First thing first, you are an alt of unknown origin.

It's 'First things first', not "First thing first". Also, don't get too hyped up, Cata, you got roasted by the guy. You're way too salty about this; it's even worse than arguing with you about the word 'America'.

Third, you can know why you are failing and still fail.

*Thirdly

For me its lack of dedication, I simply dont care.

*it's *don't

Last but not least, learn to argue. I dont know why I am argueing with someone who doesnt even recognise their ad hominem.

*arguing
*doesn't

>Says "Last but not least"
>While in reality, he didn't even have a finishing line.

xd

Edited 9/11/2017 13:43:21

Lmfao

"Second, if you are referring to 1v1 ladder, then you should know that rating is not everything."

Yeah, I'm sure it's off by two standard deviations. It totally doesn't differentiate between 2200 rating vs. 1600ish reliably. Nice meme.

You can succeed, and then know why you previously failed. Claiming to know the cause of failure before achieving success is an excuse. There's a huge difference. The former is knowledge-based, the latter is a guess and/or an attempt to save face.

I don't do better than you due to dedication. I play better when I take the time to count out opponents moves and keep track of everything they're doing, sure. I can also take 1-2 minute turns and play completely intuitively writing down nothing and calculating nothing, and still play at a much much higher level than you do.

Attacking you rather than your argument is an ad-hominem fallacy. Attacking you and your argument is not, especially not when the attack on you, is relevant.

Edited 9/11/2017 13:46:59

"First thing first, you are an alt of unknown origin."

Is this better?

Are the claims I'd beat you 20 games in a row less accurate now?

Good Kid is at it again. Wooo! Go bears!!
How was your Clan League 9 play for FCC? :-)

Edited 9/11/2017 13:57:49

It was fantastic. I spot no errors in any of my CL9 games. (Getting booted isn't an error, right?)

Edited 9/11/2017 14:05:24

It's 'First things first', not "First thing first". Also, don't get too hyped up, Cata, you got roasted by the guy. You're way too salty about this; it's even worse than arguing with you about the word 'America'.

Says the guy who got banned multiple times, swears he is not coming back, but yet returns because he cant accept it. You are the last person on this site, who should be talking about being salty.

Yeah, I'm sure it's off by two standard deviations. It totally doesn't differentiate between 2200 rating vs. 1600ish reliably. Nice meme.

You can succeed, and then know why you previously failed. Claiming to know the cause of failure before achieving success is an excuse. There's a huge difference. The former is knowledge-based, the latter is a guess and/or an attempt to save face.

I don't do better than you due to dedication. I play better when I take the time to count out opponents moves and keep track of everything they're doing, sure. I can also take 1-2 minute turns and play completely intuitively writing down nothing and calculating nothing, and still play at a much much higher level than you do.

Attacking you rather than your argument is an ad-hominem fallacy. Attacking you and your argument is not, especially not when the attack on you, is relevant.

How can you know? You never played against me.
Not to mention that the fact you felt so attacked by me that you had to use the phrase "shitty player" against me, is not a good behaviour in an argument.

Are the claims I'd beat you 20 games in a row less accurate now?

I have beaten players with similar stats than you in less than 20 tries. Why should you be an exception?

Edited 9/11/2017 14:50:14

The fact that you need to be good at something before you can judge what it takes to be good at something is fact.

You dont need to be good or succesful to spread the knowledge of the good and succesful.

Why are you attacking Cata like this Nauz, you have absolutely no reason to.

Edited 9/11/2017 15:28:02

@Min34: There's plenty reason to correct people that are speaking about topics they know nothing about.

Everyone doesn't have to be good. If you're not good however you probably shouldn't argue about what it takes to be good. Similarly is you're terrible at a game that revolves around math and logic you probably shouldn't boast about your intelligence on the forums of that very game and expect to not get called out.

"I have beaten players with similar stats than you in less than 20 tries. Why should you be an exception?"

In your 70 1v1 ladder games your best win was vs. someone with a peak of 1916, they're roughly 1 SD off of me.

In 155 2v2 ladder games you never beat anyone as good as me. Same goes for your 8 RTL games, and 15 3v3 games. I see no evidence you've ever beaten top players, but even if you have, the evidence is certainly not looking like you win such games over 5% of the time.

Loli wasn't just posting hentai; he was posting lolicon- which, if you don't know, is a type of hentai with sexualized depictions of children.

Except there's a small technicality. See, that 6-year-old girl in that image isn't actually canonically 6 years old. Technically, she's just a 30 year old that looks like a 6 year old. Or if you want to get creative, a 10,000 year old shape-shifting demon whose current form is that of a 6-year-old schoolgirl getting railed by some weeb.

So he got Warlight temp-banned from Google Ads by posting borderline child porn. I really hope he's gotten help by now.

