|
On April 17 2012 20:37 boxturtle wrote:
That's....quite possibly the most disappointing way to get kicked out of GSL.
At least when he re-qualifies for code A, everyone will know he's ready. Too bad naniwa got the seed even though HuK performed better in foreign events.
The SocceR way to get kicked out was also pretty disappointing imo 
|
On April 17 2012 20:57 FidoDido wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 20:56 ShakkaFL wrote:
i just hope gom stops giving him free seeds, he's not gsl caliber I think Gom should start seeding more Zerg players into their tournaments to balance out the race differences.
Scarlett? 
|
On April 17 2012 20:37 boxturtle wrote:
That's....quite possibly the most disappointing way to get kicked out of GSL.
At least when he re-qualifies for code A, everyone will know he's ready. Too bad naniwa got the seed even though HuK performed better in foreign events.
Eh, in the Winter Arena they both lost 0-2 to MKP and DRG. Huk placed higher beating easier opponents.
|
On April 17 2012 21:07 Grovbolle wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 21:00 Hider wrote:On April 17 2012 20:56 Grovbolle wrote:On April 17 2012 20:50 Hider wrote:On April 17 2012 20:44 Grovbolle wrote:On April 17 2012 20:40 Hider wrote:On April 17 2012 20:34 Grovbolle wrote:On April 17 2012 20:32 Hider wrote:On April 17 2012 20:28 rothsbury wrote:On April 17 2012 20:25 Grovbolle wrote:
[quote]
So aLive got lucky in every game? I wasn't talking about the alive thing at all, just arguing that you can't say that a win is never based on luck (I guess that's what meant by nothing "iffy") just because it is against code S / code A players. Just stop trying. Some ignorant people just cant make a distinction between being really good and having good results. Alive isn't really good like MKP. He is good, of similar caliber like other good korean terrans such as Ryung, Supernova etc. But he isn't the kind of player you expect to see dominate code S. He is the kidn of player who constantly have to work to just stay in code S. People like you kind of piss me off, what would you rather: Be "good" in your definition, or have good results? I am not saying aLive is the best T in the world, but he has good results. I do know what the difference is, like yellow in BW, he was fucking good, but never won a gold. But which is actually better? Why do you think the discussion is about what I rather want? This discussion is about being good, not about results, as results vary a lot in the short term. LEsser skilled players can often times get better results in a few tournaments even if they are 10% worse than other players. However long termish we can expect the best players to get best results. But of course if you dont play the game at a decent level your self, you can't really determine who is good/really good/mediocore, and your best bet is too look at results. Wow, what a delicate way to say that you know better than me. Even if this discussion is about being good, instead of producing results, who do you rate as the best? He who wins the most shit, or he who has more of this "skill" that everyone talks about. I can appreciate some players who are extremely good but never actually win the big finals (yellow), but in the end, those who win are the ones who win. Not those who are good. Because thats a totally different situation. Do I want to be someone who got lucky and won a million through gambling, or a hardworking man who "only" has won half a million? Its a compltetely pointless discussion, but I know that in the future we can expect the hardworking man to do better than the lucky gambler. And this is probably what you miss. There is no kind of (unexplainable) secret that has yielded Alive better results (and Ryung worse results). Its mostly due to variance (+ not having pariticapted in the right tournaments). ANd if you think there is some kind of "secret" that can explain why Ryung is doing worse than Alive, then it can be attributed to decision making/strategy/mechanicas/mentaliity that is a part of being good. So what is you point? aLive just got lucky and beat MMA, MVP, DRG, NESTEA, MC, MKP etc? Or was he good? Which is why he has gotten results? Also what you want is not the point, I believe just as much as the next guy that hard work > luck. But in a game based a lot on luck, there is bound to be some variations, however IM_MVP was pretty good for a long time, was he just lucky a long time in a row? Walking away from this discussion now. Please take a statistic class. You dont understand how variance works. Ohh I waited for this, since you are Danish I am sure you will be able to understand this: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PeyOV.png) NB: Videnskabsteori og metode II = Kvantitativ metode/statistik III
So if you understand variance, then can you now tell me if its possible for observatations over a short sample size to go above the mean?
Does that mean that the obersavations are of higher value or any different from the mean?
Lets say we have some expert on the field who are able to esimate what the mean most likely is, and they estimate that the oberserved values are above the mean due to randomness. But they estimate that in the future these observed values will return to the mean.
Does that make sense to you? And why cant you see that this is what I just did?
Or will you try to argue that it is impossible for any starcraft player to try and estimate the "mean", and that the observed values give a better indication of the true mean than the estimations of the experts?
|
On April 17 2012 20:55 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 20:54 FidoDido wrote:On April 17 2012 20:42 Hall0wed wrote:On April 17 2012 20:38 Dodgin wrote:Well it has to be asked.. Poll: Did you enjoy the Khaltosis casting duo?Yes (263) 98% No (6) 2% 269 total votes Your vote: Did you enjoy the Khaltosis casting duo? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
Not really possible to dislike any Artosis combo. Artosis is by far the best caster out there and he constantly shows it by pairing well with EVERYONE. And yes there are also some phenomenal pro player-casters but they still cannot make everything work as well as Artosis seems to be able to. Though I do love the Incontrol and Idra combo a ton. I know i'll probably get flamed for saying this but, I actually prefer Khaldor/Artosis over Tastosis... O_O Listening to them working together today was a treat... and yes, I agree Arotosis with anyone else is generally good as well. Finally. Someone stops holding the hand over Tasteless. That guy is nothing but mediocore (and terrible when he tries to make bad jokes all the time). Artosis/Khaldor was a fantastic casting duo.
Agreed, good to see a few other people share the same thoughts  He makes soooo many bad calls it's ridiculous.
