|
Most of that "analysts were saying x" chatter is merely acting as a description of public sentiment, not so much a validation mechanism but rather just to describe what the barometer was on a particular subject. Saying "everyone was saying x" isn't accurate ("neither is everyone in this community refers to "analysts" as a verification that a prediction justified" btw), saying "Reddit was saying x" is fairly pointless. Saying "bookmakers were saying x" isn't more or less meaningful than saying "analysts were saying x" as they're essentially just another group of experts who's financial success rides on being able to correctly analyse the game/scene (similar to someone like Monte).
I mean, if you're just venting about people who don't even watch games, rely on experts to judge teams for them then pass the blame for their wrong prediction, I completely agree. Bullshit behavior.
As an aside, I'd say there are very few people here who watch enough of every region to legitimately have a fully independant opinion of all the teams at worlds. Who here can actually say they watch the majority of games in every region? I certainly don't (China and LMS just can't fit into my schedule). We all rely on the opinions of "experts" (and I consider many TL posters experts on particular regions) to some degree.
|
On October 07 2015 16:21 Hider wrote:
You literraly have Monte predicting KT will win over SKT despite SKT being a 75-25 favourite from the bookmakers (whom actually are the real experts here).
Why is noone talking about bookmaker odds at all in this community when it comes to who are the favourites? They actually do that in real sports all the time.
Hilariously enough (since you're from Denmark), there was a Danish betting site that had SKT at 2.5 to 1 odds and EDG shortly after. LGD had a ... 16 to 1 odds which I thought was nuts and incredibly tempted to just drop a hundred on them. Boy am I glad I didn't because they knew something I didn't ... :O
On October 07 2015 16:52 Amarok wrote:
As an aside, I'd say there are very few people here who watch enough of every region to legitimately have a fully independant opinion of all the teams at worlds. Who here can actually say they watch the majority of games in every region? I certainly don't (China and LMS just can't fit into my schedule). We all rely on the opinions of "experts" (and I consider many TL posters experts on particular regions) to some degree.
I actually watched most important games from NA/EU/LPL and as a splash or LCK. It's not too hard when you know there are games you can just miss because they won't be very good. The only reason I watched very little of LCK was simply because I expected SKT would just stomp everyone anyway since they were clearly the strongest. Similarly, for LPL I mostly watched games involving the "top half" LPL teams. For EU, I've watched all games from the top three teams and NA was mostly games I expected to be funny (and all of playoff games of course). Oddly enough I think I watched EU the most. For some reason EU seemed a lot more interesting than other regions during the summer split whereas before they were complete snoozefests for me.
|
Saying "bookmakers were saying x" isn't more or less meaningful than saying "analysts were saying x" as they're essentially just another group of experts who's financial success rides on being able to correctly analyse the game/scene (similar to someone like Monte).
The prediction of analysts is at best weakly related to how succesful they are at their jobs. You can also look at real sports for a reference where noone gives a shit about what the studio analysts predict (typically former soccer players). In that context, it is generally accepted that the bookmakers are the best at their job.
In League of Legends (and esport in general) its different. Perhaps because bookmakers do not have a similar amount of data to base their assesments on and perhaps because strategy matters more.
However, the issue is that understanding strategy and then properly assessing the implications it should have on the winning chances of the team are two very different things.
And generally speaking, the group of people whoms monetary income depends the most on how good they are, they are gonna be better at that specific task. If a bookmaker is making incorrect odds, the bookmaker will money and the guy will be replaced with someone else. That's not the case at all for "analysts".
Actually one of the reason this subject "tilts" me is becasue I saw some Reddit guy say that we shouldn't trust Quickshots opinions becasue he isn't an analyst....(and he had a few upvotes)
I hate that appeal-to-authority logic. No the real reason we shouldn't trust Quickshots opinion is because he isn't that bright (though I like him alot as a play-by-play commentator)
But you can be a smart and analytical guy while still being a play-by-play caster. If that's the case, there is no reason for why we shouldn't trust his opinions on topics such "who is the best player" or "which team will win worlds" over an analyst.
I also find it "amusing" to look at Thorins twitter account. He is incredibly proud over the fact that he has managed to predict 15 out of 20 CS GO finals and gets praise for being the best CS GO analyst.
Srs, what the fuck is wrong with people. The easiest thing in the world is to to determine who the favourite is. The hard thing, however, is to be able to esitmate the exact likelyhood of a team winning a game and obtain a consistent track-record of being more accurate than bookmakers.
