Am I the only one thinking that TSM is great as it is. Their player composition isn't the best, but it doesn't need to change.
They just need more pro scene time. And they need to have a more stable performance at pro scene.
Because when I watch TSM sometime they play so good sometimes they play so bad. The inconsistent is just big.
It's like their mentality built not for competing at high level even they have high level skill.

Brimstone gaming testing new strat on these low level team so team like SEN, FNC, TL, V1, VKS, ACEND can copy it.

Lemme cry now, because I won't have time to care about such matter when that happen.

I cry,,, end.

That's not problem too. As long as the match is thrilling and exciting. No matter what happen to SEN is not really my prob.
I fans SEN just because I like their gameplay, that's all.
I'm not simple minded fanatic TSM fan like you boy, grow up a little.

soniqs, c9b, tsm, abx

Wow, this is good.
A little more realistic upset than mine, but since I wanna see 100T vs SEN in finals it's not match with mine.
If you make V1 win in the upper final, I think that's better.

Here the part 2

"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."

What? Of course you can? If you have Sentinels vs Soniqs, Sentinels are the clear favourite, but its POSSIBLE that soniqs could win. Its not IMPOSSIBLE, its just HIGHLY unlikely. And again, as I have stated, its determined from match results that sentinels are the favourites. The criterion is factual, and I've explained how. There is no 'empirical evidence' involved here though either? You clearly do not understand what you are talking about. When people talk about things, they use logic, logic IS the root of facts, it IS what determines what is factual or not. I've logically and factually proven you wrong.

"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."

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.

"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."

It does make sense, because any team can win at any given time. However, this does not change the objective fact that a certain team was FAVOURED to win, and MORE LIKELY to win. Your analogy makes no sense, if you knew that the coin is 2/3rd likely to hit heads then obviously heads would be FAVOURED and more LIKELY to be landed on. That is a fact, as that is the higher probability. Your analogy didn't prove your argument at all, and it's pretty sad, and funny, to think about the fact that you probably think it was clever; it wasn't. In valorant we definitely can factually know which team is more likely to win, based on previous results. I've used the same example multiple times, but you havent countered it because you know you cant, it is a logical factual example proving my argument right and directly proving you wrong. (Refer to sentinels vs soniqs)

"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."

LMAO. So basically you're admitting to being an unintelligent, stubborn yet arrogant fool who cant admit he's wrong, even when factually proven wrong. Cool I guess. You can't respond to most of my argument because you know I'm right deep down, it's just pathetic to see your excuses and how hard you're coping with the fact you lost a debate. Idk why ur even making excuses, it's not that deep. You lost and got stomped in an internet debate. Just admit you took the L, lmao. I'm not making the predictions, because they have nothing to do with our argument.

Here the part 2

"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."

What? Of course you can? If you have Sentinels vs Soniqs, Sentinels are the clear favourite, but its POSSIBLE that soniqs could win. Its not IMPOSSIBLE, its just HIGHLY unlikely. And again, as I have stated, its determined from match results that sentinels are the favourites. The criterion is factual, and I've explained how. There is no 'empirical evidence' involved here though either? You clearly do not understand what you are talking about. When people talk about things, they use logic, logic IS the root of facts, it IS what determines what is factual or not. I've logically and factually proven you wrong.

"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."

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.

"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."

It does make sense, because any team can win at any given time. However, this does not change the objective fact that a certain team was FAVOURED to win, and MORE LIKELY to win. Your analogy makes no sense, if you knew that the coin is 2/3rd likely to hit heads then obviously heads would be FAVOURED and more LIKELY to be landed on. That is a fact, as that is the higher probability. Your analogy didn't prove your argument at all, and it's pretty sad, and funny, to think about the fact that you probably think it was clever; it wasn't. In valorant we definitely can factually know which team is more likely to win, based on previous results. I've used the same example multiple times, but you havent countered it because you know you cant, it is a logical factual example proving my argument right and directly proving you wrong. (Refer to sentinels vs soniqs)

"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."

LMAO. So basically you're admitting to being an unintelligent, stubborn yet arrogant fool who cant admit he's wrong, even when factually proven wrong. Cool I guess. You can't respond to most of my argument because you know I'm right deep down, it's just pathetic to see your excuses and how hard you're coping with the fact you lost a debate. Idk why ur even making excuses, it's not that deep. You lost and got stomped in an internet debate. Just admit you took the L, lmao. I'm not making the predictions, because they have nothing to do with our argument.

