Jump to content
SaltMaster 5000

Carolina Krayts is the best X-Wing podcast

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Mattman7306 said:

HO HO HO, MERRY KRAYTSMAS!

A Kraytsmas miracle happened!

Salt fell from the sky. There is a light dusting of it covering the ground. Peace has been restored to the galaxy. Salt Crystal Pokemon Kittens for everyone. 

Its so peaceful.

%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%84%D0%BA%D0%B8-vulptex-c

Merry Christmas. 

owl-transforms-into-santa-151830.gif

Edited by Boom Owl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kaptin Krunch said:

 I just reai  i just realized how in the last episode you saw Chumbalaya was on the credits for our lord and savior- the Gunboat.

Does that mean we can go look at who was behind the Jumpmaster?

They’re all in witness protection by now. Or been sent back to repeat grade school math along with the Nym playtesters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm about five minutes into Listener 4, and there's already major misinformation.  Chris Allen says that "nobody is unlucky in the long term," and "it's even hard to be unlucky for the length of a tournament."  This is simply not true, and it's a fundamental failure of understanding of probability.

X-Wing and poker -- at both of which I have had significantly above-average success -- have a lot in common, and the approximate balance of skill and luck is one of those things.  Studies have been done in poker in which it's been concluded that a player consistently pursuing winning strategies and behavior can quite easily be a lifetime loser at the game.  (And, like in X-Wing, there are a number of repeat names in tournaments.  And yet the best poker players are fully aware of the possible swings in the game ... very long term.)

It's not hard to be unlucky for the length of a tournament.  It's absolutely common.

Your overall point about not blaming bad luck for mistakes is correct, but that's the irony of the misinformation you folks spread, because it is nearly as big a mistake to discount swings of luck as it is to over-emphasize them.  Y'all act like because it's a mistake to overemphasize the random nature of the game in results that it must, QED, not be a mistake to underestimate the random nature of the game.

That's fallacious.  It's been fallacious since "high level" X-Wing players started doing it.  Please, stop doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

I'm about five minutes into Listener 4, and there's already major misinformation.  Chris Allen says that "nobody is unlucky in the long term," and "it's even hard to be unlucky for the length of a tournament."  This is simply not true, and it's a fundamental failure of understanding of probability.

X-Wing and poker -- at both of which I have had significantly above-average success -- have a lot in common, and the approximate balance of skill and luck is one of those things.  Studies have been done in poker in which it's been concluded that a player consistently pursuing winning strategies and behavior can quite easily be a lifetime loser at the game.  (And, like in X-Wing, there are a number of repeat names in tournaments.  And yet the best poker players are fully aware of the possible swings in the game ... very long term.)

It's not hard to be unlucky for the length of a tournament.  It's absolutely common.

Your overall point about not blaming bad luck for mistakes is correct, but that's the irony of the misinformation you folks spread, because it is nearly as big a mistake to discount swings of luck as it is to over-emphasize them.  Y'all act like because it's a mistake to overemphasize the random nature of the game in results that it must, QED, not be a mistake to underestimate the random nature of the game.

That's fallacious.  It's been fallacious since "high level" X-Wing players started doing it.  Please, stop doing it.

No.

We are not misunderstanding, nor incorrect, in our understanding of probability.

We know, and acknowledge, that randomness is ‘clumpy.’ While it is entirely possible to be ‘unlucky’ so often in a row, in successive, concurrent games, as to fail a tournament, it is also highly improbable, and so much that it’s simply not useful to worry about.

Lastly, and most importantly, you cannot affect your ‘luck’ beyond making correct decisions based on your own risk tolerances and consideration of probability and variance; and thus, if you look at a game and go ‘that was entirely luck, I did nothing wrong,’ you should shrug and move on.

 

What we stress is that you focus on the things you actually can affect. Focusing on the variance is not helpful or useful.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

No.  We are not misunderstanding, nor incorrect, in our understanding of probability.

Yes, you are.  You're doubling down on something false:

Quote

While it is entirely possible to be ‘unlucky’ so often in a row, in successive, concurrent games, as to fail a tournament, it is also highly improbable

No, it's not "highly improbable."  It is not highly improbable in an absolute sense, and it is not only probable, but it is exceedingly likely, to happen to someone or multiple someones in any given tournament.

