• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 11:24
CEST 17:24
KST 00:24
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202528RSL Season 1 - Final Week8[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16
Community News
Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission re-extension4Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation17
StarCraft 2
General
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread Esports World Cup 2025 - Final Player Roster Why doesnt SC2 scene costream tournaments Heaven's Balance Suggestions (roast me)
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame
Brood War
General
Flash Announces (and Retracts) Hiatus From ASL BW General Discussion BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Corsair Pursuit Micro? Pro gamer house photos
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL 2v2] ProLeague Season 3 - Friday 21:00 CET The Casual Games of the Week Thread BWCL Season 63 Announcement
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Nintendo Switch Thread Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread The Games Industry And ATVI Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 922 users

Statistical Analysis of Extended Series - Page 5

Forum Index > SC2 General
Post a Reply
Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next All
Adeeler
Profile Blog Joined June 2009
United Kingdom764 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-11-12 07:19:29
November 12 2010 07:15 GMT
#81
On November 12 2010 16:05 zulu_nation8 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 12 2010 15:56 Adeeler wrote:
Double Extended is definitely more accurate a measure then plain double and is efficient.

Arguing that each round is isolated and shouldn't cause an extended series goes against the whole principal of an isolated tournament where its the battle to have the best winning streak. You can't have it both ways.

Either you have only single elimination or double extended. Plain double is never valid in any circumstance. How this isn't understood by tournament veterans is odd.

Over multiple single eliminations the players rank will become more accurate but the double & double extended speed up the process.

The Idra arguement of his zvt is better the anothers persons matchup is completely irrelevent. Race doesn't matter as you either play to win in a tournament setting beating everyone or you want a league where you can lose but overall your average skill level will be shown.

Round robins are the most accurate most fair but no one has that kind of time.


In the context of Almeisan's example, you can look at it as G5 obtaining an advantage for having gone on a win streak in the loser's bracket before meeting Idra, where the advantage is for their series to start out 0-0. In the grand final the winner's bracket winner starts out with an advantage because he went undefeated.


If you stayed in the Winners by knocking someone down beating them you proved you are better in a single elim fashion, the double isn't about giving losers a second chance but placing final standings more accurately.

So the winner between players that have already met should always have the advantage; otherwise you are looking to only have a single elim.

The very late stages should give much less advantage to maintain entertainment value.Semi' maybe quarters onwards.
zulu_nation8
Profile Blog Joined May 2005
China26351 Posts
November 12 2010 07:16 GMT
#82
On November 12 2010 15:51 nzb wrote:
Show nested quote +

Atm I'm not sure which format I agree with more. But in the study done in the OP, the player model has way too few variables. Maybe Idra performs worse than G5 when facing elimination, or maybe G5 performs better when warmed up after having played a few BO series. In any case if two players are close enough in skill level that they can go 1-1 in two BO series, I can't imagine the regular double elim system to be so unfair that the advantage given by extended series is required to correct an "injustice" within the format. Having a 2-0 lead in a bo7 is too much of an advantage imo.


You are, obviously, right in some sense. But the purpose of the study is to find the "big picture" statistical behavior, and to capture the effects that influence this most heavily.

While I'm sure that my model is missing things, objections need to have systematic effect -- that is, in the long run they favor the better players or worse ones, or the winner of the winners' bracket game, etc.. Otherwise, you would expect that they would balance out after enough simulation (and I ran it a million times). Effects that just increase the randomness will change the results somewhat, but they probably will not change the trends, which is what we care about anyway.


My concern is that because skill is so hard to quantify and subject to so many variables, that the extended series format would actually be more detrimental to two players close in skill level than it helps a better player to advance. I'm not sure how valid this concern is, but say for example Bisu is a 3.0 and Jaedong is a 2.9, in your model Bisu will forever be the better player no matter what. But in practice, if Bisu won the first series 2-1, it's entirely possible when facing elimination JD will be pull 0.1 points ahead in skill, so that over the long run JD will perform better than Bisu when facing elimination but not in regular competition. However because of the enormous advantage provided by the extended series format, Bisu will advance an unfair number of times despite being the worse player. In this case I see no other possible format than to have both players start out 0-0.
zulu_nation8
Profile Blog Joined May 2005
China26351 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-11-12 07:26:22
November 12 2010 07:17 GMT
#83
On November 12 2010 16:15 Adeeler wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 12 2010 16:05 zulu_nation8 wrote:
On November 12 2010 15:56 Adeeler wrote:
Double Extended is definitely more accurate a measure then plain double and is efficient.

