|
On May 21 2014 07:39 marcesr wrote:
And every fucking goup its the same problem, I just hate this group system. Bunny vs Yoda ends 3-3 and even in BO3, how can one guy advance over the other??? Its so retarded, players might consider saving their best strats in the first BO3 in case they have to play the same opponent again.
it's not about how they scored against each other it's about how they scored vs the entire group. done.
|
Oh wow really surprised that Yoda advanced after watching his first series vs. Bunny, his play was very lackluster.
Cool to see Harstem get through, but god damn am I sad that Bunny came so close in the end just to lose.
|
On May 21 2014 12:43 Arceus wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2014 07:39 marcesr wrote:
And every fucking goup its the same problem, I just hate this group system. Bunny vs Yoda ends 3-3 and even in BO3, how can one guy advance over the other??? Its so retarded, players might consider saving their best strats in the first BO3 in case they have to play the same opponent again. Bunny goes 1-2 in series Yoda goes 2-1 in series, Yoda is better thats how it works. Can believe theres still people complaining about the ancient format of dual tournament
I don't understand it either.
If this argument makes sense, then players would be trying to lose their first series to play the "worse" opponent(theoretically) in the loser's bracket instead of winning Rd 1 to get into the winners bracket.
Until I see a player purposely forfeit their 1st match, I'm going to assume that getting into the winner's bracket is preferable per what's known as "common sense."
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
Yes. I am too lazy to do the math, but one will always have a statistically higher chance advancing when in the winner's match. ALWAYS.
|
On May 21 2014 12:21 Waise wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2014 07:39 mawrote:
And every fucking goup its the same problem, I just hate this group system. Bunny vs Yoda ends 3-3 and even in BO3, how can one guy advance over the other??? Its so retarded, players might consider saving their best strats in the first BO3 in case they have to play the same opponent again. that is how playoffs work. if you're playing a best of five in baseball for example you can win 20-0 in the first two games and then lose the next three games 4-3. does that mean you deserved to win? no. you have to win a match. that's what playoffs are.
But bunny and yoda only played a bo2. If yoda had won two series vs bunny, no one would complain :p
bad comparison ^^
its more like baseball one team won 2-1, then the other team won 2-1 and advanced because? :p
|
On May 21 2014 07:39 marcesr wrote:
And every fucking goup its the same problem, I just hate this group system. Bunny vs Yoda ends 3-3 and even in BO3, how can one guy advance over the other??? Its so retarded, players might consider saving their best strats in the first BO3 in case they have to play the same opponent again.
It's a double elimination format, Bunny lost 2 series, Yoda lost 1 series. Who cares what their records against each other were.
|
On May 21 2014 16:58 SnuggleZhenya wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2014 07:39 marcesr wrote:
And every fucking goup its the same problem, I just hate this group system. Bunny vs Yoda ends 3-3 and even in BO3, how can one guy advance over the other??? Its so retarded, players might consider saving their best strats in the first BO3 in case they have to play the same opponent again. It's a double elimination format, Bunny lost 2 series, Yoda lost 1 series. Who cares what their records against each other were.
Yes, double elimination.
Where is Bunny's 2nd chance?
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
Winning your first match always gives you an advantage in advancing.
W is win, L is loss. X is not needed (so always 1).
Winning your first match, your chances of advancing are (W*X) + (L*W). That is, a win in the winner's match, or losing in the winner's match and winning in the final match.
That will always be greater than the chances of the loser of that first match. His probability is only W*W, which is a win in both remaining matches.
Say there is a 4 terran group with the following TvT winrates
A: 50%
B: 50%
C: 90%
D: 10%
A vs B
C vs D
If we are player A, we can either win or lose the first match against B.
Assuming we win, our odds are (.3571*1) + (.6429*0.5) = .6786
Assuming we lose, our odds are (0.8333*0.5) = 0.4167
I am too lazy to prove this mathematically for all possible winrates, but I am pretty sure that winning your first match already gives you a statistical advantage (I did it for a few other scenarios). Claims that winning the first match gives no advantage are false. You do gain an advantage and there is no reason to give another advantage when entering the final match.
|
Edit: Shit wrong thread :D lol what is this thread doing here.
|
I just watched the vods of Jjakji v Harstem. Man, game two and three from Harstem was just beautiful So very well played.
|
I tried my best not to start format discussion lately, but since it is already there, I mgiht as well take part in it.
On May 21 2014 12:36 Zenbrez wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2014 07:39 marcesr wrote:
And every fucking goup its the same problem, I just hate this group system. Bunny vs Yoda ends 3-3 and even in BO3, how can one guy advance over the other??? Its so retarded, players might consider saving their best strats in the first BO3 in case they have to play the same opponent again. Do you really want extended series...? We've already seen how stupid it is.