There is almost certainly someone in your target audience who, but for variance, would be a highly successful player, and by discounting variance you're essentially lying to that player.  You don't need to do that to get across the points you want to get across.

Quote

and so much that it’s simply not useful to worry about.

Depending on what you mean by "worry about," this may or may not be true.  What's definitely true is that it is useful to be aware of.  What you guys are doing -- and you're certainly not the first high-profile X-Wing players to do it, and you won't be the last -- is encouraging people to discount or even ignore the effects of variance, and this is simply a bad message to be sending.  Just for one, extremely simple, illustration: if somebody stumbles upon the next genius list, that person could get unlucky, lose three times with a hugely powerful list, and, if he takes what y'all have to say about variance completely to heart, decide to shelve the list.

It is important to know and recognize variance, both in one's favor and not.  It is useful.  You're simply wrong about this.

Quote

Lastly, and most importantly, you cannot affect your ‘luck’ beyond making correct decisions based on your own risk tolerances and consideration of probability and variance; and thus, if you look at a game and go ‘that was entirely luck, I did nothing wrong,’ you should shrug and move on.

Which means that the entire experience was wasted time, in terms of gathering meaningful data.  Whereas if one actually understands probability well enough to focus on it, useful things can be gleaned even from games with huge variance swings.

Quote

What we stress is that you focus on the things you actually can affect. Focusing on the variance is not helpful or useful.

First, understanding and focusing on variance can be both helpful and useful.  You're simply wrong when you say otherwise.

Second, it's entirely possible for players to take the good advice of focusing on things you can actually affect ... and focusing on understanding variance, so that useful information can be pulled from games (or, yes, tournaments) in which it plays a significant part.  You're underestimating players -- especially your stated audience of "those people who want to improve" -- by assuming they're incapable of doing both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

32 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Yes, you are.  You're doubling down on something false:

No, it's not "highly improbable."  It is not highly improbable in an absolute sense, and it is not only probable, but it is exceedingly likely, to happen to someone or multiple someones in any given tournament.

There is almost certainly someone in your target audience who, but for variance, would be a highly successful player, and by discounting variance you're essentially lying to that player.  You don't need to do that to get across the points you want to get across.

No. Just... no.

That's not how any of this actually works. 

Random variance can happen to any given person on any given day. The likelihood that is occurs to the SAME person, over several tournaments, in a row (which is what you're now describing) is so statistically unlikely, even in aggregate, that any rational person (or better, any betting person) would call you a liar.

So perhaps someone gets "diced" in a game. MAY BE someone even gets diced in a tournament; but no, the odds that someones gets diced in every tournament is so comically unlikely that it is not, in fact, worth worrying about the less than 1 listeners that it's happened to.

However, it's worth reaching out to the greater than 1 listeners that think this has happened to them.

 

7 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Depending on what you mean by "worry about," this may or may not be true.  What's definitely true is that it is useful to be aware of.  What you guys are doing -- and you're certainly not the first high-profile X-Wing players to do it, and you won't be the last -- is encouraging people to discount or even ignore the effects of variance, and this is simply a bad message to be sending.  Just for one, extremely simple, illustration: if somebody stumbles upon the next genius list, that person could get unlucky, lose three times with a hugely powerful list, and, if he takes what y'all have to say about variance completely to heart, decide to shelve the list.

Three games? Your counter example is three games?

Again - no. That's not even data collection at that point. Come on, man.

 

8 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

It is important to know and recognize variance, both in one's favor and not.  It is useful.  You're simply wrong about this.

It absolutely is. One can over-beat themselves up, or misgauge what was the "right" or "wrong" choice if they underestimate variance.

However, that is decision analysis. And if one wants to improve, one should generally look to see what they did wrong first, then, through careful analysis and elimination, figure out that they got "varianced."

I have probably legitimately been "diced" maybe twice. Ever. 

Did bad rolls happen other times? Yes. Sometimes a few times in a row? Absolutely. But I probably only had 2 games ever where I felt I made the right calls, multiple times in a row and low probability events actually occurred and I lost despite.

The rest of the times, as with a game with some randomness included, my losses (and wins) were a combination of dice and choices (and many of those choices involved modding my dice, or not being shot in the first place). This is the important part.