Arguing that each round is isolated and shouldn't cause an extended series goes against the whole principal of an isolated tournament where its the battle to have the best winning streak. You can't have it both ways.

Either you have only single elimination or double extended. Plain double is never valid in any circumstance. How this isn't understood by tournament veterans is odd.

Over multiple single eliminations the players rank will become more accurate but the double & double extended speed up the process.

The Idra arguement of his zvt is better the anothers persons matchup is completely irrelevent. Race doesn't matter as you either play to win in a tournament setting beating everyone or you want a league where you can lose but overall your average skill level will be shown.

Round robins are the most accurate most fair but no one has that kind of time.


In the context of Almeisan's example, you can look at it as G5 obtaining an advantage for having gone on a win streak in the loser's bracket before meeting Idra, where the advantage is for their series to start out 0-0. In the grand final the winner's bracket winner starts out with an advantage because he went undefeated.


If you stayed in the Winners by knocking someone down beating them you proved you are better in a single elim fashion, the double isn't about giving losers a second chance but placing final standings more accurately.

So the winner between players that have already met should always have the advantage; otherwise you are looking to only have a single elim.


Fair point

On November 12 2010 16:11 Almeisan wrote:
Zulu, I added a bit later about how normal double elim ignores available information. Without that part it is too much an argument about why it's better rather than about why it performs worse in simulations.

There is also the problem that G5 got only eliminated once by Idra. That is a flaw, imo. But it's a flaw of double elim in general and the same flaw single elim has. When the two player meet again in the loser bracket one of them is going to be eliminated out of the tournament. There's no way around that. And in some cases it's just impossible to not have the same match in the loser bracket you had in the winner bracket.

It's possible Idra meets Flash early on and that G5 cheesed vs Flashes 12 CC and wins 2-0. Then Idra loses to Flash in an extended series in the loser bracket and is eliminated technically only once and by Flash. That's a flaw that is in both systems that you can only fix by making it a round robin. But it's different from discarding info.


You're right, I see why the winner of the first series deserves an advantage. I still feel like a 2-0 lead is too much though for the reasons I mentioned in the earlier post.
Almeisan
Profile Joined November 2010
50 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-11-12 07:26:17
November 12 2010 07:23 GMT
#84
Playing more games always gives you more accuracy. Never less. More info is more info, not less. This doesn't become false the harder skill becomes to quantify.

And if skill is so hard to quantify and the tournament doesn't aim to have the best player win then why not play a tournament, never mind the structure, and then at the end just randomly draw a lot to determine the 'winner'? I mean, where do you draw the line? You wouldn't want to call the first player out the winner, would you? You really do want to know who is the best in that specific tournament.
Adeeler
Profile Blog Joined June 2009
United Kingdom764 Posts
November 12 2010 07:28 GMT
#85
On November 12 2010 16:16 zulu_nation8 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 12 2010 15:51 nzb wrote:

Atm I'm not sure which format I agree with more. But in the study done in the OP, the player model has way too few variables. Maybe Idra performs worse than G5 when facing elimination, or maybe G5 performs better when warmed up after having played a few BO series. In any case if two players are close enough in skill level that they can go 1-1 in two BO series, I can't imagine the regular double elim system to be so unfair that the advantage given by extended series is required to correct an "injustice" within the format. Having a 2-0 lead in a bo7 is too much of an advantage imo.


You are, obviously, right in some sense. But the purpose of the study is to find the "big picture" statistical behavior, and to capture the effects that influence this most heavily.

While I'm sure that my model is missing things, objections need to have systematic effect -- that is, in the long run they favor the better players or worse ones, or the winner of the winners' bracket game, etc.. Otherwise, you would expect that they would balance out after enough simulation (and I ran it a million times). Effects that just increase the randomness will change the results somewhat, but they probably will not change the trends, which is what we care about anyway.


