On September 29 2019 07:36 Cokefreak wrote: This just proves that Serral is the best player in the world or the GOAT or a bonjwa if that is the term you prefer
Go Serral, master of the universe!
Finland > South Korea
Rogue beating Trap 4-0 when Serral beat him 3-1 proves that Serral is the best play in the world? Maybe you should lay off the cocaine for a bit.
Serral won with SH+Nydus instead of Ling+Queen+Nydus so his victory is more honourable.
No, but in all serious, this was a bad finals due to the sweep but the games themselves could've been worse. I thought Game 1 and Game 4 were decentish, and Game 3 was fun just cos it's cool to see Rogue play late game when he's in prime form. Game 2 was just an awful, flustered game by Trap.
Still a pretty bad finals but I'm gonna call this better than the NesTea finals and some of the other early GSL ones.
6-0 in bo7? Wow! I wonder who has the best streak for playing between noon and evening, or the best streak for playing with shoes untied. Isn't everyone curious of who has the best streak while playing with average APM between 367-409, since those are prime numbers? Me, too!
On September 29 2019 07:36 Cokefreak wrote: This just proves that Serral is the best player in the world or the GOAT or a bonjwa if that is the term you prefer
Go Serral, master of the universe!
Finland > South Korea
Rogue beating Trap 4-0 when Serral beat him 3-1 proves that Serral is the best play in the world? Maybe you should lay off the cocaine for a bit.
Pretty sure he meant it's cause Serral defeated Rogue in 3 series in the past, and they're 7-2 in maps, but both his and your logic are equally flawed.
On September 29 2019 09:13 tigon_ridge wrote: 6-0 in bo7? Wow! I wonder who has the best streak for playing between noon and evening, or the best streak for playing with shoes untied. Isn't everyone curious of who has the best streak while playing with average APM between 367-409, since those are prime numbers? Me, too!
since you don't seem to grasp what makes that number significant:
longer series are more representative results than shorter ones due to randomness and luck. very small random variables can influence the result of a single game, but as you play more games it becomes more likely that randomness will go in your favor as often as your opponent's favor. this is because the longer you play, the larger your statistical sample size.
in a related concept, this is also part of why many people consider long macro games more representative of "overall" skill, because you have to master various stages of the game and account for a larger range of scenarios over a longer period of time
your joke was cute, but hopefully you learned something about statistics
On September 29 2019 09:13 tigon_ridge wrote: 6-0 in bo7? Wow! I wonder who has the best streak for playing between noon and evening, or the best streak for playing with shoes untied. Isn't everyone curious of who has the best streak while playing with average APM between 367-409, since those are prime numbers? Me, too!
since you don't seem to grasp what makes that number significant:
longer series are more representative results than shorter ones due to randomness and luck. very small random variables can influence the result of a single game, but as you play more games it becomes more likely that randomness will go in your favor as often as your opponent's favor. this is because the longer you play, the larger your statistical sample size.
in a related concept, this is also part of why many people consider long macro games more representative of "overall" skill, because you have to master various stages of the game and account for a larger range of scenarios over a longer period of time
your joke was cute, but hopefully you learned something about statistics
Since you seem to think you understand what you're talking about:
Longer series are indeed "more representative results than shorter ones due to randomness and luck," but long series don't mean squat when taken in isolation, while ignoring performances in shorter series. "...As you play more games it becomes more likely that randomness will go in your favor as often as your opponent's favor." Indeed. Now replace "games" with "series," and that's also true, but even more meaningful. Short series in aggregate are just as meaningful as long series in aggregate.
Your reply was not cute, but hopefully you learned something about statistics.
On September 29 2019 09:13 tigon_ridge wrote: 6-0 in bo7? Wow! I wonder who has the best streak for playing between noon and evening, or the best streak for playing with shoes untied. Isn't everyone curious of who has the best streak while playing with average APM between 367-409, since those are prime numbers? Me, too!
since you don't seem to grasp what makes that number significant:
longer series are more representative results than shorter ones due to randomness and luck. very small random variables can influence the result of a single game, but as you play more games it becomes more likely that randomness will go in your favor as often as your opponent's favor. this is because the longer you play, the larger your statistical sample size.
in a related concept, this is also part of why many people consider long macro games more representative of "overall" skill, because you have to master various stages of the game and account for a larger range of scenarios over a longer period of time
your joke was cute, but hopefully you learned something about statistics
Since you seem you think you understand what you're talking about:
Longer series are indeed "more representative results than shorter ones due to randomness and luck," but long series don't mean squat when taken in isolation, while ignoring performances in shorter series. "...As you play more games it becomes more likely that randomness will go in your favor as often as your opponent's favor." Indeed. Now replace "games" with "series," and that's also true, but even more meaningful. Short series in aggregate are just as meaningful as long series in aggregate.
Your reply was not cute, but hopefully you learned something about statistics.
