|
illsick
United States1770 Posts
you pick tennis which seems to be pretty consistent at the very tip top... (I love seeing the big four of djoker, fed, nadal, murray) and it seems to be the exception.
but other sports can be just as random like american football (Baltimore winning the whole thing as a wild card), March Madness NCAA brackets being so hard to predict, NBA favored teams losing to lesser teams.
Starcraft can be hard to predict and to keep liquibets at high score due to a lot of factors; like new players emerging, different matchups that certain players are strong/weak against, the game being ever changing, the more you win = more people can study you to anti strat, etc.
but as random as it may seem, we do have repeat champions.
|
The only players, after the very early days, who have felt like real, superior, consistent "superstars" to me have been Nestea and MVP during their own hay-days. MVP might still have been a superstar today had it not been for his injury. Now please don't get me wrong; I love starcraft II and I am still going to watch it and support it... but this is definitely a problem. A sport really should have a lot of stability and consistency; you really want there to be a high amount of predictability in order to really make the unexpected and impressive stand out. For example: Story-lines becomes problematic to highlight when your "star" players keep getting knocked out...
Sadly though we are probably going to have to accept our flawed sport as it is. We need to really get behind and support the superstars when they do come around since the game simply seems to be designed with a lot of... instability.
|
artosis said i was pretty good the week before csl then my team went 0-4 in semis #cursed
|
Is there something inherently wrong with a game where the supposed best players so often lose to players who are widely considered weaker than them? Like, is the skill ceiling not high enough? Is it too luck based? Why don't the best players beat the slightly less good players more often?
Maybe when the final product of the game, with no more balance patches that change everything, has been around long enough to see Flash-level dominance, then this will be over. See you in a few years though.
In the meantime, if this is the kind of stuff you are looking to avoid but still want to watch RTS, watch some (Brood War) Flash games.
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 22 2013 16:18 Gatesleeper wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 16:04 Jibba wrote:On February 22 2013 15:38 Gatesleeper wrote: The number 1 ranked person on liquibet, a fellow by the name of SpiZe, has 157 points. He has predicted the correct winner 64.9% of the time. There are 3 people tied for second (aznball123, Arla, and quannump) at 152 points, or 62.8%.
Don't those numbers seem low to you? No. Even regardless of balance, take a look at the numbers for professional sports betters. They usually post 55-58% win rates and occasionally 60%, but not for very long. DRG's highest matchup is 70% but his average is 66%, and he's your most reliable player (besides the really bad ones, who don't play much.) http://www.professionalgambler.com/Winperct.htmlWe'll ignore money line bets here for the sake of clarity, and address only those bets wherein the player must risk as much as 11 to win 10; - pointspreads and over/under bets. Against this type of bet, anyone at all can expect to win 50 percent. After all, the only thing required is to flip a coin and pick a side. The bookmakers' profit comes from the difference between what a bettor must risk and what a bettor expects to win. Every time a player wins, the bookmaker withholds slightly more than 9 percent of the winnings ($1 for every $11 risked). Consequently, a bettor winning only half his bets will ultimately go broke.
Professional sports bettors, by comparison, rarely sustain a long term winning percentage higher than 57 or 58 percent, and it's often as low as 54 or 55 percent. Now's a good chance to learn about binomials and how you only have a 54% chance of winning 65 or more out of 100, on a 65% bet. This is really interesting, I haven't heard of any of this stuff before. There could still be skill ceiling/variance issues in the game, I'm just saying the evidence isn't in the win rates of bettors.
|
SC 2 will forever have issues with players making themselves consistent pillars of top level play. Being good for 18 months straight is actually incredibly impressive in SC 2, whereas in most sports dropping off after 2 years or so is downright bizarre. When you can't look up to some sort of pseudo pantheon of great players to be favorites (not guaranteed of course) to win most tournaments they prepare hard for, you miss out on a ton of story lines and rivalries that could brew. When you have so many players coming out of relative obscurity to beat what everyone though was a great player, you have problems imo.
|
I don't think the game is to blame so much as bias from viewers, including casters like Artosis. People thought Parting would beat Curious for no better reason than Parting's track record of consistently good play and Curious's curious habit of losing in the ro16.
Interestingly, Fionn wrote this in the preview even while predicting a 3-1 victory for Parting:
Watching Curious and Parting play in the first two rounds, you can make a strong case that Curious should be the favorite in this series. It's not the players and it's not the game. It's you.
|
Who says "Artosis Curse" is true?
When Artosis predicts right = no one make a big deal out of it. When Artosis predicts wrong = people scream about the curse.
Until somoene watches every Code S game of a season and compare Artosis' prediction to the actual results, I don't believe it. Give us a statistics. Until then, Artosis Curse is a myth.
|
On February 22 2013 16:29 Orek wrote: Who says "Artosis Curse" is true?
When Artosis predicts right = no one make a big deal out of it. When Artosis predicts wrong = people scream about the curse.
Until somoene watches every Code S game of a season and compare Artosis' prediction to the actual results, I don't believe it. Give us a statistics. Until then, Artosis Curse is a myth. I have a better idea. Lets start an ArtosiBet season, where we bet on whether Artosis' prediction will be right or wrong, and then the statistics of our bets will determine whether or not he is cursed.
Oh wait.
|
I'm sure people can give examples of Artosis being right... I just can't think of any off the top of my head...
|
It's definitely the type of game sc is since it's a game based on information and preparation. You won't always scout everything every time and people in tournaments like gsl and proleague often work on very specific builds to counter your play. Also, all ins are very strong for how easy they often are to execute (and much easier to execute than to defend). It's why a bo1 in a sc tournament means very, very little.
