[stargroup100]

Originally Posted by speeddemon

The point isn't that I don't understand that these things are risks, the point is that the risks being argued are so minimal it would generally be bad form to take the alternative, far riskier option.

I gave you a scenario where the risk was not negligible. clearly that means that there exist scenarios where risks do play into account, and that's only proof of concept. there are lots of other scenarios where the same such case also occurs

Originally Posted by speeddemon

You link me to the basic prisoners dilemma, and we know what the more common occurrence is there. They both rat each other out, because they aren't coordinated.

ok so you pretty much just admitted that you don't understand game theory at all
1. there is no "more common occurrence" because both options are justified
2. it doesn't matter which is more common, the fact is that your strategy depends on what your opponent picks, so you have to take probabilities into account
3. since the chance of the other player picking either choice is not negligible, your strategy must take into account the risks associated with each strategy

and if you're still not convinced that people are not defaulted to ratting out, let me just tell you that I would more often choose to cooperate, so clearly the problem is not as simple as you make it sound

Originally Posted by speeddemon

And therein in lies the rub of this discussion. Are you in ranked teams, or in ranked soloqueue, or even in ranked at all? That changes the question entirely. In ranked teams, suddenly every action you make is important, and it's optimal to coordinate with and understand your team well enough to plan risks accordingly. In soloqueue however, you aren't going to be that coordinated. It just doesn't happen. The risk is suddenly lower, because while you might make a somewhat poor call the enemy team can't jump on it as effectively. In unranked it's even less of an issue. So few people are playing optimally that there really isn't a risk at all, at that point.

yes, different situations can change the risks, obviously, this is the point of game theory

in game theory, the strategy each player chooses depends on the strategies of the other players

that means the risks CHANGE, they're not lowered.

in one dimension, team play makes certain risks higher, such as the coordination decisions across the map. however, in solo queue you have a different set of risks, such as: understanding the team compositions to figure out whether or not there will be early invades, determining what locations are being warded to figure out whether or not it's worth ganking via a certain route (failing could result in counterganks, wasted time, and not correctly judging ally contributions could bait allies to death), and what common paths people take to catch people out of position

Originally Posted by speeddemon

I'm aware I was being sarcastic and douchey, but I'm not sure why I should have to roll over and take it when he can't handle a miniscule comment in the same flavor of his initial response to someone else. Pretty simple.

the difference is that you're wrong. he's right. there's nothing to "take" if you're totally right

Originally Posted by speeddemon

Generally theorycrafting involves a low impact from your skill in a game. do you know how many millions of players understand the point of something like warding, but don't do it in game? The point of that statement is to show that while yes, he's probably more skilled than I am, and yes, he could probably take a shit on my day, that has no place in the discussion. His skill lends to him being able to understand the situation in his mmr better, but not the 98% of the playerbase he doesn't play in. He is part of an outlier group of skilled players. They play very differently because they are able to do things like rely on each other to act, and assume their opponent is skilled. I've been from a low point of 800 elo back in s1 to now regularly playing with low to mid plats on a similar skill level. I've seen the breakpoint at which you can trust your teammates to do anything, and really the game is completely different in each division. The basics are the same, but assessment of the situation is entirely different.

assessment of a situation is indeed different from execution. I am more of a smart player than a mechanical player, I don't know if I've mentioned this before. but it's still irrelevant because it's clear you don't understand HOW to assess situations, and that's the difference. mina is able to shit on both shitty players and good players. why? he can watch how a player lanes, and use that information to determine the skill level of a player, and from that figure out how far he can trust his allies and how he can outplay his opponent. THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT

Originally Posted by speeddemon

As far as the blitz grab is concerned, I didn't list it for a reason. It's a high risk, high reward ability.

durp thx for admitting to an example that proves yourself wrong


as for the calculus limit thing, you actually need to show how it applies to league because I've actually done real mathematics to analyze this game and I'm 99% sure you don't actually know where calculus is relevant in actual mathematical analysis. so you're basically talking about something that is irrelevant to the discussion

plz go back to school and get better, you're making yourself look dumb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning...3Kruger_effect