Tyler - you're right on with this one. Three episodes ago, you laid it down perfectly, but everybody moved on because the usually spot-on Mr. Plott jumped in with some specious math talk.
Here's all you need:
The ideal of a tournament is to have the best player win.
A best of infinity match is the ideal way to determine the better player.
The larger the series, the closer to that ideal. (This is why there is seeding. Upsets are fun because they are the exception to the rule, but if a tournament let all the best competitors knock each other out and scrubs always won, they wouldn't be fun at all.)
Tournaments aren't perfect because there are time limits.
From 1, 2, 3, and 4 - The best option for a tournament is the one that fits in the time constraints while best approaching the ideal (meaning as large of series as practical is best). (Otherwise, why not do a BO1?)
From 3 - A best of 5 is a better measure of which player is better than a best of 3.
From 5 and 6 - When two players play 5 games against each other, it is better for the one who won 3 games to advance regardless of the order in which the matches were won.
In double-elimination without extended series, it is possible for a player to go 3-2 and fail to advance to the other player.
In double-elimination with extended series, it is impossible for a player to go 3-2 and fail to advance.
From 5 - If 5 games will be played either way, time is not a factor, and the closer to ideal series length is best.
Therefore, from 7, 8, 9, and 10 -- an extended series is closer to ideal in a double-elimination tournament.
Also, I'm with you that this probably isn't a hill to die on for MLG, but it is the better (in the sense of closer to ideal) option.
The argument i find disturbing in support for extended series is that it would show witch of the 2 players is better. The way i see it, the match doesn't have to determine who's better, just who goes on in winners and who goes on in losers bracket. The bracket itself should determine who's the better player and extended series doesn't synergise well with it. All arguments aside, extended series finals is just a sad thing to watch (i think there were some, but i might be wrong?)
To bad Sean was afk this time, He had the best arguments regarding extended series imo. Would have been fun to hear Lee trying to handle Seans numbers on top of it all.
On December 02 2010 03:35 Paver wrote: IMO
Discussion of Extended series needs be skipped for a few shows (i.e 100 or so).
Yea, Catz soundboard would have come in handy at the end of that discussion.
I really appreciate Lee for coming on the show, but man, I wish the extended series segment were better. Both sides came across as confusing.
The main problem I have with extended series is that it makes the match less exciting to watch. MLG DC was a perfect example, by chance Idra had already defeated both of the semifinalists, Huk and Select, so he was guarenteed to not only have a 2-set advantage, but also a bo7 advantage on top of that.
I understand that statistically, extended series is more accurate at determining the better player. But we already knew that Idra was probably better than select from the previous match. And even if they were dead even in terms of skill, and even if Idra just barely won the series with luck, he would still have the advantage of needing to win one bo3 to 2 bo3. The first series being extended bo7 makes any possible upset less likily, and thus less interesting to watch.
The same thing applies to the later stages of the losers bracket, when it becomes more likily for extended series to occur. Which is a shame, because I feel that the entertainment value of the matches should increase over time, not decrease. Extended series might make tournament placing slightly more accurate, however if the matches aren't exciting, what's the point?
I think accuracy is even less meaningful for a game like sc2, because you could have great vT, but poor vZ and vP and win if you're fortunate with the brackets...that doesn't necessaily mean you're better vs 3rd through whatever.
On December 02 2010 05:28 {88}iNcontroL wrote: Opinion? He is the best damn author. SOIAF is the best series ever save for the fact he is killing me with his gap between feast for crows and a dance of dragons.
TV show looks amazing too.
I totally agree
Ive read both WoT and SOIAF and GRRM is a better author then Jordan no doubt. I even checked out Jim Butcher when Day9 and Incontrol mentioned Harry Dresden, it was ok but I couldnt really get into it. Its one of those things ill read If i have nothing else.
I could actively read the dictionary if it was written by GRRM. I check the Not a blog every week and have become a Jets fan hoping if the Jets win the superbowl, GRRM will feel motivated to finish the series.
have you heard of malazan series? it's my favorite. but i agree SOIAF is much better than WoT. im gonna read the black company next, which idra recommends, and which came before malazan series and supposedly inspires the malazan series in a few ways.
What's really bad about extended series is that it makes a difference, who you meet in LB. While Player A moves through LB with only new opponents, Player B might have to face the guy who knocked him down. So Player A is in a better spot than Player B, because his WB opponent lost to someone else, or is in another part of the grid. The players in LB just have to pray that they don't get put up against that one guy who previously defeated them. I was a bit disappointed, that noone brought this point up.