On September 29 2019 09:13 tigon_ridge wrote: 6-0 in bo7? Wow! I wonder who has the best streak for playing between noon and evening, or the best streak for playing with shoes untied. Isn't everyone curious of who has the best streak while playing with average APM between 367-409, since those are prime numbers? Me, too!
since you don't seem to grasp what makes that number significant:
longer series are more representative results than shorter ones due to randomness and luck. very small random variables can influence the result of a single game, but as you play more games it becomes more likely that randomness will go in your favor as often as your opponent's favor. this is because the longer you play, the larger your statistical sample size.
in a related concept, this is also part of why many people consider long macro games more representative of "overall" skill, because you have to master various stages of the game and account for a larger range of scenarios over a longer period of time
your joke was cute, but hopefully you learned something about statistics
Since you seem you think you understand what you're talking about:
Longer series are indeed "more representative results than shorter ones due to randomness and luck," but long series don't mean squat when taken in isolation, while ignoring performances in shorter series. "...As you play more games it becomes more likely that randomness will go in your favor as often as your opponent's favor." Indeed. Now replace "games" with "series," and that's also true, but even more meaningful. Short series in aggregate are just as meaningful as long series in aggregate.
Your reply was not cute, but hopefully you learned something about statistics.
i was more hoping you'd learn something about FUN
It's hard to tell if a TL writer is being facetious, sometimes. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
As we can see, Rogue's practice has paid off. His Nydus harrassment timing is perfect, has a new understanding of Infestors and infested marines, and has a great sense of distance with BLs. Btw, anyone else reminded by game 3 of the time when Raven's anti-armor missle deals damage, and everyone just massive Raven fleet?
On September 29 2019 09:13 tigon_ridge wrote: 6-0 in bo7? Wow! I wonder who has the best streak for playing between noon and evening, or the best streak for playing with shoes untied. Isn't everyone curious of who has the best streak while playing with average APM between 367-409, since those are prime numbers? Me, too!
since you don't seem to grasp what makes that number significant:
longer series are more representative results than shorter ones due to randomness and luck. very small random variables can influence the result of a single game, but as you play more games it becomes more likely that randomness will go in your favor as often as your opponent's favor. this is because the longer you play, the larger your statistical sample size.
in a related concept, this is also part of why many people consider long macro games more representative of "overall" skill, because you have to master various stages of the game and account for a larger range of scenarios over a longer period of time
your joke was cute, but hopefully you learned something about statistics
Since you seem to think you understand what you're talking about:
Longer series are indeed "more representative results than shorter ones due to randomness and luck," but long series don't mean squat when taken in isolation, while ignoring performances in shorter series. "...As you play more games it becomes more likely that randomness will go in your favor as often as your opponent's favor." Indeed. Now replace "games" with "series," and that's also true, but even more meaningful. Short series in aggregate are just as meaningful as long series in aggregate.
Your reply was not cute, but hopefully you learned something about statistics.
Strange arguments guys, surely you both realise that there is no one indicative measure. You can't just look at Bo7 because there are so many other factors at play such as who the opponent was, race, maps, team houses, amount of practice time, jet lag, off days... Equally you can't completely discard them entirely. In any case, 6 Bo7 is still a relatively small sample overall so arguing statistics is just weird.
Why can't we just agree both Rogue and Serral are very good players?
It doesn't mean Rogue is better than Serral just because he is great at bo7, I never implied anything like that. It is not a super important statistic nor is it pointless. It is like soO being very strong before GSL final, which no one disputes even though he is only 7-1 in GSL ro8 and 6-1 in ro4 (not much better of a record than Rogue's bo7 record). It appears Rogue is really strong in bo7 and he seems to think so himself. Most of his bo7 series have been very one-sided too (only herO vs Rogue went to 7 games from my memory). Doesn't mean he is better than Serral but it's not as pointless or arbitrary as having "x win rate with even number apm."
This finals was pretty bad, but even tho Rogue says zerg is op I think this had more to do with Trap playing below his skills:
- Game 1 he got countered and didn't notice the nydus on his main - Game 2 he had a sloppy early game (bad adept control, sentries getting caught) and did not react to the nydus at all despite game 1 - Game 3 he gets an advantage and instead of punishing Rogue Trap decides to play it safe, which is fine on paper but he took too long to get anywhere, it was like 5 minutes until he finally got carriers and he did very little harassment, basically just let Rogue build up and play his own game - Game 4 decides to all-in, doesn't get scouted, then he randomly reveals glaves having only 4? adepts, letting Rogue react, I'm not sure if this was a mistake or intentional. Then proceeds to eat a whole bunch of corrosive biles during all of the engagements and eventually gets overrun
I'm a protoss player and I was super hyped for Trap after he delivered vs Maru, I'm sad
Its no secret Serral's weakest matchup is ZvZ due to the nature of ZvZ.
That's why zerg players like Elaser and Reynor can take games off of him despite being worse in every category that matters. And we know Serral is a very strong ZvZ player already but can lose again, due to the problem with mirror matchups.
Anyways Rogue bitch slapped Trap out of this tournament. Hopefully we'll see more strong performances from Trap for the rest of the year.
On September 29 2019 12:37 Corgi wrote: Its no secret Serral's weakest matchup is ZvZ due to the nature of ZvZ.
