What's more balanced?

deadlychuck · 2016-11-02T07:02:55.986Z

1) A champion who wins 100% of the time in 50% of games (losing the other 50%). 2) A champion who wins 50% of the time in 100% of games.

deadlychuck·Nov 2, 2016·1 votes·621 views

A champion who wins 100% of the time in 50% of games (losing the other 50%).
A champion who wins 50% of the time in 100% of games.

25 Comments

WolfessNov 2, 20162 votes

the first one doesn't make any sense and is technically the same as the second mathematically.

Stray KatNov 2, 20161 votes

{quoted}

the first one doesn't make any sense and is technically the same as the second mathematically.

Not really. The first one, 50% of the time he is 100% promised to win. You start the match and he's going to win. No data about the other 50% of his games.

The second one, He's got a 50% chance every single game of winning.

deadlychuckNov 2, 20161 votes

I clarified something, that the first case is actually a 50% win rate, and the remaining 50% of games can be assumed to be losses.

Still not the same thing though. [slayer-jinx-wink]

WolfessNov 2, 20161 votes

[{quoted}](name=Oh Look A Diana,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=tbepU4v1,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2016-11-02T07:11:06.270+0000)

Not really. The first one, 50% of the time he is 100% promised to win. You start the match and he's going to win. No data about the other 50% of his games.

The second one, He's got a 50% chance every single game of winning.

law of large numbers

the more matches he plays, the infinitely closer to his win % will get to actually being 50%

deadlychuckNov 2, 20161 votes

Game theory would disagree.

WolfessNov 2, 20161 votes

{quoted}

Game theory would disagree.

too bad theory doesn't beat proven mathematics

deadlychuckNov 2, 20161 votes

This would be too painful to explain completely.

I'll just say this. Laws are observations of a phenomena. Theories are predictive models which explain phenomena. They have nothing to do with each other, in that a law doesn't implicitly "beat" a theory.

WolfessNov 2, 20162 votes

{quoted}

This would be too painful to explain completely.

I'll just say this. Laws are observations of a phenomena. Theories are predictive models which explain phenomena. They have nothing to do with each other, in that a law doesn't implicitly "beat" a theory.

Law is what has been observed and proven to work.

A theory is only an observation and an educated attempt at trying to explain something and can be proven either right or wrong after conducting an investigation or testing it.

LimmieNov 2, 20161 votes

I suppose the Theory of Gravity can still be proven right or wrong after conducting an investigation or testing it.

BTW your definition of the concepts are way way of. Not even counting the black swan fallacy there. Theories embody laws, they're not in competition.

deadlychuckNov 2, 20161 votes

I'll clarify why this is game theory and not the law of large numbers.

Game theory predicts the best choice based on multiple intelligent beings making decisions based on information.

In league you are picking your champion based on information prior to the game (Enemy and allied champions).

So a champion who wins 50% of all games, and a champion who wins 100% of games given a specific condition, a condition which occurs 50% of the time. Are two very different things.

I mean, there isn't really even a "right" or "wrong" answer to this question anyway, but only because we play in teams of 5 champions, not 1. The objectively best option would be to pick champions with a 50% win rate 100% of the time, in the first few picks, then pick champions who have a higher chance to win based on the information which has been gained by seeing the first 5 champions.

There is a little bit more famous example in baseball, where you don't want a line up of 4 home run hitters. It's more advantageous to have 3 non-home run hitters (who more consistently get hits), and then the 4th batter be one who more consistently gets a home run, but less consistently gets a hit.

WolfessNov 2, 20161 votes

{quoted} The objectively best option would be to pick champions with a 50% win rate 100% of the time, in the first few picks, then pick champions who have a higher chance to win based on the information which has been gained by seeing the first 5 champions.

you answered your own question, why are you here?

deadlychuckNov 4, 20161 votes

You say that like i was doing the poll to find out an answer...

No, i made this poll to see what other people thought, on the basis that most really fail to recognize the difference between the two.

WolfessNov 4, 20161 votes

{quoted}

You say that like i was doing the poll to find out an answer...

No, i made this poll to see what other people thought, on the basis that most really fail to recognize the difference between the two.

wouldn't matter because if someone was strong enough to bullshit people out of wins with just being able to have a guaranteed 50% win ratio and possibly more, then they'd probably get the instaban list often until the problem was found.

deadlychuckNov 4, 20161 votes

Now, you seem to be ignoring the core concept and focusing on the numbers. No shit, there are no champions who literally have a 100% win rate in any situation.

FFS, i'm sorry i asked a bunch of people who are just going to refuse to actually think about the proposed question, and instead go off on their own tangents about the blatantly exaggerated numbers used

Junsui AoiNov 2, 20162 votes

You sir need a better understanding of mathematics.

CrazyBear1987Nov 2, 20161 votes

so wait...so you are asking, which is more "balanced" ?

Confirmed 50% games won
Wins 50/100 only, then win rate drops

@___@

deadlychuckNov 2, 20161 votes

It shouldn't be that difficult of a question.

It's a matter of picking between

guaranteed wins, that you only get 50% of the time. (being a hard counter 50% of games) or 50% win rate, in all games. (Soft countering all champions, 50/50)

MR KIMCHI SENPAINov 2, 20161 votes

[deleted]

Stray KatNov 2, 20161 votes

[{quoted}](name=MR KIMCHI SENPAI,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=tbepU4v1,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2016-11-02T08:35:43.836+0000)

But this is totally wrong. The second one you have a 50% chance of winning 100% of games. In theory, a 50/50 chance can land on "Win" 5,000 times in a row. Whereas the other one is a 100% chance in 50% of games, AKA 50% of them are 100% wins, and 50% are 100% loss. So the first one is a fixed rate, whereas the second one could literally land anywhere, but msot likely around the 50% winrate.

MR KIMCHI SENPAINov 2, 20161 votes

okay genius [zombie-brand-facepalm] [zombie-brand-facepalm] [zombie-brand-facepalm] [zombie-brand-facepalm]

deadlychuckNov 2, 20161 votes

The difference is actually to do with game theory. It's about making an informed decision vs a blind one.

In a game of 5v5 draft both types have their place, as half of the picks (the last 2 for the first pick team and the last 3 for the second pick team) are making informed decisions. Where as the first 3 or 5 picks are pretty much blind.

If you pick a champion who has a 100% win rate in 50% of games, given conditions which, in a completely blind pick, would occur 50% of the time, the enemy can avoid those conditions and ensure you lose.

Now obviously the rates are exaggerated for emphasis.

Truly PridefulNov 4, 20161 votes

This would be a valid discussion in a 1v1 game, this game has too many variables to assume winning 50% and losing 50% guaranteed. You can heavily counter someone in this and get fed yet still lose because of the other variables. You whole idea here doesn't for this particular game.

Either way if I had to choose I would rather always have a 50% chance to win any game rather than being a guaranteed 50% winrate. I trust myself to be better than 50%.