On December 02 2010 05:28 {88}iNcontroL wrote: Opinion? He is the best damn author. SOIAF is the best series ever save for the fact he is killing me with his gap between feast for crows and a dance of dragons.
TV show looks amazing too.
I totally agree
Ive read both WoT and SOIAF and GRRM is a better author then Jordan no doubt. I even checked out Jim Butcher when Day9 and Incontrol mentioned Harry Dresden, it was ok but I couldnt really get into it. Its one of those things ill read If i have nothing else.
I could actively read the dictionary if it was written by GRRM. I check the Not a blog every week and have become a Jets fan hoping if the Jets win the superbowl, GRRM will feel motivated to finish the series.
have you heard of malazan series? it's my favorite. but i agree SOIAF is much better than WoT. im gonna read the black company next, which idra recommends, and which came before malazan series and supposedly inspires the malazan series in a few ways.
The Black Company is a really good series although takes so getting used to his writing style and you have to pay attention or it becomes really easy to get lost never heard of malazan but am checking it out ATM
On December 02 2010 05:28 {88}iNcontroL wrote: Opinion? He is the best damn author. SOIAF is the best series ever save for the fact he is killing me with his gap between feast for crows and a dance of dragons.
TV show looks amazing too.
I totally agree
Ive read both WoT and SOIAF and GRRM is a better author then Jordan no doubt. I even checked out Jim Butcher when Day9 and Incontrol mentioned Harry Dresden, it was ok but I couldnt really get into it. Its one of those things ill read If i have nothing else.
I could actively read the dictionary if it was written by GRRM. I check the Not a blog every week and have become a Jets fan hoping if the Jets win the superbowl, GRRM will feel motivated to finish the series.
have you heard of malazan series? it's my favorite. but i agree SOIAF is much better than WoT. im gonna read the black company next, which idra recommends, and which came before malazan series and supposedly inspires the malazan series in a few ways.
read "the black prism" by Brent Weeks if you have taste
Also jeez this SOTG at least the beginning interview so far with this MLG guy is so boring.
give my your biography - 4 minutes of boring, what do you do on a daily business - 3 minutes of boring etc.
if you interview someone boring, just go "this is mlg lee he does MLG pc circuit, okay incontrol ask him some real questions". Also man MLG is a joke no offense, can just tell not a single one gives a crap about SC.
On December 02 2010 06:34 shackes wrote: What's really bad about extended series is that it makes a difference, who you meet in LB. While Player A moves through LB with only new opponents, Player B might have to face the guy who knocked him down. So Player A is in a better spot than Player B, because his WB opponent lost to someone else, or is in another part of the grid. The players in LB just have to pray that they don't get put up against that one guy who previously defeated them. I was a bit disappointed, that noone brought this point up.
This is the least represented aspect of this whole thing. Idra brings it up a lot, but he's not quite articulating it fully.
You could argue that A is better than B is better than C is better than A in SC depending on how strengths match weaknesses. In other words, the question of "better" is unable to be answered in a 1v1.
To me, that's the best argument against the extended series. Most of what gets said about it is unconvincing.
On December 02 2010 05:28 {88}iNcontroL wrote: Opinion? He is the best damn author. SOIAF is the best series ever save for the fact he is killing me with his gap between feast for crows and a dance of dragons.
TV show looks amazing too.
I totally agree
Ive read both WoT and SOIAF and GRRM is a better author then Jordan no doubt. I even checked out Jim Butcher when Day9 and Incontrol mentioned Harry Dresden, it was ok but I couldnt really get into it. Its one of those things ill read If i have nothing else.
I could actively read the dictionary if it was written by GRRM. I check the Not a blog every week and have become a Jets fan hoping if the Jets win the superbowl, GRRM will feel motivated to finish the series.
have you heard of malazan series? it's my favorite. but i agree SOIAF is much better than WoT. im gonna read the black company next, which idra recommends, and which came before malazan series and supposedly inspires the malazan series in a few ways.