That's why zerg players like Elaser and Reynor can take games off of him despite being worse in every category that matters. And we know Serral is a very strong ZvZ player already but can lose again, due to the problem with mirror matchups.
Anyways Rogue bitch slapped Trap out of this tournament. Hopefully we'll see more strong performances from Trap for the rest of the year.
It's very hard to argue what Serral's weakest/strongest MU is. Losing a few games in a MU can be chalked up to randomness of SC2. Don't let those 3-1 against protoss and terrans fool you. In many of those games he won, they were very close. Serral's recent 4-0 against Reynor should not be discounted so easily. Remember, Reynor's best MU is ZvZ, and he's easily considered 2nd best foreigner overall. Arguably, Serral was more or less having fun with Elazer (he even said so in the interview post-semi-final), while Elazer was playing his heart and brains out.
On September 29 2019 07:36 Cokefreak wrote: This just proves that Serral is the best player in the world or the GOAT or a bonjwa if that is the term you prefer
Go Serral, master of the universe!
Finland > South Korea
Rogue beating Trap 4-0 when Serral beat him 3-1 proves that Serral is the best play in the world? Maybe you should lay off the cocaine for a bit.
On September 29 2019 09:13 tigon_ridge wrote: 6-0 in bo7? Wow! I wonder who has the best streak for playing between noon and evening, or the best streak for playing with shoes untied. Isn't everyone curious of who has the best streak while playing with average APM between 367-409, since those are prime numbers? Me, too!
since you don't seem to grasp what makes that number significant:
longer series are more representative results than shorter ones due to randomness and luck. very small random variables can influence the result of a single game, but as you play more games it becomes more likely that randomness will go in your favor as often as your opponent's favor. this is because the longer you play, the larger your statistical sample size.
in a related concept, this is also part of why many people consider long macro games more representative of "overall" skill, because you have to master various stages of the game and account for a larger range of scenarios over a longer period of time
your joke was cute, but hopefully you learned something about statistics
Since you seem to think you understand what you're talking about:
Longer series are indeed "more representative results than shorter ones due to randomness and luck," but long series don't mean squat when taken in isolation, while ignoring performances in shorter series. "...As you play more games it becomes more likely that randomness will go in your favor as often as your opponent's favor." Indeed. Now replace "games" with "series," and that's also true, but even more meaningful. Short series in aggregate are just as meaningful as long series in aggregate.
Your reply was not cute, but hopefully you learned something about statistics.
Nothing is taken in isolation though. This is actually a meaningful stat when a Bo7 comes around for all the reasons he (and you) just mentioned. These stats can only be used in contexts where they are relevant, but their significant is much more than some arbitrary random stat (like the shoe untie etc..)
It's like those ridiculous Bo5 set stats that tennis players have (and to a lesser extent, tie-breaker stats). People don't talk about their Bo5 records during normal ATP 250/500 or Masters tournaments because they aren't relevant. But when we're heading to a fifth set in a grand slam match, suddenly those stats have a lot of weight and meaning. There's a reason why Grand Slam results have remained highly consistent (or at least as consistent as could possibly be) for several years, and the stats provide some sort of insight into that.
On September 29 2019 12:37 Corgi wrote: Its no secret Serral's weakest matchup is ZvZ due to the nature of ZvZ.
That's why zerg players like Elaser and Reynor can take games off of him despite being worse in every category that matters. And we know Serral is a very strong ZvZ player already but can lose again, due to the problem with mirror matchups.
Anyways Rogue bitch slapped Trap out of this tournament. Hopefully we'll see more strong performances from Trap for the rest of the year.
It's very hard to argue what Serral's weakest/strongest MU is. Losing a few games in a MU can be chalked up to randomness of SC2. Don't let those 3-1 against protoss and terrans fool you. In many of those games he won, they were very close. Serral's recent 4-0 against Reynor should not be discounted so easily. Remember, Reynor's best MU is ZvZ, and he's easily considered 2nd best foreigner overall. Arguably, Serral was more or less having fun with Elazer (he even said so in the interview post-semi-final), while Elazer was playing his heart and brains out.
Pretty sure Serral considers ZvZ his best matchup, even taking the volatility into account. I'd say he's probably more likely to lose games to a weaker player in ZvZ compared to his other matchups, but in terms of actual series, he still almost always comes out on top. Plus, I honestly think he's just gotten better and better in this matchup over time, we saw Reynor put up a great fight against Serral for half of the year. Since then, Serral has made Reynor look like a fool, which is crazy because Reynor makes other people look like a fool in ZvZ.
Rogue always talks big so I'm not too surprised he believes he can take on Serral in a long, macro game. Last year, he said something along the lines of "I'm unbeatable in ZvZ" right before facing Serral, and well, he wasn't unbeatable. That confidence definitely need that matchup more interesting, so I wouldn't mind if they faced each other again. Rogue borders on arrogant sometimes but tbh, he looks great against Dark so it's not completely unwarranted. But it's pretty safe to say Serral's ZvZ is a big step above Dark's ZvZ, which is an obvious weakness of his.
EPT
