|
|
Post by Slartucker on Oct 1, 2007 10:59:09 GMT -5
Derfel: I was replying to Xade's post above.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Oct 1, 2007 11:06:45 GMT -5
What did you base the points on, Slarty? It seemed to be predominantly on ELO, but you mentioned secondary factors.
|
|
|
|
Post by xade on Oct 1, 2007 18:22:36 GMT -5
I was using the term screwed in the jovialist of ways...  I know that some groups were tougher than other, and again, some where easier. I guess I'm saying this - 3 of my 5 warlocks were in the "tough" brackets, 1 was in an "easier" bracket, that seems slightly screwed to me...  But yanno, just lightly screwed... |
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on Oct 2, 2007 2:58:47 GMT -5
I'm not complaining at all about the fairness of the teams, but I definitely would say it's more luck than skill. Maybe someone would have a 10% edge over everyone else, but luck is the primary factor in whether or not he will win.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on Oct 2, 2007 7:34:00 GMT -5
... but luck is the primary factor in whether or not he will win. Er... ExDeath, you said that? Maybe that's why I don't get poker; are you saying Luck trumps all? |
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Oct 2, 2007 9:18:46 GMT -5
I'm not complaining at all about the fairness of the teams, but I definitely would say it's more luck than skill. Maybe someone would have a 10% edge over everyone else, but luck is the primary factor in whether or not he will win. If you're choosing low-level Warlocks, yeah. If you've decided to go for higher-level team members... Well, if the guy you think will win the whole thing is on your team, then it doesn't really matter where he ends up, coz he can beat everyone else, right? And similarly for other top-end players. If a Warlock has two or three others in the tournament who might beat him, then it's bad luck if he gets one of those in the last-16, but that's a low-level chance and for the most part it doesn't matter where in the brackets they are placed, especially since even the "others who might beat him"'s victory is not a given anyway. It's only for the people who were lucky to qualify, who are only likely to get through at all if they have a string of similarly low opponents, where luck is really important. And correspondingly, for those in the middle, luck comes into play somewhat more than for the top people but it's unlikely to play a -huge- part. So yeah, luck matters, but I don't think it's more important than skill. Luck is more important for those who have large teams and less important for those who have small teams of high-valued players. |
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on Oct 2, 2007 12:45:39 GMT -5
Dubber: Poker? I thought we were talking about fantasy teams. I'm not complaining at all about the fairness of the teams, but I definitely would say it's more luck than skill. Maybe someone would have a 10% edge over everyone else, but luck is the primary factor in whether or not he will win. If you're choosing low-level Warlocks, yeah. If you've decided to go for higher-level team members... Well, if the guy you think will win the whole thing is on your team, then it doesn't really matter where he ends up, coz he can beat everyone else, right? And similarly for other top-end players. If a Warlock has two or three others in the tournament who might beat him, then it's bad luck if he gets one of those in the last-16, but that's a low-level chance and for the most part it doesn't matter where in the brackets they are placed, especially since even the "others who might beat him"'s victory is not a given anyway. It's only for the people who were lucky to qualify, who are only likely to get through at all if they have a string of similarly low opponents, where luck is really important. And correspondingly, for those in the middle, luck comes into play somewhat more than for the top people but it's unlikely to play a -huge- part. So yeah, luck matters, but I don't think it's more important than skill. Luck is more important for those who have large teams and less important for those who have small teams of high-valued players. Eh, I agree that it matters more for low-level warlocks, but for example if you had Toyotami and Spacca both on your team and both of them failed to qualify...since the factors are beyond your control, you could certainly deem that "unlucky". Any upset, really, is unlucky. Anything that defies your expectation is "unlucky". Roy Halladay pitching a shutout through 8 innings only for his closer to give up 6 runs is quite unlucky, both for him and for the bettor who may have picked the game because he was pitching. Anything you can't control is essentially luck, even if it contains an element of prediction. One of my picks didn't even play because he was moving and decided to drop out, is that luck or skill? Many people first-picked LT in fantasy football and he's having an awful year, luck or skill? But as for poker, it works basically the same way on a hand-per-hand basis..almost all luck. But when you play tons of hands (or fantasy sports/warlocks) the luck eventually evens out and you become a winner over time. The fantasy contest has the same value as about 100-200 hands of poker; a possible indicator of skill, but very easy for someone to run hot and win a lot. Don't take this as sour grapes, it isn't. The eventual winner may be lucky, but maybe he had the best strategy too, who knows. But since we can't even quantify what the "best" strategy is, it should be obvious that luck plays a huge role in who wins. |