I think Wolftosis would be very good as well.
|
On April 17 2012 21:18 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 21:07 Grovbolle wrote:On April 17 2012 21:00 Hider wrote:On April 17 2012 20:56 Grovbolle wrote:On April 17 2012 20:50 Hider wrote:On April 17 2012 20:44 Grovbolle wrote:On April 17 2012 20:40 Hider wrote:On April 17 2012 20:34 Grovbolle wrote:On April 17 2012 20:32 Hider wrote:On April 17 2012 20:28 rothsbury wrote:
[quote]
I wasn't talking about the alive thing at all, just arguing that you can't say that a win is never based on luck (I guess that's what meant by nothing "iffy") just because it is against code S / code A players. Just stop trying. Some ignorant people just cant make a distinction between being really good and having good results. Alive isn't really good like MKP. He is good, of similar caliber like other good korean terrans such as Ryung, Supernova etc. But he isn't the kind of player you expect to see dominate code S. He is the kidn of player who constantly have to work to just stay in code S. People like you kind of piss me off, what would you rather: Be "good" in your definition, or have good results? I am not saying aLive is the best T in the world, but he has good results. I do know what the difference is, like yellow in BW, he was fucking good, but never won a gold. But which is actually better? Why do you think the discussion is about what I rather want? This discussion is about being good, not about results, as results vary a lot in the short term. LEsser skilled players can often times get better results in a few tournaments even if they are 10% worse than other players. However long termish we can expect the best players to get best results. But of course if you dont play the game at a decent level your self, you can't really determine who is good/really good/mediocore, and your best bet is too look at results. Wow, what a delicate way to say that you know better than me. Even if this discussion is about being good, instead of producing results, who do you rate as the best? He who wins the most shit, or he who has more of this "skill" that everyone talks about. I can appreciate some players who are extremely good but never actually win the big finals (yellow), but in the end, those who win are the ones who win. Not those who are good. Because thats a totally different situation. Do I want to be someone who got lucky and won a million through gambling, or a hardworking man who "only" has won half a million? Its a compltetely pointless discussion, but I know that in the future we can expect the hardworking man to do better than the lucky gambler. And this is probably what you miss. There is no kind of (unexplainable) secret that has yielded Alive better results (and Ryung worse results). Its mostly due to variance (+ not having pariticapted in the right tournaments). ANd if you think there is some kind of "secret" that can explain why Ryung is doing worse than Alive, then it can be attributed to decision making/strategy/mechanicas/mentaliity that is a part of being good. So what is you point? aLive just got lucky and beat MMA, MVP, DRG, NESTEA, MC, MKP etc? Or was he good? Which is why he has gotten results? Also what you want is not the point, I believe just as much as the next guy that hard work > luck. But in a game based a lot on luck, there is bound to be some variations, however IM_MVP was pretty good for a long time, was he just lucky a long time in a row? Walking away from this discussion now. Please take a statistic class. You dont understand how variance works. Ohh I waited for this, since you are Danish I am sure you will be able to understand this: NB: Videnskabsteori og metode II = Kvantitativ metode/statistik III So if you understand variance, then can you now tell me if its possible for observatations over a short sample size to go above the mean? Does that mean that the obersavations are of higher value or any different from the mean? Lets say we have some expert on the field who are able to esimate what the mean most likely is, and they estimate that the oberserved values are above the mean due to randomness. But they estimate that in the future these observed values will return to the mean. Does that make sense to you? And why cant you see that this is what I just did? Or will you try to argue that it is impossible for any starcraft player to try and estimate the "mean", and that the observed values give a better indication of the true mean than the estimations of the experts?
Of course that makes sense to me, but who has established this "mean", because right now we are just arguing whether or not aLive's recent performances has been higher than his "mean" skill level??
I do understand your point, you say/think aLive's mean is lower than the last couple of observations/manifestations of this skill.
So yes, it is possible for a worse player to play over his "mean" for an extended period of time. However playing above your skill level/mean in crunch situations, does that not make you a better player, even though more volatile.?
|
On April 17 2012 21:12 samurai80 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 20:37 boxturtle wrote:
That's....quite possibly the most disappointing way to get kicked out of GSL.
At least when he re-qualifies for code A, everyone will know he's ready. Too bad naniwa got the seed even though HuK performed better in foreign events. The SocceR way to get kicked out was also pretty disappointing imo
That too. If I got kicked out of GSL to a circumstance like game 1, I'd facepalm myself into a coma, quit Starcraft when I wake up, and become a disgruntled law enforcement officer. He played so well up to that move command.
|
On April 17 2012 21:00 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 20:56 Grovbolle wrote:On April 17 2012 20:50 Hider wrote:On April 17 2012 20:44 Grovbolle wrote:On April 17 2012 20:40 Hider wrote:On April 17 2012 20:34 Grovbolle wrote:On April 17 2012 20:32 Hider wrote:On April 17 2012 20:28 rothsbury wrote:On April 17 2012 20:25 Grovbolle wrote:On April 17 2012 20:23 rothsbury wrote:
[quote]
There is still luck in the game... people do have build order losses / simple micro screw up. Even against the best players not all games are true reflections of the players' skill, even in b03. The very reason longer series are better is because there is because skill does not perfectly correspond to wins. A worse player can often 2-0 a better player. So aLive got lucky in every game? I wasn't talking about the alive thing at all, just arguing that you can't say that a win is never based on luck (I guess that's what meant by nothing "iffy") just because it is against code S / code A players. Just stop trying. Some ignorant people just cant make a distinction between being really good and having good results. Alive isn't really good like MKP. He is good, of similar caliber like other good korean terrans such as Ryung, Supernova etc. But he isn't the kind of player you expect to see dominate code S. He is the kidn of player who constantly have to work to just stay in code S. People like you kind of piss me off, what would you rather: Be "good" in your definition, or have good results? I am not saying aLive is the best T in the world, but he has good results. I do know what the difference is, like yellow in BW, he was fucking good, but never won a gold. But which is actually better? Why do you think the discussion is about what I rather want? This discussion is about being good, not about results, as results vary a lot in the short term. LEsser skilled players can often times get better results in a few tournaments even if they are 10% worse than other players. However long termish we can expect the best players to get best results. But of course if you dont play the game at a decent level your self, you can't really determine who is good/really good/mediocore, and your best bet is too look at results. Wow, what a delicate way to say that you know better than me. Even if this discussion is about being good, instead of producing results, who do you rate as the best? He who wins the most shit, or he who has more of this "skill" that everyone talks about. I can appreciate some players who are extremely good but never actually win the big finals (yellow), but in the end, those who win are the ones who win. Not those who are good. Because thats a totally different situation. Do I want to be someone who got lucky and won a million through gambling, or a hardworking man who "only" has won half a million? Its a compltetely pointless discussion, but I know that in the future we can expect the hardworking man to do better than the lucky gambler. And this is probably what you miss. There is no kind of (unexplainable) secret that has yielded Alive better results (and Ryung worse results). Its mostly due to variance (+ not having pariticapted in the right tournaments). ANd if you think there is some kind of "secret" that can explain why Ryung is doing worse than Alive, then it can be attributed to decision making/strategy/mechanicas/mentaliity that is a part of being good. So what is you point? aLive just got lucky and beat MMA, MVP, DRG, NESTEA, MC, MKP etc? Or was he good? Which is why he has gotten results? Also what you want is not the point, I believe just as much as the next guy that hard work > luck. But in a game based a lot on luck, there is bound to be some variations, however IM_MVP was pretty good for a long time, was he just lucky a long time in a row? Walking away from this discussion now. Please take a statistic class. You dont understand how variance works.
