|
On January 18 2011 08:28 uSnAmplified wrote:
Incredible response, thanks for your well thought out input. You definitely know what you are talking about.
Sorry, I didn't expect that you want some input. I thought you just want to QQ about the Raven-all-in
Here is your input:
On January 18 2011 08:24 uSnAmplified wrote:
Had tester stayed on one base he would have gotten rolled by the same exact build, their is no way in hell he would have had enough units or the upgrades to hold that off.
a 4gaterush comes at about 6:30 if i remember correctly?
MVP has 2 hellions, 1 medivac and 3 marines at this time. This build is designed to kill a FE. It completely dies to a 4 warpgaterush.
|
Even if you scout the raven stim push coming it's still hard as hell to stop. You absolutely have to rush colo or storm and if they either don't come in time or you only have 1 colo (even 2 but no range), you lose. It's completely obnoxious.
|
This is going to be my first post on TL, although I've been reading these forums for quite a while now.
I notice a lot of people bashing on MVP for his aggressive 1-base all-in plays, and I thought I would finally speak up, as I believe having such builds in one's repertoire is not only beneficial but absolutely necessary to being a truly great player.
I have been an avid poker player for a long time, and I feel that there are many similarities between the games of poker and SC. Both are games of limited information, and both are games in which the better player will tend to take advantage of small (and sometimes large) edges to gain the lead. In the short run, the better player may not always win due to variance, but in the long run, the better player that makes consistently better decisions should come out ahead. This is why a bo7 is better than a bo1 or even a bo3 for an SC player who has more skill than his opponent.
To get back to the point of this post, you will notice that in aggressive no-limit poker games (esp. shorthanded) with good players, there is a lot of raising and re-raising pre-flop with seemingly "trash" hands. To someone that does not understand the meta-game, this haphazard aggression seems illogical and non-standard. Every poker fan and his mother in the last several years have probably read Doyle Brunson's Super Systems and understand to a somewhat reasonable degree the merits of tight-aggressive play. To paraphrase in basic terms, you essentially fold the bottom majority of your range and play only the top 10% or so of your hands. When there's a reraise, you play even fewer hands.
This strategy works very well against bad and mediocre players who will make bad decisions against you with worse hands. However, to a good player, this makes you very predictable. And if you become predictable, it's not very difficult to figure out a counter-strategy to defeat you. So what many good players do is play unpredictably. They not only raise with their good hands, but they sometimes raise with their bad hands too. This is called polarizing your range.
Now, if you are faced with a reraise from a player like this, you no longer know if you are up against AA or 4 6 offsuit. If you're looking down at KQ, it's no longer an easy auto-fold as it would have been against a predictable tight-aggressive player. As a result, you are more likely to make mistakes against this player as time goes on.
Go watch an episode of High Stakes Poker on GSN, and see how ridiculously good Phil Ivey (the Flash of poker) is at this. The man is so incredibly dominant that it's laughable.
I believe great players such as MVP are employing all-ins in their play to polarize their range, so to speak. He's fully capable of playing a beastly macro game, but by throwing in an all-in here and there, his opponents can never feel completely comfortable no matter how much they prepared for their match. As someone else before me mentioned, even Flash and Jaedong, the undisputed greats of the current bw scene, have been known to cheese and all-in once in a while.
It seems to me that all the people complaining about MVP's all-ins and calling for solely macro games are analogous to the unenlightened "Super Systems" poker fans who advocate a predictable ABC tight-aggressive poker game without understanding the metagame involved at the higher levels of play. In a game of limited information, predictability is suicide, and polarizing your range is the best way to render yourself unpredictable.
|
On January 18 2011 09:13 redemption wrote:
This is going to be my first post on TL, although I've been reading these forums for quite a while now.
I notice a lot of people bashing on MVP for his aggressive 1-base all-in plays, and I thought I would finally speak up, as I believe having such builds in one's repertoire is not only beneficial but absolutely necessary to being a truly great player.
I have been an avid poker player for a long time, and I feel that there are many similarities between the games of poker and SC. Both are games of limited information, and both are games in which the better player will tend to take advantage of small (and sometimes large) edges to gain the lead. In the short run, the better player may not always win due to variance, but in the long run, the better player that makes consistently better decisions should come out ahead. This is why a bo7 is better than a bo1 or even a bo3 for an SC player who has more skill than his opponent.