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Oct 2, 2007 14:07:13 GMT -5
It depends on the reasons they failed to qualify. If they were in a group with people better than themselves then it would be unlucky. If they were influenced by external factors (like Dummiesday), it's unlucky. If they normally play amazingly but in the tourney games did abysmally, that's slightly unlucky but more to do with the fact you chose inconsistent team members (and if you do so knowingly, you're accepting that luck will have a bigger influence on your team). If someone "worse" than them shines through in the tourney games and finishes top of the group, then it could be argued that that was luck but if you've got an advocate of said player who already believed them to be widely underrated they'll tell you that it was skill to put this "worse" player on their team. Basically I'm just saying that although luck plays a role, it's not such a "huge" one as you seem to be making out - although of course you can minimise or maximise the effect that luck has on your team by your team choices. If we start talking about performance (as you seem to be doing in the first paragraph, although I have to say that the American sports analogies just go over my head  then there is perhaps more luck involved - if someone has a RL crisis and either drops out or flunks the tourney because of it, then that's obviously not predictable. But in terms of places within the tourney (what group you end up in, which side of the bracket you're in, etc.) I don't think luck plays such a major role. Back to "anything that defies your expectations is "unlucky"" - No, not true. Anything that can't reasonably be accounted for is unlucky. If you go PWPFSS
xxxxxWand I go WPFDPP
xWWSFWor something, expecting to counter your Fireball, it's not "unlucky" when you produce a FoD that I hadn't accounted for - it was lack of skill on my part in not anticipating this. And I'm not taking this as sour grapes - just as an out-of-context debate (edit for spelling) |
|
laxen
Ronin Warlock
Posts: 77
|
Post by laxen on Oct 2, 2007 15:12:06 GMT -5
er... a translation into british terms of the Roy Halladay (who?!?) shutout thingy? oh n also i know my football quite well, so spent a while pondering over the mysterious 'LT' before realising you were on about AMERICAN football lol |
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Oct 2, 2007 16:26:05 GMT -5
I think the sports translate as "Rounders Taken Seriously" and "Rugby With Armour".  No idea about the players though. |
|
laxen
Ronin Warlock
Posts: 77
|
Post by laxen on Oct 2, 2007 17:07:24 GMT -5
heh heh heh... almost as bad as the other two national sports, "Netball for Hardnuts" and "Gangwars on Ice" |
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Oct 2, 2007 18:32:43 GMT -5
Oh, don't diss the basketball. You know what we have here?
"Netball for men who are embarrassed to br playing netball". (as openly admitted by some of the players)
It's called "Korfball".
|
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on Oct 2, 2007 21:05:41 GMT -5
Well, I use the sports analogies because this is very similar to fantasy football which is very popular in America, and also similar to sports betting which I do professionally.
Anyway...you not seeing a FoD is totally different from you believing someone will go deep in the tournament, and they make a mistake or two to lose. I don't think anyone would say you're foolish if you bet on me to beat an average 1800-rated player. But, on any given day, I might lose due to my own bad play and/or their expectional play, and that is no indication of whether your prediction was good or bad. It was good, but turned out bad, making it unlucky for you. Add that to the fact that you have no knowledge of pairings/pods/brackets, and there is a great deal of chance in what will happen.
The exception to my belief is when you put yourself on your fantasy team. In that case, there is no luck involved beyond your pairings. But you can't control how well someone will play any more than you can control their real-life issues taking them away from the game.
There's an expression related to this, it says:
Good strategy + good result = Deserved victory
Good straegy + bad result = Bad luck
Bad strategy + good result = Dumb luck
Bad strategy + bad result = Poetic justice
|
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Oct 2, 2007 23:06:47 GMT -5
The fantasy contest has the same value as about 100-200 hands of poker; a possible indicator of skill, but very easy for someone to run hot and win a lot. Quoted for agreement; I think this is a nice, succinct way of putting it. I think I agree with Rycchus that the "very" may be an overstatement. However, I'm also willing to concede that ExDeath has more experience playing the kind of odds the fantasy contest features than I do. |
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Oct 3, 2007 6:45:00 GMT -5
The FoD example was mainly to illustrate why Anything that defies your expectation is "unlucky". isn't strictly true. Good strategy + good result = Deserved victory Good straegy + bad result = Bad luck Bad strategy + good result = Dumb luck Bad strategy + bad result = Poetic justice I like this! |
|
then there is perhaps more luck involved - if someone has a RL crisis and either drops out or flunks the tourney because of it, then that's obviously not predictable. But in terms of places within the tourney (what group you end up in, which side of the bracket you're in, etc.) I don't think luck plays such a major role.