in this Stats Class you are recommending make sure it covers this LAW
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/7/7/f/77fd8f4aee1576f5a4512f6b0d63a71f.png)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers
i remember 2 years ago on "another RTS Fan site" people insisting HuK got "lucky" to win 3 $100 CraftCups in a row. That many of his wins were "pure luck" based upon "gamble builds". Look at the guys he beat in the final few rounds of those $100 events. With two years of historical data to now examine ... would you say HuK was lucky or would you say he is the better player?
Same logic applies here. As the victories pile up it'll become harder and harder for this "it was pure luck" talk to withstand any common sense scrutiny.
|
On April 17 2012 21:00 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 20:56 Grovbolle wrote:On April 17 2012 20:50 Hider wrote:On April 17 2012 20:44 Grovbolle wrote:On April 17 2012 20:40 Hider wrote:On April 17 2012 20:34 Grovbolle wrote:On April 17 2012 20:32 Hider wrote:On April 17 2012 20:28 rothsbury wrote:On April 17 2012 20:25 Grovbolle wrote:On April 17 2012 20:23 rothsbury wrote:
[quote]
There is still luck in the game... people do have build order losses / simple micro screw up. Even against the best players not all games are true reflections of the players' skill, even in b03. The very reason longer series are better is because there is because skill does not perfectly correspond to wins. A worse player can often 2-0 a better player. So aLive got lucky in every game? I wasn't talking about the alive thing at all, just arguing that you can't say that a win is never based on luck (I guess that's what meant by nothing "iffy") just because it is against code S / code A players. Just stop trying. Some ignorant people just cant make a distinction between being really good and having good results. Alive isn't really good like MKP. He is good, of similar caliber like other good korean terrans such as Ryung, Supernova etc. But he isn't the kind of player you expect to see dominate code S. He is the kidn of player who constantly have to work to just stay in code S. People like you kind of piss me off, what would you rather: Be "good" in your definition, or have good results? I am not saying aLive is the best T in the world, but he has good results. I do know what the difference is, like yellow in BW, he was fucking good, but never won a gold. But which is actually better? Why do you think the discussion is about what I rather want? This discussion is about being good, not about results, as results vary a lot in the short term. LEsser skilled players can often times get better results in a few tournaments even if they are 10% worse than other players. However long termish we can expect the best players to get best results. But of course if you dont play the game at a decent level your self, you can't really determine who is good/really good/mediocore, and your best bet is too look at results. Wow, what a delicate way to say that you know better than me. Even if this discussion is about being good, instead of producing results, who do you rate as the best? He who wins the most shit, or he who has more of this "skill" that everyone talks about. I can appreciate some players who are extremely good but never actually win the big finals (yellow), but in the end, those who win are the ones who win. Not those who are good. Because thats a totally different situation. Do I want to be someone who got lucky and won a million through gambling, or a hardworking man who "only" has won half a million? Its a compltetely pointless discussion, but I know that in the future we can expect the hardworking man to do better than the lucky gambler. And this is probably what you miss. There is no kind of (unexplainable) secret that has yielded Alive better results (and Ryung worse results). Its mostly due to variance (+ not having pariticapted in the right tournaments). ANd if you think there is some kind of "secret" that can explain why Ryung is doing worse than Alive, then it can be attributed to decision making/strategy/mechanicas/mentaliity that is a part of being good. So what is you point? aLive just got lucky and beat MMA, MVP, DRG, NESTEA, MC, MKP etc? Or was he good? Which is why he has gotten results? Also what you want is not the point, I believe just as much as the next guy that hard work > luck. But in a game based a lot on luck, there is bound to be some variations, however IM_MVP was pretty good for a long time, was he just lucky a long time in a row? Walking away from this discussion now. Please take a statistic class. You dont understand how variance works.
Well if you look only at the results what you say is possible I mean, alive could actually have had an incredible streak of lucky games and actually have a lower level than Ryung.
But the problem from your theory comes actually from this same statistics theory which should tell you that given the actual results, the probability that alive has had so much luck during so many games so that Ryung is better than alive is just VERY LOW. And then if you look at these players more closely, the probability of your theory being right falls down even more.
|
On April 17 2012 21:28 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 21:00 Hider wrote:On April 17 2012 20:56 Grovbolle wrote:On April 17 2012 20:50 Hider wrote:On April 17 2012 20:44 Grovbolle wrote:On April 17 2012 20:40 Hider wrote:On April 17 2012 20:34 Grovbolle wrote:On April 17 2012 20:32 Hider wrote:On April 17 2012 20:28 rothsbury wrote:On April 17 2012 20:25 Grovbolle wrote:
[quote]
So aLive got lucky in every game? I wasn't talking about the alive thing at all, just arguing that you can't say that a win is never based on luck (I guess that's what meant by nothing "iffy") just because it is against code S / code A players. Just stop trying. Some ignorant people just cant make a distinction between being really good and having good results. Alive isn't really good like MKP. He is good, of similar caliber like other good korean terrans such as Ryung, Supernova etc. But he isn't the kind of player you expect to see dominate code S. He is the kidn of player who constantly have to work to just stay in code S. People like you kind of piss me off, what would you rather: Be "good" in your definition, or have good results? I am not saying aLive is the best T in the world, but he has good results. I do know what the difference is, like yellow in BW, he was fucking good, but never won a gold. But which is actually better? Why do you think the discussion is about what I rather want? This discussion is about being good, not about results, as results vary a lot in the short term. LEsser skilled players can often times get better results in a few tournaments even if they are 10% worse than other players. However long termish we can expect the best players to get best results. But of course if you dont play the game at a decent level your self, you can't really determine who is good/really good/mediocore, and your best bet is too look at results. Wow, what a delicate way to say that you know better than me. Even if this discussion is about being good, instead of producing results, who do you rate as the best? He who wins the most shit, or he who has more of this "skill" that everyone talks about. I can appreciate some players who are extremely good but never actually win the big finals (yellow), but in the end, those who win are the ones who win. Not those who are good. Because thats a totally different situation. Do I want to be someone who got lucky and won a million through gambling, or a hardworking man who "only" has won half a million? Its a compltetely pointless discussion, but I know that in the future we can expect the hardworking man to do better than the lucky gambler. And this is probably what you miss. There is no kind of (unexplainable) secret that has yielded Alive better results (and Ryung worse results). Its mostly due to variance (+ not having pariticapted in the right tournaments). ANd if you think there is some kind of "secret" that can explain why Ryung is doing worse than Alive, then it can be attributed to decision making/strategy/mechanicas/mentaliity that is a part of being good. So what is you point? aLive just got lucky and beat MMA, MVP, DRG, NESTEA, MC, MKP etc? Or was he good? Which is why he has gotten results? Also what you want is not the point, I believe just as much as the next guy that hard work > luck. But in a game based a lot on luck, there is bound to be some variations, however IM_MVP was pretty good for a long time, was he just lucky a long time in a row? Walking away from this discussion now. Please take a statistic class. You dont understand how variance works. in this Stats Class you are recommending make sure it covers this LAW http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbersi remember 2 years ago on "another RTS Fan site" people insisting HuK got "lucky" to win 3 $100 CraftCups in a row. That many of his wins were "pure luck" based upon "gamble builds". Look at the guys he beat in the final few rounds of those $100 events. With two years of historical data to now examine ... would you say HuK was lucky or would you say he is the better player? Same logic applies here. As the victories pile up it'll become harder and harder for this "it was pure luck" talk to withstand any common sense scrutiny.