Wtf, part 2.
The war of who can make the longest essay is still going on.
Damn, what an epic fight.

https://www.vlr.gg/pickem/8f127296

1st SEN
2nd 100T
3rd Kansas City
4th V1

https://www.vlr.gg/pickem/8f127296

I just wanna see a lot of upset,

COPY PASTE THIS FOR GOOD LUCK CHARM
DON'T READ IT JUST COPY PASTE THIS OR YOU WILL CURSED 7 GENERATION

"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.

https://www.vlr.gg/pickem/8f127296

I put a lot of upset, But none of that will in the way of Sentinels.

So you prefer the hate comment, the bait thread, and the troll post,
Woman is what unite all man. You should know that boy,

Ofc she hides it, that what makes you more and more want to see the weapon.

sadge,

As long as they recruit ploo from Gen.G, I'll support them.
She have the "biggest" weapon in NA female scene.

they just are better..

If you guys talk about the 100T vs Noble match,
IMO they (both of them) play like a clown. Too much Throw from both.
Too much odin while situation isn't that good. (Ascen defender okay, but ascent attacker? cmon noble)
One of my unenjoyable match this far.
Btw 100T is my 2nd best team in NA IMO. So I'm not talk shit about them, the game just shit.

SOOOON T3 TEAMS GONNA BE t2 AND t2 teams gonna be t4 HAHAHAHAh

No one can say God among man other than the exalted gtn

This is good idea,
I just remembered that some admin ever says you're more likely to be noticed if you post something in their discord.
Try to put suggestions there,

Brax is so cracked in the 1st round.
His aim and map awareness is just another level.

After so long I see you again trash talk about TenZ, the legendary baiter is back!!!
My word of advice, don't lose this account like the old one.
I don't wish to see RRRRRoadRRunneRRRRR

https://www.vlr.gg/pickem/55ac76aa

Please make NA pickem available next...

Yeah, quite agree with you. I just wanna give some unexpected results when Ascend upsetted by FPX. Would be good story.
Btw it's quite something in all 5 pickem here, all have ASCEND in the final.
I guess expectations is so high for them,

https://www.vlr.gg/pickem/55ac76aa

Bruh, you change banner to 100T already?
After so long,

I'm sorry, I'm not aware of that ranking since I rank from my observation.
Can't trust leaderboard rank since that use some data gathering, not by performance.

I thought that too,
Especially their aggressive playstyle that gives good result especially in Icebox.

?

Soniqs gameplay was just nothing common in NA, it was unique. And their player too was just so good too.
IMO Soniqs could be top 5 or at least top 10 in NA if they don't meet SEN.

IMO FNC have better teamplay, but TL have better individual skill,
I'll choose TL 2 - 1 FNC, One of the match will have overtime.

Can't believe someone make a thread of my comment in another thread of Shahzam talking about TSM lmao. That clip is from around after they win Reykjavic, it's an old clip.
That YouTube channel should thank me, I give him some views from c9 cult 🤣🤣🤣

Ask that to shahz, don't try to bait me.
Here's sauce for you : https://youtu.be/ciLo-EfYcbc

But yeah, MU is overrated cause I hate them. Arsenal better.

This one really2 deep.
My friend been Arsenal fan since Thiery Henry era. And I know his pain is one of the real, till he can't even feel the pain being joked anymore lol.

Lmao, now you say you support EU from EG days.

But before you say "I'm not necessarily EU fanboy, I just like to support someone that got kicked when they go down(EU)"

I should stop talk with you before people think that I'm a bully lol.

I know this is probably right since he even says that C9B is the most overrated team because they still achieve nothing
But can I get the sauce please,

Yeah sure that was bait.
Because you get taken over from your emotion from just forum in game.
You get emotional even typing the master 1 place wrong.
You even talk bad about a team and don't think rationally about a team gameplay without actually know the game itself.
One words right for you, a "kid"
Grow up a little mate, and don't take it to heart when people says bad thing about EU.

So I guess future is 2051 when new game already developed.
No wonder fnatic win that time,

"reyjovic"
Baiter detected, you just wanna attention while know nothing.

Cry now, and cry more later eu fanboys,

Damn, element battle.
Should Squirtle Squad be the new God now guys?

When people put a lot of "if" in their excuse, I know that person either delusional or can't accept reality.

100 T 0-2 Call It Luck

Phantom / Vandal just use the best skin from enemies dead body.

In ascent, from B main you usually don't start a 5-5 fight b-main and ct. Entry from B main usually will have a fight with market or someone hidden near site.
If your only concern is b main to ct, there's a lot utility that can block that fight.
Ascent is more phantom than vandal. But once again there's nothing like vandal map or phantom map to begin with.
Just stick to the best skin you get from friend/foe.

Reading a lot of 2 months old story is just not enjoyable when you expect find new interesting thing.

Sir, I think you mean the ro32. Not this ro16.

Brimstone Gaming 2 - 1 Ghost Gaming
God vs Ghost. It's gonna be epic battle.