My point
This is like Thorins clearlove Kate Upton example. Because Kate Upton has 10/10 boobs, people also rate her face as 10/10 even though it might just be 7-8/10.
Similarly when it comes to analysts. Because these guys knows a lot about strategy, people also give them way too much credit when it comes to predictions or playerassesments.
We all rely on the opinions of "experts" (and I consider many TL posters experts on particular regions) to some degree.
But what is the advantage of relyingon "experts" to tell is which team will do well at worlds, when you can gain the same knowledge by only looking at results. I understand what you want to listen to expert when it comes to getting context/color in terms of the playstyles of the team, but that doesn't imply that their predictions are of any value.
Yeh I understandying you look cool when you talk about how D2 Balls will fall short vs Huni and Zztai, and how X new meta will abuse Y meta but this type of analysis just creates a wrong focus.
First of, are toplaner vs toplane lane matchups actually that important when you just lane swaps?
Secondly, noone has established any track-record of knowing which meta beats the other meta. As an example Saint Vicious in one of his videos was sure that the freeze-toplane --> roam to mid --> Lots of midaggression (we see in China) would dominate the west-meta. And neither Monteecristo nor Dylan (from SI) had any idea on which type of laneswaps would beat the other.
Thirdly (and most importantly): there are 4 other members on the team, whom apparently together played well enough to beat nr. 3 in NA, nr. 4 in NA and nr. 5 in NA.
But when you constantly refer to Balls as a weak link to be exposed, you misweight the importance of each individual player. The best way to evaluate the players are simply to look at the actual results (and too an extent also take into account whether they dominated or just barely won the game).
It's not like strategic analysis couldn't be of value in predicting the outcome.
Example 1: For instance I remember making a prediction on the Starcraft 2 Forgg vs Jaedong bo3. When doing my background research, I noticed JD had significant issues vs early game aggression that Forgg historically had a ton of succes with,
Further, I also wasn't impressed by JDs late game play vs mech. Statistically speaking both seemed evenly matched up. Yet JD was a 60-40 favourite according to the bookmaker. Thus I found value in betting on Forgg, and Forgg ended up winning in a similar fashion as I predicted.
However, note two things with the above analysis: I am not basing the whole analysis on "strategy". I am mainly basing it on the fact that the two players were of similar skill and I could get odds 2.4 on Forgg. The strategy-thing was just the tip of the icecake.
Example 2: Next round Forgg would meet Polt and I watched all of their historical TvT games. Both of them played very risk with big gamles --> Very volatile gameplay.
Forgg might be the marginally better player, however given the significant variance I would not give him more than 60-40. Odds were 2.9 on Polt to win the bo5, and I ended up betting on it. Forgg did win, but given how the games played out, I think my estimation was correct.
Notice the difference between this type of analysis and the "Hai doesn't know how to jungle or Balls is a bad toplaner, C9 got free wins in the Gauntless --> They are a bad team and will go 0-6".
Monte is implying (he is the one who uses this fallacy often) is that when Hai's jungle is (let's say) 10% weaker than the average NA jungler, then thats not enough to have a significant impact on the outcome of the game.
However, when you start to meet international junglers that are 20% better, the difference will be so significant that he will get completely abused. He provides no reasoning for why it won't just be a slight disadvantage.
He does the same thing with TSM's midgame centric strategy. NA teams are too bad to abuse TSMs flaw but TSM will get stomped vs international competition because they are good and can abuse playstyles Montecristo doesn't like.
In my type of analysis the impact it should on the win/rate is very obvious. However, the thesis that if you have one small specific "weakness" in the west Region and we transfer that to international competition --> That weakness will be 10 times more noticeable is baseless.
The only circumstance where I would apply strategy in this context was if I knew Korea hds a specific playstyle that hardcountered TSM's playstyle, and I also could offer a very solid explanation for why the west didn't just apply that playstyle whenever they met TSM.
there was a Danish betting site that had SKT at 2.5 to 1 odds and EDG shortly after. LGD had a ... 16 to 1 odds which I thought was nuts and incredibly tempted to just drop a hundred on them.
Hmm what specifically are you talking about? The probability of winning worlds?
Before it started I think Danske Spil's odds were like 1.8 SKT and LGD was around 4 (or so).
|
You can analyze the analysts all you want, imo the complete lack of international competition makes trying to evaluate different regions a crap shoot regardless.
|
On October 07 2015 20:03 Gorsameth wrote:
You can analyze the analysts all you want, imo the complete lack of international competition makes trying to evaluate different regions a crap shoot regardless.