This !
|
On April 17 2012 21:25 Grovbolle wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 21:18 Hider wrote:On April 17 2012 21:07 Grovbolle wrote:On April 17 2012 21:00 Hider wrote:On April 17 2012 20:56 Grovbolle wrote:On April 17 2012 20:50 Hider wrote:On April 17 2012 20:44 Grovbolle wrote:On April 17 2012 20:40 Hider wrote:On April 17 2012 20:34 Grovbolle wrote:On April 17 2012 20:32 Hider wrote:
[quote]
Just stop trying. Some ignorant people just cant make a distinction between being really good and having good results.
Alive isn't really good like MKP. He is good, of similar caliber like other good korean terrans such as Ryung, Supernova etc. But he isn't the kind of player you expect to see dominate code S. He is the kidn of player who constantly have to work to just stay in code S. People like you kind of piss me off, what would you rather: Be "good" in your definition, or have good results? I am not saying aLive is the best T in the world, but he has good results. I do know what the difference is, like yellow in BW, he was fucking good, but never won a gold. But which is actually better? Why do you think the discussion is about what I rather want? This discussion is about being good, not about results, as results vary a lot in the short term. LEsser skilled players can often times get better results in a few tournaments even if they are 10% worse than other players. However long termish we can expect the best players to get best results. But of course if you dont play the game at a decent level your self, you can't really determine who is good/really good/mediocore, and your best bet is too look at results. Wow, what a delicate way to say that you know better than me. Even if this discussion is about being good, instead of producing results, who do you rate as the best? He who wins the most shit, or he who has more of this "skill" that everyone talks about. I can appreciate some players who are extremely good but never actually win the big finals (yellow), but in the end, those who win are the ones who win. Not those who are good. Because thats a totally different situation. Do I want to be someone who got lucky and won a million through gambling, or a hardworking man who "only" has won half a million? Its a compltetely pointless discussion, but I know that in the future we can expect the hardworking man to do better than the lucky gambler. And this is probably what you miss. There is no kind of (unexplainable) secret that has yielded Alive better results (and Ryung worse results). Its mostly due to variance (+ not having pariticapted in the right tournaments). ANd if you think there is some kind of "secret" that can explain why Ryung is doing worse than Alive, then it can be attributed to decision making/strategy/mechanicas/mentaliity that is a part of being good. So what is you point? aLive just got lucky and beat MMA, MVP, DRG, NESTEA, MC, MKP etc? Or was he good? Which is why he has gotten results? Also what you want is not the point, I believe just as much as the next guy that hard work > luck. But in a game based a lot on luck, there is bound to be some variations, however IM_MVP was pretty good for a long time, was he just lucky a long time in a row? Walking away from this discussion now. Please take a statistic class. You dont understand how variance works. Ohh I waited for this, since you are Danish I am sure you will be able to understand this: NB: Videnskabsteori og metode II = Kvantitativ metode/statistik III So if you understand variance, then can you now tell me if its possible for observatations over a short sample size to go above the mean? Does that mean that the obersavations are of higher value or any different from the mean? Lets say we have some expert on the field who are able to esimate what the mean most likely is, and they estimate that the oberserved values are above the mean due to randomness. But they estimate that in the future these observed values will return to the mean. Does that make sense to you? And why cant you see that this is what I just did? Or will you try to argue that it is impossible for any starcraft player to try and estimate the "mean", and that the observed values give a better indication of the true mean than the estimations of the experts? Of course that makes sense to me, but who has established this "mean", because right now we are just arguing whether or not aLive's recent performances has been higher than his "mean" skill level?? I do understand your point, you say/think aLive's mean is lower than the last couple of observations/manifestations of this skill. So yes, it is possible for a worse player to play over his "mean" for an extended period of time. However playing above your skill level/mean in crunch situations, does that not make you a better player, even though more volatile.?
gosh, are danish ppl generally dumb?
just gonna repost facts
aLive
> MVP (previous Code S)
> MMA (previous Code S)
> PuMa (IPL qualifier)
> DRG (IPL qualifier)
> MKP (IPL)
> Polt (IPL)
> NesTea (IPL)
> Leenock (Iron Squid)
> MC (Iron Squid)
over 65% against Code S players in 2012 - highest since MVP
There is absolutely no doubt, aLive is easily the best player in the world right now.
Bye
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On April 17 2012 21:25 Grovbolle wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 21:18 Hider wrote:On April 17 2012 21:07 Grovbolle wrote:On April 17 2012 21:00 Hider wrote:On April 17 2012 20:56 Grovbolle wrote:On April 17 2012 20:50 Hider wrote:On April 17 2012 20:44 Grovbolle wrote:On April 17 2012 20:40 Hider wrote:On April 17 2012 20:34 Grovbolle wrote:On April 17 2012 20:32 Hider wrote:
[quote]
Just stop trying. Some ignorant people just cant make a distinction between being really good and having good results.