My concern is that because skill is so hard to quantify and subject to so many variables, that the extended series format would actually be more detrimental to two players close in skill level than it helps a better player to advance. I'm not sure how valid this concern is, but say for example Bisu is a 3.0 and Jaedong is a 2.9, in your model Bisu will forever be the better player no matter what. But in practice, if Bisu won the first series 2-1, it's entirely possible when facing elimination JD will be pull 0.1 points ahead in skill, so that over the long run JD will perform better than Bisu when facing elimination but not in regular competition. However because of the enormous advantage provided by the extended series format, Bisu will advance an unfair number of times despite being the worse player. In this case I see no other possible format than to have both players start out 0-0.


You can't count in decimals when your base counting measure is 1 as a game is either won(1) or lost (0) in terms of rounds.

Your previous skill in touraments overall (Jaedong 2.9) can never effect your games in you next game, otherwise lottery balls that fell one week would physically effect the next weeks balls. The chance is still between winning and losing there isn't possible to be a partial 0.9 win at the end only
full win or loss.
zulu_nation8
Profile Blog Joined May 2005
China26351 Posts
November 12 2010 07:30 GMT
#86
On November 12 2010 16:23 Almeisan wrote:
Playing more games always gives you more accuracy. Never less. More info is more info, not less. This doesn't become false the harder skill becomes to quantify.

And if skill is so hard to quantify and the tournament doesn't aim to have the best player win then why not play a tournament, never mind the structure, and then at the end just randomly draw a lot to determine the 'winner'? I mean, where do you draw the line? You wouldn't want to call the first player out the winner, would you? You really do want to know who is the best in that specific tournament.


Skill is hard to quantify thus a format should try to do at little of it as possible. I understand the advantage provided by extended series is necessary, but trying to determine how much advantage should be given requires some kind of measurement of skill.
ghostsquall
Profile Joined September 2010
United States187 Posts
November 12 2010 07:31 GMT
#87
Why don't they just do a bo5 with nobody at an advantage? Best sides of both spectrum.

There. Problem solved.
i pwn n00bs
zulu_nation8
Profile Blog Joined May 2005
China26351 Posts
November 12 2010 07:33 GMT
#88
On November 12 2010 16:28 Adeeler wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 12 2010 16:16 zulu_nation8 wrote:
On November 12 2010 15:51 nzb wrote:

Atm I'm not sure which format I agree with more. But in the study done in the OP, the player model has way too few variables. Maybe Idra performs worse than G5 when facing elimination, or maybe G5 performs better when warmed up after having played a few BO series. In any case if two players are close enough in skill level that they can go 1-1 in two BO series, I can't imagine the regular double elim system to be so unfair that the advantage given by extended series is required to correct an "injustice" within the format. Having a 2-0 lead in a bo7 is too much of an advantage imo.


You are, obviously, right in some sense. But the purpose of the study is to find the "big picture" statistical behavior, and to capture the effects that influence this most heavily.

While I'm sure that my model is missing things, objections need to have systematic effect -- that is, in the long run they favor the better players or worse ones, or the winner of the winners' bracket game, etc.. Otherwise, you would expect that they would balance out after enough simulation (and I ran it a million times). Effects that just increase the randomness will change the results somewhat, but they probably will not change the trends, which is what we care about anyway.


My concern is that because skill is so hard to quantify and subject to so many variables, that the extended series format would actually be more detrimental to two players close in skill level than it helps a better player to advance. I'm not sure how valid this concern is, but say for example Bisu is a 3.0 and Jaedong is a 2.9, in your model Bisu will forever be the better player no matter what. But in practice, if Bisu won the first series 2-1, it's entirely possible when facing elimination JD will be pull 0.1 points ahead in skill, so that over the long run JD will perform better than Bisu when facing elimination but not in regular competition. However because of the enormous advantage provided by the extended series format, Bisu will advance an unfair number of times despite being the worse player. In this case I see no other possible format than to have both players start out 0-0.


You can't count in decimals when your base counting measure is 1 as a game is either won(1) or lost (0) in terms of rounds.

Your previous skill in touraments overall (Jaedong 2.9) can never effect your games in you next game, otherwise lottery balls that fell one week would physically effect the next weeks balls. The chance is still between winning and losing there isn't possible to be a partial 0.9 win at the end only
full win or loss.


