the score after the first series, extended series in the finals does not. I guess this could be an argument in favor of extended series since it makes things more even in the finals. sometimes. unless you drop 2 games at the start. but only at the start, dropping 2 games in the middle is still okay. | ||
|
Goolpsy
Denmark301 Posts
Since there is 3 races, a players performance and understanding usually varies depending on the opponents race. Supose we have 2 Terran players: Player 1) vP Godly, vZ Amazingly, vT Good Player 2) vP Poor, vZ Awful, vT Good They meet up in a TvT with 50-50 for either to advance. 1) Given player 1 wins, they probably won't meet again. 2) Given player 2 wins, it is many times more likely for them to meet again (As for Day9's explaination; the good player will crush lower bracket, the bad will probably lose in upper bracket. 2.1) Given they meet again, extended series gives Player 2 an advantage. Now I ask, what is the goal of the tournament? -To find the Best player overall?, or -To give interesting matches?, or -To create frontpage news, of a storyline of a 'lesser' player knocking out a 'stronger' opponent? Whether one feels for storylines or fairness two-players in-between, extended series only satisfy the last goal and counteract the first two. | ||
| ||