Do you want DH Coin toss tournament rules with Bischu being seeded into the final? Ofc. there are always worse systems, but there are also better. There is a reason, that most sports leagues (for example Football world championship, Ice Hockey World championship, Olympics) use round robin.
On May 21 2014 12:43 Arceus wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2014 07:39 marcesr wrote:
And every fucking goup its the same problem, I just hate this group system. Bunny vs Yoda ends 3-3 and even in BO3, how can one guy advance over the other??? Its so retarded, players might consider saving their best strats in the first BO3 in case they have to play the same opponent again. Bunny goes 1-2 in series Yoda goes 2-1 in series, Yoda is better thats how it works. Can believe theres still people complaining about the ancient format of dual tournament
Bunny played against different people then YoDa, so their records are not comparable and 2-1 against weaker players (route over losers match) is not neccessarily better than 1-2 against stronger. Ofc. In this particular group that isn't really the case, since Jjakji should be considered stronger than Harstem, but in general it is a problem. Regarding your second argument: "I can't believe people are still arguing over the ancient laws of Code of Hammurapi". It is bad and it was always bad. That's why people are arguing against it for more than a year now.
On May 21 2014 13:08 Popkiller wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2014 07:39 marcesr wrote:
And every fucking goup its the same problem, I just hate this group system. Bunny vs Yoda ends 3-3 and even in BO3, how can one guy advance over the other??? Its so retarded, players might consider saving their best strats in the first BO3 in case they have to play the same opponent again. it's not about how they scored against each other it's about how they scored vs the entire group. done.
None of them played against the entire group. How can you measure their performance against the entire group when none of them played the entire group? Well, ofc. you could let them play the entire group, but that is Round Robin and thus another (better) format.
On May 21 2014 17:34 lichter wrote:
Winning your first match always gives you an advantage in advancing.
W is win, L is loss. X is not needed (so always 1).
Winning your first match, your chances of advancing are (W*X) + (L*W). That is, a win in the winner's match, or losing in the winner's match and winning in the final match.
That will always be greater than the chances of the loser of that first match. His probability is only W*W, which is a win in both remaining matches.
Say there is a 4 terran group with the following TvT winrates
A: 50%
B: 50%
C: 90%
D: 10%
A vs B
C vs D
If we are player A, we can either win or lose the first match against B.
Assuming we win, our odds are (.3571*1) + (.6429*0.5) = .6786
Assuming we lose, our odds are (0.8333*0.5) = 0.4167
I am too lazy to prove this mathematically for all possible winrates, but I am pretty sure that winning your first match already gives you a statistical advantage (I did it for a few other scenarios). Claims that winning the first match gives no advantage are false. You do gain an advantage and there is no reason to give another advantage when entering the final match.
Winning the first match gives you a 20% advantadge over the loser of the first match. Ofc. that advantadge will grow if you adjust thw in ratesof C and D, but it will never rise above 50%(0,75-0,25) in groups with one MU, assuming the favored player in C vs D wins. Winning the second match however gives you not a 20-50% advantadge, but a 100% advantadge over the other player.
|
The group isn't a group. It's a bracket with winner and loser bracket.
Bunny beat Yoda in the winner bracket. Yoda beat Bunny in the loser bracket.
Happens all the time.
|
On May 21 2014 22:58 Nebuchad wrote:
The group isn't a group. It's a bracket with winner and loser bracket.
Bunny beat Yoda in the winner bracket. Yoda beat Bunny in the loser bracket.
Happens all the time.
Yes, it happens all the time. And I am complaining about it all the time, because double-elim is just bad for 4 players. Telling me how the system works, does not make the system better.
|
There is no perfect group system. But the one that we have for WCS and GSL is fine and works well.
|
On May 22 2014 00:44 Xoronius wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2014 22:58 Nebuchad wrote:
The group isn't a group. It's a bracket with winner and loser bracket.
Bunny beat Yoda in the winner bracket. Yoda beat Bunny in the loser bracket.
Happens all the time. Yes, it happens all the time. And I am complaining about it all the time, because double-elim is just bad for 4 players. Telling me how the system works, does not make the system better.
It does in the sense that it contradicts the notion that this system is unfair, which is the main argument against it.
|
On May 22 2014 01:48 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2014 00:44 Xoronius wrote:On May 21 2014 22:58 Nebuchad wrote:
The group isn't a group. It's a bracket with winner and loser bracket.
Bunny beat Yoda in the winner bracket. Yoda beat Bunny in the loser bracket.
