EPTDo you like the new Super-Ace PL Format?
| Forum Index > Polls & Liquibet |
|
whatusername
Canada1181 Posts
| ||
|
tirentu
Canada1257 Posts
Why? JAEDONG. | ||
|
ssystem
United Kingdom337 Posts
| ||
|
Scaramanga
Australia8090 Posts
| ||
|
gotwater
United States179 Posts
| ||
|
SC2Phoenix
Canada2814 Posts
What's the point of this poll? Basically Oz fans will vote yes. Everyone else will vote no. | ||
|
Zozma
United States1626 Posts
It's not a very fair system. | ||
|
crate
United States2474 Posts
| ||
|
o3.power91
Bahrain5288 Posts
| ||
|
o3.power91
Bahrain5288 Posts
On August 03 2009 01:41 crate wrote: Bring back Winner's League imo. Best part of this proleague season hands-down. You have STX Cup Masters | ||
alffla
Hong Kong20321 Posts
| ||
|
GGQ
Canada2653 Posts
| ||
|
Khalleb
Canada1909 Posts
| ||
|
Musoeun
United States4324 Posts
WL format is ace/sniper dependent with less reliance on your solid day-in-and-day-out players (which could be why teams like KHAN and MBC did horribly at it - they don't snipe very well. Minus the Frozean vs Jaedong incident. Of course, they then proceeded to suck for the rest of the season too so that's maybe not the whole story.) It's much more exciting than this though. A playoff Bo9 in WL format would be amazing... Okay, now I'm rambling. But my point is, short of going full out Bo3 matches, matches Bo5/Bo7... actually that would be kind of cool. It would take a while though. That would be a lot of games. I dunno. | ||
|
TerranGuy
14 Posts
| ||
|
3 Lions
United States3705 Posts
A way to make this format more fair imo is to make the scores aggregate. Say, for example (this is not real, lol), CJ beats MBC 4-3 on the first day, and MBC wins 4-2 on the second day, it should not come down to a super ace because MBC would win the aggregate score 7-6. However, if it is 7-7 or something, then there should be a super ace. | ||
|
FirstBorn
Romania3955 Posts
If the super ace match would come when team A defeated team B with 4-2 but lost the second day with 2-4 I would be okay with it. In the current state, I hate it. | ||
|
cronican
Canada424 Posts
| ||
|
ondik
Czech Republic2908 Posts
 though i didn't care much about this match | ||
|
Nylan
United States795 Posts
| ||
|
StarBrift
Sweden1761 Posts
In a normal PL game jaedongs minions has to win one game for him to seal the deal. In a Bo7 they have to win two. How is 5 of 15 games easier to win than 2 of 5? Becuase NO, unlike most of you saying in here. Jaedong won't be playing two ace matches if the game only goes to 5 games in both meetings. If Oz wins or loses the first game 4-0, 4-1 or 4-2 Jaedong will have played one game in it. If they then go to ace in the second he will play two in that and possibly the super ace. He will then have 4 games played out of atleast 12. So if Jaedong plays either 4 out of 12 or 5 out of 15 he plays exactly one third of the games. In a normal PL game he would play 2 out of 5. That is more than one third of the games. Thus the team is less reliant on jaedong and more on their other players. People need to stop saying this format favours Oz because it clearly does not. Edit: Techically he can play 4 out of 13 or 14 aswell if one of the matches goes to 5 or 6 games but that would only make it less likely for Oz to win because he then plays even less. | ||
|
C[SCL]
Philippines576 Posts
What if the super ace match was a 2v2? Therefore, promoting as you all say, teamwork. Which is supposed to be the essence of the ProLeague. Am i right? LOL | ||
|
saritenite
Singapore1680 Posts
| ||
|
Avidkeystamper
United States8552 Posts
| ||
|
sashkata
Bulgaria3241 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 31060
3788 Posts
| ||
|
B1nary
Canada1267 Posts
| ||
|
barth
Ireland1272 Posts
| ||
Hot_Bid
Braavos36375 Posts
On August 03 2009 03:12 StarBrift wrote: Why would Oz fans think this is better? Bo7 is harder for Oz which ever way you look at it. In a normal PL game jaedongs minions has to win one game for him to seal the deal. In a Bo7 they have to win two. How is 5 of 15 games easier to win than 2 of 5? Becuase NO, unlike most of you saying in here. Jaedong won't be playing two ace matches if the game only goes to 5 games in both meetings. If Oz wins or loses the first game 4-0, 4-1 or 4-2 Jaedong will have played one game in it. If they then go to ace in the second he will play two in that and possibly the super ace. He will then have 4 games played out of atleast 12. So if Jaedong plays either 4 out of 12 or 5 out of 15 he plays exactly one third of the games. In a normal PL game he would play 2 out of 5. That is more than one third of the games. Thus the team is less reliant on jaedong and more on their other players. People need to stop saying this format favours Oz because it clearly does not. Edit: Techically he can play 4 out of 13 or 14 aswell if one of the matches goes to 5 or 6 games but that would only make it less likely for Oz to win because he then plays even less. Well, its not really about the % of games played, its about chance to win the entire set In a normal Bo7 Oz has to win 2 out of 5 non Jaedong games to get it to ace so Jaedong can win. In this new format, they still have to win 2 out of 5 non Jaedong games, but they have two tries to do it. If they do this on either Day 1 or Day 2, then they get a super ace that Jaedong plays. However, just because its easier for Oz doesn't mean its a worse format. 