Alive isn't really good like MKP. He is good, of similar caliber like other good korean terrans such as Ryung, Supernova etc. But he isn't the kind of player you expect to see dominate code S. He is the kidn of player who constantly have to work to just stay in code S. People like you kind of piss me off, what would you rather: Be "good" in your definition, or have good results? I am not saying aLive is the best T in the world, but he has good results. I do know what the difference is, like yellow in BW, he was fucking good, but never won a gold. But which is actually better? Why do you think the discussion is about what I rather want? This discussion is about being good, not about results, as results vary a lot in the short term. LEsser skilled players can often times get better results in a few tournaments even if they are 10% worse than other players. However long termish we can expect the best players to get best results. But of course if you dont play the game at a decent level your self, you can't really determine who is good/really good/mediocore, and your best bet is too look at results. Wow, what a delicate way to say that you know better than me. Even if this discussion is about being good, instead of producing results, who do you rate as the best? He who wins the most shit, or he who has more of this "skill" that everyone talks about. I can appreciate some players who are extremely good but never actually win the big finals (yellow), but in the end, those who win are the ones who win. Not those who are good. Because thats a totally different situation. Do I want to be someone who got lucky and won a million through gambling, or a hardworking man who "only" has won half a million? Its a compltetely pointless discussion, but I know that in the future we can expect the hardworking man to do better than the lucky gambler. And this is probably what you miss. There is no kind of (unexplainable) secret that has yielded Alive better results (and Ryung worse results). Its mostly due to variance (+ not having pariticapted in the right tournaments). ANd if you think there is some kind of "secret" that can explain why Ryung is doing worse than Alive, then it can be attributed to decision making/strategy/mechanicas/mentaliity that is a part of being good. So what is you point? aLive just got lucky and beat MMA, MVP, DRG, NESTEA, MC, MKP etc? Or was he good? Which is why he has gotten results? Also what you want is not the point, I believe just as much as the next guy that hard work > luck. But in a game based a lot on luck, there is bound to be some variations, however IM_MVP was pretty good for a long time, was he just lucky a long time in a row? Walking away from this discussion now. Please take a statistic class. You dont understand how variance works. Ohh I waited for this, since you are Danish I am sure you will be able to understand this: NB: Videnskabsteori og metode II = Kvantitativ metode/statistik III So if you understand variance, then can you now tell me if its possible for observatations over a short sample size to go above the mean? Does that mean that the obersavations are of higher value or any different from the mean? Lets say we have some expert on the field who are able to esimate what the mean most likely is, and they estimate that the oberserved values are above the mean due to randomness. But they estimate that in the future these observed values will return to the mean. Does that make sense to you? And why cant you see that this is what I just did? Or will you try to argue that it is impossible for any starcraft player to try and estimate the "mean", and that the observed values give a better indication of the true mean than the estimations of the experts? Of course that makes sense to me, but who has established this "mean", because right now we are just arguing whether or not aLive's recent performances has been higher than his "mean" skill level?? I do understand your point, you say/think aLive's mean is lower than the last couple of observations/manifestations of this skill. So yes, it is possible for a worse player to play over his "mean" for an extended period of time. However playing above your skill level/mean in crunch situations, does that not make you a better player, even though more volatile.?
But the thing was that you was (indirectly) trying to argue that there was no such thing as a "mean", there was only observable values.
If you disagree with me that Alives results has been above the mean, I wouldn't mind discussing that further on, but the thing was that you wasn't asking that question.
Btw Alive didn't "play" above his mean. His results were better than his "mean results", which is mainly due to variance (though its not like he has performed that much over expectation. Though you always have some positive variance on your side when you win a foreign tournaments. If we ignore the foreign tournaments I think Alives results are a pretty good indication of his skill level).
But my overall point (going back to the first thread in this post) is that people has just overvalued Alive compared to every other good code s/code a terran player (when MKP/MVP/DRG/Leenock and MMA won foreign tournaments they were actually really really good, and hence the hype were deserved. Alive though is just good
|
First I found Khaltosis a bit imbalanced but finally it was good. Yet I also really like Tastosis and they're still the best combo imo.
|
|
|
On April 17 2012 21:33 SilentBonjwa wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 21:25 Grovbolle wrote:On April 17 2012 21:18 Hider wrote:On April 17 2012 21:07 Grovbolle wrote:On April 17 2012 21:00 Hider wrote:On April 17 2012 20:56 Grovbolle wrote:On April 17 2012 20:50 Hider wrote:On April 17 2012 20:44 Grovbolle wrote:On April 17 2012 20:40 Hider wrote:On April 17 2012 20:34 Grovbolle wrote:
[quote]
People like you kind of piss me off, what would you rather:
Be "good" in your definition, or have good results?
I am not saying aLive is the best T in the world, but he has good results.
I do know what the difference is, like yellow in BW, he was fucking good, but never won a gold.
But which is actually better?