To get back to the point of this post, you will notice that in aggressive no-limit poker games (esp. shorthanded) with good players, there is a lot of raising and re-raising pre-flop with seemingly "trash" hands. To someone that does not understand the meta-game, this haphazard aggression seems illogical and non-standard. Every poker fan and his mother in the last several years have probably read Doyle Brunson's Super Systems and understand to a somewhat reasonable degree the merits of tight-aggressive play. To paraphrase in basic terms, you essentially fold the bottom majority of your range and play only the top 10% or so of your hands. When there's a reraise, you play even fewer hands.
This strategy works very well against bad and mediocre players who will make bad decisions against you with worse hands. However, to a good player, this makes you very predictable. And if you become predictable, it's not very difficult to figure out a counter-strategy to defeat you. So what many good players do is play unpredictably. They not only raise with their good hands, but they sometimes raise with their bad hands too. This is called polarizing your range.
Now, if you are faced with a reraise from a player like this, you no longer know if you are up against AA or 4 6 offsuit. If you're looking down at KQ, it's no longer an easy auto-fold as it would have been against a predictable tight-aggressive player. As a result, you are more likely to make mistakes against this player as time goes on.
Go watch an episode of High Stakes Poker on GSN, and see how ridiculously good Phil Ivey (the Flash of poker) is at this. The man is so incredibly dominant that it's laughable.
I believe great players such as MVP are employing all-ins in their play to polarize their range, so to speak. He's fully capable of playing a beastly macro game, but by throwing in an all-in here and there, his opponents can never feel completely comfortable no matter how much they prepared for their match. As someone else before me mentioned, even Flash and Jaedong, the undisputed greats of the current bw scene, have been known to cheese and all-in once in a while.
It seems to me that all the people complaining about MVP's all-ins and calling for solely macro games are analogous to the unenlightened "Super Systems" poker fans who advocate a predictable ABC tight-aggressive poker game without understanding the metagame involved at the higher levels of play. In a game of limited information, predictability is suicide, and polarizing your range is the best way to render yourself unpredictable.
holy shiz, well written.
|
Just finished watching ZergBong vs choya, and I am stunned by the skill difference between the two players. When choya blinked into a ling-muta army and managed to come out on top I almost laughed.
|
On January 18 2011 09:35 zerious wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2011 09:13 redemption wrote:
This is going to be my first post on TL, although I've been reading these forums for quite a while now.
I notice a lot of people bashing on MVP for his aggressive 1-base all-in plays, and I thought I would finally speak up, as I believe having such builds in one's repertoire is not only beneficial but absolutely necessary to being a truly great player.
I have been an avid poker player for a long time, and I feel that there are many similarities between the games of poker and SC. Both are games of limited information, and both are games in which the better player will tend to take advantage of small (and sometimes large) edges to gain the lead. In the short run, the better player may not always win due to variance, but in the long run, the better player that makes consistently better decisions should come out ahead. This is why a bo7 is better than a bo1 or even a bo3 for an SC player who has more skill than his opponent.
To get back to the point of this post, you will notice that in aggressive no-limit poker games (esp. shorthanded) with good players, there is a lot of raising and re-raising pre-flop with seemingly "trash" hands. To someone that does not understand the meta-game, this haphazard aggression seems illogical and non-standard. Every poker fan and his mother in the last several years have probably read Doyle Brunson's Super Systems and understand to a somewhat reasonable degree the merits of tight-aggressive play. To paraphrase in basic terms, you essentially fold the bottom majority of your range and play only the top 10% or so of your hands. When there's a reraise, you play even fewer hands.
This strategy works very well against bad and mediocre players who will make bad decisions against you with worse hands. However, to a good player, this makes you very predictable. And if you become predictable, it's not very difficult to figure out a counter-strategy to defeat you. So what many good players do is play unpredictably. They not only raise with their good hands, but they sometimes raise with their bad hands too. This is called polarizing your range.
Now, if you are faced with a reraise from a player like this, you no longer know if you are up against AA or 4 6 offsuit. If you're looking down at KQ, it's no longer an easy auto-fold as it would have been against a predictable tight-aggressive player. As a result, you are more likely to make mistakes against this player as time goes on.
Go watch an episode of High Stakes Poker on GSN, and see how ridiculously good Phil Ivey (the Flash of poker) is at this. The man is so incredibly dominant that it's laughable.
