"Everyone has the same chance of getting bad teammates

Space Bum·Apr 21, 2015·4 votes·2,375 views

It's often compared to a coin flip that's not entirely true. It's actually 9 coin flips. The strength or weakness of each player is significant. If I were to sit down with another person and we each rolled a 9 sided die there is a chance that one of us may pull drastically ahead after consecutive roles. I've gone an entire night of playing MTG without winning one "who goes first" roll.

Now let's say it's a coin flip. 50/50 out of 100. This does not mean that you win then lose win then lose..... At the same time that is exactly what it could be because the 50% odds apply to each flip. Two players may indeed get 50 wins out of 100 games but the order they are made in can have drastically different outcomes in what rank Each ends up in. Furthermore because each flip had it's own odds it is entirely possible to win 100 out of 100 flips https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq39ofDtYPA

44 Comments

IzbizApr 21, 20156 votes

Uh.... This sounds like basic statistics.

The whole point behind the theory that "Everyone has the same chance of getting bad teammates" is that:

A) the number of times that you get a bad teammate will gradually be in your favor the more you play (creating the _ranked is a grind _ argument)

B) It's in the name. You statistically have better teammates. Not always.

If you play 20 games, statistics are meaningless, just like a coin flip. If you play 1,000 games, you cannot blame bad teammates on your play because the statistics are much more accurate.

It's called a sample size.

Space BumApr 21, 20151 votes

But then you also have to factor in order because promos and series are things.

IzbizApr 21, 20153 votes

[{quoted}](name=I Like Hugs,realm=NA,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=6Y2YEO3y,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2015-04-21T15:53:49.077+0000)

But then you also have to factor in order because promos and series are things.

No you don't. Because if you play 1,000 promos, it's statistically in your favor.

That's literally the entire point.

EDIT: To counter the "Everyone has the same chance of getting bad teammates" theory, one **could ** argue that you have WORSE statistical odds to get a teammate who can carry. But Trying to argue statistical facts is a losing battle.

EDIT 2: I suppose my above edit is why everyone says you need to carry games to win. Because then the statistics are in your favor.

Space BumApr 21, 20152 votes

I totally agree. I don't even know why I argue with people in game or on these boards most of the time when I should just assume that they are young and naive and go about my business.

IzbizApr 21, 20151 votes

[{quoted}](name=I Like Hugs,realm=NA,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=6Y2YEO3y,comment-id=0001000000000000,timestamp=2015-04-21T16:09:42.781+0000)

I totally agree. I don't even know why I argue with people in game or on these boards most of the time when I should just assume that they are young and naive and go about my business.

turn off all-chat

mute anyone with any small negative connotation. = gold

Space BumApr 21, 20151 votes

That's general the most widely shared method. I'm sure everyone has heard it at least once. I think the whole concept is counterintuitive. Hasn't everyone's goal been to be the most Badass player in each game since day one?

AMYS GRAVEApr 21, 20152 votes

EDIT: To counter the "Everyone has the same chance of getting bad teammates" theory, one could argue that you have WORSE statistical odds to get a teammate who can carry. But Trying to argue statistical facts is a losing battle.

Interestingly by making this converse argument they are admitting the assumption, "given that you can't carry" the odds of having someone on your team that can carry vs the enemy team is 4/9 to 5/9.

Nucleophilic atkApr 21, 20152 votes

Just curious, what kind of sample size analysis test would you run to determine what sample size is appropriate? I mean, given the amount of confounders and such, I would say it would pretty damn near impossible to determine an adequate sample size with any type of statistical significance.

Space BumApr 21, 20151 votes

And yet I've seen this post several times "it's been proven that blah blah blah some guy blah blah blah"

Nucleophilic atkApr 21, 20151 votes

I have never seen anyone attempt to prove this lol.

Space BumApr 21, 20151 votes

That's my point. I see the post about everyone has the same chance when it comes to bad teammates but they never say why.