Why do you think the discussion is about what I rather want? This discussion is about being good, not about results, as results vary a lot in the short term. LEsser skilled players can often times get better results in a few tournaments even if they are 10% worse than other players. However long termish we can expect the best players to get best results. But of course if you dont play the game at a decent level your self, you can't really determine who is good/really good/mediocore, and your best bet is too look at results. Wow, what a delicate way to say that you know better than me. Even if this discussion is about being good, instead of producing results, who do you rate as the best? He who wins the most shit, or he who has more of this "skill" that everyone talks about. I can appreciate some players who are extremely good but never actually win the big finals (yellow), but in the end, those who win are the ones who win. Not those who are good. Because thats a totally different situation. Do I want to be someone who got lucky and won a million through gambling, or a hardworking man who "only" has won half a million? Its a compltetely pointless discussion, but I know that in the future we can expect the hardworking man to do better than the lucky gambler. And this is probably what you miss. There is no kind of (unexplainable) secret that has yielded Alive better results (and Ryung worse results). Its mostly due to variance (+ not having pariticapted in the right tournaments). ANd if you think there is some kind of "secret" that can explain why Ryung is doing worse than Alive, then it can be attributed to decision making/strategy/mechanicas/mentaliity that is a part of being good. So what is you point? aLive just got lucky and beat MMA, MVP, DRG, NESTEA, MC, MKP etc? Or was he good? Which is why he has gotten results? Also what you want is not the point, I believe just as much as the next guy that hard work > luck. But in a game based a lot on luck, there is bound to be some variations, however IM_MVP was pretty good for a long time, was he just lucky a long time in a row? Walking away from this discussion now. Please take a statistic class. You dont understand how variance works. Ohh I waited for this, since you are Danish I am sure you will be able to understand this: NB: Videnskabsteori og metode II = Kvantitativ metode/statistik III So if you understand variance, then can you now tell me if its possible for observatations over a short sample size to go above the mean? Does that mean that the obersavations are of higher value or any different from the mean? Lets say we have some expert on the field who are able to esimate what the mean most likely is, and they estimate that the oberserved values are above the mean due to randomness. But they estimate that in the future these observed values will return to the mean. Does that make sense to you? And why cant you see that this is what I just did? Or will you try to argue that it is impossible for any starcraft player to try and estimate the "mean", and that the observed values give a better indication of the true mean than the estimations of the experts? Of course that makes sense to me, but who has established this "mean", because right now we are just arguing whether or not aLive's recent performances has been higher than his "mean" skill level?? I do understand your point, you say/think aLive's mean is lower than the last couple of observations/manifestations of this skill. So yes, it is possible for a worse player to play over his "mean" for an extended period of time. However playing above your skill level/mean in crunch situations, does that not make you a better player, even though more volatile.? gosh, are danish ppl generally dumb? just gonna repost facts aLive > MVP (previous Code S) > MMA (previous Code S) > PuMa (IPL qualifier) > DRG (IPL qualifier) > MKP (IPL) > Polt (IPL) > NesTea (IPL) > Leenock (Iron Squid) > MC (Iron Squid) 65% against Code S players in 2012 - highest since MVP There is absolutely no doubt, aLive is easily the best player in the world right now. Bye
There is absolutely no doubt, aLive is easily the best player in the world right now.
Man this is dumber to say that imo.
|
opterown
Australia54784 Posts
On April 17 2012 21:33 SilentBonjwa wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 21:25 Grovbolle wrote:On April 17 2012 21:18 Hider wrote:On April 17 2012 21:07 Grovbolle wrote:On April 17 2012 21:00 Hider wrote:On April 17 2012 20:56 Grovbolle wrote:On April 17 2012 20:50 Hider wrote:On April 17 2012 20:44 Grovbolle wrote:On April 17 2012 20:40 Hider wrote:On April 17 2012 20:34 Grovbolle wrote:
[quote]
People like you kind of piss me off, what would you rather:
Be "good" in your definition, or have good results?
I am not saying aLive is the best T in the world, but he has good results.
I do know what the difference is, like yellow in BW, he was fucking good, but never won a gold.
But which is actually better?
Why do you think the discussion is about what I rather want? This discussion is about being good, not about results, as results vary a lot in the short term. LEsser skilled players can often times get better results in a few tournaments even if they are 10% worse than other players. However long termish we can expect the best players to get best results. But of course if you dont play the game at a decent level your self, you can't really determine who is good/really good/mediocore, and your best bet is too look at results. Wow, what a delicate way to say that you know better than me. Even if this discussion is about being good, instead of producing results, who do you rate as the best? He who wins the most shit, or he who has more of this "skill" that everyone talks about. I can appreciate some players who are extremely good but never actually win the big finals (yellow), but in the end, those who win are the ones who win. Not those who are good. Because thats a totally different situation. Do I want to be someone who got lucky and won a million through gambling, or a hardworking man who "only" has won half a million? Its a compltetely pointless discussion, but I know that in the future we can expect the hardworking man to do better than the lucky gambler. And this is probably what you miss. There is no kind of (unexplainable) secret that has yielded Alive better results (and Ryung worse results). Its mostly due to variance (+ not having pariticapted in the right tournaments). ANd if you think there is some kind of "secret" that can explain why Ryung is doing worse than Alive, then it can be attributed to decision making/strategy/mechanicas/mentaliity that is a part of being good. So what is you point? aLive just got lucky and beat MMA, MVP, DRG, NESTEA, MC, MKP etc? Or was he good? Which is why he has gotten results? Also what you want is not the point, I believe just as much as the next guy that hard work > luck. But in a game based a lot on luck, there is bound to be some variations, however IM_MVP was pretty good for a long time, was he just lucky a long time in a row? Walking away from this discussion now. Please take a statistic class. You dont understand how variance works. Ohh I waited for this, since you are Danish I am sure you will be able to understand this: NB: Videnskabsteori og metode II = Kvantitativ metode/statistik III So if you understand variance, then can you now tell me if its possible for observatations over a short sample size to go above the mean? Does that mean that the obersavations are of higher value or any different from the mean? Lets say we have some expert on the field who are able to esimate what the mean most likely is, and they estimate that the oberserved values are above the mean due to randomness. But they estimate that in the future these observed values will return to the mean. Does that make sense to you? And why cant you see that this is what I just did? Or will you try to argue that it is impossible for any starcraft player to try and estimate the "mean", and that the observed values give a better indication of the true mean than the estimations of the experts? Of course that makes sense to me, but who has established this "mean", because right now we are just arguing whether or not aLive's recent performances has been higher than his "mean" skill level?? I do understand your point, you say/think aLive's mean is lower than the last couple of observations/manifestations of this skill. So yes, it is possible for a worse player to play over his "mean" for an extended period of time. However playing above your skill level/mean in crunch situations, does that not make you a better player, even though more volatile.? gosh, are danish ppl generally dumb? just gonna repost facts aLive > MVP (previous Code S) > MMA (previous Code S) > PuMa (IPL qualifier) > DRG (IPL qualifier) > MKP (IPL) > Polt (IPL) > NesTea (IPL) > Leenock (Iron Squid) > MC (Iron Squid) 65% against Code S players in 2012 - highest since MVP There is absolutely no doubt, aLive is easily the best player in the world right now. Bye
mvp never played alive.
i'm also pretty sure mkp has a better record this year than alive too
|
On April 17 2012 21:33 SilentBonjwa wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 21:25 Grovbolle wrote:On April 17 2012 21:18 Hider wrote:On April 17 2012 21:07 Grovbolle wrote:On April 17 2012 21:00 Hider wrote:On April 17 2012 20:56 Grovbolle wrote:On April 17 2012 20:50 Hider wrote:On April 17 2012 20:44 Grovbolle wrote:On April 17 2012 20:40 Hider wrote:On April 17 2012 20:34 Grovbolle wrote:
[quote]
People like you kind of piss me off, what would you rather:
Be "good" in your definition, or have good results?
