[speeddemon]

Originally Posted by stargroup100

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

Sure, there are a lot of scenarios where risk isn't negligible. I'm not saying that every action carries no risk. I'm saying some have none. One counterexample doesn't disprove it. You literally need to list every single interaction and associate a meaningful risk to make your argument work.

Originally Posted by stargroup100

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

Are you telling me people are more commonly benevolent, and don't even take into account the likelihood that the other person with screw them over? Sure, if you know the other person well enough, or have an agreement before going in you can easily both take the lighter punishment. However, most people don't know each other. Most people don't trust each other, regardless of their morality. We don't exactly live in a society where those who trust thrive. You said most often you would choose to cooperate. How would I know that on the other end? I would prefer the lighter sentence, but I'll be damned if you'd give me longer time to save yourself. Rational self interest dominates here.

Originally Posted by stargroup100

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

You're telling me that a risk cannot change to being negligible? That most risks don't diminish when it's far less common to be punished for it? I'll take Lee Sin as an example. Picking him in a coordinated setting is a far greater risk than doing so in soloqueue. In teams, strong as he is early on, you have to plan for his eventual falloff. If you don't snowball somebody by then, you become a liability that can only perform soft cc maybe twice in a teamfight and a displacement once, usually at the start. Picking him in soloqueue diminishes that risk, as the enemy team is, more often than not, no longer extremely coordinated. They are far less likely to shut you down and prevent you from snowballing anybody.

This can be applied to a large number of choices in the game. Even something as important as counterpicking doesn't apply to well over half the player base when you're in soloqueue. Sure, if you happen to be good at a counter it will aid you greatly, but forcing yourself into a pick you're uncomfortable with loses you far more games than not counterpicking, barring some outlier cases like picking gp into panth.

And then take it a step further into normals. Most people don't play normals with the mindset of ranked. Nobody wants to lose, sure, but nobody is aiming for perfect performance either. There goes even more risk.

Originally Posted by stargroup100

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

Are you required to be a bag of dicks to get your point across? Am I being a dick to you currently? You aren't exactly being nice, but you're certainly far less scathing. There really is no need to be cunty in a discussion on a forum.

And if he's totally right, instead of only partially, he should be able to convince me beyond all shadow of a doubt fairly easily. So far all he's been is insulting, and acts like his examples are the end all be all. You've at least tried to provide a decent counterexample with the blitz grab.

Originally Posted by stargroup100

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

If I don't understand how to assess situations then how exactly do I survive in my matches? Gold is still the top 10% of players, even if everyone calls it the new bronze. In normals, albeit those are generally less of a tryhard environment, I play with low to mid plats fairly often and perform at their level. If I truly didn't understand any of this, I'd be bronze, or at least silver. There's no way I would have been carried two seasons in a row to an appropriate rank.

Originally Posted by stargroup100

durp thx for admitting to an example that proves yourself wrong

As above, one counterexample doesn't disprove that some abilities have negligible risk attached. You guys have the benefit of debating a more well established point, but the burden of debating for literally every single action.

Originally Posted by stargroup100

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

It's not meant to be a full mathematical analysis, I'm simply stating that as a variable approaches a number it eventually becomes negligibly close. the limit as the risk goes to 0, is, in this case, 0. If we were talking about something even mildly more complex then I'd give a more complex answer.

What have you done, exactly? Theoretical numbers for theoretical changes to a champ? Items? What have you analyzed? I'm interested to know in a nonargumentative sense.

And the Dunning Kruger Effect is misplaced here, I'm not saying that mine is the only way, or even the better way, simply that his extreme blanket statement isn't necessarily right. I'm open to a valid argument to the contrary.