g2 vs t1, but objective

valorant is probabilistic. as is many things in life. just because t1 won doesn't necessarily mean they played better.

it is NOT like chess, which is purely deterministic. if you lose in chess, you played worse.

what's the difference? valorant actually has two layers of non-determinism:

1. it's an imperfect information game. there's inherent luck in guessing/reading. if you're good at it, you make your odds better, but all "reads" are still guesses. phil ivey doesn't win every poker tournament he enters.

2. inbuilt rng in bullet patterns. especially important when smoke spamming, which is a pretty major part of the current valorant meta. g2 got EXTREMELY unlucky with the round 3 defuse on pearl. had the bullet spray been different, or if they chose to spam a different location (which isn't a skill, since there's no way of gleaning whereabouts someone in a smoke is), game could have gone very differnet

whether or not t1 got lucky is down to you. idk, i didn't watch all 5 maps. point is, "oh if they were better they would have won" isn't valid.

t1 just has great mental and despite having weaker overall pieces (in my opinion) they have the ability to rally back and get the win when it matters

lan events are a marathon and you gotta take it step by step, a win is a win no matter how you get there & t1 got there. their resilience got them the trophy and it should be respected, one of the best underdog runs of all time

Luck is having the skill or ability to make the most of an opportunity.

I swear G2 could’ve won it in Map 4 and Map 5. They were very consistent leading all the way to the Finals. Felt like Heat (with Lebron) vs Mavericks finals typa shi ngl.