Happens all the time. Yes, it happens all the time. And I am complaining about it all the time, because double-elim is just bad for 4 players. Telling me how the system works, does not make the system better. It does in the sense that it contradicts the notion that this system is unfair, which is the main argument against it.
Only with the implication, that double elimination is fair, which would lead to the same discssion, we are already having. Look at it that way: We can all agree, that your placement in a single elim. tourney is hugely dependent on your bracket, thus single elim isn't really fair in the traditional sence. Double elim is basically single elim with one more life, it still is not really a fair system, as your placement is still dependent on who you are playing in both Winners and Losers bracket. Why is double elim still played then? Because with good seeding you can improve it to a certain extend and mainly because it is quicker and easier to schedule than Round Robin or Swiss System. Running a league format in a 128-player MLG would be ridiculos, and thus Double elim has it's rightful place there. But in a 4 man group, the advantadges it has are pretty much gone, since a 4 man RR only has one more game than a 4 man double elim. So why would one use it in the situation, where it's main strengh is gone, but it's weaknesses remain?
On May 22 2014 01:07 Bagration wrote:
There is no perfect group system. But the one that we have for WCS and GSL is fine and works well.
That is a matter of opinion. The first part is probably true in a world with humans playing (If it would be computers, who aren't influenced by other results, RR would be pretty much perfect.) I strongly disagree with the second part though.
|
On May 22 2014 03:53 Xoronius wrote:
Only with the implication, that double elimination is fair, which would lead to the same discssion, we are already having. Look at it that way: We can all agree, that your placement in a single elim. tourney is hugely dependent on your bracket, thus single elim isn't really fair in the traditional sence. Double elim is basically single elim with one more life, it still is not really a fair system, as your placement is still dependent on who you are playing in both Winners and Losers bracket. Why is double elim still played then? Because with good seeding you can improve it to a certain extend and mainly because it is quicker and easier to schedule than Round Robin or Swiss System. Running a league format in a 128-player MLG would be ridiculos, and thus Double elim has it's rightful place there. But in a 4 man group, the advantadges it has are pretty much gone, since a 4 man RR only has one more game than a 4 man double elim. So why would one use it in the situation, where it's main strengh is gone, but it's weaknesses remain?
But your reasoning for why it is unfair in a 4man group is still appliable to the round robin of a 4man group. Being placed in a 4man group implies this type of "unfairness", as you are fighting three specific people instead of the whole player pool, and maybe you would have done better against three other opponents in another group, so the seeding problem is the same no matter which type of confrontation you choose.
|
On May 22 2014 03:53 Xoronius wrote:
Only with the implication, that double elimination is fair, which would lead to the same discssion, we are already having. Look at it that way: We can all agree, that your placement in a single elim. tourney is hugely dependent on your bracket, thus single elim isn't really fair in the traditional sence. Double elim is basically single elim with one more life, it still is not really a fair system, as your placement is still dependent on who you are playing in both Winners and Losers bracket. Why is double elim still played then? Because with good seeding you can improve it to a certain extend and mainly because it is quicker and easier to schedule than Round Robin or Swiss System. Running a league format in a 128-player MLG would be ridiculos, and thus Double elim has it's rightful place there. But in a 4 man group, the advantadges it has are pretty much gone, since a 4 man RR only has one more game than a 4 man double elim. So why would one use it in the situation, where it's main strengh is gone, but it's weaknesses remain?
The reason GSL doesn't use round robin is pretty simple: It doesn't produce exactly 6 games. It produces a minimum of 6 games.
Then you are left with either never ending tie-breakers or a coinflip decision. I hope it's pretty clear why neither will work in reality. And don't think it won't happen often because it will. There are only two outcomes for a Bo3 starcraft match; 2-0 or 2-1. It might work in other sports where the scores are diverse enough to make ties ocur only very rarely, but it's just happens too often with Bo3 matches.
|
On May 22 2014 04:40 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2014 03:53 Xoronius wrote:
Only with the implication, that double elimination is fair, which would lead to the same discssion, we are already having. Look at it that way: We can all agree, that your placement in a single elim. tourney is hugely dependent on your bracket, thus single elim isn't really fair in the traditional sence. Double elim is basically single elim with one more life, it still is not really a fair system, as your placement is still dependent on who you are playing in both Winners and Losers bracket. Why is double elim still played then? Because with good seeding you can improve it to a certain extend and mainly because it is quicker and easier to schedule than Round Robin or Swiss System. Running a league format in a 128-player MLG would be ridiculos, and thus Double elim has it's rightful place there. But in a 4 man group, the advantadges it has are pretty much gone, since a 4 man RR only has one more game than a 4 man double elim. So why would one use it in the situation, where it's main strengh is gone, but it's weaknesses remain?