I believe great players such as MVP are employing all-ins in their play to polarize their range, so to speak. He's fully capable of playing a beastly macro game, but by throwing in an all-in here and there, his opponents can never feel completely comfortable no matter how much they prepared for their match. As someone else before me mentioned, even Flash and Jaedong, the undisputed greats of the current bw scene, have been known to cheese and all-in once in a while.
It seems to me that all the people complaining about MVP's all-ins and calling for solely macro games are analogous to the unenlightened "Super Systems" poker fans who advocate a predictable ABC tight-aggressive poker game without understanding the metagame involved at the higher levels of play. In a game of limited information, predictability is suicide, and polarizing your range is the best way to render yourself unpredictable. holy shiz, well written.
wurd
but haterz gon hate. doesn't matter how much reason you use
|
Come on. Anyone who's watched any sc1 should know that good players all-in to stay unpredictable. It doesn't take an essay to explain it.
|
On January 18 2011 09:53 HowardRoark wrote:
Just finished watching ZergBong vs choya, and I am stunned by the skill difference between the two players. When choya blinked into a ling-muta army and managed to come out on top I almost laughed.
I know, NesTea just completely outplayed Choya. You could really see that NesTea was just a level above him.
Really looking forward to him against MVP now - but if NesTea maintains his low confidence, I think MVP will win easily.
|
On January 18 2011 10:01 StorkHwaiting wrote:
Come on. Anyone who's watched any sc1 should know that good players all-in to stay unpredictable. It doesn't take an essay to explain it.
So you would think. But judging from previous posts, clearly it does.
|
On January 18 2011 08:31 baoluvboa wrote:
Protoss needs to fast expand because they need the extra gases
You can't go collosus off one base and have enough gateway units to support or templars off one base.
The sooner the 2nd base and 3rd base, the sooner for tier 2.5 and tier 3 to beat terran tier 1 with stims and medivacs.
This is the same poor reasoning as back in season three when zergs were losing to terran all-ins. "Zerg can't win without going hatch first, being greedy is a necessary risk". Then people figured out pool first builds that work just fine against 2-rax all ins.
|
On January 18 2011 10:03 Moonloop wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2011 09:53 HowardRoark wrote:
Just finished watching ZergBong vs choya, and I am stunned by the skill difference between the two players. When choya blinked into a ling-muta army and managed to come out on top I almost laughed. I know, NesTea just completely outplayed Choya. You could really see that NesTea was just a level above him. Really looking forward to him against MVP now - but if NesTea maintains his low confidence, I think MVP will win easily.
Yeah, MVP is the best player in the world, so he will probably beat ZB. Also, Zerg can not 4gate so if ZB manage to win, it will be by pure skill. It will be an amazing match, could not hope for a better semi.
EDIT: I was too excited to realize that there will not be any more dreadful PvX matches in the rest of GSL 4, and that is the best news of the night. Only ZvT, ZvZ and TvT's left, and those MU's are always a blast.
|
Anyone thinking that MVP will easily beat Nestea needs to go back to last seasons GSL, and watch MVP vs Zenio from the round of 32. MVP played great and took the first game, but Zenio came back by applying almost constant pressure, with wave after wave of attacks on Metalopolis, and then a massive number of drops on Lost Temple.
Surely, Nestea is studying that match, and if he can do the same, keeping MVP on defense, then he can take him out.
|
MVP is boring to watch. He just has Terran's (arguably imba) strengths down to a science, and he knows when to all-in. He doesn't have a new or exciting style (like Jinro), and he doesn't create long impressive macro games (like IdrA or NesTea), etc. Hes just a mechanically gifted player who knows the timings.
Same exact Terran play we have seen since beta, just with SCV pulls and slightly different timings. MVP reminds me of Rainbow in GSL 1, except he doesn't choke. The guy is just a robot.
|
mvp will win gsl4 because of his pic on teamliquid.
But seriously i think hes good, but over-rated
|
On January 18 2011 10:34 brain_ wrote:
MVP is boring to watch. He just has Terran's (arguably imba) strengths down to a science, and he knows when to all-in. He doesn't have a new or exciting style (like Jinro), and he doesn't create long impressive macro games (like IdrA or NesTea), etc. Hes just a mechanically gifted player who knows the timings.
Same exactTerran play we have seen since beta, just with SCV pulls and slightly different timings. MVP reminds me of Rainbow in GSL 1, except he doesn't choke. The guy is just a robot.