The top players have a 60-70% winrate, while in a game like SSBM the top player is at ~97% over the course of a 4+ years (and everyone in the top 5 is at least ~85%, mostly losing to each other).
|
On February 22 2013 16:29 Orek wrote: Who says "Artosis Curse" is true?
When Artosis predicts right = no one make a big deal out of it. When Artosis predicts wrong = people scream about the curse.
Until somoene watches every Code S game of a season and compare Artosis' prediction to the actual results, I don't believe it. Give us a statistics. Until then, Artosis Curse is a myth. I think this sums it up pretty well. In fact, if Artosis has a prediction rate < 40%, then the game is also incredibly consistent.
|
On February 22 2013 16:31 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 16:29 Orek wrote: Who says "Artosis Curse" is true?
When Artosis predicts right = no one make a big deal out of it. When Artosis predicts wrong = people scream about the curse.
Until somoene watches every Code S game of a season and compare Artosis' prediction to the actual results, I don't believe it. Give us a statistics. Until then, Artosis Curse is a myth. I have a better idea. Lets start an ArtosiBet season, where we bet on whether Artosis' prediction will be right or wrong, and then the statistics of our bets will determine whether or not he is cursed. Oh wait. I predict around 40-60% chance for both sides! Wanna bet on that?
|
On February 22 2013 16:33 ramon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 16:31 Jealous wrote:On February 22 2013 16:29 Orek wrote: Who says "Artosis Curse" is true?
When Artosis predicts right = no one make a big deal out of it. When Artosis predicts wrong = people scream about the curse.
Until somoene watches every Code S game of a season and compare Artosis' prediction to the actual results, I don't believe it. Give us a statistics. Until then, Artosis Curse is a myth. I have a better idea. Lets start an ArtosiBet season, where we bet on whether Artosis' prediction will be right or wrong, and then the statistics of our bets will determine whether or not he is cursed. Oh wait. I predict around 40-60% chance for both sides! Wanna bet on that? Let's start RamoBet season, where we bet on... Fuck it.
|
The fact of the matter is that SC2 is more balance-dependent than we'd hoped (as much as I'd love to say otherwise). I'd also like to point out that it's very rare to see a legitimate come back in SC2 due to the nature of the game. Sure there have been comebacks but on the most part, these comebacks have happened due to a capitulation rather than a superior amount of decision making and skill (this has happened, sure but again I believe its more rare than it should be).
|
Well thanks for all your input and opinions, I found it very helpful.
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 22 2013 16:24 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 16:18 Gatesleeper wrote:On February 22 2013 16:04 Jibba wrote:On February 22 2013 15:38 Gatesleeper wrote: The number 1 ranked person on liquibet, a fellow by the name of SpiZe, has 157 points. He has predicted the correct winner 64.9% of the time. There are 3 people tied for second (aznball123, Arla, and quannump) at 152 points, or 62.8%.
Don't those numbers seem low to you? No. Even regardless of balance, take a look at the numbers for professional sports betters. They usually post 55-58% win rates and occasionally 60%, but not for very long. DRG's highest matchup is 70% but his average is 66%, and he's your most reliable player (besides the really bad ones, who don't play much.) http://www.professionalgambler.com/Winperct.htmlWe'll ignore money line bets here for the sake of clarity, and address only those bets wherein the player must risk as much as 11 to win 10; - pointspreads and over/under bets. Against this type of bet, anyone at all can expect to win 50 percent. After all, the only thing required is to flip a coin and pick a side. The bookmakers' profit comes from the difference between what a bettor must risk and what a bettor expects to win. Every time a player wins, the bookmaker withholds slightly more than 9 percent of the winnings ($1 for every $11 risked). Consequently, a bettor winning only half his bets will ultimately go broke.
Professional sports bettors, by comparison, rarely sustain a long term winning percentage higher than 57 or 58 percent, and it's often as low as 54 or 55 percent. Now's a good chance to learn about binomials and how you only have a 54% chance of winning 65 or more out of 100, on a 65% bet. This is really interesting, I haven't heard of any of this stuff before. There could still be skill ceiling/variance issues in the game, I'm just saying the evidence isn't in the win rates of bettors. Just as an example, this is a quick look (which is why so many seasons are missing, you can find those posts yourselves ) at the Liquibet numbers from BW.
Year - Liquibet Edition - Highest Liquibet Winning % 2003 - Season 1 - 68% 2004 - Season 3 - 64.5% 2005 - Season 5 - 61.5% 2006 - Season 6 - 69.5% 2007 - Season 9 - 67% 2007 - Season 10 - 64.35% 2008 - Season 11 - 64.5% 2008 - Season 12 - 70.54% 2009 - Season 14 - 67.9%
There's probably some correlation there with bonjwas but it kind of shows this season's numbers probably shouldn't be taken as "low" since having an absolutely dominant player like prime-sAviOr, prime-Jaedong and prime-Flash isn't the norm.
|
sc2 has gotten significantly more stale in the last year. Lets not ruin it and have almost predetermined tourny outcomes as our goal as a community
|
Artosis is awesome, but you gotta remember that he's still just one dude. he has his own bias, and very much so in some cases. sometimes he just predicts players to win because he likes them, but even more importantly, he likes a certain kind of playstyle (solid, defensive macro players) and will praise anybody that plays that style. however, while a very impressive style to pull off well, that kind of play doesn't always win games.
|
Edit: I wasn't thinking correctly.
|
|
|
|