ok that's funny
| Flag: | Finland |
| Registered: | March 7, 2021 |
| Last post: | September 8, 2022 at 2:28 PM |
| Posts: | 2141 |
get us the fuck outta here, juice
0/8
hahaha baited! no one cares about csgOMEGALUL, trash one-dimensional boomer game that's rapidly dying, keep coping! 50% of cs pro scene will switch to valorant by 2023, the easiest prediction of my life
I'm guessing they'll get another young duelist?
A team performing well only when a player single player performs well is not an asset, but a liability.
Look at Sentinels, literally any of their players can perform poorly; even their "star" and the others will still step up. That's why they're so good and why you shouldn't build a roster around a star, if your goal is to be the best.
There's a word for it, it's called schadenfreude.
They took that one guys post on vlr calling for drone to be kicked to heart?
they will not
Edit: wait i got baited into replying to a month old thread KEKW
They don't want to face the brutal reality of getting destroyed in NSG.
Rix.GG I can agree on actually, Fnatic, I'm not quite so sure, it feels like they start slow and then rev up in most tournaments + the way Liquid switched up their roles gives me more promise for them. "Squeaky bum time" as Boaster puts it. If I had to put probabilities on that it would be something like 80% for Fnatic and 20% for Liquid.
Alas the bettors disagree with both of us on Fnatic.
I was referring to the EU qualifier playoffs, not in general, just to be clear.
Of course, no match has a clear favorite, the only thing we're looking for is the classification of making a team "favored" over another, which is making the determination, that one team is more likely to win(doesn't mean they will, but you have a reason to believe, that they are more likely to win). That's why odds exist, there is a certain probability that one team will win and there is another probability that the other team will win. If one team has a higher probability than the other, it means the team is favored, but this probability varies, some are clear others are not.
Anyways thanks for making the pick'em. I don't think the result will prove you wrong, or me right, it's just a fun experiment.
TSM, TSM, TSM, TSM. Anything else?
So you're too afraid to do the pickems? I wonder why. Lmao, anyways nice talking to you, you are definitely an interesting personality.
Exactly, which team will be more likely to win. Andbox were OBJECTIVELY favoured to win, based on their results, they were factually the better team based on results before the match-up. Again, sports betting is not reliable as match results. Match results are ALWAYS factual and right for favoured matchups, sports betting is not always accurate.
This really gives insight into your thought process. You think your own subjective assessment of past results is more accurate, than that of thousands of sports-bettors, therefore you will always know which team is favored beforehand.
Great. I don't care about your words anymore, also learn to use quote blocks so people can actually understand what part you're responding to and what's your writing.
I want you to put your mouth where your money is. Start your pickems on the EU challengers qualifiers and we'll compare your success rate of determining which team is favored to the sports bettors.
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.
You can't define "favored" as outcome-independent, because you cannot verify whether that team was actually favored or not and objectively measure the performance of the criterion. This is where you are going wrong. You are just asserting your criterion is "factual" without providing any empirical evidence.
The entire objective of saying whether a team is favored or not is to predict whether that team will be more likely to win or not. That is literally what you imply in your posts as well, you say it's an upset, that gen.g won, when you thought andbox were clearly favored prior to the game starting. So you had outcomes in your mind, an upset and an expected win. Just like sports betting websites have odds for how likely the bettors think each team is to win. These things can be measured and compared with success-rates.
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.
You said you cannot with certainty predict, which team can win at any given moment(which I agree with), but you said you can know which team is favored to win. This doesn't make sense, you cannot know either in this case, but you can make guesses to both based on your methods. If you knew, that a coin you are tossing is 1/3rd likely to hit tails and 2/3rd likely to hit heads, then knowing for certain the outcome of a single toss doesn't matter. You can make many tosses with that coin and measure which side it is more likely to land on and make a prediction with that data. In Valorant we don't know either, we can only make educated guesses as to which one it is through various methods which have a varying success rate, none of which are valid.
I suggest you come back to what you wrote here in five years and read it to yourself. It has no coherence. Sounds like something I would've written when I was 14 arguing on battle.net forums. So much of the words "factual, delusional, subjective, objective" without any coherence in their meaning. I can't respond to most of this, because it's just word salad and you're not actually understanding what I'm writing.
Btw I hope you are making the predictions.
This is factually and objectively false, there is one valid criterion for judging which team is favored prior to that match happening, and its quite obviously to look at the results and feats of both teams.
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.
You're telling me that for Sentinels vs Soniqs, previous results and feats of both teams wouldnt instantly tell us that Sentinels would obviously win? This example alone factually proves you wrong
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
that 10-7 round was the biggest throw I've seen in a while
What do you mean? There exists NO valid criterion for gauging which team is favored prior to that match happening, so obviously betting odds are not a valid criterion, nothing is. It is a method to gauge which team is favored(more likely) to win based on historic data and the bettors' collective intuition. It is correct more often, than it is wrong.
It is merely an aggregate of observer expectations; people who put their money on who they think will win based on their own analyses. Andbox were not the clear favorites based on this aggregate of opinions, so your assessment is wrong. You personally may think that it was that way, but clearly you were wrong based on the result as well.
idk if geng beating andbox was an upset when the betting odds favored geng
That was their map too.
andbox btetter w this
probably the last we'll see of megastitut Sadge
Why are you guys talking about the gangnam style guy? Did he switch to Valorant?
imagine not using PROPixx 1440hz projector.. how can you call yourself a pro?
I don't have a name off the top of my head, but what I dislike in analysts is when they think too high of themselves, lack humility, can't have a discussion about the rationale behind their analyses without their ego getting activated etc..
What I like in analysts is when they introduce a concept or relationship in data I didn't previously think about. Or answer basic unanswered questions in a quantitative manner.
I don't really care for "analyst-casters", for me it's like white noise on top of the game, especially in Valorant. In Chess, I appreciate analytical casting, because it fits the game.
inb4 TSM get put in the same bracket with them again
You should give your team more time. There is still next qualis.
Brax go frag. Thank you TSM.
a whois lookup
In the US.. They use Linode.
where is ur flair? idk.. the forum bugs out every time there is high traffic and removes flairs for some reason
This site will become Reddit if that happens. The way these kinds of forums function is not supposed to be like Reddit, where the posts are supposed to be high effort. Thread lifespans are supposed to be shorter and they're supposed to be lower effort in general. Articles are high effort content on this website.
Anyone who thinks Soniqs have a chance on Haven is clowning. Go next qualifier.
That's pretty much like saying G2>SEN because G2 won vs FNC more convincingly.
Bind is free for Sentinels. Watch the magic unfold guys.
LETS GO WOOOO SENTINELS COMEBACK SO EZZZZZZZ
I get what you're saying, but "the organizer knows better" is not an appropriate response to a specific argument someone is proposing against the tour structure & points system. If there are legitimate counterarguments to what he's saying, you should present them.
Is he wrong in what he's saying when it comes to partiality of outcomes/integrity of the system? That's all that matters. Whatever speculative justification you can make up in behalf of Riot/the organizers doesn't matter, because they are the only ones, that can give that answer.
Congratulations for making it to EMEA playoffs!
Soniqs were going to win, until the Aussies woke up and started commenting on the thread. Now it's jinxed and Sentinels will win flawlessly, 2-0 13-0 13-0.
Yea they ripped key players from 2 good teams to get it going, better deliver some god damn results. Also yoinked the IGL from Acend, but that's actually not so bad for Acend, since they got Zeek from G2 so more of a fair trade.
you think the reason they picked him up was because they would play him? nah they just wanted to poach him from nuturn so their only competition would be weaker
Discord