 

12 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Which means that the entire experience was wasted time, in terms of gathering meaningful data.  Whereas if one actually understands probability well enough to focus on it, useful things can be gleaned even from games with huge variance swings.

You're not actually even talking about probability - you're talking about decision making. We all have the probability calculator - we linked to it.

And you can usually learn from ANY game, even one where there was dice variance. But, again - if you take 3 TL+focused shots, in a row, and roll 0-1 hits per roll... that's so unlikely it borders on the absurd, and even giving someone the fact that is absolutely does occur, it does not occur with such regularity to the same person that it is, truly, not meaningful. And by that, I would say that people do not, and should not, make maneuver decisions asking themselves:

"Well, what if a  0.0930786% chance [the chance of a 4-dice shot rolling only 1 or less after modification], THREE TIMES IN A ROW [or even once]? I'd better do something safer!"

No...

...just no.
 

18 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

First, understanding and focusing on variance can be both helpful and useful.  You're simply wrong when you say otherwise.

Second, it's entirely possible for players to take the good advice of focusing on things you can actually affect ... and focusing on understanding variance, so that useful information can be pulled from games (or, yes, tournaments) in which it plays a significant part.  You're underestimating players -- especially your stated audience of "those people who want to improve" -- by assuming they're incapable of doing both.

If you want to keep zeroing in on exceedingly low odds, let alone the compounding probability of multiple incidences in a row - you do you.

I stand by our recommendation and analysis.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me:

Quote

Second, it's entirely possible for players to take the good advice of focusing on things you can actually affect ... and focusing on understanding variance, so that useful information can be pulled from games (or, yes, tournaments) in which it plays a significant part.  You're underestimating players -- especially your stated audience of "those people who want to improve" -- by assuming they're incapable of doing both.

Travis:

Quote

I stand by our recommendation and analysis.

Cool.  It's a little ironic from a guy who preaches to look at his own mistakes first and foremost, but, like I said, y'all aren't the first to make the mistake, and you won't be the last.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wait... what?

Jeff... are you truthfully thinking that because someone listened to Listener 4 they won't recognize that rolling 8-12 straight blanks is bad luck?  Because unless that's happening, you have no point to make here.  No one capable of playing X-Wing well isn't going to understand when an outlier streak of cold dice hit them that dice rolls are out of their control... but focusing on things you CAN do (like TLs and focus, and auto hits, etc) is the right head place to be for competitive play.  I've not listened to Listener 4 yet (I will), but the Krayts have had low tolerance for people constantly blaming dice for not being able to wing a range 3 Soontir or the like and that's correct.  Know when you had a good enough chance that dice did get you, but also be savy enough to know when the odds were stacked against you and your list simply didn't have the horsepower or you were taking long odds when you should have been making a different choice for attacks/actions/positioning etc.  Know how to read the matrix... know when you've boxed yourself into bad options... understand why you were there so you don't do it again... don't scapegoat dice.  The fact that someone will at sometime get ridiculously cold dice as to effect multiple games is so remote that there's really no point to plan or position yourself around that.  If you think that's happening... you're probably wrong.  I play competitive 40k at a reasonably high level and believe me I've seen more dice roll by than most X-Wing groups will in their collective life times.  Plan for bad rolls, exploit good, and don't mentally hobble yourself with luck... just be ready to use results properly as they come.

and certainly don't hang your hat on the bullet that shot another bullet down odds to argue that it was luck that got your list... and by the same token know when a good list just swung below its weight (which happens a lot less than you're trying to infer).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just throwing in my 2 cents and statistics degree-

Since luck is not something that can be influenced, people tend to blame it. I've sarcastically told people "wow, it's like this only happens 81% of the time- who would have thought" after they claim I just got lucky on a roll.

The odds of their being someone in the world out there who has been historically unlucky is high.

The odds of it being the listener is zero. There are billions of people out there. You are just as lucky as everone else.

You can look into psycological reasons as to why people think they were unlucky if you want more detail.

All you can do is make decisions that result in probabilities that are "good enough". Good enough for me being an 80%+chance of a dead Miranda/Wookiee on an engage, etc.