2 Bo7s is better than one, and the super aces are some of the most intense, insane games I've ever watched. | ||
Heyoka
Katowice25012 Posts
| ||
|
Moletrap
United States1297 Posts
I am a Khan fan, though. | ||
|
Mikilatov
United States3897 Posts
On August 03 2009 01:52 GGQ wrote: No. It's a bad format for proleague, which shouldn't put such emphasis on a single star player. Somewhat agree, but as far as the ESPORTS goes, star players are what get people to tune in, so I can see why they run winnersleague and these super ace things, because they favor big star clash-of-the-titans style matchups that people want to see. That's why they have individual league seeds, and why they set up the league prelims in favor of the more well known players. Stars make 'sports' what they are, because without them nobody cares. I probably would barely even know that cycling was a sport if it weren't for Lance Armstrong, and I'm sure golf wouldn't be as popular as it is without Tiger. (From a US point of view, anyway.) edit: But yeah, it's kind of an unfair format for 'team' league. I can understand why they do it though. | ||
|
Vivi57
United States6599 Posts
| ||
|
hiro protagonist
1294 Posts
Super ACE Bo3! each team gets there 3 best players, puts them in game 1,2, or 3 and then best of 3 games win! that sounds fun. It would be a long day of games though... | ||
|
uglymoose89
United States671 Posts
On August 03 2009 01:52 GGQ wrote: No. It's a bad format for proleague, which shouldn't put such emphasis on a single star player. This | ||
|
eNoq
Netherlands502 Posts
| ||
|
GGQ
Canada2653 Posts
On August 03 2009 04:09 Mikilatov wrote: Somewhat agree, but as far as the ESPORTS goes, star players are what get people to tune in, so I can see why they run winnersleague and these super ace things, because they favor big star clash-of-the-titans style matchups that people want to see. That's why they have individual league seeds, and why they set up the league prelims in favor of the more well known players. Stars make 'sports' what they are, because without them nobody cares. I probably would barely even know that cycling was a sport if it weren't for Lance Armstrong, and I'm sure golf wouldn't be as popular as it is without Tiger. (From a US point of view, anyway.) edit: But yeah, it's kind of an unfair format for 'team' league. I can understand why they do it though. It's not that I disagree with putting any extra emphasis on star players. I wouldn't want to get rid of ace matches altogether. It's about putting too much emphasis on a single player, and where to draw the line. As Hot_Bid explained earlier, two Bo7s give Oz two chances to hand the whole thing off to JD. Of course, Oz deserves credit as a team for producing and supporting a monster like JD, but I think the current format is weighted too heavily towards a star player. One suggestion, off the top of my head, is to have the super-ace be a bo3 ace matches where each player can only be sent out once. | ||
|
ActualSteve
United States627 Posts
Inevitably, at the ends of those games (unless blowout) ... the star player will get the ball. How is this different than a Super Ace? | ||
|
viewer
Canada662 Posts
 But in all honesty I would say no, having a team game hinge on one match is not so great.. v.v | ||
|
InToTheWannaB
United States4770 Posts
| ||
disciple
9070 Posts
| ||
|
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
Already we've had two events with daft things happening. First CJ lost day1 then one player won 3 out of the 5 required games on day2. Then Oz won day1 and had effectively already sealed the match. All the normal day2 matches were irrelevant. If they wanted to stretch it over two days they could have come up with something cleverer. Maybe a Bo7 (7 different players) on day1. Then a Bo5 and a Bo3 if needed on day2. Or even some sort of points system where the later games are worth more. | ||
|
QibingZero
2611 Posts
| ||
|
peidongyang
Canada2084 Posts
| ||
|
Husky
United States3362 Posts