But your reasoning for why it is unfair in a 4man group is still appliable to the round robin of a 4man group. Being placed in a 4man group implies this type of "unfairness", as you are fighting three specific people instead of the whole player pool, and maybe you would have done better against three other opponents in another group, so the seeding problem is the same no matter which type of confrontation you choose.
To a certain extend yes. But having a league system with 32 players would produce 496 series instead of the current 67, which is just unrealistic. I'm talking about the general comparism of league/round robin vs elimination systems and specific advantadges/disadvantadges do not change if you narrow the player pool down to 4 (Just doing this, because 4-man groups are pretty established in a lot of competition).
On May 22 2014 05:10 Vorenius wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2014 03:53 Xoronius wrote:
Only with the implication, that double elimination is fair, which would lead to the same discssion, we are already having. Look at it that way: We can all agree, that your placement in a single elim. tourney is hugely dependent on your bracket, thus single elim isn't really fair in the traditional sence. Double elim is basically single elim with one more life, it still is not really a fair system, as your placement is still dependent on who you are playing in both Winners and Losers bracket. Why is double elim still played then? Because with good seeding you can improve it to a certain extend and mainly because it is quicker and easier to schedule than Round Robin or Swiss System. Running a league format in a 128-player MLG would be ridiculos, and thus Double elim has it's rightful place there. But in a 4 man group, the advantadges it has are pretty much gone, since a 4 man RR only has one more game than a 4 man double elim. So why would one use it in the situation, where it's main strengh is gone, but it's weaknesses remain?
The reason GSL doesn't use round robin is pretty simple: It doesn't produce exactly 6 games. It produces a minimum of 6 games. Then you are left with either never ending tie-breakers or a coinflip decision. I hope it's pretty clear why neither will work in reality. And don't think it won't happen often because it will. There are only two outcomes for a Bo3 starcraft match; 2-0 or 2-1. It might work in other sports where the scores are diverse enough to make ties ocur only very rarely, but it's just happens too often with Bo3 matches.
Is having the order of wins deciding who moves on that much different from a coinflip? I'd rather have long tie-breakers with a deserving winner then an unlucky player, who won the direct comparism 3-2, but in the wrong order and had to face a much harder opponent in the second match. Alternatively you could make the matches bo5, since you can have 2 at the same time on different streams and thus only 3 after eachother.
|
On May 22 2014 06:02 Xoronius wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2014 05:10 Vorenius wrote:On May 22 2014 03:53 Xoronius wrote:
Only with the implication, that double elimination is fair, which would lead to the same discssion, we are already having. Look at it that way: We can all agree, that your placement in a single elim. tourney is hugely dependent on your bracket, thus single elim isn't really fair in the traditional sence. Double elim is basically single elim with one more life, it still is not really a fair system, as your placement is still dependent on who you are playing in both Winners and Losers bracket. Why is double elim still played then? Because with good seeding you can improve it to a certain extend and mainly because it is quicker and easier to schedule than Round Robin or Swiss System. Running a league format in a 128-player MLG would be ridiculos, and thus Double elim has it's rightful place there. But in a 4 man group, the advantadges it has are pretty much gone, since a 4 man RR only has one more game than a 4 man double elim. So why would one use it in the situation, where it's main strengh is gone, but it's weaknesses remain?
The reason GSL doesn't use round robin is pretty simple: It doesn't produce exactly 6 games. It produces a minimum of 6 games. Then you are left with either never ending tie-breakers or a coinflip decision. I hope it's pretty clear why neither will work in reality. And don't think it won't happen often because it will. There are only two outcomes for a Bo3 starcraft match; 2-0 or 2-1. It might work in other sports where the scores are diverse enough to make ties ocur only very rarely, but it's just happens too often with Bo3 matches. Is having the order of wins deciding who moves on that much different from a coinflip? I'd rather have long tie-breakers with a deserving winner then an unlucky player, who won the direct comparism 3-2, but in the wrong order and had to face a much harder opponent in the second match. Alternatively you could make the matches bo5, since you can have 2 at the same time on different streams and thus only 3 after eachother.
So the players tie and then what determine who is moving on is based on their results against other opponents. The order of who wins isn't what determines it, who else they beat/lost to is. Of course the issue is then that they didn't face the same opponents, but having two chances at advancing will always be better than one.
And you might want long tie-breaker that go on all night, but obviously any production company doing starcraft would try to avoid such situations. 5 Bo3s can already take wildly varying amounts of time I think I've seen days going from 2 hours up to nearly 5. Expanding that to be anywhere from 6 to infinity Bo3s isn't feasible. They tried it with up-n-downs and having tie-breakers played was almost as much the rule as it was the exception.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
