another example of why apm doesnt mean anything

On November 25 2008 05:10 micronesia wrote:
Your data does not fully support the claim that apm doesn't matter. I guess it supports the claim that having more apm doesn't necessarily increase chance of winning... although everyone pretty much knew that.

On November 25 2008 05:10 micronesia wrote:
Your data does not fully support the claim that apm doesn't matter. I guess it supports the claim that having more apm doesn't necessarily increase chance of winning... although everyone pretty much knew that.

On November 25 2008 05:19 ThE_OsToJiY wrote:
APM means a lot, 1 game means nothing. Anyway there are a few 300 apm noobs, but the amount of 300 apm gosus is a lot more than 100 apm gosus, and the amount of 100 apm noobs is a lot more than 300 apm noobs. So what if you can find 1 game. I'd say 75% of the time the person with higher apm wins. D:

On November 25 2008 06:06 Mikilatov wrote:
Apparently a lot of people want to jump on you here. I don't.

APM is important only if you're using those actions wisely - and I think that's what you were trying to say, and I believe everyone would agree with that. Very interesting chart. =D

On November 25 2008 05:05 Caller wrote:


having 3x more apm than your opponent doesn't mean jack when you don't know how to play the game

or rather how to deal with stop lurkers hahaha

i swear if i see another "omg how to improve apm" thread on here there will be serious repercussions.

On November 25 2008 06:28 Cascade wrote:
Common guys, don't misinterpret the statistics here...

1 game, or one player doesnt make any statistics. There are ofc good players with low apm,a dn the other way around.

But I am sure that if you look at the ICC rank (+win ratio) I am sure that you would find a strong corelation between high apm and high skill. I think all of you think so too. The average apm at B with >60% win ratio is for sure significantly higher than it is at D around 50% win ratio.

Does that imply that skill = apm?
No.

Does it mean that you get better by having higher apm?
No.

There are three possible explanations when you see a correlation between two things A and B:
1) A causes B.
2) B causes A.
3) Somehting else causes both A and B.

So in this case the alternatives are:
1) High rank causes high apm.
This is aparently not the case. You will not magically get +50 apm once you turn C+.

2) High apm causes high rank.
This is the conclusion that many people, incorrectly, makes from the correlation. It can be true, but it is not neccessarily true.

3) Something else causes both high apm and high icc ranking.
This is what I believe is the main factor. And this "something else" is just training. Training obviously makes you better at sc, that is higher rank, and in 95% at least, training will also make you more active, giving you higher apm.

Also, seeing that the posters on TL tend to be more theretical and strategically cunning than the average sc player, I think that TL players tend to be quite good for their apm, which explains the "I have 50 apm but beat Jaedong 4-1!!" poster that pop up every now and then.

I should probably make a proper OP in the BW forum, explaining this thing with statistics for people.... but too lazy. TT

EDIT: Congratulations on the win!

On November 25 2008 05:15 SpiralArchitect wrote:
Woo hoo APM doesnt matter when you are D+ and playing some random noob... No der. Its totally different at a level where missing an SCV or a late rax can lose you the game.

On November 25 2008 08:19 Ki_Do wrote:
good to see that giving orders FASTER is not a factor of REAL TIME nor it should be.
Cause when in a war two enemy soldiers are facing each other of course the one with higher IQ will auto-win cause the speed of the other soldier in aiming and shooting is just a click fest

On November 25 2008 08:48 HeavOnEarth wrote:
this is what, ...1 perchance out of thousands of replays, this is the only one u could find ?
I wonder why.