| ||
|
omninmo
2349 Posts
| ||
|
mucker
United States1120 Posts
the entire season is bo5, teams are built around this. it should be bo3 bo5. maybe bo5 bo5 for the final. | ||
|
FranzF1
Chile1710 Posts
I hope they keep doing this ;D | ||
|
Iaaan
Canada578 Posts
| ||
|
Dromar
United States2145 Posts
| ||
|
Roffles
Pitcairn19291 Posts
On August 03 2009 05:16 Klive5ive wrote: No, it's a terrible format with very little thought going into it. Already we've had two events with daft things happening. First CJ lost day1 then one player won 3 out of the 5 required games on day2. Then Oz won day1 and had effectively already sealed the match. All the normal day2 matches were irrelevant. If they wanted to stretch it over two days they could have come up with something cleverer. Maybe a Bo7 (7 different players) on day1. Then a Bo5 and a Bo3 if needed on day2. Or even some sort of points system where the later games are worth more. Disagree. With the previous format, CJ would have lost on Day 1 flat out. This current format allowed CJ a second shot at equalizing the sets at one a piece on Day 2, which they did. However, in the "tiebreak" game, CJ failed to capitalize like they did vs. Khan. That doesn't mean Day 2 matches were irrelevant. Those matches helped get CJ to Super Ace. Anyways, I think the current format is aight. Not as exciting as one day play, but it does have its own allure. More games = Good. Although I do seem to believe that the format does favor a team with a big Super Ace card (Jaedong/Bisu) over solid all around teams (CJ/STX). While depth is nice, all one team really needs to do is drag it to Ace on one day, win that and they're guaranteed a Super Ace. Pull out your Super Ace to secure a victory. It's a decent format. People just bitch about it because they like to find something else to blame for their favorite team's loss. | ||
|
deL
Australia5540 Posts
On August 03 2009 02:07 3 Lions wrote: I liked the old playoff format. A way to make this format more fair imo is to make the scores aggregate. Say, for example (this is not real, lol), CJ beats MBC 4-3 on the first day, and MBC wins 4-2 on the second day, it should not come down to a super ace because MBC would win the aggregate score 7-6. However, if it is 7-7 or something, then there should be a super ace. But then why should the aggregate score count when it stops after one team gets 4 wins - if you are using aggregate all 7 games should be played. | ||
|
tobi9999
United States1966 Posts
| ||
|
sidesprang
Norway1033 Posts
| ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
1: Having 2 Bo7s allows teams to more reasonably come from behind and show their mettle. Thus making for more exciting games. 2: Having 2 Bo7s allows one team that is truly dominant to show it by winning both. Hasn't happened yet. 3: Having a Super Ace deciding match makes for more excitement. Remember: if you're getting a Super Ace, you've already had some back-and-forth between the days. Basically, it makes the playoffs that much more interesting. Look at how exciting the CJ vs. Khan game was. The second set saw things get as bad as they possibly could for CJ, but they put their balls down and pulled out a win. And while many people will look at Effort playing 3 times as a downside, Effort would only have gotten to play once if 3 other members of his team hadn't stepped up. Watching a team get curb-stomped isn't interesting. Personally, if you want to fix something in the playoffs, then do it in a proper bracket style, not this crap where the #1 ranked team only has to play one match to win. If you must, give the upper ranks a 1-week bye, not this 2-3 week crap. A team should not be able to win the playoffs by only playing one match. I find that to be far more offensive to good play than the current format. | ||
|
darktreb
United States3016 Posts
People complain because every team that has lost so far has won one BO7 and so their fans think they would have had a "better" chance with a different system (obviously better than losing which is what happened). This format creates the single most intense game possible in SC ... a once a YEAR match that decides everything! | ||
|
Nylan
United States795 Posts
| ||
OneOther
United States10774 Posts
| ||
|
writer22816
United States5775 Posts
On August 03 2009 07:06 Roffles wrote: It's a decent format. People just bitch about it because they like to find something else to blame for their favorite team's loss. Word. All those people blaming the format for Oz > CJ just sound like butthurt CJ fans. Before the match everyone was preaching on and on about CJ's depth and Jaedong Oz etc etc but Hwaseung actually wins a Bo7 4-1 with Perfectman > Iris and Backho > Snow and Hiya > Movie. IMO Oz definitely deserved to advance as they played really well the first day and even then Skyhigh/Effort/Iris still had a chance to snipe JD in the super ace. And Effort's ridiculous performance vs Khan in day 2 was definitely pretty much the same thing. | ||