Edit: same chance, yes. Likely that everyone's had the same exact number of bad experiences, no.

IzbizApr 21, 20151 votes

[{quoted}](name=I Like Hugs,realm=NA,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=6Y2YEO3y,comment-id=00010001000000000000,timestamp=2015-04-21T16:30:56.344+0000)

That's my point. I see the post about everyone has the same chance when it comes to bad teammates but they never say why.

Edit: same chance, yes. Likely that everyone's had the same exact number of bad experiences, no.

[{quoted}](name=Nucleophilic atk,realm=NA,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=6Y2YEO3y,comment-id=0001000100000000,timestamp=2015-04-21T16:28:42.533+0000)

I have never seen anyone attempt to prove this lol.

The entire point of statistics is that the statistics is the proof. I'm not sure why you're not understanding this.

Let's assume that that someone who is not "bad" (I'll refrain from defining bad since that's not the point) plays 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 games. 44.4% of their teams will not have a bad player while 55.5% of their opponents will have a bad player on the their team.

The smaller the sample size is, the larger the margin for error. If I play one game and have a bad player on my team, 100% of the time I had a bad player on my team.

If more games I play, the closer I get to the above percentages and thus bad teammates are not an excuse.

IE: grinding eliminates the excuse.

Summary: you are correct that with a small sample size, it has a lot to do with luck. But the more you play, the less luck has to do with it. If you don't think you deserve Bronze, play more games. Your teammates will be **statistically ** better over time.

Space BumApr 21, 20151 votes

It's not a good/bad comparison it's better vs worse. There is no such thing as an even matchup. One person is better than the other at every level of play no matter what level of play no matter how small the margin.

IzbizApr 21, 20151 votes

[{quoted}](name=I Like Hugs,realm=NA,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=6Y2YEO3y,comment-id=0001000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2015-04-21T17:28:45.028+0000)

It's not a good/bad comparison it's better vs worse. There is no such thing as an even matchup. One person is better than the other at every level of play no matter what level of play no matter how small the margin.

This is 200% incorrect.

You're telling me that the actual game doesn't matter. It's who is matched up with whom that matters. Might as well not play the game then.

Player A is better than Player B. They are both playing top. Jungler ganks player A 4 times successfully. Player B can now use that advantage to beat player A. Player B beats Player A despite Player A being better.

Also, under your reasoning, there must be someone who is the best. Yet I've never heard of a player who never loses. Therefore even the best player sometimes loses.

Space BumApr 21, 20151 votes

I'm saying that 1>0

Congreuently 1,1,1,0,0 >1,1,0,0,0 ^this is why the best player in the world loses games

IzbizApr 21, 20151 votes

[{quoted}](name=I Like Hugs,realm=NA,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=6Y2YEO3y,comment-id=000100010000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2015-04-21T17:49:18.695+0000)

I'm saying that 1>0

Congreuently 1,1,1,0,0 >1,1,0,0,0 ^this is why the best player in the world loses games

Per game, yes.

Over time, no. It will look like this: 1/0, 1/0, 1/0, 1/0, 1/0 >or= 1/0, 1/0, 1/0, 1/0, 0

Are you even reading my posts?

Space BumApr 21, 20151 votes

Intently. The over time factor is a culmination of each individual game. You can't analyze the bigger picture without accepting this common point that involves every game. If it effects each game it must effect the whole.

IzbizApr 21, 20151 votes

[{quoted}](name=I Like Hugs,realm=NA,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=6Y2YEO3y,comment-id=00010001000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2015-04-21T18:00:35.853+0000)

Intently. The over time factor is a culmination of each individual game. You can't analyze the bigger picture without accepting this common point that involves every game. If it effects each game it must effect the whole.

I've said countless times that individual games have a lot of luck (NOT ENTIRELY). Please read comments before you respond.

I even gave statistics for each game and gave you a result of the summary (a shit ton of games). What else would you like?

Space BumApr 21, 20151 votes

You agreed that (A) 11100>(B) 11000 per game.

