On July 23 2012 03:12 Yaki wrote: Is MLG going to remove extended series some day ? I mean are they just keeping it to annoy everyone ? I see no valid point in keeping it and it is really unfair.
Ironically, the only positive of extended series is actually that it is fair.
Pretty much this, its gives the person who won an advantage and the person who lost a disadvantage, how is that no fair.
You don't understand what fair means.
It's fair but it's stupid. Saying that the person who lost the match starts with a 2-0 advantage in the extended series (instead of the winner) is also fair. But it's also stupid.
What? No, that's NOT fair. It's fair to give an advantage to the player who already beat the guy once, it's not fair to do the opposite.
If player A and player B meet in round 7, and player B loses, it's decidedly unfair to let player B get a clean slate in round 3 if they meet again.
The only problem with extended series is that it makes for terribad finals.
You don't understand what fair means. It's still fair.
I hate Extended Series and hope they get rid of it. Just tree.hugger based his post on semantics (the word "fair"), and none of you understand.
Trust me, my name has the word "fair" in it, I know what it means.
I wish my name had "facedesk" in it, because it's what I'm doing right now.
I understand what you said, and I agree that's why they should get rid of extended series. Because it's stupid.
But extended series is technically, as tree.hugger said, fair. Each player has an equal opportunity to be advantaged by the rule as disadvantaged. Unfair would be something like Idra starting with a 1-0 lead in every series, or if the bracket was configured in such a way that, prior to any games being played, certain individuals were more likely to start with an extended series lead than a deficit (which is not the case at all).
So, the rule is actually fair.
you just spent your last three posts telling us we didnt know what fair was.... and now your switching and saying its stupid but fair... well played.
Read again.
Go back to my history - I've never liked the Extended Series rule. But it is technically fair, by the definition of fair.
The issue is that people are saying "how is it fair? The one who lost the original series is less likely to win the subsequent one"
^ That is true. But the tournament structure is fair because prior to anyone winning or losing, all results are equally likely.
Since you linked a yahoo question thingy as a source, and the answer to it has exactly 1 vote, I think you are now disqualified as an authority on anything.
On July 23 2012 03:12 Yaki wrote: Is MLG going to remove extended series some day ? I mean are they just keeping it to annoy everyone ? I see no valid point in keeping it and it is really unfair.
Ironically, the only positive of extended series is actually that it is fair.
Pretty much this, its gives the person who won an advantage and the person who lost a disadvantage, how is that no fair.
You don't understand what fair means.
It's fair but it's stupid. Saying that the person who lost the match starts with a 2-0 advantage in the extended series (instead of the winner) is also fair. But it's also stupid.
What? No, that's NOT fair. It's fair to give an advantage to the player who already beat the guy once, it's not fair to do the opposite.
If player A and player B meet in round 7, and player B loses, it's decidedly unfair to let player B get a clean slate in round 3 if they meet again.
The only problem with extended series is that it makes for terribad finals.
You don't understand what fair means. It's still fair.
I hate Extended Series and hope they get rid of it. Just tree.hugger based his post on semantics (the word "fair"), and none of you understand.
Trust me, my name has the word "fair" in it, I know what it means.
I wish my name had "facedesk" in it, because it's what I'm doing right now.
Fair in that it applies to everyone.
Something applying to everyone isn't automatically fair. Let's say a company decides to promote 10 people. Is it fair to ignore seniority or prior performance?
You have no clue what you are talking about, and are making up bullshit questions.
If a company puts in a policy, previous to hiring everyone, that only people who produce 500 widgets a day are promoted, then that is fair. It applies equally to everyone who consents and is used as a standard.
Similarly, all participants consented to the same rules - they are all equally advantaged/disadvantaged at the start of the competition. There's no inequity at the beginning (and yes, I meant inequity, not inequality).
Assuming an expected win ratio of 50% for all players, no matter where you are placed in the MLG bracket, the expected value of the extended series rule at the start of the tournament is nil.