|
StarBrift
Sweden1761 Posts
On August 03 2009 04:04 Hot_Bid wrote: Well, its not really about the % of games played, its about chance to win the entire set In a normal Bo7 Oz has to win 2 out of 5 non Jaedong games to get it to ace so Jaedong can win. In this new format, they still have to win 2 out of 5 non Jaedong games, but they have two tries to do it. If they do this on either Day 1 or Day 2, then they get a super ace that Jaedong plays. However, just because its easier for Oz doesn't mean its a worse format. 2 Bo7s is better than one, and the super aces are some of the most intense, insane games I've ever watched. How is getting two tries easier than getting one? Aren't the chances of better players winning greater the more games are played? If they were just doing a normal BO7 they would still have to win an entire match. The difference here is that even after they win that one they still need to win the other or take the ace match down. So if they lose they still need to win a BO7. But the problem lies int he fact that OZ has less of a chance of actually winning a BO7 than both CJ and SKT1 because they have only one solid threat as opposed to the tripple threat of SKT1 right now (not counting Best) or the extremely well rounded CJ that imo has atleast 4 worthy aces. Imo the only reason CJ lost to OZ is due to overwork because they are so far into the leagues. OZ members (except Jaedong) only has proleague right now. I'm not sure if you're arguing that this format is better for OZ than one BO5 or than one BO7. BO5 is obviously better for OZ no matter how you view it. If it were only one BO7 it would be like it is now but with less risk for SKT1 to fall to OZ snipers who devote 100% of their time into taking out one player at one map. Now atleast they have to practise for more matchups. | ||
p4NDemik
United States13896 Posts
| ||
|
DreaM)XeRO
Korea (South)4667 Posts
| ||
|
ktp
United States797 Posts
| ||
|
Avidkeystamper
United States8552 Posts
I think people are mad because they think the regular format is supposed to favor the team with more depth. | ||
|
Gustav_Wind
United States646 Posts
On August 03 2009 10:27 StarBrift wrote: How is getting two tries easier than getting one? Aren't the chances of better players winning greater the more games are played? If they were just doing a normal BO7 they would still have to win an entire match. The difference here is that even after they win that one they still need to win the other or take the ace match down. So if they lose they still need to win a BO7. But the problem lies int he fact that OZ has less of a chance of actually winning a BO7 than both CJ and SKT1 because they have only one solid threat as opposed to the tripple threat of SKT1 right now (not counting Best) or the extremely well rounded CJ that imo has atleast 4 worthy aces. Imo the only reason CJ lost to OZ is due to overwork because they are so far into the leagues. OZ members (except Jaedong) only has proleague right now. I'm not sure if you're arguing that this format is better for OZ than one BO5 or than one BO7. BO5 is obviously better for OZ no matter how you view it. If it were only one BO7 it would be like it is now but with less risk for SKT1 to fall to OZ snipers who devote 100% of their time into taking out one player at one map. Now atleast they have to practise for more matchups. Hot Bid's reasoning is correct. I'll just make up some numbers for the sake of making the example easier. Let's say Oz's chance of winning a Bo7 vs CJ is 40%, because CJ is a deeper team, and that Jaedong's chances of winning an ace match is 80%. In a normal single Bo7 format, Oz's chance of winning is 40%. Simple. In this format, Oz's chance of winning is (chance of winning both sets) + (chance of winning 1 of the two sets)*(chance of winning super ace). That is, (.4*.4) + (.4*.6*2)*.8. This comes out to .544, or 54.4%. | ||
|
konadora
Singapore66163 Posts
Because of more games | ||
|
roronoe
Canada1527 Posts
| ||
|
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
| ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On August 03 2009 13:09 Aphelion wrote: I haven't followed PL for a while, someone explain to me what the hell this is about. So ACE match = 3 wins? Then why did Hwaseung win purely due to ace match just because Jaedong won? If teams split the bo7s, there is a super ace match which determines which team advances. Oz lost the second bo7 after winning the first. Jaedong won the super ace so his team advanced. | ||