The Black Company is a really good series although takes so getting used to his writing style and you have to pay attention or it becomes really easy to get lost never heard of malazan but am checking it out ATM
haha those are the same warnings i'd give to first time readers of the malazan series. like 150 pages into the first book i realized i had no idea what was going on and i had to restart it. and even when you're several books in, you still dont understand some things about their world and magic system. but most of the characters dont understand either so it's for perspective, i guess
I'm a bit disappointed from the SotG Crew, especially InControl (cause we're on the same page). You all knew that a mlg offical would come on the cast, but didn't prepare your arguments at all, instead you used exactly the same arguments from the cast a few weeks ago. Eventhough we had these ass long discussion on TL, were we made a few very good (and easy understandable) points.
I wish I would've had the opportunity to talk to him, because you completely missed the point by not explaining the problem with the extended series in a way that he could understand what's wrong with it.
The discussion ended with him feeling absolutely right about their implementation of ES and while he hinted that the rules might change sometime in the future: There doesn't seem to be a motion behind it and that sucks because you could've convinced him that it's a serious problem and they would've had a in depth discussion about it. Now it seems that nothing will happen at all..
I wish you could talk to him again behind the scenes, so that we could give them some feedback or maybe even a discussion with a few selected guys, because we need to do something about it.
(I won't post my arguments again here, cause there is no point to discuss it anymore..we did it for weeks. Stuff needs to be more official to achieve anything.)
On December 02 2010 06:24 Jiddra wrote: To bad Sean was afk this time, He had the best arguments regarding extended series imo. Would have been fun to hear Lee trying to handle Seans numbers on top of it all.
I actually thought Sean's numbers were completely off-topic and misleading. I wrote up something that actually tried to analyze the extended series rule, albeit with a simplified model here.
On December 02 2010 06:24 Jiddra wrote: To bad Sean was afk this time, He had the best arguments regarding extended series imo. Would have been fun to hear Lee trying to handle Seans numbers on top of it all.
I actually thought Sean's numbers were completely off-topic and misleading. I wrote up something that actually tried to analyze the extended series rule, albeit with a simplified model here.
they where.. I remember thinking WTF is he saying besides jargon, none of it was logically applicable.
Extended series is a bad idea for many many ways.
One good enough to remove it: It makes the games boring/shitty to watch and adds way more luck to brackets.
Imagine you lose to someone
if you hit him in losers you get screwed, and have way less % chance to win. If you get lucky and he goes to other side of losers instead you have much higher chance.
Basically your chances change highly based on random luck. If there was something deterministic about it, it might matter.
On December 02 2010 06:19 retro-noob wrote: [*] The ideal of a tournament is to have the best player win.
See, I don't really like that first premise for a number of reasons.
Subjectively, I'd find such tournaments pretty dull to begin with. The ideal tournament for me would be the one where my favorite player wins in the final by Mothership rushing the perceived best player in the tournament in the last game of the series. Is he the actual best player in the tournament? Probably not, but I couldn't care less, he fucking won the thing.
I'm pretty sure that most people think along these lines when watching tournaments. How many people here would like to watch the better player win in a Jinro against a top Korean series in the GSL? Not many I imagine.
Objectively (and more importantly), the role of a tournament is to determine the winner of the tournament. Depending on tournament or league results over longer periods time, players gain reputation and are then considered to be among the best, or "better" than players who did not achieve such results.
What extended series does is take the winner of the first BO3 and say "This guy is better, he shouldn't lose against this particular opponent again so we'll never give his opponent the chance that he earned to compete in a new bracket match".
On December 02 2010 06:10 Longshank wrote: On extended series, basically it comes down to if you view each match as a separate event or not. To me this isn't even up for debate, of course they are separate events, that's the foundation for all competition.
World Cup -94, Sweden lost to Brazil 2-0 in the group stage, then were to play them again in the semi-final. Had this been extended series Brazil would have started the game with a 2-0 lead, which is of course completely retarded. I don't care what graphs or formulas you can come up with, that's not how sports or competition works, period.
If two players meet in the first round and then later in LB sixth round, the condition for these games are very different. How the players perform when their tournament lives are at stake, metagame changes within the tournament(like Dimaga b-busting his way through terrans in that zotac during beta), fatigue, will the player who recently lost in WB tilt or enter mad gosu mode? There are just so many factors that changes from one match to another, which makes it obvious that these must be treated as separate events. This is a given in every competition everywhere, except for HALO. Go figure.
The soccer analogy is terrible and doesn't make any sense, but the rest of your argument I completely agree with.
EPT
(i think there were some, but i might be wrong?) 