I really think the argument is closed at this point.

Though amazingly unlikely if team X is presented with outcome A for 1000 games they should win every game.

IzbizApr 21, 20151 votes

[{quoted}](name=I Like Hugs,realm=NA,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=6Y2YEO3y,comment-id=0001000100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2015-04-21T18:24:44.365+0000)

You agreed that (A) 11100>(B) 11000 per game.

I really think the argument is closed at this point.

Though amazingly unlikely if team X is presented with outcome A for 1000 games they should win every game.

[{quoted}](name=I Like Hugs,realm=NA,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=6Y2YEO3y,comment-id=000100010001000000000000,timestamp=2015-04-21T18:34:09.530+0000)

I think you need to drop bad entirely. That 1 tick is a sign that the riven was better in that game.

If you want to completely ignore statistics, go right ahead. I'll keep grinding and climbing until I reach the rank I think I deserve because that's how stats work, mate.

Space BumApr 21, 20151 votes

That grinding you are doing is the deciding factor of you being a 1 or a 0 per game. But if you are a 1 paired with 4 0's I have almost no faith you will win said game.

KazaashiApr 21, 20152 votes

{quoted}

The entire point of statistics is that the statistics is the proof. I'm not sure why you're not understanding this.

Let's assume that that someone who is not "bad" (I'll refrain from defining bad since that's not the point) plays 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 games. 44.4% of their teams will not have a bad player while 55.5% of their opponents will have a bad player on the their team.

The smaller the sample size is, the larger the margin for error. If I play one game and have a bad player on my team, 100% of the time I had a bad player on my team.

If more games I play, the closer I get to the above percentages and thus bad teammates are not an excuse.

IE: grinding eliminates the excuse.

Summary: you are correct that with a small sample size, it has a lot to do with luck. But the more you play, the less luck has to do with it. If you don't think you deserve Bronze, play more games. Your teammates will be **statistically ** better over time.

^^proof^^

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

IzbizApr 21, 20151 votes

[{quoted}](name=Nucleophilic atk,realm=NA,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=6Y2YEO3y,comment-id=00010001,timestamp=2015-04-21T16:16:22.625+0000)

Just curious, what kind of sample size analysis test would you run to determine what sample size is appropriate? I mean, given the amount of confounders and such, I would say it would pretty damn near impossible to determine an adequate sample size with any type of statistical significance.

You will never get a perfect sample size because statistics are random in nature. I mean, you could flip 2 coins, get heads and tails and say that's enough. Or you could flip 1,000 coins and get 501 heads and 499 tails. Technically the 2 coin flip is more accurate, but the 1,000 coin flip has more of a sample size.

**** Personal opinion warning **** For League, I think you can start considering writing off luck after every 100 games. This is not a very good sample size BUT you should be improving along the way, which makes League stats very, very difficult. If after 100 games you have the same skill as game one, then there are other issues. This of course diminishes over time (diminishing return) and you're improvement from game 1 to game 100 will be much, much bigger than from game 901 to game 1,000. Also, what you consider "bad" in game one might not be "bad" in game 1,000. And what is "bad" in game 1,000 may not even exist in game 1.

In theory, I don't think you could play enough games in League in your lifetime to draw any significant conclusion. You also have to consider that sometimes you are the one that is bad!

Nucleophilic atkApr 21, 20151 votes

I think you missed the point. For a drug study, for example, you can do power analysis to determine how many subjects you need to say something is like due to <5% random chance. Since people keep making this "you play enough and u will be at your real level", I want to know how they determined this to be true is all. Personally, I think that the amount of variables makes it impossible to do, and therefore makes the statement statistically insignificant. And why on earth would I listen to a statistics claim that is based on no statistics?