|
Avidkeystamper
United States8552 Posts
On August 03 2009 12:12 Gustav_Wind wrote: Hot Bid's reasoning is correct. I'll just make up some numbers for the sake of making the example easier. Let's say Oz's chance of winning a Bo7 vs CJ is 40%, because CJ is a deeper team, and that Jaedong's chances of winning an ace match is 80%. In a normal single Bo7 format, Oz's chance of winning is 40%. Simple. In this format, Oz's chance of winning is (chance of winning both sets) + (chance of winning 1 of the two sets)*(chance of winning super ace). That is, (.4*.4) + (.4*.6*2)*.8. This comes out to .544, or 54.4%. Too many assumptions and generalizations. I did the math for STX and Khan using diff percentages and the results varied. | ||
|
Kyuki
Sweden1867 Posts
If you think about it, why should the numbers matter if a team wins a set? I mean if TeamX wins with 4-0 or 4-3, it's still a 1-0 and 3 points. If the second game ties up the score I really dont think it's fair to give the win to the team that lost less sets since the score actually is 1-1. The real question is if the third game should be played between just two players or if it should come down to a last Bo7. Personally I like the format - if it comes down to 1 player in the end it will still be a teameffort if that single player wins because of all the blood and sweat they've all shared in practice. And it would be stupid to say that another BO7 is more fair - it's rather just tipping the balance to other teams, than how the balance is tipped atm. | ||
|
endGame
United States394 Posts
On August 03 2009 01:52 GGQ wrote: No. It's a bad format for proleague, which shouldn't put such emphasis on a single star player. This also. | ||
|
GinNtoniC
Sweden2945 Posts
It's dramatic and I suppose it's not bad in a spectator-perspective. Just don't find it overly fair in an example like the last semis.. | ||
|
Aurious
Canada1772 Posts
| ||
|
PH
United States6173 Posts
| ||
|
CoL_DarkstaR
Germany649 Posts
| ||
|
Naib
Hungary4843 Posts
| ||
|
eshlow
United States5210 Posts
On August 03 2009 02:06 TerranGuy wrote: I think it would be fun to see 2v2 be the super ace, but that's just me. 4v4 Hunters.... would be epic. :p A man can dream... | ||
|
GoSu
Korea (South)1773 Posts
That's create more tention for players and it's more for the show too. | ||
|
foeffa
Belgium2115 Posts
On August 03 2009 01:31 ssystem wrote: What's the point of this poll? Basically Oz fans will vote yes. Everyone else will vote no. I was thinking of a way to phrase it but this totally expresses my sentiment so I 'll just QFT.  | ||
|
StorrZerg
United States13919 Posts
On August 03 2009 01:30 tirentu wrote: Yes. Why? JAEDONG. pretty much | ||
|
ThePhan2m
Norway2750 Posts
| ||
|
thopol
Japan4560 Posts
STX should NOT have lost in the first round. | ||
|
Doso
Germany769 Posts
| ||
|
7mk
Germany10157 Posts
It is bad for 'depth' since teams like Oz have two tries to force it to an ace match. But I voted yes because it's great for us viewers cause it adds so much excitement. | ||
|
FreeDoM[YA]
Canada855 Posts
+1. I've never liked that one game decides everything, it seems really... off to me. | ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
| ||
|
ShAsTa
Belgium2841 Posts
On August 04 2009 06:34 FreeDoM[YA] wrote: +1. I've never liked that one game decides everything, it seems really... off to me. | ||
|
ghostWriter
United States3302 Posts
| ||
|
StarBrift
Sweden1761 Posts
On August 03 2009 12:12 Gustav_Wind wrote: Hot Bid's reasoning is correct. I'll just make up some numbers for the sake of making the example easier. Let's say Oz's chance of winning a Bo7 vs CJ is 40%, because CJ is a deeper team, and that Jaedong's chances of winning an ace match is 80%. In a normal single Bo7 format, Oz's chance of winning is 40%. Simple. In this format, Oz's chance of winning is (chance of winning both sets) + (chance of winning 1 of the two sets)*(chance of winning super ace). That is, (.4*.4) + (.4*.6*2)*.8. This comes out to .544, or 54.4%. Extremely flawed equations. Your numbers are taken out of thin air. There is no way to define a number of success in exact percentages unless you take into account all the factors (like the stats of all players, their recent performances, their practise hours, their other commitments, map balance, specific matchup preparation and the list goes on and on and on). But if indeed you are making up your own numbers please have some that are likely and have some grounds to them. Oz has a 40% chance of winning overall? Where did you get that number? Off of the top of your head? And what makes you estimate Jaedongs likelyhood to win Ace matches int he proleague playoffs to 80%. You think Bisu/Fantasy or Effort only stood a 20% chance of beating him? I know you agree with HotBid but you can't prove his point by numbers. It's impossible. | ||