I just made up random numbers but why can't it be probability as in JD wins 55% of all single elimination games vs Bisu, Bisu 45%.
Adeeler
Profile Blog Joined June 2009
United Kingdom764 Posts
November 12 2010 07:35 GMT
#89
On November 12 2010 16:31 ghostsquall wrote:
Why don't they just do a bo5 with nobody at an advantage? Best sides of both spectrum.

There. Problem solved.


You still give the loser an undeserved advantage of resettling their losses so you suggestion changes nothing.
space_yes
Profile Joined April 2010
United States548 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-11-12 07:39:24
November 12 2010 07:37 GMT
#90
On November 12 2010 16:31 ghostsquall wrote:
Why don't they just do a bo5 with nobody at an advantage? Best sides of both spectrum.

There. Problem solved.


Can people stop posting "why not just do another BoX?" It really shows you haven't read the thread..

EDIT: doing another BoX reproduces all of the problems inherent in non-extended series double elim i.e. the player with the worse record advancing, or there is a tie in the net record making the order the series were played in more important than the individual results
Kazang
Profile Joined August 2010
578 Posts
November 12 2010 07:38 GMT
#91
Your so called statistical analysis is filled with biased side notes and totally neglects a number of the the real reasons behind using the extended series.
Notably that it provides a better ranking for all players not simply better chances of just the best player winning, it prevents things like the 2nd best players going out in the first round. Which your analysis doesn't take into account.

Your "scope" contains "questions" that are not questions, not even rhetorical, but statements that haven't been proven within your analysis or even supported by other statements that are proven.

Your math is solid but it's isolated and applies or has been applied to only certain circumstances ranges without really taking into account the varying factors that have to be considered. Such as were does seeding fit into this?
It is used and without that being factored into any math it is essentially worthless.

That's all mostly negative criticism but you don't need anyone to tell you what you got right, you already know that.
Adeeler
Profile Blog Joined June 2009
United Kingdom764 Posts
November 12 2010 07:39 GMT
#92
On November 12 2010 16:33 zulu_nation8 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 12 2010 16:28 Adeeler wrote:
On November 12 2010 16:16 zulu_nation8 wrote:
On November 12 2010 15:51 nzb wrote:

Atm I'm not sure which format I agree with more. But in the study done in the OP, the player model has way too few variables. Maybe Idra performs worse than G5 when facing elimination, or maybe G5 performs better when warmed up after having played a few BO series. In any case if two players are close enough in skill level that they can go 1-1 in two BO series, I can't imagine the regular double elim system to be so unfair that the advantage given by extended series is required to correct an "injustice" within the format. Having a 2-0 lead in a bo7 is too much of an advantage imo.


You are, obviously, right in some sense. But the purpose of the study is to find the "big picture" statistical behavior, and to capture the effects that influence this most heavily.

While I'm sure that my model is missing things, objections need to have systematic effect -- that is, in the long run they favor the better players or worse ones, or the winner of the winners' bracket game, etc.. Otherwise, you would expect that they would balance out after enough simulation (and I ran it a million times). Effects that just increase the randomness will change the results somewhat, but they probably will not change the trends, which is what we care about anyway.


My concern is that because skill is so hard to quantify and subject to so many variables, that the extended series format would actually be more detrimental to two players close in skill level than it helps a better player to advance. I'm not sure how valid this concern is, but say for example Bisu is a 3.0 and Jaedong is a 2.9, in your model Bisu will forever be the better player no matter what. But in practice, if Bisu won the first series 2-1, it's entirely possible when facing elimination JD will be pull 0.1 points ahead in skill, so that over the long run JD will perform better than Bisu when facing elimination but not in regular competition. However because of the enormous advantage provided by the extended series format, Bisu will advance an unfair number of times despite being the worse player. In this case I see no other possible format than to have both players start out 0-0.


You can't count in decimals when your base counting measure is 1 as a game is either won(1) or lost (0) in terms of rounds.

Your previous skill in touraments overall (Jaedong 2.9) can never effect your games in you next game, otherwise lottery balls that fell one week would physically effect the next weeks balls. The chance is still between winning and losing there isn't possible to be a partial 0.9 win at the end only
full win or loss.


I just made up random numbers but why can't it be probability as in JD wins 55% of all single elimination games vs Bisu, Bisu 45%.