IzbizApr 21, 20151 votes

[{quoted}](name=Nucleophilic atk,realm=NA,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=6Y2YEO3y,comment-id=0001000100010000,timestamp=2015-04-21T17:57:25.238+0000)

I think you missed the point. For a drug study, for example, you can do power analysis to determine how many subjects you need to say something is like due to <5% random chance. Since people keep making this "you play enough and u will be at your real level", I want to know how they determined this to be true is all. Personally, I think that the amount of variables makes it impossible to do, and therefore makes the statement statistically insignificant. And why on earth would I listen to a statistics claim that is based on no statistics?

Theory: read my comments

Reality: everyone has a different definition of "bad", "toxic", "negative", "feeding", etc. Regardless, everyone can define their own definition of a "bad" teammate, but it's wrong.

Someone doesn't just get to challenger by being lucky. They might require luck, sure. But if they needed luck to get there, they would eventually slide because luck is just statistics working against the odds.

The ENTIRE problem with this theory is what is considered bad, lucky, toxic, and negative. Those cannot be CLEARLY defined and thus the theory fails.

A 0-4-1 Teemo top might have lost because of one tick of ignite that got Riven the kill and she snowballed. Is that skill, luck, a bad Teemo? Hard to say, isn't it?

HOWEVER, whatever "BAD" is (which is something no one can determine), you have a less chance of getting it on your team ASSUMING you are not bad. 5/9 > 4/9. Simple math.

Space BumApr 21, 20151 votes

I think you need to drop bad entirely. That 1 tick is a sign that the riven was better in that game.

AMYS GRAVEApr 21, 20153 votes

people don't understand standard deviations... I always like to point out the following.

If you consider just matches with afks, and you aren't the afk, then the chances of the afk being on your team vs the enemy team are 4/9 and 5/9. This will average out across the comunity but does not have to average out for an individual. with 27 million players daily there are around a million players who are on streaks with 5 consecutive afks on their team and none on the enemy team and one poor dude with 17 in a row on his team.

Space BumApr 21, 20151 votes

Sweet baby jesus, he gets it!

Reynard the ƒoxApr 21, 20152 votes

It's actually ten coin flips, because you have bad games too.

Sometimes I do great, sometimes I do poorly. The 1/9 raging top laner, who I'm sure will be Silver forever, might cool his attitude and go on to be 9/1 in his next game. I was just unlucky that I happened to be with him this game instead of next. That's one of the main reasons rank is determined by chance. I can fix my positioning, I can CS better, I can ward more, but I can't make allies un-tilt. Everyone has bad games, and I can't control when I get an ally who just insn't playing well today. It's just my bad luck. Or his bad luck, if I'm the one who's tilting.

Extreme TrollerApr 21, 20152 votes

everyone have the same chance to win lottery. that's why some people are challenger.

Sincerly,

http://www.auplod.com/u/plouda52fae.jpeg

Bitter CynicApr 21, 20151 votes

There's nothing complicated here at all. In a single match the outcome largely depends on how lucky you are with matchmaking since even the best players in the world won't be able to carry 4 horrible players against a team of players that don't even necessarily have to be all as good as the one who is stuck with the noobs.

Over hundreds and thousands of matches your own personal performance plays a much more significant role in your ladder placement which unfortunately means sending months of your life down the drain. In 1v1 games you progress much more quickly as all that stands in the way of reaching the top is your own personal performance. In games like Poker where plenty of luck is involved as well that luck is static as in once the cards are dealed they stay the way they are whereas a player during a LoL match can change like going on tilt and start playing badly because of it.

The only time it's really worth bringing out any kind of statistics is when you have a sample size of at least a thousand matches for soloq or when you are dealing with team ranked where the team members remain the same throughout all of the matches as then the team vs team is pretty much the same as any 1v1 game. Even with a large sample size there are just so many variables in soloq play which you can't account for, that it's not really worth getting all nerdy and serious about this.

You can bitch and whine but the only thing that will matter in the end is how well you play and even that is not true each and every match. You either deal with it or keep wasting your time hoping that a free challenger badge will just drop into your lap.