|
Aznleeman
United States208 Posts
| ||
|
Gnaix
United States438 Posts
| ||
|
Dagobert
Netherlands1858 Posts
1) Probability to win. There are countless ways to calculate this, and none of them refers to probability to win in a single case. 80% probability of winning doesn't mean he's got .8 of the game in the bag, it means he is expected to win (for instance) 80 out of 100 games under the given hypothetical circumstances as depicted by the data. 2) Equal footing. Players will never stand equal chances at winning because we do not have the measures necessary to check that. You could standardize all you want (same living quarters, same mouse, practice time, number of other games, etc.) and they would *still* not be on equal grounds. 3) Achievement. "But now they only have to win 2 non-ace games". Sure. If you think so lowly of one team's members that you consider 2 (3) wins worth little to nothing, why are you arguing at all? 4) The "Ace Player" argument: "Better Ace player wins it, even if bla wins more games." This argument doesn't hold, since not everyone gets to play. The Super Ace would be obsolete if there were 7 games played on a day. If they wanted a second day so bad, they could award points for wins, and only if these turned out 7 : 7 would there be a Super Ace Match necessary. However, since the series are stopped at 4:x, we never know how the others would have fared. Maybe Oz would've won the first day 6:1 and lost the second 3:4, they would've won 9:5. Simply 'having more points' doesn't mean much right now. "But a Bo7 always ends when one team has 4 wins." - "Yes, and the team that wins the super-ace wins, too. Rules can be a pain if everyone's gotta stick to them, right?" | ||
|
Kong John
Denmark1020 Posts
| ||
|
hyst.eric.al
United States2332 Posts
| ||
|
gumbum8
United States721 Posts
| ||
|
Gustav_Wind
United States646 Posts
On August 04 2009 07:51 Dagobert wrote: Gustav is mixing up things here. 1) Probability to win. There are countless ways to calculate this, and none of them refers to probability to win in a single case. 80% probability of winning doesn't mean he's got .8 of the game in the bag, it means he is expected to win (for instance) 80 out of 100 games under the given hypothetical circumstances as depicted by the data. I'm not mixing anything up. I understand that 80% chance to win a game means in the long run 80% of games will be won. This can still be applied to a single game. My calculations used exactly this fact. I don't see people making posts like this when the people who write the TL news come out with stats articles that give probabilities of players winning single games. On August 04 2009 07:00 StarBrift wrote: Extremely flawed equations. Your numbers are taken out of thin air. There is no way to define a number of success in exact percentages unless you take into account all the factors (like the stats of all players, their recent performances, their practise hours, their other commitments, map balance, specific matchup preparation and the list goes on and on and on). But if indeed you are making up your own numbers please have some that are likely and have some grounds to them. Oz has a 40% chance of winning overall? Where did you get that number? Off of the top of your head? And what makes you estimate Jaedongs likelyhood to win Ace matches int he proleague playoffs to 80%. You think Bisu/Fantasy or Effort only stood a 20% chance of beating him? I know you agree with HotBid but you can't prove his point by numbers. It's impossible. ...Nice job using the fact that I made up numbers to prove my argument wrong when the first thing I said was that I made up numbers as a demonstration, not a proof. Choose any numbers that are comparable and do the calculations. You will see that Oz's chances improve in the Super Ace format vs the Single Bo7 format. THE SPECIFIC NUMBERS DON'T MATTER. I only made up numbers because I didn't think you would actually read a real proof. Here it is: + Show Spoiler + Let p = the probability of a team winning vs the other team in a single Bo7 Let a = and let a be the probability of that team's Ace winning an ace match vs the other team's Ace. Since I am proving that the Super Ace format favors teams with dominant aces, we are going to assume that a > .5. The probability of that team winning in the Super Ace format is this: (chance of winning both sets) + (chance of winning 1 of the two sets)*(chance of winning super ace) using our notation, it's p^2 + 