Because a game can only result in a win or loss. I.e. you can't cause a win by only killing 55% of the enemies base only by killing 100% a full win.

Draws are counted as win for both or neither.
Askesis
Profile Joined September 2010
216 Posts
November 12 2010 07:56 GMT
#93
On November 12 2010 16:39 Adeeler wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 12 2010 16:33 zulu_nation8 wrote:
On November 12 2010 16:28 Adeeler wrote:
On November 12 2010 16:16 zulu_nation8 wrote:
On November 12 2010 15:51 nzb wrote:

Atm I'm not sure which format I agree with more. But in the study done in the OP, the player model has way too few variables. Maybe Idra performs worse than G5 when facing elimination, or maybe G5 performs better when warmed up after having played a few BO series. In any case if two players are close enough in skill level that they can go 1-1 in two BO series, I can't imagine the regular double elim system to be so unfair that the advantage given by extended series is required to correct an "injustice" within the format. Having a 2-0 lead in a bo7 is too much of an advantage imo.


You are, obviously, right in some sense. But the purpose of the study is to find the "big picture" statistical behavior, and to capture the effects that influence this most heavily.

While I'm sure that my model is missing things, objections need to have systematic effect -- that is, in the long run they favor the better players or worse ones, or the winner of the winners' bracket game, etc.. Otherwise, you would expect that they would balance out after enough simulation (and I ran it a million times). Effects that just increase the randomness will change the results somewhat, but they probably will not change the trends, which is what we care about anyway.


My concern is that because skill is so hard to quantify and subject to so many variables, that the extended series format would actually be more detrimental to two players close in skill level than it helps a better player to advance. I'm not sure how valid this concern is, but say for example Bisu is a 3.0 and Jaedong is a 2.9, in your model Bisu will forever be the better player no matter what. But in practice, if Bisu won the first series 2-1, it's entirely possible when facing elimination JD will be pull 0.1 points ahead in skill, so that over the long run JD will perform better than Bisu when facing elimination but not in regular competition. However because of the enormous advantage provided by the extended series format, Bisu will advance an unfair number of times despite being the worse player. In this case I see no other possible format than to have both players start out 0-0.


You can't count in decimals when your base counting measure is 1 as a game is either won(1) or lost (0) in terms of rounds.

Your previous skill in touraments overall (Jaedong 2.9) can never effect your games in you next game, otherwise lottery balls that fell one week would physically effect the next weeks balls. The chance is still between winning and losing there isn't possible to be a partial 0.9 win at the end only
full win or loss.


I just made up random numbers but why can't it be probability as in JD wins 55% of all single elimination games vs Bisu, Bisu 45%.


Because a game can only result in a win or loss. I.e. you can't cause a win by only killing 55% of the enemies base only by killing 100% a full win.

Draws are counted as win for both or neither.
Are you trolling or are you just honestly clueless about what he is talking about?
Almeisan
Profile Joined November 2010
50 Posts
November 12 2010 08:00 GMT
#94
On November 12 2010 16:30 zulu_nation8 wrote:
Skill is hard to quantify thus a format should try to do at little of it as possible.


The harder skill is to qualify the harder you ought to try. Otherwise the tournament becomes meaningless. You really want a game and some tournament setup where skilled players don't win more than unskilled players? Do you really want to know who is lucky on that given day rather than something else?

I understand the advantage provided by extended series is necessary, but trying to determine how much advantage should be given requires some kind of measurement of skill.


Where is an advantage given? You either count all games or you count only those in the loser bracket. Counting all games doesn't make the first games count for more. It's just that with a bo3 in the loser bracket while ignoring the previous games you get more deviation from the expected results. It favours the less skilled player over the more skilled one because if there were no deviation we would have 100% chance for the most skilled player to win.
Nayl
Profile Joined March 2010
Canada413 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-11-12 08:34:08
November 12 2010 08:30 GMT
#95
On November 12 2010 16:38 Kazang wrote:
Your so called statistical analysis is filled with biased side notes and totally neglects a number of the the real reasons behind using the extended series.
Notably that it provides a better ranking for all players not simply better chances of just the best player winning, it prevents things like the 2nd best players going out in the first round. Which your analysis doesn't take into account.

Your "scope" contains "questions" that are not questions, not even rhetorical, but statements that haven't been proven within your analysis or even supported by other statements that are proven.