I am not saying aLive is the best T in the world, but he has good results.
I do know what the difference is, like yellow in BW, he was fucking good, but never won a gold.
But which is actually better?
Why do you think the discussion is about what I rather want? This discussion is about being good, not about results, as results vary a lot in the short term. LEsser skilled players can often times get better results in a few tournaments even if they are 10% worse than other players. However long termish we can expect the best players to get best results. But of course if you dont play the game at a decent level your self, you can't really determine who is good/really good/mediocore, and your best bet is too look at results. Wow, what a delicate way to say that you know better than me. Even if this discussion is about being good, instead of producing results, who do you rate as the best? He who wins the most shit, or he who has more of this "skill" that everyone talks about. I can appreciate some players who are extremely good but never actually win the big finals (yellow), but in the end, those who win are the ones who win. Not those who are good. Because thats a totally different situation. Do I want to be someone who got lucky and won a million through gambling, or a hardworking man who "only" has won half a million? Its a compltetely pointless discussion, but I know that in the future we can expect the hardworking man to do better than the lucky gambler. And this is probably what you miss. There is no kind of (unexplainable) secret that has yielded Alive better results (and Ryung worse results). Its mostly due to variance (+ not having pariticapted in the right tournaments). ANd if you think there is some kind of "secret" that can explain why Ryung is doing worse than Alive, then it can be attributed to decision making/strategy/mechanicas/mentaliity that is a part of being good. So what is you point? aLive just got lucky and beat MMA, MVP, DRG, NESTEA, MC, MKP etc? Or was he good? Which is why he has gotten results? Also what you want is not the point, I believe just as much as the next guy that hard work > luck. But in a game based a lot on luck, there is bound to be some variations, however IM_MVP was pretty good for a long time, was he just lucky a long time in a row? Walking away from this discussion now. Please take a statistic class. You dont understand how variance works. Ohh I waited for this, since you are Danish I am sure you will be able to understand this: NB: Videnskabsteori og metode II = Kvantitativ metode/statistik III So if you understand variance, then can you now tell me if its possible for observatations over a short sample size to go above the mean? Does that mean that the obersavations are of higher value or any different from the mean? Lets say we have some expert on the field who are able to esimate what the mean most likely is, and they estimate that the oberserved values are above the mean due to randomness. But they estimate that in the future these observed values will return to the mean. Does that make sense to you? And why cant you see that this is what I just did? Or will you try to argue that it is impossible for any starcraft player to try and estimate the "mean", and that the observed values give a better indication of the true mean than the estimations of the experts? Of course that makes sense to me, but who has established this "mean", because right now we are just arguing whether or not aLive's recent performances has been higher than his "mean" skill level?? I do understand your point, you say/think aLive's mean is lower than the last couple of observations/manifestations of this skill. So yes, it is possible for a worse player to play over his "mean" for an extended period of time. However playing above your skill level/mean in crunch situations, does that not make you a better player, even though more volatile.? gosh, are danish ppl generally dumb? just gonna repost facts aLive > MVP (previous Code S) > MMA (previous Code S) > PuMa (IPL qualifier) > DRG (IPL qualifier) > MKP (IPL) > Polt (IPL) > NesTea (IPL) > Leenock (Iron Squid) > MC (Iron Squid) 65% against Code S players in 2012 - highest since MVP There is absolutely no doubt, aLive is easily the best player in the world right now. Bye
You do realize I am on the "aLive is good train" right?
On April 17 2012 21:34 Hider wrote:
But the thing was that you was (indirectly) trying to argue that there was no such thing as a "mean", there was only observable values.
If you disagree with me that Alives results has been above the mean, I wouldn't mind discussing that further on, but the thing was that you wasn't asking that question.
Btw Alive didn't "play" above his mean. His results were better than his "mean results", which is mainly due to variance (though its not like he has performed that much over expectation. Though you always have some positive variance on your side when you win a foreign tournaments. If we ignore the foreign tournaments I think Alives results are a pretty good indication of his skill level).
But my overall point (going back to the first thread in this post) is that people has just overvalued Alive compared to every other good code s/code a terran player (when MKP/MVP/DRG/Leenock and MMA won foreign tournaments they were actually really really good, and hence the hype were deserved. Alive though is just good
Okay, then we misunderstood eachother I guess (fuck you arguing on internet in text form).
Also the bolded part is what I meant, as I am sure you know 
|
On April 17 2012 21:28 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 21:00 Hider wrote:On April 17 2012 20:56 Grovbolle wrote:On April 17 2012 20:50 Hider wrote:On April 17 2012 20:44 Grovbolle wrote:On April 17 2012 20:40 Hider wrote:On April 17 2012 20:34 Grovbolle wrote:On April 17 2012 20:32 Hider wrote:On April 17 2012 20:28 rothsbury wrote:On April 17 2012 20:25 Grovbolle wrote:
[quote]
So aLive got lucky in every game? I wasn't talking about the alive thing at all, just arguing that you can't say that a win is never based on luck (I guess that's what meant by nothing "iffy") just because it is against code S / code A players. Just stop trying. Some ignorant people just cant make a distinction between being really good and having good results. Alive isn't really good like MKP. He is good, of similar caliber like other good korean terrans such as Ryung, Supernova etc. But he isn't the kind of player you expect to see dominate code S. He is the kidn of player who constantly have to work to just stay in code S. People like you kind of piss me off, what would you rather: Be "good" in your definition, or have good results? I am not saying aLive is the best T in the world, but he has good results. I do know what the difference is, like yellow in BW, he was fucking good, but never won a gold. But which is actually better? Why do you think the discussion is about what I rather want? This discussion is about being good, not about results, as results vary a lot in the short term. LEsser skilled players can often times get better results in a few tournaments even if they are 10% worse than other players. However long termish we can expect the best players to get best results. But of course if you dont play the game at a decent level your self, you can't really determine who is good/really good/mediocore, and your best bet is too look at results. Wow, what a delicate way to say that you know better than me. Even if this discussion is about being good, instead of producing results, who do you rate as the best? He who wins the most shit, or he who has more of this "skill" that everyone talks about. I can appreciate some players who are extremely good but never actually win the big finals (yellow), but in the end, those who win are the ones who win. Not those who are good. Because thats a totally different situation. Do I want to be someone who got lucky and won a million through gambling, or a hardworking man who "only" has won half a million? Its a compltetely pointless discussion, but I know that in the future we can expect the hardworking man to do better than the lucky gambler. And this is probably what you miss. There is no kind of (unexplainable) secret that has yielded Alive better results (and Ryung worse results). Its mostly due to variance (+ not having pariticapted in the right tournaments). ANd if you think there is some kind of "secret" that can explain why Ryung is doing worse than Alive, then it can be attributed to decision making/strategy/mechanicas/mentaliity that is a part of being good. So what is you point? aLive just got lucky and beat MMA, MVP, DRG, NESTEA, MC, MKP etc? Or was he good? Which is why he has gotten results? Also what you want is not the point, I believe just as much as the next guy that hard work > luck. But in a game based a lot on luck, there is bound to be some variations, however IM_MVP was pretty good for a long time, was he just lucky a long time in a row? Walking away from this discussion now. Please take a statistic class. You dont understand how variance works. in this Stats Class you are recommending make sure it covers this LAW http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbersi remember 2 years ago on "another RTS Fan site" people insisting HuK got "lucky" to win 3 $100 CraftCups in a row. That many of his wins were "pure luck" based upon "gamble builds". Look at the guys he beat in the final few rounds of those $100 events. With two years of historical data to now examine ... would you say HuK was lucky or would you say he is the better player? Same logic applies here. As the victories pile up it'll become harder and harder for this "it was pure luck" talk to withstand any common sense scrutiny.