2p(1-p)a so let us subtract the probability of the single Bo7 win from this number. If the result is positive, then this will show that the Super Ace format gives them an increased chance of winning from the single Bo7. p^2 + 2p(1-p)a - p using algebra: p^2 + 2ap - 2ap^2 - p p^2 - 2ap^2 - p + 2ap p^2(1-2a) - p(1-2a) (1-2a)(p^2 - p) (1-2a)(p-1)p (2a-1)(1-p)p Final Result: (2a-1)(1-p)p we know p and 1-p have to be positive, since p is a probability and therefore is between 0 and 1. Since a is > .5, 2a-1 is also positive. Therefore, the net result is positive. The Super Ace format favors the teams with more dominant aces. The more dominant the ace is, the better it is for them. The rest of the team is still very relevant, but to say that the format doesn't favor Aces is false. | ||
|
Dagobert
Netherlands1858 Posts
Lol did you even write what I posted? I understand that 80% chance to win a game means in the long run 80% of games will be won. This can still be applied to a single game. My calculations used exactly this fact. I don't see people making posts like this when the people who write the TL news come out with stats articles that give probabilities of players winning single games. No, I didn't *write* what you posted. And obviously, you do not understand. Besides, I don't care who writes the stat articles. Again, you're confusing some things here. a) Probability - how often is the observation expected to be made given certain data? b) Predictions - which observation will be made? Now what's the difference between the two? By using a), you can summarize data ("if I were to repeatedly [and randomly] pick one game out of Bisu's matches against Zerg, I would probably end up with 67 of 100 games where he wins it"). That's neat, but doesn't help if you want to make a prediction ("Will Bisu win vs Jaedong?"). To make a prediction, you need to *test* the predictive formula you're using. Note: This is called a model, and it is not chosen on the grounds of how well it describes existing data (e.g. winning percentages) but on how well it predicts future outcomes. | ||
|
Gustav_Wind
United States646 Posts
On August 04 2009 09:17 Dagobert wrote: No, I didn't *write* what you posted. And obviously, you do not understand. Besides, I don't care who writes the stat articles. Again, you're confusing some things here. a) Probability - how often is the observation expected to be made given certain data? b) Predictions - which observation will be made? Now what's the difference between the two? By using a), you can summarize data. That's neat, but doesn't help if you want to make a prediction. To make a prediction, you need to *test* the predictive formula you're using. Note: This is called a model, and it is not chosen on the grounds of how well it describes existing data (e.g. winning percentages) but on how well it predicts future outcomes. I'm not creating a model or a prediction because I'm not trying to actually figure out winning percentages. I'm saying that no matter what those specific percentages are, the Super Ace format favors teams with dominant aces more than the standard single Bo7 format. Nothing needs to be tested because no predictions are being made. It's a proof. | ||
|
lueiGi2
Canada24 Posts
| ||
|
Dagobert
Netherlands1858 Posts
And well, of course it's a proof. It's a proof that describes the notion that whoever wins the super ace wins the series. Wow. How long did it take you to figure that out? | ||
|
Gustav_Wind
United States646 Posts
On August 04 2009 09:39 Dagobert wrote: Since day1 and day2 are not identical, your formula is quite wrong. And well, of course it's a proof. It's a proof that describes the notion that whoever wins the super ace wins the series. Wow. How long did it take you to figure that out? The fact that the percentages for day 1 and 2 are different is a nitpick really. Replace the p variable with p1 and p2 and nothing really changes. the result is the same. On a more theoretical level, using one percentage for both days is correct if you think about it from the point of view of before the lineups for the two have been decided. You can still assign a theoretical single winning percentage by accounting for all possible combinations of lineups and the probabilities of each occurring. Also, the proof describes that Super Ace favors teams with better aces more than the single Bo7 format. That's a non-trivial result.I thought the result was obvious as well, but if you go back and read StarBrift's post you will see that not everyone agrees. I'm not posting a proof for no reason here. | ||
|
Avidkeystamper
United States8552 Posts