Edited 9/11/2017 15:49:02

^
^
I am not talking about laddergames.

Edited 9/11/2017 15:48:00

There's plenty reason to correct people that are speaking about topics they know nothing about.

There is if they are wrong. Cata however said the following:

"most templates are most of the time just beancounting"

I dont see the problem with this. I can understand where Cata is coming from. Since SR came in, beancounting has become easier and a bigger part of the game on average.

Similarly is you're terrible at a game that revolves around math and logic you probably shouldn't boast about your intelligence on the forums of that very game and expect to not get called out.

Being intelligence cant be measured simply by the hand of a game. Nor does intelligence equal being good at maths. Japanball is know to spend more time on the fora than playing the game. He certainly doesnt take the game seriously to the same extend as either you or I do. His winrate is, undoubtedly, not going to be as good as ours then. I do not see why you have to question his intelligence for that. That winrate, in no way, shows signs of his actual intelligence. Neither does yours, nor does mine.

"I dont see the problem with this. I can understand where Cata is coming from. Since SR came in, beancounting has become easier and a bigger part of the game on average. "

I do.

The entire term "beancounting" is also insulting and demonizing.

It's basically an argument that because you can predict the outcome of actions that the game is somehow less skill-based.

It's like saying that because in chess you can always move your pieces onto an opponents to kill theirs that the game isn't skill-based and that it'd somehow be more skill-based if extra dice rolls were involved to decide which piece wins in such situations.

@Nauz: so you're basically claiming that you have at least a ~96.6% win probability vs. Cata in a single game? (for even odds in a 20-game series)

How do you derive win probability from Bayeselo ratings, again? I'm just going to use the basic Elo formula:

P(A beats B) = 1 / (1 + 10 ** ((r_B - r_A)/400))

Going off of that, r_B - r_A needs to be something like -580. Which looks like it works out here since Cata's ladder peak was 1575 and yours is 2154 (diff of -579). Over 20 games, the probability that you'll win all of them over Cata is ~0.496.

So yeah, it would be reasonable to bet on you in that series- or at least about just as reasonable as betting on Cata. (Of course, there's serious caveats here- first off, the ratings might not correspond at all since your ladder careers didn't perfectly overlap; second, I'm ignoring the standard deviations in your ratings because those aren't public; third, this isn't Bayeselo-specific.)

Although that's just 50-50 odds though. You'll need to be obscenely underrated (or Cata obscenely overrated, but there's not that much room below you when you're at 1575) to be able to pull off 95% odds. ~99.74% odds per game would be the cutoff, for which the rating difference needs to be ~1036. That's extremely unlikely based on the information we have, so maybe deflate your ego just a bit if that's how much better than Cata you thought you were.

Edited 9/11/2017 16:13:17

I don't remember who was posting it, but there was also actual porn being spammed on the forum as well, not just the hentai.

@min, I'm not saying that Nauz isn't abrasive, but he is not wrong that people who are not good are much less likely to understand what it takes to be good than those who are. You can be smart and not good at Warlight (if you don't put the effort in to learn the strategies), but if you reduce Warlight to bean counting, you're being foolish. If you give mod 1 minute turns he'll still beat almost anyone even if they spend hours bean counting.

@nauz, cata recently beat me in a promo/relegation league game. You would not be able to beat him 20 games in a row.

DON'T FEED THE TROLLS

So... anyone want to start a betting pool on a Nauz vs. Cata 20-game series?

I'll bet 100 coins on Cata winning at least once.

Edited 9/11/2017 16:19:22

http://www.3dkingdoms.com/chess/elo.htm According to that, expected winrate is roughly 97%

I admittedly grabbed 20 out of thin air though, it wasn't a calculated #, or even a serious claim, though it does actually look to be fairly accurate. I'd have to beat him 32 times for every loss to have my elo rating increase from such games.

I don't think whether I'd be expected to win 15 in a row, or 20, or 31 though is actually meaningful. The key point is that I don't feel someone who's never achieved any sort of success at something should be speaking in regards to what it takes to achieve success at that thing.

@Knyte: I see no evidence you've ever beaten top players, but even if you have, the evidence is certainly not looking like you win such games over 5% of the time.

That was what I said. I wasn't implying he'd only win 1 in 400 games, or that I'd win a 20 game series 95% of the time. I was suggesting that beating me 1 in 20, was akin to beating people as good or better than me 5% of the time.

Beren stating Cata beat him once similarly doesn't really show anything other than that Cata has a chance to win, it doesn't really factor into how high that chance is. Though really the whole topic is silly. It wasn't intended to come across as "Look how much better I am than Cata". That's not a high pole to leap, it's not something overly worth trying to prove. The point was, you're not educated enough on the topic to have a valid opinion on the topic.

Edited 9/11/2017 16:30:40

I would bet that cata wont win any of the 20 matches