Which has nothing to do with what I am talking about. I am talking appeal to authority-fallacy and how its applied to analysts.
|
To be honest I don't think "analysts" have all that much insight to the game itself anyway. Most of them don't even play from what I understand, I know Monte doesn't. To me the biggest thing most "analysts" have to offer is a description of how teams games' play out in the region that they are basically a fan of.
Monte can give you a good idea of what Korean teams' games look like, ignore everything else.
Frosk can give you a good idea of what Chinese teams' games look like, ignore everything else.
|
Poland3748 Posts
On October 07 2015 11:29 LimpingGoat wrote:
Monte's analysis has been overvalued because Korean dominance has been de facto for two seasons straight. So because he is the korean caster and markets himself as "classy high-minded gentleman", as well as because to a lot of western fans he was the predictor of Samsung White and SKT T1 K's wins at Worlds, people have had this illusion of his opinion as scripture.
Unfortunately, he hasn't anticipated or accurately adjusted his own predictions and analysis according to what we can see as the weakening of Korea due to the Korean exodus.
Stuff like constantly basing predictions between Korean teams and western teams on Korean team is better so the star players of that team must be on a whole other level individually. "Smeb is just going to wipe the floor with all of the teams at IEM Katowice". GE Tigers proceeds to lose to a team with Aluka. I've been critical of Monte and his and the people he associates with's styles of analysis for a long time, and I'm hopeful they will learn something, but I'm doubtful.
IEM was weird. TSM winning, KOO choking so hard.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
chinese teams tend to not have a strict hierarchical command structure. they are more player run than teams in korea or even some of the western taems with coaching. considering that these are basically teenagers playing a game they'll have pretty inflated idea of self worth. so they took the opposition a bit lightly and did not prepare at a juncture that really demanded preparation.
compare lgd and edg's performance change should be illustrative of this point. edg, which has more of a command structure, is more prepared and doing better. although not prepared to the degree of the korean teams in terms of studying other region's games. lgd on the other hand is a frat house on fire with everyone coming in like they just got back on vacation (or about to start one).
this also explains some of the high volatility in performance through a lpl season by some teams.
this lax style may foster more creativity later on in a patch cycle and lead to higher ceiling in some cases, but when the task is largely analyzing and learning what other people are doing, them not putting in the work set them back pretty bad.
as for analysts, they analyze games played, and those are not very predictive right now. one mistake though is the overreliance on talent as a predictor of success (and attributing past success to talent), and believing in essential superiority of certain teams/players. i'm pretty guilty of this too but so far the players i like have been doing okay.
|
On October 07 2015 20:10 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2015 20:03 Gorsameth wrote:
You can analyze the analysts all you want, imo the complete lack of international competition makes trying to evaluate different regions a crap shoot regardless.
Which has nothing to do with what I am talking about. I am talking appeal to authority-fallacy and how its applied to analysts.
I wasn't specifically talking to you but about the current discussion in general.
Its hard to compare regions when there is no proper cross reference.
|
I just now realized that they will play out a group each day now, meh that sucks -.-
|
On October 07 2015 21:23 nimdil wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2015 11:29 LimpingGoat wrote:
Monte's analysis has been overvalued because Korean dominance has been de facto for two seasons straight. So because he is the korean caster and markets himself as "classy high-minded gentleman", as well as because to a lot of western fans he was the predictor of Samsung White and SKT T1 K's wins at Worlds, people have had this illusion of his opinion as scripture.
Unfortunately, he hasn't anticipated or accurately adjusted his own predictions and analysis according to what we can see as the weakening of Korea due to the Korean exodus.
Stuff like constantly basing predictions between Korean teams and western teams on Korean team is better so the star players of that team must be on a whole other level individually. "Smeb is just going to wipe the floor with all of the teams at IEM Katowice". GE Tigers proceeds to lose to a team with Aluka. I've been critical of Monte and his and the people he associates with's styles of analysis for a long time, and I'm hopeful they will learn something, but I'm doubtful. IEM was weird. TSM winning, KOO choking so hard.