Honestly, they should get rid of ace matches. Just play the Bo7 all over again if it's 3-3 Gustav's right, but bear in mind that the difference will still be very small for a team like Oz vs CJ or SKT due to the fact that their probability to win a Bo7 is very small and the chance of JD winning an ace match isn't guaranteed. | ||
|
Malongo
Chile3472 Posts
| ||
IntoTheWow
is awesome32274 Posts
Bring back Winners League format. Sniping, map decisions, who to send first. Way more cool! | ||
|
Exteray
United States1094 Posts
On August 03 2009 01:30 tirentu wrote: Yes. Why? JAEDONG. QFT | ||
|
Avidkeystamper
United States8552 Posts
On August 04 2009 13:45 IntoTheWow wrote: I like the excitement it creates, but i don't think it's fair or that it represent the team league idea. Bring back Winners League format. Sniping, map decisions, who to send first. Way more cool! Starcraft's main foundation is 1v1. A true team league is impossible given the current progame teams and will actually distort the relative strengths of each team for it to happen. | ||
|
Sinedd
Poland7052 Posts
like one game decide the whole series ? ... if this was like bo3 it would be good , but bo1 ? ... suckz big time | ||
|
arew
Lithuania1861 Posts
| ||
|
Avidkeystamper
United States8552 Posts
| ||
|
Presony-Boy
Israel812 Posts
| ||
|
4Servy
Netherlands1542 Posts
| ||
|
FaCE_1
Canada6172 Posts
bo3 > Super Ace | ||
|
3 Lions
United States3705 Posts
On August 05 2009 03:17 Presony-Boy wrote: they should make the super ace a 4v4 game. On fastest space | ||
|
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
| ||
|
writer22816
United States5775 Posts
On August 04 2009 11:48 Malongo wrote: Just force a random Ace from the players that actually played in each team. That forces less "one mans" teams and no Ace sniping. lol | ||
|
Alsar
United States130 Posts
I don't see how Winner's League is any different than this format for putting emphasis on star players rather than team depth. You had jaedong all-killing everyone in WL also, so it's not much different. Not saying WL wasn't really fun and exciting, but I just don't get why some people are trying to say that it put more emphasis on team depth. | ||
|
ggnet)mOnion
United States72 Posts
| ||
|
Dknight
United States5223 Posts
| ||
|
Clasic
Bosnia-Herzegovina1437 Posts
On August 03 2009 02:52 Nylan wrote: Full of lamesauce. Bo3 Bo7 plz kthx Yeah, this is all i want lol | ||
|
Choros
Australia530 Posts
| ||
|
Batibot
Philippines348 Posts
| ||
|
Gustav_Wind
United States646 Posts
On August 03 2009 02:02 Musoeun wrote: tbh, there's no way to get a good format that doesn't come down to aces, so I don't care. Single Bo7? Double Bo7 with final decider? They really have the same problem - a team only "needs" two wins from non-ace players. The double bo7 does give a better shot to a "deeper" team in that it gives a chance to come back and win if the lineups screw them the first day. Not that it's happened yet... Oh, wait. CJ vs KHAN anyone? The Double Bo7 with Super Ace doesn't give a better shot to a "deeper" team at all. It gives the team with the better Ace a better shot... | ||
HawaiianPig
Canada5155 Posts
| ||
|
RainmanMP
United States1698 Posts
On August 03 2009 02:07 3 Lions wrote: I liked the old playoff format. A way to make this format more fair imo is to make the scores aggregate. Say, for example (this is not real, lol), CJ beats MBC 4-3 on the first day, and MBC wins 4-2 on the second day, it should not come down to a super ace because MBC would win the aggregate score 7-6. However, if it is 7-7 or something, then there should be a super ace. That's how it should be. | ||
|
drug_vict1m
844 Posts
On August 03 2009 01:29 whatusername wrote: the new format is really gay | ||
|
Ronald_McD
Canada807 Posts
Obviously it's stupid and gives Oz way more of a chance to win. It's the sad truth. | ||
|
scrubtastic
1166 Posts
(Hot_Bid/Gustav have a valid point that goes right over the heads of at least a couple of you) Not that I like a single Bo7 either. Bo3 Bo7 would work but it's so many games... Merge both Bo7 into two halves of a Bo15 played over 2 days? | ||
|
ForTenPoints
United States140 Posts
| ||
|
d_so
Korea (South)3262 Posts
let me explain: two-day, seven game series emphasize team depth over star players, giving teams with good overall depth more of an advantage. since the super ace comes down to one player, it makes the playoffs more balanced for teams built around one player like KT FINGERBOOM! overall these playoffs and just this entire season has been really good | ||
|
StorrZerg
United States13919 Posts
On August 06 2009 19:46 ForTenPoints wrote: Would some teams even have the players needed for a Bo15? possibly have it so some players can play 2x? yes? | ||
|
pharmer.
United States59 Posts
| ||
| ||
