Should we make dignity's first long af paragraph a copypasta to joke about when someone tries to ramble about one point for 3 hours.
"Let's wait a bit before chimping out and calling each other delusional. What I mean when I say whether a criterion is invalid is, that the criterion cannot reliably predict the outcome, because fundamentally; that outcome is out of the hands of the person evaluating the data. Why I bring up sports betting as an objective measure is, because it is the most reliable objective measure we have for predicting whether a team is favored or not."
Did I ever state that the criterion could predict the outcome of the match? No, your premise is false. I stated that the best criterion FOR JUDGING THE 'FAVOURED' TEAM, keyword FAVOURED team TO WIN, is to look at past results. Obviously you can only tell whether a team is favoured in a match up, not whether they would actually win. That's not what this argument is about.
"There are more factors, than just match history to consider and weigh. How you measure how impressive a team's given record is requires assumptions to which there is no valid criterion. There exist objective and subjective criterion for this, but no valid criterion."
what does this even mean? Match history is obviously the only valid criterion. There are no assumptions required to assert that a team's record at Iceland like Sentinels was factually perfect, thats not an assumption, yet its measuring, objectively ,the teams record. Envy, at the playoffs, really good, consistent, got 4th. Thats a fact, there are no assumptions needing to be made about the impressiveness of their result and consistency. The valid criterion is the results in itself, its as simple as that. This is a fact, if you deny it, again, you are delusional.
"On vlr.gg gen.g was higher ranked, than andbox; on thespike.gg their ranking has andbox ranked higher, than gen.g. These are both objective criterion based on match history(and some other things), but neither of them are valid, as they do not predict future outcomes. Another objective criterion is to look at an aggregate of bettor opinions, which is what sports betting websites do. This gives a quantitative ratio between the people who think team A will win and people who think team B will win(with money bet of course). This measurement correlates better with the outcome of the game, than any ELO system, game record or other measure(if it didn't, that system would equalize the odds and it would). Therefore, objectively it is a better predictor of which team is favored over the other. This does not make it valid, but it makes it a more reliable predictor, because it outperforms any other objective measure we know of."
LMAO. what a bad example, to back up your even worse argument. Everyone with a brain knows that VLR rankings are trash, and invalid in every way. Therefore they cannot be used as any criterion, they are not objective nor valid. You cannot compare VLR rankings to match history at all lmao, because match history shows actual results in which you can factually determine the best teams in NA based on results, and not some funky invalid ELO VLR ranking. Bettor opinions again dont mean anything, they dont make a team favoured, they are not a valid criterion like match history is. Your entire premise is just so flawed, because I've never stated that there is any valid criterion for determining the outcome of a match, only for what team would be favoured. Objectively the best criterion for favoured team, is again, match results. You are delusional if you deny this.
"The measure you are using is subective(your own judgement of the teams records' & what importance it holds), rather than a quantified systemic aggregate of the opinions of many people, which is what sports betting odds are. So no, what you are proposing isn't "factually right"; it is in fact your own subjective evaluation."
No, it is not subjective because anyone with a brain would realize that a team like Sentinels would be favoured against a team like Soniqs. Once again, not because of betting, or vlr rankings, but because of match history and accomplishments. What type of retarded fucking logic are you trying to use right now? Its not my 'own judgement' of the teams records and the importance of it, its objective, if a team like soniqs wins a small NSG monthly against tier 2 teams and a team like Sentinels wins Masters 2 against the best teams in the world, obviously objectively sentinels results are much more impressive and accomplished? It is a fact, not an opinion. Your logic is completely flawed. I'm factually right, you're simply delusional, and I've explained why.
"The objective in mind is predicting which team is favored to win. The objective measure you can use to measure how good a system is at predicting which team is favored over the other is to simply take the ratio of what predictions you made and how many of them were correct.
There's a difference between calling a criterion objective and valid. To call a criterion objective means, that the criterion can quantify the objective with some sort of system. To call a criterion valid means, that the criterion must be a valid predictor of the objective. The objective being prediction of which team is favored to win. If there existed a valid criterion, then this disagreement wouldn't happen and you'd be the best sports-bettor in the world."
When I say the criterion is objective and valid, I'm using both words interchangeably. Objective as in, factually right and valid. The criterion of match results definitely predicts what team is favoured, as I've explained with the sen vs sq example. This disagreement is happening only because you're delusional and cannot accept clear facts and logic that I've explained. You disagreeing doesnt change the objective fact that I am right. And no, I wouldnt be the best sports-bettor in the world because again, theres a fundamental difference between knowing what team is favoured, and knowing what team is gonna win. You can NEVER know what team will win, that proposes knowing the future, which is impossible. But you can definitely factually know what team is favoured to win, based on match results, stats, and achievements.
"There exist many objective criterion, but no valid one. Your criterion is a subjective one based on your own observation and analysis of the match history. The vlr.gg/thespike.gg rankings are objective criterion based on ranking algorithms, which take in the teams' match histories. To evaluate which criterion is more reliable, all you need to do is calculate which criterion has the highest success-rate.
To end, I challenge you to prove, that your subjective evaluation of teams' histories will outperform the aggregate opinions of sports bettors. I'll write down the pre-match odds for each game in the European challengers qualifier playoffs and you'll make your prediction in the comments and we'll see whether your subjective assessment outperform the odds produced by sports bettors."
delusional, once again. My criterion isnt subjective, its factually objective. And I dont have to prove that my criterion is factual because I've already proved it above. We're talking about how to know what teams are favoured, not whether the favoured team would actually win or not, so the results by sports bettors compared to my 'favoured teams' results do not matter whatsoever. Regardless of results during the EMEA challengers, the factual criterion remains that certain teams are obviously favoured. Do note, though, that not ALL matchups have favoured teams obviously. Only some of them do. Like if we were to do a 100T vs Envy again, theres no clear favourite, both are extremely close, and you could argue for either one because of how close their previous match was.
Discord