EPTT1 vs P2
T1 vs Z2
P1 vs T2
P1 vs P2
P1 vs Z2
Z1 vs T2
Z1 vs P2
Z1 vs Z2
[PL] October Imbalance - Page 2
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
T1 vs P2 T1 vs Z2 P1 vs T2 P1 vs P2 P1 vs Z2 Z1 vs T2 Z1 vs P2 Z1 vs Z2 | ||
|
Wilko
Germany470 Posts
Yes | ||
|
29 fps
United States5719 Posts
| ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On October 26 2009 13:47 Wilko wrote: T1 vs T2 T2 vs T1 Z1 vs Z2 Z2 vs Z1 P1 vs P2 P2 vs P1 T1 v T2 is the same as T2 v T1, but P1 v T2 is different from T1 v P2. Let's call our players Movie and Skyhigh. Movie P v Skyhigh P is the same matchup as Skyhigh P v Movie P, but Movie P v Skyhigh T is different from Movie T v Skyhigh P. | ||
p4NDemik
United States13896 Posts
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/p4NDemik/TableorGraph/foridiots.jpg) There's 9 possible outcomes. 1/9 (11%) chance of each one happening. As you can see each type of mirror only occurs once, each type of non-mirror occurs twice. Thus there is 3/9 chance (33.3%) for mirrors, 6/9 (66.6%) chance for non-mirrors. | ||
|
wswordsmen
United States987 Posts
| ||
|
baubo
China3370 Posts
| ||
|
Avidkeystamper
United States8551 Posts
| ||
Heyoka
Katowice25012 Posts
On October 26 2009 14:28 wswordsmen wrote: Conclusion: We observe that 50% of PL matches are mirrors, while if the races were randomly selected due to map balance we would expect 33% mirrors. Therefore the maps are not perfectly balanced but if fact skewed towards one race resulting in more mirror matches than expected. What we're actually measuring here is the coach's perception of the maps, not some intrinsic value they have | ||
|
Jyvblamo
Canada13788 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + | ||
|
ShadowDrgn
United States2497 Posts
On October 26 2009 14:37 heyoka wrote: What we're actually measuring here is the coach's perception of the maps, not some intrinsic value they have I don't know how many progamers there are, but I think it's around 250 when you combine 12 teams' A and B teams. They all practice 12 hours a day, and with a conservative guess of 2 games/hour, that's 24 games a day. Even if all the pros play one another instead of non-pros on iccup, that's still 3000 games total a day between them. Given a few months to practice new maps, I think the coaches have a very good idea which races are better on certain maps. | ||
|
economist_
Vietnam719 Posts
50% would be indicating that something is imbalanced only if the coach were making perfectly random decision (assuming that he makes final decision). If there were something like a coach perceives that some maps are more favorable to certain race and send that race out (in addition to other factors which might kick in), whatever the (conditional) probability you get, it says nothing about imbalance, anything at all p4NDemik, name of your matrix is lol | ||
|
Heyoka
Katowice25012 Posts
On October 26 2009 14:39 Jyvblamo wrote: In this thread, we learn that human brains are horribly wired for understanding statistics and probability. + Show Spoiler + If you read Nassim Taleb's books he blames Descartes specifically for how people have difficulty understanding statistics. I get the feeling its something that makes him very angry. On October 26 2009 14:59 ShadowDrgn wrote: I don't know how many progamers there are, but I think it's around 250 when you combine 12 teams' A and B teams. They all practice 12 hours a day, and with a conservative guess of 2 games/hour, that's 24 games a day. Even if all the pros play one another instead of non-pros on iccup, that's still 3000 games total a day between them. Given a few months to practice new maps, I think the coaches have a very good idea which races are better on certain maps. Doesn't change the fact that we are not measuring an actual quality of the maps. The distinction is necessary. | ||
|
Highways
Australia6098 Posts
I've actually been complaining about the mass mirrors during last seasons proleague. I think there should just be race restrictions on maps. | ||
|
Syntax Lost
Finland86 Posts
| ||
|
prOxi.swAMi
Australia3091 Posts
| ||
|
JohannesH
Finland1364 Posts
And as said theres more than just maps simply favoring a race or 2. Some players' style might be more suited for a certain map than another player of same race. Different people have different matchups as their strongest. Some map might have some viable strategies for a race thought weak on it, but those strategies just arent figured out instantly... etc etc. Oh and I like mirrors... Both players having the same weapons in their arsenal is interesting. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On October 26 2009 14:01 TheYango wrote: T1 v T2 is the same as T2 v T1, but P1 v T2 is different from T1 v P2. Let's call our players Movie and Skyhigh. Movie P v Skyhigh P is the same matchup as Skyhigh P v Movie P, but Movie P v Skyhigh T is different from Movie T v Skyhigh P. This is true. However, in practice, Movie plays P and Skyhigh plays T. So Movie P vs Skyhigh T is the only matchup that should get counted here. Since each progamer plays one race professionally - with extremely rare exceptions - the theoretical 1/3 mirrors is an asymptotic limit, not the true expected value. | ||
|
sovietico
Spain17 Posts
On October 26 2009 14:04 p4NDemik wrote: Reading this thread is downright enfuriating. Such a simple concept takes 20 replies for some to understand. Here's a table for matchups in a totally random situation. There's 9 possible outcomes. 1/9 (11%) chance of each one happening. As you can see each type of mirror only occurs once, each type of non-mirror occurs twice. Thus there is 3/9 chance (33.3%) for mirrors, 6/9 (66.6%) chance for non-mirrors. I think this logic is ok if we have 33% protosses 33% terrans and 33% zergs. Wich is not the case, we should see the number of terran protoss and zerg players to calculate in an apropiate way the "ideal" number of mirror matchups that should be. For ex: if there are 98 terrans 1 protoss and 1 zerg in the rosters of the PL teams, near 99% of the games will be mirrors and not 33%. at least thats what i think :S | ||
|
HopLight
Sweden999 Posts
On October 26 2009 14:04 p4NDemik wrote: Reading this thread is downright enfuriating. Such a simple concept takes 20 replies for some to understand. Here's a table for matchups in a totally random situation. There's 9 possible outcomes. 1/9 (11%) chance of each one happening. As you can see each type of mirror only occurs once, each type of non-mirror occurs twice. Thus there is 3/9 chance (33.3%) for mirrors, 6/9 (66.6%) chance for non-mirrors. I love the table name! | ||
| ||