Your math is solid but it's isolated and applies or has been applied to only certain circumstances ranges without really taking into account the varying factors that have to be considered. Such as were does seeding fit into this?
It is used and without that being factored into any math it is essentially worthless.

That's all mostly negative criticism but you don't need anyone to tell you what you got right, you already know that.


Wow people still posting to point out flaws in model? Read the thread before posting, YES there are flaws in the model, we can't have a perfect model. Again, simplest model is best model to make decisions with, because we can't just add in these non-quantifiable factors in the model and expect it to work. Sounds like you just wanted to pint out flaws.

Where is the bias in his analysis or scope? Read the scope, which specifically says its NOT concerned with the questions listed.

Can we actually talk about his conclusion, that is, this simple model tells us that while extended series contributes a little bit to making the tournament outcome "fairer", in reality, it does not have big enough effect to be absolutely certain, considering all other factors.

So whether they should continue with what they are doing, or just do regular double elimination since statistically its not SO different, or come up with a whole new tournament method.
Kazang
Profile Joined August 2010
578 Posts
November 12 2010 09:06 GMT
#96
On November 12 2010 17:30 scion wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 12 2010 16:38 Kazang wrote:
Your so called statistical analysis is filled with biased side notes and totally neglects a number of the the real reasons behind using the extended series.
Notably that it provides a better ranking for all players not simply better chances of just the best player winning, it prevents things like the 2nd best players going out in the first round. Which your analysis doesn't take into account.

Your "scope" contains "questions" that are not questions, not even rhetorical, but statements that haven't been proven within your analysis or even supported by other statements that are proven.

Your math is solid but it's isolated and applies or has been applied to only certain circumstances ranges without really taking into account the varying factors that have to be considered. Such as were does seeding fit into this?
It is used and without that being factored into any math it is essentially worthless.

That's all mostly negative criticism but you don't need anyone to tell you what you got right, you already know that.


Wow people still posting to point out flaws in model? Read the thread before posting, YES there are flaws in the model, we can't have a perfect model. Again, simplest model is best model to make decisions with, because we can't just add in these non-quantifiable factors in the model and expect it to work. Sounds like you just wanted to pint out flaws.

Where is the bias in his analysis or scope? Read the scope, which specifically says its NOT concerned with the questions listed.

Can we actually talk about his conclusion, that is, this simple model tells us that while extended series contributes a little bit to making the tournament outcome "fairer", in reality, it does not have big enough effect to be absolutely certain, considering all other factors.

So whether they should continue with what they are doing, or just do regular double elimination since statistically its not SO different, or come up with a whole new tournament method.



Yeah no wonder people are pointing out flaws in the model...... It is kind of important if you are going to use it as evidence or basis for a decision.

You don't need a mathematical model to point out the logical benefits of a extended series. So why apply a flawed mathematical model at all if you are going to then factor in other external factors?
If the model is flawed, which it most certainly is, how can you logically use it as an argument for anything?

The scale of the model is also quite ridiculous, round robin for a 128 man tournament like MLG Dallas is 8128 games, how the hell can you compare that to single elimination of 126 games in the same graph? The scale is insane, the accuracy difference is far bigger than than those little jpgs show since the number of games is the biggest factor at work in a live tournament. The comparison is more misleading than anything to someone who hasn't already thought about this.

I also read the scope clearly, I'm pointing out a mistake in the writing; it says "here are questions" then lists statements.
Of course I want to point out the flaws, duh..... You cannot base an argument or discussion on a flawed premise, if you do it's just pointless.
As it is the model shows nothing of value, other than the fact this the extended series is better even when not taking into account the full range of benefits the extended series offers.
So then what is the point of it?
vaahto
Profile Joined September 2010
65 Posts
November 12 2010 10:14 GMT
#97
I'd be interested to know how much of the extra accuracy in the extended series comes from the extra games played, and how much from it specifically being an extended series. We already know that playing more games will result in greater accuracy in results.

If you compare it to a normal double elimination where people meeting each other again play a Bo5 instead, would it eliminate the accuracy difference between normal and extended double elimination? That system would have a small chance of having an extra game compared to the extended series, so if the effect was simply from extra games, it should be more accurate than the extended series format.

