EPTJaedong's Bo5 Record - Page 4
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
Impervious
Canada4222 Posts
| ||
|
Monsen
Germany2548 Posts
On January 21 2010 04:31 siv00 wrote: The question here is whether Jaedong will lose to Flash 0-3, 1-3 or 2-3 (the unlikely option) Probably (pun intended). Still the best possible MSL Finals, right ? Feels weird to cheer for JD as the "underdog" for a change. | ||
|
AM.23)Jehuty
United States69 Posts
| ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
And yeah, Jaedong's the underdog. | ||
|
Impervious
Canada4222 Posts
Playing against random players, from the same pool of opponents, Jaedong has a 81% chance of winning any given BO5. Flash, on the other hand, has a 71% chance. Note that this is based off of their 1v1 stats. Jaedong has a higher chance of winning against any given player, meaning he is, statistically speaking, the better player. This means he will have a statistical advantage in a BO5. Dividing Jaedong's percent chance of winning against any one person, and dividing it by the sum of the two player's percentages, we find that Jaedong has a 53% chance of winning against Flash. Why? Take a 100 BO5 sample of Jaedong. He should win 81 of them. Take a 100 BO5 sample of Flash. He should win 72% of them. Total BO5's won -> 153. Jaedong won 81 of them. The chance of him winning against Flash is therefore 81/153 = 53% It's very crude, and simple, but it shows that they are both extraordinary players, and it really is anybody's game. It does not take into account their recent history or recent skill level, it takes into account every recorded game..... Note that this is only an approximation, and once the players have significant skill level divergence, the estimate gets to be really bad..... But a solution is still possible. | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
Translate that into a Bo5 and Flash has a 78% chance of winning the series. Jaedong is a huge underdog. | ||
|
sidesprang
Norway1033 Posts
And if you do some fancy calculations and come up with that jaedong is the favourite you have either 1.not done the math correctly 2. used some false criteria when making your hypotesis By just have watching starcraft for the last few months i will give flash a 66% chance to win, and thats just as reliable as your fancy math  | ||
|
Impervious
Canada4222 Posts
On January 21 2010 05:46 jalstar wrote: You can't use random players. Use Elo, imprecise as it is. Flash has a 2320 vs Z Elo. Jaedong has a 2201 vs T Elo. By the Elo formula (look it up on Wiki) Flash has a 66% chance to win a single game vs Jaedong. Translate that into a Bo5 and Flash has a 78% chance of winning the series. Jaedong is a huge underdog. Do you have any idea what K value they use? It could totally skew the results if Flash was simply on a decent streak against decent players..... For a good K value, it would take many, many games to come close to your true skill, and even then, you can rise above it, or below it, but you'll hover near it. While it makes a lot of sense to use the ELO, in this case it doesn't. When used in Chess, hundreds and hundreds of individual games are taken into consideration. And, yes, they are against "random" players..... The way that the "random" part of it is taken into consideration is different though. | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
On January 21 2010 06:02 lMPERVlOUS wrote: Do you have any idea what K value they use? It could totally skew the results if Flash was simply on a decent streak against decent players..... For a good K value, it would take many, many games to come close to your true skill, and even then, you can rise above it, or below it, but you'll hover near it. While it makes a lot of sense to use the ELO, in this case it doesn't. When used in Chess, hundreds and hundreds of individual games are taken into consideration. And, yes, they are against "random" players..... The way that the "random" part of it is taken into consideration is different though. How does your method of winning % make more sense than Elo? | ||
|
blueblimp
Canada297 Posts
On January 21 2010 00:52 qrs wrote: Add in the fact that we would expect his individual game-winning percentage to be lower in best-of-five's since he only faces those players who have been playing well enough to make it to the end of tournaments, and his series-winning percentage starts looking even more impressive. This could be accounted for explicitly by calculating, for Jaedong, separate ELOs for series games and non-series games. I'm too lazy to do it though. | ||
|
Impervious
Canada4222 Posts
On January 21 2010 06:07 jalstar wrote: How does your method of winning % make more sense than Elo? I'm using their relative records against the same random pool, and comparing their abilities against that same random pool, to find who is more likely to win. It is just an estimate, since both players are very, very good, and both have a very high win percentage. It also means little at this point, because there have not been a large enough number of games to determine the percentage precisely. And the error bounds for any calculations would be huge at this stage. | ||
|
thunk
United States6233 Posts
| ||
|
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
| ||
|
Alethios
New Zealand2765 Posts
We always judge player's abilities relative to those around them, and things have changed greatly since Jaedong first won a Bo5. If you wanted to produce any meaningful number (rather than just a spun out percentage that doesn't really tell us anything other than... wow Jaedong kicks ass in Bo5s... which you only need to look at his titles to see), you'd have to weight later wins more than earlier wins... seperate it by matchup and so on and so forth. Jaedong smash puny terran. | ||
|
Kontossis
Canada256 Posts
| ||
|
dani_caliKorea
730 Posts
| ||
|
Gnaix
United States438 Posts
| ||
|
Shengster
United States167 Posts
On January 21 2010 02:19 lMPERVlOUS wrote: Not quite. He's right, from a statistical analysis point of view..... Although they cannot physically happen, you can assume that they do to make the calculations much easier. How about we assume they don't with combinatorics? You can use set theory. | ||
|
qrs
United States3637 Posts
On January 21 2010 06:37 Shengster wrote: How about we assume they don't with combinatorics? You can use set theory. No offense, but do you know what you are talking about? Beyond vague references to combinatorics and set theory, you have said nothing at all. | ||
|
TeH_Mentalist
Korea (South)244 Posts
| ||
| ||