The thing is, even though you may understand the "law of large numbers" in a nutshell, then its easy for me to see that on the way you try to simplifiy things (black/white), you dont understand statistics (especially since there is essiantelly no doubt that Huk had positive variance on his side to win 3 craftcups - though he probably was the best player at that time).
|
On April 17 2012 21:39 Grovbolle wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 21:33 SilentBonjwa wrote:On April 17 2012 21:25 Grovbolle wrote:On April 17 2012 21:18 Hider wrote:On April 17 2012 21:07 Grovbolle wrote:On April 17 2012 21:00 Hider wrote:On April 17 2012 20:56 Grovbolle wrote:On April 17 2012 20:50 Hider wrote:On April 17 2012 20:44 Grovbolle wrote:On April 17 2012 20:40 Hider wrote:
[quote]
Why do you think the discussion is about what I rather want?
This discussion is about being good, not about results, as results vary a lot in the short term. LEsser skilled players can often times get better results in a few tournaments even if they are 10% worse than other players. However long termish we can expect the best players to get best results.
But of course if you dont play the game at a decent level your self, you can't really determine who is good/really good/mediocore, and your best bet is too look at results. Wow, what a delicate way to say that you know better than me. Even if this discussion is about being good, instead of producing results, who do you rate as the best? He who wins the most shit, or he who has more of this "skill" that everyone talks about. I can appreciate some players who are extremely good but never actually win the big finals (yellow), but in the end, those who win are the ones who win. Not those who are good. Because thats a totally different situation. Do I want to be someone who got lucky and won a million through gambling, or a hardworking man who "only" has won half a million? Its a compltetely pointless discussion, but I know that in the future we can expect the hardworking man to do better than the lucky gambler. And this is probably what you miss. There is no kind of (unexplainable) secret that has yielded Alive better results (and Ryung worse results). Its mostly due to variance (+ not having pariticapted in the right tournaments). ANd if you think there is some kind of "secret" that can explain why Ryung is doing worse than Alive, then it can be attributed to decision making/strategy/mechanicas/mentaliity that is a part of being good. So what is you point? aLive just got lucky and beat MMA, MVP, DRG, NESTEA, MC, MKP etc? Or was he good? Which is why he has gotten results? Also what you want is not the point, I believe just as much as the next guy that hard work > luck. But in a game based a lot on luck, there is bound to be some variations, however IM_MVP was pretty good for a long time, was he just lucky a long time in a row? Walking away from this discussion now. Please take a statistic class. You dont understand how variance works. Ohh I waited for this, since you are Danish I am sure you will be able to understand this: NB: Videnskabsteori og metode II = Kvantitativ metode/statistik III So if you understand variance, then can you now tell me if its possible for observatations over a short sample size to go above the mean? Does that mean that the obersavations are of higher value or any different from the mean? Lets say we have some expert on the field who are able to esimate what the mean most likely is, and they estimate that the oberserved values are above the mean due to randomness. But they estimate that in the future these observed values will return to the mean. Does that make sense to you? And why cant you see that this is what I just did? Or will you try to argue that it is impossible for any starcraft player to try and estimate the "mean", and that the observed values give a better indication of the true mean than the estimations of the experts? Of course that makes sense to me, but who has established this "mean", because right now we are just arguing whether or not aLive's recent performances has been higher than his "mean" skill level?? I do understand your point, you say/think aLive's mean is lower than the last couple of observations/manifestations of this skill. So yes, it is possible for a worse player to play over his "mean" for an extended period of time. However playing above your skill level/mean in crunch situations, does that not make you a better player, even though more volatile.? gosh, are danish ppl generally dumb? just gonna repost facts aLive > MVP (previous Code S) > MMA (previous Code S) > PuMa (IPL qualifier) > DRG (IPL qualifier) > MKP (IPL) > Polt (IPL) > NesTea (IPL) > Leenock (Iron Squid) > MC (Iron Squid) 65% against Code S players in 2012 - highest since MVP There is absolutely no doubt, aLive is easily the best player in the world right now. Bye You do realize I am on the "aLive is good train" right? Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 21:34 Hider wrote:
But the thing was that you was (indirectly) trying to argue that there was no such thing as a "mean", there was only observable values.
If you disagree with me that Alives results has been above the mean, I wouldn't mind discussing that further on, but the thing was that you wasn't asking that question.
Btw Alive didn't "play" above his mean. His results were better than his "mean results", which is mainly due to variance (though its not like he has performed that much over expectation. Though you always have some positive variance on your side when you win a foreign tournaments. If we ignore the foreign tournaments I think Alives results are a pretty good indication of his skill level).
But my overall point (going back to the first thread in this post) is that people has just overvalued Alive compared to every other good code s/code a terran player (when MKP/MVP/DRG/Leenock and MMA won foreign tournaments they were actually really really good, and hence the hype were deserved. Alive though is just good Okay, then we misunderstood eachother I guess (fuck you arguing on internet in text form). Also the bolded part is what I meant, as I am sure you know
Yeh np. Shit happens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