In short- Travis is right, Jeff is wrong, Kratys on top, git gud at statistics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Depending on what you mean by "worry about," this may or may not be true.  What's definitely true is that it is useful to be aware of.  What you guys are doing -- and you're certainly not the first high-profile X-Wing players to do it, and you won't be the last -- is encouraging people to discount or even ignore the effects of variance, and this is simply a bad message to be sending.  Just for one, extremely simple, illustration: if somebody stumbles upon the next genius list, that person could get unlucky, lose three times with a hugely powerful list, and, if he takes what y'all have to say about variance completely to heart, decide to shelve the list.

It is important to know and recognize variance, both in one's favor and not.  It is useful.  You're simply wrong about this.

Are you actually listening though? They go to great lengths to illustrate why a knowledge of variance is necessary to play this game competitively. They talk about minimizing variance by NOT GETTING SHOT. They even touch on scenarios where it is in your best interest to embrace variance when you are losing a game, and your only hope is to go for the Hail Mary. They talk about recognizing tournament formats that usually allow you to have one bad game (could be from dice, matchup, etc.), without getting eliminated.

It might help you to listen to the show...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's worth considering the degree to which an individual's dice luck deviates from the statistical mean and to what degree that deviation actually matters in terms of determining long term tournament success.

by that I mean:
1) dice luck plays a role in match outcomes, but it is secondary to strategic and tactical decisions (list building and positioning are generally what wins games, dice luck is less relevant unless list building/positioning skills of both players are closely matched)
2) since dice luck plays a smaller role in match outcomes compared to other factors, deviations in dice luck have a reduced impact on match outcomes (i.e. even if the dice luck of two given players is lopsided, the strategic/tactical skill differential of those players should still be the main determinant of match outcome because the "weight" of dice luck is low compared to those other factors)
3) the more games a given player plays, the less deviation from the mean dice luck we should expect (reversion to the mean)

Basically, yes, there are unlucky players, but it's likely that even the unlucky players are not *that* unlucky in the long term and even if they are, their luck is likely not holding them back that much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Transmogrifier said:

I think it's worth considering the degree to which an individual's dice luck deviates from the statistical mean and to what degree that deviation actually matters in terms of determining long term tournament success.

by that I mean:
1) dice luck plays a role in match outcomes, but it is secondary to strategic and tactical decisions (list building and positioning are generally what wins games, dice luck is less relevant unless list building/positioning skills of both players are closely matched)
2) since dice luck plays a smaller role in match outcomes compared to other factors, deviations in dice luck have a reduced impact on match outcomes (i.e. even if the dice luck of two given players is lopsided, the strategic/tactical skill differential of those players should still be the main determinant of match outcome because the "weight" of dice luck is low compared to those other factors)
3) the more games a given player plays, the less deviation from the mean dice luck we should expect (reversion to the mean)

Basically, yes, there are unlucky players, but it's likely that even the unlucky players are not *that* unlucky in the long term and even if they are, their luck is likely not holding them back that much.

not quite. Luck exists. Luck is however, not tied to players. Each result is independent of the last. 

The only way that luck is "yours" and not just a series of dice rolls that had no relation to each other is if you continually use dice that were mis-cured (Seriously, cut open a FFG die and look at how bad the curing is. That's why I really want to get a set of clear dice.) Even then, the roll probabilities are not that significant, and you should be pooling dice with your opponent anyways. I end up probably accidentally trading dice every game I play. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I don't think anyone would actually argue with the law of averages, so maybe the argument just isn't clear?

@Jeff Wilder, mind telling me where you disagree specifically with where I'm going? 

Here's what I mean, as clearly as I know how to say it. I'll have my data I used for them at the bottom.

Presuppositions:

  1. Being "diced" is defined as the game was impossible for the player to win, because regardless of moves taken the player being "diced" would lose because of dice results, damage deck order, or some other chance based game effect outside of that player's control.
  2. The odds of a player being "diced" in a game of x-wing are about 1.46%
  3. A player would have an unlucky "career" if they went to 3 events in a row (or the only three they went to) and got diced out of all them to not make the cut
  4. All tournaments are 6 rounds, and the person keeps playing after they've lost two rounds just to make my life easier
  5. 10,000 people listen to listener 4 ever (overestimate to make math easy)