IEM wasn't weird, it certainly did show a change in the strengths of regions, particularly Korea. What happened to KOO was totally predictable, so I wouldn't call it weird.
|
On October 08 2015 00:59 LimpingGoat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2015 21:23 nimdil wrote:On October 07 2015 11:29 LimpingGoat wrote:
Monte's analysis has been overvalued because Korean dominance has been de facto for two seasons straight. So because he is the korean caster and markets himself as "classy high-minded gentleman", as well as because to a lot of western fans he was the predictor of Samsung White and SKT T1 K's wins at Worlds, people have had this illusion of his opinion as scripture.
Unfortunately, he hasn't anticipated or accurately adjusted his own predictions and analysis according to what we can see as the weakening of Korea due to the Korean exodus.
Stuff like constantly basing predictions between Korean teams and western teams on Korean team is better so the star players of that team must be on a whole other level individually. "Smeb is just going to wipe the floor with all of the teams at IEM Katowice". GE Tigers proceeds to lose to a team with Aluka. I've been critical of Monte and his and the people he associates with's styles of analysis for a long time, and I'm hopeful they will learn something, but I'm doubtful. IEM was weird. TSM winning, KOO choking so hard. IEM wasn't weird, it certainly did show a change in the strengths of regions, particularly Korea. What happened to KOO was totally predictable, so I wouldn't call it weird.
Less KOO but more WE and TSM. Both teams didn't really have a right to do so well at an event but lack of competition made it so.
|
On October 08 2015 01:02 Numy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2015 00:59 LimpingGoat wrote:On October 07 2015 21:23 nimdil wrote:On October 07 2015 11:29 LimpingGoat wrote:
Monte's analysis has been overvalued because Korean dominance has been de facto for two seasons straight. So because he is the korean caster and markets himself as "classy high-minded gentleman", as well as because to a lot of western fans he was the predictor of Samsung White and SKT T1 K's wins at Worlds, people have had this illusion of his opinion as scripture.
Unfortunately, he hasn't anticipated or accurately adjusted his own predictions and analysis according to what we can see as the weakening of Korea due to the Korean exodus.
Stuff like constantly basing predictions between Korean teams and western teams on Korean team is better so the star players of that team must be on a whole other level individually. "Smeb is just going to wipe the floor with all of the teams at IEM Katowice". GE Tigers proceeds to lose to a team with Aluka. I've been critical of Monte and his and the people he associates with's styles of analysis for a long time, and I'm hopeful they will learn something, but I'm doubtful. IEM was weird. TSM winning, KOO choking so hard. IEM wasn't weird, it certainly did show a change in the strengths of regions, particularly Korea. What happened to KOO was totally predictable, so I wouldn't call it weird. Less KOO but more WE and TSM. Both teams didn't really have a right to do so well at an event but lack of competition made it so.
Didn't have a right to do well? Uh...what...
|
On October 07 2015 20:47 LimpingGoat wrote:
To be honest I don't think "analysts" have all that much insight to the game itself anyway. Most of them don't even play from what I understand, I know Monte doesn't. To me the biggest thing most "analysts" have to offer is a description of how teams games' play out in the region that they are basically a fan of.
Monte can give you a good idea of what Korean teams' games look like, ignore everything else.
Frosk can give you a good idea of what Chinese teams' games look like, ignore everything else.
See, for me, the bolded is actually untrue. And its the same for that entire crew with Moser, Drexxin, Papasmithy, etc. And the real failings of other analysts/commentators is that they just accept it far too often. Things change, of course, but they say things like "Clearlove is the best jungler in China" then he does nothing to take advantage of TBQ and is massively outplayed by Kakao in playoffs, then carried by the lanes in regionals. Similarly with GodV and TBQ. Or describing Kid/Kitties as if they are analogous to Bang/Wolf.
Also they seem to have not reported on adequately (as a group) nor incorporated the dysfunction into their predictions. Thus, its deeper problems for this one region, because they are unable to describe the events of their own region.
This doesn't mean I'm smart about these things. I picked Zyra as a sleeper pick because I think shes really good right now against the daruis/mordes. Also I had faith in PYL/Imp to carry, which was too much faith in one lane for this meta.
|
On October 08 2015 01:02 Numy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2015 00:59 LimpingGoat wrote:On October 07 2015 21:23 nimdil wrote:On October 07 2015 11:29 LimpingGoat wrote:
Monte's analysis has been overvalued because Korean dominance has been de facto for two seasons straight. So because he is the korean caster and markets himself as "classy high-minded gentleman", as well as because to a lot of western fans he was the predictor of Samsung White and SKT T1 K's wins at Worlds, people have had this illusion of his opinion as scripture.