Wrong, player A lost to player B 0/2, player B the lost to another player & at this moment they met in LB. They have won the same number of Bo3 & both lost once. A wins the first 2 games, making 2/2, he has won one more BO3 than player B, who has lost 2 BO3, but player B manage to win the last 2 games, player A is out & has lost 2 bo3 but player B who also lost 2 bo3 is still in. I don't think it's fair. I agree that at the start of the tournament everyone has the same chances to get the advantage of the extended series rule, but I don't think it's fair.
On July 23 2012 03:32 Kurumi wrote: I was away for like 10 minutes and it's already Game 4? What happened?!
extended series
This ISN'T extended series. This is normal double elimination rules.
they started the series at 2-1, how is that not extended series ????
Alicia still gets 2 chances to beat Oz because he is undefeated. In the double elimination rules, you have to be defeated twice in order to get removed from the tournament.
The reason extended isn't fair is because it happens randomly and by luck. 2 people fall to loser's bracket, 1 player has to play an extended series by luck, while the 2nd player never meets the person who beat him by luck. Therefore, 2 people start equally in the loser bracket, but along the way only 1 person ends up having to play an extended series just by luck.
On July 23 2012 03:32 Kurumi wrote: I was away for like 10 minutes and it's already Game 4? What happened?!
extended series
I thought MLG got rid of the extented series..?
I thought so too
They got rid of the extended series finals, this means that they still listen to the community without admitting their flaws.
Well technically the only reason that happened is because they have two separate brackets, so neither player could have played the other prior to the finals.
Smart structure to be honest, though they need to get rid of extended series throughout.
On July 23 2012 03:14 tree.hugger wrote: [quote]Ironically, the only positive of extended series is actually that it is fair.
Pretty much this, its gives the person who won an advantage and the person who lost a disadvantage, how is that no fair.
You don't understand what fair means.
It's fair but it's stupid. Saying that the person who lost the match starts with a 2-0 advantage in the extended series (instead of the winner) is also fair. But it's also stupid.
What? No, that's NOT fair. It's fair to give an advantage to the player who already beat the guy once, it's not fair to do the opposite.
If player A and player B meet in round 7, and player B loses, it's decidedly unfair to let player B get a clean slate in round 3 if they meet again.
The only problem with extended series is that it makes for terribad finals.
You don't understand what fair means. It's still fair.
I hate Extended Series and hope they get rid of it. Just tree.hugger based his post on semantics (the word "fair"), and none of you understand.
Trust me, my name has the word "fair" in it, I know what it means.
I wish my name had "facedesk" in it, because it's what I'm doing right now.
I understand what you said, and I agree that's why they should get rid of extended series. Because it's stupid.
But extended series is technically, as tree.hugger said, fair. Each player has an equal opportunity to be advantaged by the rule as disadvantaged. Unfair would be something like Idra starting with a 1-0 lead in every series, or if the bracket was configured in such a way that, prior to any games being played, certain individuals were more likely to start with an extended series lead than a deficit (which is not the case at all).
So, the rule is actually fair.
you just spent your last three posts telling us we didnt know what fair was.... and now your switching and saying its stupid but fair... well played.
Read again.
Go back to my history - I've never liked the Extended Series rule. But it is technically fair, by the definition of fair.
The issue is that people are saying "how is it fair? The one who lost the original series is less likely to win the subsequent one"
^ That is true. But the tournament structure is fair because prior to anyone winning or losing, all results are equally likely.
Since you linked a yahoo question thingy as a source, and the answer to it has exactly 1 vote, I think you are now disqualified as an authority on anything.
No no, I'm also curious about the mathematical definition of how babbies are formed!
On July 23 2012 03:12 Yaki wrote: Is MLG going to remove extended series some day ? I mean are they just keeping it to annoy everyone ? I see no valid point in keeping it and it is really unfair.
Ironically, the only positive of extended series is actually that it is fair.
Pretty much this, its gives the person who won an advantage and the person who lost a disadvantage, how is that no fair.
You don't understand what fair means.
It's fair but it's stupid. Saying that the person who lost the match starts with a 2-0 advantage in the extended series (instead of the winner) is also fair. But it's also stupid.