 

store champs: 36
2016: 3 * 6
2017: 3 * 6

worlds: 13
2016: 7
2017: 6

gencon
2016: 9
2017: 7

nationals
2016: 7

regionals: 36
2015: 2 * 6
2016: 3 * 6
2017: 1 * 8

stele: 11
2016: 6
2017: 5 

krayt cup 2: 5

other tournaments: 24
escalation
krayt cup 2
store kits: 3

total SWISS rounds:
137


Total of tournament games I REMEMBER as having a diced player: 2
worlds 2017: I won anyways after the highest variance I've ever seen, bad example, but I'm trying to be generous (3 4 dice target lock focus range 1 shots for 1 hit)
gencon 2017: nym eats a ps0 crit against FSR2 and immediately loses (I'm not sure I would even qualify it as dicing, it was a "real game")
There's a couple random non-tournament games that were dice, but I don't have any real way to measure how many of those I've played.

I'm a biased observor, maybe it's actually way higher than that and I'm just lucky, or missed when I diced my opponent, so let's try 10 as well.

Odds of being diced: .0146 (1.46%) or 7.3%

Odds of being diced out of a tournament (binomial probability calculator http://vassarstats.net/binomialX.html):
at 1.46% diced: 0.00307 or 0.3%
at 7.3% diced: 0.066 or 6.6%

odds of being diced out of three tournaments in a row:
1.46% diced: 0.000000028934443
7.3% diced: 0.000287496 (.029%)

So then, our odds of having at least one listener who was diced out of their xwing career:
1.46% diced: 0.000289
7.3% diced: 0.943582

It's a little late, but basically that means that if there's a 1.46% dice solely determine the outcome, the odds of one of the ten thousand people who listened being diced out of three consecutive tournaments is deep into scientific notation starting with 0 territory.  That number would actually be much lower than 1.46%, as I only included swiss games from those tournaments, because I don't care enough to go see how many cut games if any I played in each.

If we're super generous with the odds of being diced, it is likely that it doesn't apply to someone listening! Or even a few! But, even at a 7.3% to dice someone, it's incredibly small numbers of people.  The odds of 10 or more of that 10,000 being diced out are 0.08%.  6 or more is 7.18%, and the 50% mark for that metric is 3 listeners .

 

So, even if 7.3% of games of x-wing are decided by dice (I would not play this game if they were), we gave the correct advice to somewhere between 10000 and 9994 listeners out of 10,000, which is a number that is acceptable to me.

 

Again, I don't expect that you disagree with the math, I just did it because I thought it was personally interesting, and I don't mean to strawman - I think there's just a miscommunication somewhere, or you're of the opinion that dramatically more games are decided by dice than we are?

 

edit: whoops, forgot system opens, so it really should be 153 so 1.31% and 6.54% to be diced, but whatever. Hopefully it's pretty clear that it takes shifts in orders of magnitude to meaningfully change the end numbers

Edited by Brunas
i suck at typing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jeff Wilder said:

No, it's not "highly improbable."  It is not highly improbable in an absolute sense, and it is not only probable, but it is exceedingly likely, to happen to someone or multiple someones in any given tournament.

As someone with a pretty solid background in statistics and econometrics, you don't understand how this works.

Edited by hawk32

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Cool.  It's a little ironic from a guy who preaches to look at his own mistakes first and foremost, but, like I said, y'all aren't the first to make the mistake, and you won't be the last.

That’s a bit hasty - I’d be a terrible scientist if I just took your word for it.

You’ve made a claim, but presented no evidence to it. Further, you’re really arguing a bit of philosophy rather than math (it appears, since we seem to agree the odds are small).

If I’m reading you right, you’re saying that even though the odds are small, people experience these odds all the time, and to such a degree that they’re meaningful.

If that is what you’re saying, we sort of agree. As someone noted, we talked about understanding variance and when you NEED it, but otherwise, you should be trying to eliminate it.

However, I think you’re positing that that the odds are so large that a small subset of people literally ‘live’ in bad luck, and that is meaningful?

I just have no reason to believe that, given general probability theory. And even if accepted, what advice would I give them again but to acknowledge the exceedingly low likelihood of that and try and be zen about it.

To clarify, how I actually read your assertion is that exceedingly low probability (and, as demonstrated with the 4 die, focus target lock only rolling 1 hit or less 3 times in a row is much much less than 1%) is meaningful and common enough place that lots of people experience it.

To which my flinch reaction to that logic is that ‘lots of people have won the lottery, but I wouldn’t buy a lottery ticket because of it.’

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×