Unfortunately, he hasn't anticipated or accurately adjusted his own predictions and analysis according to what we can see as the weakening of Korea due to the Korean exodus.
Stuff like constantly basing predictions between Korean teams and western teams on Korean team is better so the star players of that team must be on a whole other level individually. "Smeb is just going to wipe the floor with all of the teams at IEM Katowice". GE Tigers proceeds to lose to a team with Aluka. I've been critical of Monte and his and the people he associates with's styles of analysis for a long time, and I'm hopeful they will learn something, but I'm doubtful. IEM was weird. TSM winning, KOO choking so hard. IEM wasn't weird, it certainly did show a change in the strengths of regions, particularly Korea. What happened to KOO was totally predictable, so I wouldn't call it weird. Less KOO but more WE and TSM. Both teams didn't really have a right to do so well at an event but lack of competition made it so.
People forget that the WE roster that made finals against TSM at IEM took good EDG to game 5 in playoffs. TSM had a total right to win that event and it's a reasonable thing to say that even if whoever was number 1 in china at the time attended, they would have still won. They had the meta figured out and it worked for them. Crazy, right.
But anyway, my point was that for Monte to be truly credible in my eyes, he would have had to supplement his Korea is good analysis while they were actually incredibly dominant with the foresight to see when they were going to fall of. But instead he just hyped up KOO Tigers even though they were randomly the best in Korea after China raped Korea of their best teams/players.
|
On October 08 2015 02:02 LimpingGoat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2015 01:02 Numy wrote:On October 08 2015 00:59 LimpingGoat wrote:On October 07 2015 21:23 nimdil wrote:On October 07 2015 11:29 LimpingGoat wrote:
Monte's analysis has been overvalued because Korean dominance has been de facto for two seasons straight. So because he is the korean caster and markets himself as "classy high-minded gentleman", as well as because to a lot of western fans he was the predictor of Samsung White and SKT T1 K's wins at Worlds, people have had this illusion of his opinion as scripture.
Unfortunately, he hasn't anticipated or accurately adjusted his own predictions and analysis according to what we can see as the weakening of Korea due to the Korean exodus.
Stuff like constantly basing predictions between Korean teams and western teams on Korean team is better so the star players of that team must be on a whole other level individually. "Smeb is just going to wipe the floor with all of the teams at IEM Katowice". GE Tigers proceeds to lose to a team with Aluka. I've been critical of Monte and his and the people he associates with's styles of analysis for a long time, and I'm hopeful they will learn something, but I'm doubtful. IEM was weird. TSM winning, KOO choking so hard. IEM wasn't weird, it certainly did show a change in the strengths of regions, particularly Korea. What happened to KOO was totally predictable, so I wouldn't call it weird. Less KOO but more WE and TSM. Both teams didn't really have a right to do so well at an event but lack of competition made it so. People forget that the WE roster that made finals against TSM at IEM took good EDG to game 5 in playoffs. TSM had a total right to win that event and it's a reasonable thing to say that even if whoever was number 1 in china at the time attended, they would have still won. They had the meta figured out and it worked for them. Crazy, right. But anyway, my point was that for Monte to be truly credible in my eyes, he would have had to supplement his Korea is good analysis while they were actually incredibly dominant with the foresight to see when they were going to fall of. But instead he just hyped up KOO Tigers even though they were randomly the best in Korea after China raped Korea of their best teams/players.
Haha, lets ignore that EDG was without PawN vs WE till game 5 and U had 0 synergy with the team and played fucking Galio. Also Deft was the best player in the World in spring and EDG was doing super well in regular season, but w/e they would lose for sure to mighty TSM.
Most of ppl were saying that KOO is the best team in the World before IEM.
Use brain before you say something, please.
|
On October 07 2015 16:35 Maluk wrote:
I'm actually worried for C9 for this second half of groupstages. Hai has been repeating "we're good" with such insistence that something doesn't feel right to me. When you're actually better than your opposition that's not how you act ; you keep calm because victory is what you expected and there is no reason to get excited. Hai trying to use these results to scream "C9 is good" every time he gets the opportunity makes me think that he is very surprised by his team's performance and cannot predict if the hot streak will go on or not.
Scrim results?
Same thing for Faker by the way, his big smile after winning against EDG, and his bashing on Chinese teams ("I'd bet money that a Chinese team won't win Worlds over a Western team") are worrying signs, especially coming from a team like SKTT1 who has always kept its composure in the past.