EL HAMSTEROApr 21, 20151 votes

[deleted]

KazaashiApr 21, 20152 votes

[{quoted}](name=EL HAMSTERO,realm=NA,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=6Y2YEO3y,comment-id=00030000,timestamp=2015-04-21T18:01:20.111+0000)

yes any given match is determined by luck. did riot give you the winning team this time or losing? because with matchmaking they are definitely rigging the games to ensure you only win around 50%. for every match you win they will give you a losing team in the future to balance it out. that is how every player ends up at 50% winrate. the games are largely decided before they begin.

Your perspective is slightly off. Riot isn't purposly making people be in Bronze or Silver or wherever. They do that to themselves.

The matchmaking attempts to give you a 50% chance of winning any given game. The game compares your MMR with other peoples and attempts to build a team withing 1 or 2 standard deviations apart.

It doesn't rig the matchmaking to give you games that you will win and games you will lose. That is all up to you and your teammates.

EL HAMSTEROApr 21, 20151 votes

perspective? that is simply how matchmaking works. no it isn't putting them in a division purposely but it is trying to put you at 50%. if you win a game you face harder games = when you win you will have to lose for it In the future. if you keep winning in games they keep rigging the teams more and more against you until they get you back to 50%. that is how you raise your mmr. you win games the system expected you to lose.

Space BumApr 21, 20151 votes

You win games the system expects you to lose because there is no way to predict they way playstyles interact. I've heard of high elo players getting "outplayed" by lower elo because they do things so far out of left field that the higher elo player does not expect. Of course this goes both ways.

EL HAMSTEROApr 21, 20151 votes

it doesn't mean the system wasn't trying to make you lose. it was and does. its not an accident every single player has 50% winrate

Space BumApr 21, 20152 votes

Not arguing that. Just saying what the system thinks is not always accurate. The system does not think I can beat players above my Rank but it happens nonetheless.

EL HAMSTEROApr 21, 20151 votes

yes any given match is determined by luck. but its not true luck. its decided by riot. did riot give you the winning team this time or losing? because with matchmaking they are definitely rigging the games to ensure you only win around 50%.

for every match you win they will give you a losing team in the future to balance it out. that is how every player ends up at 50% winrate. the games are largely decided before they begin.

LegendaryLemurApr 21, 20151 votes

There are only 2^33 people in the world, so this logic kinda dies by the wayside. Even if every single person in the world played league, its unlikely anyone would have 40 bad teams in a row. Once you play 100 games the odds approaching 50/50 bad teams to good is starting to become statistically "certain" (i haven't worked out the math, but this seems right to me).

Space BumApr 21, 20151 votes

If each game is 50/50 the overall outcome is not necessarily 50/50 that is the point.

LegendaryLemurApr 21, 20151 votes

[{quoted}](name=I Like Hugs,realm=NA,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=6Y2YEO3y,comment-id=00060000,timestamp=2015-04-21T19:04:55.971+0000)

If each game is 50/50 the overall outcome is not necessarily 50/50 that is the point.

I think you're not understanding my point. I'm saying after ~100 games the statistical likelihood of anyone in the world being <49% or >51% is negligible.

Space BumApr 21, 20151 votes

X/2^33=Y so who gives a shit? Some innocent people are on death row but who gives a shit right?

LegendaryLemurApr 21, 20151 votes

[{quoted}](name=I Like Hugs,realm=NA,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=6Y2YEO3y,comment-id=0006000000000000,timestamp=2015-04-21T19:20:33.864+0000)

X/2^33=Y so who gives a shit? Some innocent people are on death row but who gives a shit right?

No plenty of people care about that. But you have to balance it with letting socially undesirable people like serial killers go free. Would you rather execute one innocent man or let the serial killer kill hundreds?

Space BumApr 21, 20151 votes

I'm really not concerned with ethics. I don't want the system to be changed or even believe there is a way to change it. My only purpose was to point out this byproduct of the system and for people to acknowledge that it exists.