What? No, that's NOT fair. It's fair to give an advantage to the player who already beat the guy once, it's not fair to do the opposite.
If player A and player B meet in round 7, and player B loses, it's decidedly unfair to let player B get a clean slate in round 3 if they meet again.
The only problem with extended series is that it makes for terribad finals.
You don't understand what fair means. It's still fair.
I hate Extended Series and hope they get rid of it. Just tree.hugger based his post on semantics (the word "fair"), and none of you understand.
Trust me, my name has the word "fair" in it, I know what it means.
I wish my name had "facedesk" in it, because it's what I'm doing right now.
I understand what you said, and I agree that's why they should get rid of extended series. Because it's stupid.
But extended series is technically, as tree.hugger said, fair. Each player has an equal opportunity to be advantaged by the rule as disadvantaged. Unfair would be something like Idra starting with a 1-0 lead in every series, or if the bracket was configured in such a way that, prior to any games being played, certain individuals were more likely to start with an extended series lead than a deficit (which is not the case at all).
So, the rule is actually fair.
you just spent your last three posts telling us we didnt know what fair was.... and now your switching and saying its stupid but fair... well played.
Read again.
Go back to my history - I've never liked the Extended Series rule. But it is technically fair, by the definition of fair.
On July 23 2012 03:37 Canucklehead wrote: The reason extended isn't fair is because it happens randomly and by luck. 2 people fall to loser's bracket, 1 player has to play an extended series by luck, while the 2nd player never meets the person who beat him by luck. Therefore, 2 people start equally in the loser bracket, but along the way only 1 person ends up having to play an extended series just by luck.
But from a probabilistic view, all results are equally likely.
So player A is just as likely to benefit from the rule as Player B, C, D, etc. prior to the start of the competition. And he is just as likely to be disadvantaged as Player B, C, D, etc.
Assuming every player won 50% of the time, and assuming a 32 person bracket (Arena right now), the probability of winning the tournament without the rule is 1/32.
The probability of winning the tournament when the extended series rule is implemented? 1/32.
On July 23 2012 03:14 tree.hugger wrote: [quote]Ironically, the only positive of extended series is actually that it is fair.
Pretty much this, its gives the person who won an advantage and the person who lost a disadvantage, how is that no fair.
You don't understand what fair means.
It's fair but it's stupid. Saying that the person who lost the match starts with a 2-0 advantage in the extended series (instead of the winner) is also fair. But it's also stupid.
What? No, that's NOT fair. It's fair to give an advantage to the player who already beat the guy once, it's not fair to do the opposite.
If player A and player B meet in round 7, and player B loses, it's decidedly unfair to let player B get a clean slate in round 3 if they meet again.
The only problem with extended series is that it makes for terribad finals.
You don't understand what fair means. It's still fair.
I hate Extended Series and hope they get rid of it. Just tree.hugger based his post on semantics (the word "fair"), and none of you understand.
Trust me, my name has the word "fair" in it, I know what it means.
I wish my name had "facedesk" in it, because it's what I'm doing right now.
I understand what you said, and I agree that's why they should get rid of extended series. Because it's stupid.
But extended series is technically, as tree.hugger said, fair. Each player has an equal opportunity to be advantaged by the rule as disadvantaged. Unfair would be something like Idra starting with a 1-0 lead in every series, or if the bracket was configured in such a way that, prior to any games being played, certain individuals were more likely to start with an extended series lead than a deficit (which is not the case at all).
So, the rule is actually fair.
you just spent your last three posts telling us we didnt know what fair was.... and now your switching and saying its stupid but fair... well played.
Read again.
Go back to my history - I've never liked the Extended Series rule. But it is technically fair, by the definition of fair.
On July 23 2012 03:38 OtoshimonoU wrote: How about we get rid of double elimination?
People like exciting loser's bracket runs like Squirtle at IPL4 and First is doing a good job gaining fans right now
Agreed, also doesn't make sense to get rid of double elimination - a lot less players might be interested in making a huge time commitment with a 50% probability that they will only play one series.
EPT