IdrA and NesTea are using zerg's strengths (arguably imba) down to a science in the long macro games. They are just mechanically gifted players who know the timings.
It can go both ways.
|
On January 18 2011 10:34 brain_ wrote:
MVP is boring to watch. He just has Terran's (arguably imba) strengths down to a science, and he knows when to all-in. He doesn't have a new or exciting style (like Jinro), and he doesn't create long impressive macro games (like IdrA or NesTea), etc. Hes just a mechanically gifted player who knows the timings.
Same exactTerran play we have seen since beta, just with SCV pulls and slightly different timings. MVP reminds me of Rainbow in GSL 1, except he doesn't choke. The guy is just a robot.
I lol'd at this comment. what is a definition of 'robot'? You obviously didn't follow BW, so you have no clue what the difference between a good player and a great one.
So much foreign bias on this forum. So ridiculous.
|
On January 18 2011 10:34 PukinDog wrote:
Anyone thinking that MVP will easily beat Nestea needs to go back to last seasons GSL, and watch MVP vs Zenio from the round of 32. MVP played great and took the first game, but Zenio came back by applying almost constant pressure, with wave after wave of attacks on Metalopolis, and then a massive number of drops on Lost Temple.
Surely, Nestea is studying that match, and if he can do the same, keeping MVP on defense, then he can take him out.
Well in Gainward (which occurred very recently, Jan 9th) which is a pretty big tourney (not some showmatch), mvp 3-0'd Nestea in the Bo5 Finals.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=182933
|
Going on a tangent here, but as a Protoss, how can you effectively stop those kinds of pushes? I fail to see how Tester was being greedy by going for an FE- an FE by any race has super limited scouting early on, and if you wait to see what sort of tech happens, then its no longer an FE. That Stim/Raven/Banshee push seems so, so strong, and I don't actually see what sort of mid game comp a Protoss could muster to stop that push with mass Hellions.
|
redemption nice post! everybody has to be able to mix it up.. for instance tomorow i bet jinro or IdrA will all-in at least once
I also believe tester should know and prepare for MVP better, come on he is always super agressive.. so he has to turtle and defend good or go on the ofensive and he never managed to do any of that, and that's because MVP is a better player or a better prepared player then tester
|
On January 18 2011 10:39 YoiChiBow wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2011 10:34 brain_ wrote:
MVP is boring to watch. He just has Terran's (arguably imba) strengths down to a science, and he knows when to all-in. He doesn't have a new or exciting style (like Jinro), and he doesn't create long impressive macro games (like IdrA or NesTea), etc. Hes just a mechanically gifted player who knows the timings.
Same exactTerran play we have seen since beta, just with SCV pulls and slightly different timings. MVP reminds me of Rainbow in GSL 1, except he doesn't choke. The guy is just a robot.
IdrA and NesTea are using zerg's strengths (arguably imba) down to a science in the long macro games. They are just mechanically gifted players who know the timings. It can go both ways.
Except Idra and NesTea are FORCED down that path by Zerg. Terran, on the other hand, has a lot of freedom where individual emphases can cause strategies to shine - ranging from macro Terrans to 2-rax cheesers like BitByBit. MVP is really good in that he reacts to his opponents, it just isn't fun to watch.
The part that bothers me is that MVP's wins look like free wins. Nothing is especially remarkable about his playstyle or his skill, he just looks at what his opponent is doing, responds accordingly with a timing attack, then wins. It feels that in PvT and ZvP/T/Z simply knowing what to do isn't enough - you still need to outplay them beyond simply making the right decision. But for MVP, he knows that things like Stim timings will almost guarantee him a win if he reacts properly.
I say he's a robot because it seems like the AI could do his job if it was able to identify strategies. He is going X? Do Y, pull SCVs at the last second, win. He is doing A? Do B, pull SCVs for the attack, win. Nothing creative or incredible, just reactionary play that the other races aren't capable of.
Again. I give him credit for knowing that if you attack at a certain time, you can absolutely crush through anything Z/P can have at that point (exceptional play might make a small difference, who knows). He has the cleanest play we've seen yet (though I don't know why it has taken so long, Terrans should have figured this shit out back in GSL 1). I just don't like the fact that timings like that exist - they force Z and P to play extremely safe and standard living in fear of doing something that would leave them weak at any point in the game, meanwhile Terran can do whatever the fuck it wants. Usually you can't even scout it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