These signs make me think that, although China's terrible performance is hilarious and, I've got to say, quite delicious to me, week 1 in general might be a gigantic fluke.
While I think he has personal reasons for bashing Chinese teams - ie he rejected the Chinese offers and looks down on the Koreans who didn't - I have to think these are from scrim results too.
|
On October 07 2015 11:29 LimpingGoat wrote:
Monte's analysis has been overvalued because Korean dominance has been de facto for two seasons straight. So because he is the korean caster and markets himself as "classy high-minded gentleman", as well as because to a lot of western fans he was the predictor of Samsung White and SKT T1 K's wins at Worlds, people have had this illusion of his opinion as scripture.
Unfortunately, he hasn't anticipated or accurately adjusted his own predictions and analysis according to what we can see as the weakening of Korea due to the Korean exodus.
Stuff like constantly basing predictions between Korean teams and western teams on Korean team is better so the star players of that team must be on a whole other level individually. "Smeb is just going to wipe the floor with all of the teams at IEM Katowice". GE Tigers proceeds to lose to a team with Aluka. I've been critical of Monte and his and the people he associates with's styles of analysis for a long time, and I'm hopeful they will learn something, but I'm doubtful.
For all that the gap between Korea and the rest of the world is pretty clearly lessened, they're still 7-2 in this tournament so far. If anything the first three days of worlds were a display of pretty surprising Korean strength relative to the total collapse of the LPL, given how much people were disrespecting KOO and KT. Of course the main story is the competitiveness of western teams and rightly so, but there's a better than average chance all three Korean teams advance to the quarterfinals. There's even an outside chance they match or exceed the 15-3 mark that Korean teams posted in the group stage last year.
I know I probably come off as a Korean fanboy, but I think reports of the LCK's demise have been exagerrated. If KOO and KT proceed to flame out of this tournament early and SKT doesn't make the finals then I'll concede I've misjudged the balance of power vis-a-vis the LCK and the west. And if it means a team like Origen or CLG makes a deep run or even wins the tournament I'll do so gladly.
With regards to Monte. He's obviously been trying to moderate himself moreso this year than in the past. He basically spent the first few days repeating "KT could lose to Origen! KT could lose to Origen! DID I MENTION I THINK KT COULD LOSE TO ORIGEN?!" It was pretty great watching him try to downplay his favoritism of the LCK, meanwhile he wanted to accomodate the popular opinion that the LPL was really strong coming to worlds and look how that turns out.
As for experts in general and their ability to predict outcomes. If you've got good reasoning for believing something and can reference results that support your analysis, I don't mind if the prediction ends up being wrong. Like you could've given a ton of evidence to support C9 being pretty mediocre coming into worlds even by the standards of NA, forget the world.Predicting this incredible a revival would've been hard to justify. The issue is the "analysis" of Cloud 9 wasn't very thorough at all regardless of how the predictions turned out. Yamato just dismissed them. Monte did only a little bit more than that. I don't mind you not being able to predict the incredible, but when you're explaining why you've got somebody ranked above somebody else don't just say "they're bad, gg" and be done with it.
|
The issue still comes down to the massive errors of the LPL people - and I'd argue the LCS people - this year. As observed above, even MonteCristo was willing to say that Korean teams other than SKT were weak enough this year that they were not a level above the top LCS teams. But the LPL people - and MonteCristo, Thorin, etc. their followers - were completely off on LPL >>> LCS, even though there was a lot of evidence available to them that argued against such a belief. Listen to a few of the preview videos before the tournament. They're absolutely ridiculous in how they hype up LPL teams and players. People such as Moser knew that LGD and iG were not even practicing before the tournament, but didn't bother to take it into account in their write ups.
It is this over sight by the "experts" of LPL that caused the whole mess. I'm sure lots of money were lost/made in the screw up as even top sites had decent ratios for LPL teams, especially LGD. For those who knew they were not doing well in scrims - and I'm sure there was a handful of people who knew - this was the easiest money of their lives.
|
France12880 Posts
About the Hai saying "we are good" and stuff, I think I read in a LemonNation interview that C9 were indeed doing bad in scrims (which so far isn't very promising when you are the outsider already), so they probably didn't expect to 3-0 even if they thought it was possible.
I don't think saying out loud that they are good will hinder them so why not  .
Iirc the only way for them not to qualify would be losing all of their games, which is very unlikely to happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
