|
1 year ago ::
Mar 14, 2012 - 2:20AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Dec 15, 2011
|
Sometimes when you are at a tournament you will occasinally see some of the pro's agree on a draw against each others if it benefits both of them.
So thinking a lot about this I made a simulation which was based on the following:
A group of players are about to enter a tournament, and before they get to the location they agree that when they meet each other in combat they will let the one with the most points or best chance of getting to the top win their match officially, and then they just play for fun while waiting a bit before reporting the score.
Now does anyone have an interrest in seeing the results that this simulation produced?
(See, I CAN ask wether you want the data or not :P)
The results will include several numbers of players.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 14, 2012 - 2:28AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2007
|
Cough up your data. Stop teasing. Let's not have this derail into another pokemon thread.
Oh no, my avatar is a pokemon. It has already begun.
I am legitimately interested in your findings. Does the agreement benefit the player who has a higher win rate? If so, how much?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 14, 2012 - 2:44AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Dec 15, 2011
|
EL_PATO: Believe it or not Iv'e run out of time  Noone else post any remarks. I'll be back in 16 hours
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 14, 2012 - 2:47PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Dec 15, 2011
|
EL_PATO:
I assumed that the players involved would want to split the prize equally among them, so the project is not favoring the one with highest win-rate, but there's nothing stopping people from making other types of predatory systems than this. All that is needed is a lose teamwork structure that somehow benefits the group as a whole. It could for example be based on hating out a single popular decktype in an atempt to tweak the meta back in a direction that favors the decktypes the team usually wins with. A select group of individuals could wreak havoc within tournaments if it was large enough and the group agrees on what the purpose of their manipulation will be. They could dominate a tournament store by locking out other players through a combined hatred of the decktypes played and favored by newcommers. A bit scary though!
Here are the results from my computersimulation...
Please notice at all time that:
*the results are based on 6 rounds.
*there were 36 participants.
*the results are based on 10.000 artificial tournaments.
*the deck used by the packhunter only has a 48% chance to win against each deck, except the times a friend is met...
-------------------------------------------------
Example showing how to read the data:
0(190) means that 190 times out of 10.000 the player scored 0 points
-------------------------------------------------
Here's the result's from the simulation:
No friends: 0(190) 3(1152) 6(2507) 9(3071) 12(2156) 15(805) 18(119)
one friend: 0(166) 3(963) 6(2357) 9(2906) 12(2321) 15(996) 18(258)
two friends: 0(134) 3(840) 6(2067) 9(2893) 12(2445) 15(1171) 18(370)
three friends: 0(112) 3(685) 6(1916) 9(2762) 12(2474) 15(1366) 18(554)
four friends: 0(97) 3(617) 6(1734) 9(2588) 12(2499) 15(1557) 18(690)
-------------------------------------------------
To get to top 8 you will need 12 points or better. As you can see a player and a single friend will get those results 3575 of the time while a lone player with the same 48% winchance would do that only 3080 times out of 10000
Just two people working with each other is all that is needed to raise the points of one participant considerably if they meet.
The more people ganging together the higher chances are that they meet and support each other, but two people is enough to give a huge advantage.
This is probably why even unrelated people close to the top cut deals with each other.
-------------------------------------------------
Now consider that you have scouted the place before the tournament. You know which decks get to the top, so you fill your decks with hatred against those and form a group. You will have extremelly good odds to win the tournament...
The only problem is that the more you are, the smaller the prizes will be when you split them...
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 19, 2012 - 1:07AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Dec 15, 2011
|
MOIMOI: Well, mainly it's just copy/paste from this old forum where I also reside, so I'm not spending too much time on posting in here. YET! And you may not believe it, but I have some very weird posts in store in a third place, and I was actually considered much of a troll in mtgsalvation's wiki because I tried to turn part of it into both a combolibrary but also a hivemind. Then Someone at the place offered me a place to do that in his own wiki, but that crashed. Now theres a combobrary on facebook which pretty much is a downgrade of what I was playing at 
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 19, 2012 - 2:22AM
#6
|
|
|
According to that data, the normal likelihood of getting into the top 8 when using a deck with a 48% win rate against the entire field...is 30%. A deck that wins less than half of the time will top 8 almost one out of every three tournaments. Just at a glance, something seems off about that calculation--if you just pick 8 random people out of a group of 36 your likelihood of picking out any one of them is only a little over 22%, so how is someone who has a lower-than-50% win rate beating that? Ugh, maybe I'm just tired and rusty; I haven't done probability math in a long while and I don't have the patience right now to think it through. EDIT: Hah! It came to me as I was just about to fall asleep. The chance of getting into the Top 8 isn't the same as the chance of getting 12 points, since not everyone with a 12-point record will get into Top 8--some of them will be out on tiebreakers. Going back to bed now... 
And so people say to me, "How do I know if a word is real?" You know, anyone who's read a children's book knows that love makes things real. If you love a word, use it! That makes it real. Being in the dictionary is an artificial distinction; it doesn't make the word any more real than any other word. If you love a word, it becomes real.
--Erin McKean, Redefining the Dictionary
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 19, 2012 - 3:18PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Dec 15, 2011
|
It's actually a very old simulation. If I rebuild it today, knowing what I do now, it would both include several percentages of winchances and also more players. (Both predators and participants) And it would be more acurate But my comp has been broken for years and the emulater on it was the only one one the net which was not broken down. I've searched a bit for new ones but alas. So if anyones are inspired to try out the same I'd bet we all be curious about the results
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 22, 2012 - 4:55PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Oct 12, 2010
|
I've played nothing but noobs, gone undefeated, and failed to place as a result. Is this like your killturn experiment? The one that said " Tragic Slip  , Doom Blade  , and Naturalize  suck!"?
Clever deduction Watson! Maybe you can explain why Supergirl is trying to kill me.
----
Autocard is your friend.
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] = Lightning Bolt 
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 22, 2012 - 10:33PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Mar 23, 2006
|
pretty sure concessions in exchange for splitting prizes is bribery. 
120.6. Some effects replace card draws.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 26, 2012 - 12:24AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Dec 15, 2011
|
BAY_FALCON: A: Nope! except from being simulations they are nothing alike. B: I never said that! RAZORBORNE: It is, but a lot of people do it anyway I almost made a project once to find out how many m&m's it would take to bribe people to concede the game during different stages of points! Don't know why I gave up that project? Maybe I ate the bribe myself :D...
|
|
|
~ 
~ 
~ 
~ 
