Tournament Rules and Information

[lesllamas]

Draw the chance trees yourself if you dont believe me.

Actually I guess you didnt get that the chance being considered is the chance that the winner of the first game wins the series, in which case it obviously doesnt end up being 50/50.

Its a pretty pointless decision because you refuse maths really.

Where in the actual fuck did I say the chances are 50/50?

From my last post:

success times m probability P
0 0.0625
1 0.25
2 0.375
3 0.25
4 0.0625

Chance the winner of game 1 wins the series: 68.75%
Chance the loser of game 1 wins the series: 31.25%


The point is that the order in which the counterpicks are played under your experiment has absolutely zero bearing on those probabilities.

[lesllamas]

Draw the chance trees yourself if you dont believe me.

Actually I guess you didnt get that the chance being considered is the chance that the winner of the first game wins the series, in which case it obviously doesnt end up being 50/50.

Its a pretty pointless decision because you refuse maths really.

I attached two probability trees. One with alternating pick, and one where the winner of game 1 gets counterpicks in game 2 game 3, and the loser of game 1 counterpicks game 4 game 5. .67/.33 probabilities respectively

These are the aggregate values where the LOSER of game 1 wins in the first model:

0.099252 + 0.024078 + 0.048885 + 0.024078 + 0.099252= 0.295545

These are the aggregate values where the LOSER of game 1 wins in the second model:

0.048885 + 0.099252 + 0.024078 + 0.099252 + 0.024078= 0.295545


The probabilities are exactly the same regardless of how you order the counterpicks. This isn't some high level math shit, Jerom. The fact that you study it doesn't make you an authority on it in this matter. I drew the chance trees, and they clearly show that the order of counterpicks has exactly zero bearing on the overall probability of the winner of game 1 winning the series.

[momuuu]

Euhm, your chance tree seems to imply 5-0 is a possibility? Actually that seems kinda okay but weird way to do it.

I mean, I don't wanna act like you have to study to draw a chance tree but I do know what I did is 100% correct which makes it a little bit silly arguing. I mean you're kinda attacking something that is factually correct. I could proceed to draw it all, but ryan did the winner picks first while I did the alternating pick and then ryan actually used a computer while I used a pen and paper so we just checked the method by him doing alternating pick and getting the same result as I did which makes me convinced he didnt fuck up winner picks first. Alternating pick is like 100% a 70% winrate, I dont really see what part of it you messed up but you messed up something.

[lesllamas]

I didn't mess up. The burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders at this point. You can't expect me to take "I'm right I promise I'm sure I wasn't wrong" as proof that I'm the one who messed up here. You can check my math in any way you want, it's not wrong. At this point the one refuting math with no proof is you.

[momuuu]

Hmm, the alternating pick is correct. The second scenario is weird, why didnt you just do winner picks first?

[momuuu]

Amazing that these two counterpick systems you described have the same probabilities. I did it with actual winner picks first which gave me 24/81 chance that the loser of game 1 wins, better known as ~29.63% which is not the same under your systems. Apperantly the system does matter. Also apperantly ryan mankl cannot be trusted. It makes the difference even smaller though, so it kinda made the argument for winner picks first even smaller in my eyes :/

Ive always thought this was the important part of the winner picks first system. You called alternating pick unfair because it'd result into a scenario where one player could get more counter picks than the other which, in my head, implies that the winrate you'd get from drawing the chance tree would be different for alternating pick vs winner picks first. That seemed to be the major reason for the winner picks first system. Now that I've taken the time to do this properly (it wasn't bias or anything I honestly couldnt give a shit, I was just curious and couldn't sleep) it turns out the difference is too little to care.

[lesllamas]

The point is that when each counterpick is given an equal win rate, the order of the counterpicking doesn't matter. But there is a significant qualitative difference. Your contention is that the difference is nonexistent because the mathematical analysis yields no difference. But nobody in their right mind would say that alternating pick, and the winner of game 1 getting counterpicks in games 2 and 3, are the same. Those are the two trees I put above. Mathematically identical probabilities. Wildly different qualitatively.

Hence my initial reaction to your post which you dismissed as me refusing math. The reality is that you were wrong and I was right there, so go back and read my posts about why your premise is conformation on a terrible bias: that counterpick rules should be crafted based on assumptions of success or failure in any instance.