Sorry if you answered this already, and I missed it somewhere.
bmml
Profile Joined December 2009
United Kingdom962 Posts
November 12 2010 10:24 GMT
#98
Surely the important thing is that extended series SUCK for the viewer, at the end of the day thats all that should matter - making an entertaining tournament.
flk0s
Profile Joined September 2010
54 Posts
November 12 2010 10:44 GMT
#99
Wow, a lot of haters in this topic that don't understand the point of modelling. Models are not meant to be a 100% perfect representation of reality but are used to draw out insights into the behaviour of a system. Every model has limiting assumptions and these should be should considered when interpreting the results and drawing conclusions, just as nzb has done. Also, just because some assumptions are limiting does not mean they will necessarily have a large effect on the results - this should be reasoned through. Anyways good job nzb.

On November 12 2010 13:07 nzb wrote:
I didn't talk about this in the main post, because its just my opinion and wasn't backed by any numbers, but I think a good format would be:

- Play swiss-style tournament to determine the top 8-16 players.
- Play single elimination to get champion.

This would be a very reliable way to determine the top 8 or 16, and then would switch into overdrive to determine the champ. It would be very exciting, similar to how the NCAA does March Madness. I would love it if we could get someone to do some special event using this format just to try it out.


For interest, the 'Magic: the Gathering' Pro Tour has used that format for the last ~10 years:
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Events.aspx
The format is exciting with the single elimination Top 8, however it can be ruthless to some competitors who dominate the swiss rounds and then get knocked out early in the single elim. One of the issues is that the later stages of the swiss rounds can be pretty boring, as most matches are drawn between the top players who have already secured a Top 8 spot, and luck-based, when a number of players can draw into the Top 8 but one gets matched against a lower player and has to play it out (or against a higher player who refuses to draw to help a friend advance in the rankings) while the others draw amongst themselves.
simme123
Profile Blog Joined February 2010
Sweden810 Posts
November 12 2010 10:58 GMT
#100
This really isn't a question of mathematics imo it's a question of preference. I agree with both camps but I'd say extended series aren't what I prefer. You can't be statistical when it comes to this I'd say the best thing would be to have a poll with the pro gamers to determine how they feel about it and decide that way.
Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Esports World Cup
10:00
2025 - Day 1
SHIN vs ReynorLIVE!
Maru vs TriGGeRLIVE!
herO vs Lancer
Cure vs ShoWTimE
Classic vs Rogue
Serral vs HeRoMaRinE
EWC_Arena7630
ComeBackTV 2398
EWC_Arena_21725
TaKeTV 557
Hui .502
Berry_CruncH313
3DClanTV 283
Rex252
Fuzer 247
CranKy Ducklings226
mcanning211
EnkiAlexander 164
UpATreeSC159
Reynor156
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
EWC_Arena7630
EWC_Arena_21725
Hui .502
Rex 252
Fuzer 247
mcanning 211
UpATreeSC 159
Reynor 156
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 25985
Barracks 1943
EffOrt 1675
Bisu 1614
Mini 1157
Jaedong 794
Stork 566
Larva 495
Soulkey 339
Soma 271
[ Show more ]
Snow 128
ToSsGirL 95
Sea.KH 67
Trikslyr58
Sharp 56
Movie 56
PianO 48
Backho 41
soO 38
sas.Sziky 37
zelot 22
Terrorterran 21
scan(afreeca) 17
JulyZerg 16
ivOry 5
Counter-Strike
oskar268
markeloff143
edward105
Super Smash Bros
Westballz46
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor184
XaKoH 123
Other Games
singsing2797
B2W.Neo1448
ceh9405
crisheroes376
syndereN240
ArmadaUGS103
Organizations
StarCraft: Brood War
Kim Chul Min (afreeca) 12
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 14 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• intothetv
• IndyKCrew
• sooper7s
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• Migwel
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Kozan
StarCraft: Brood War
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
League of Legends
• Nemesis5328
• TFBlade847
• Stunt797
Other Games
• Shiphtur40
Upcoming Events
Esports World Cup
18h 36m
Esports World Cup
1d 18h
Esports World Cup
2 days
CranKy Ducklings
3 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
CSO Cup
4 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
4 days
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
4 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
4 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
5 days
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
[ Show More ]
Sparkling Tuna Cup
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.