Sometimes I catch myself being extremely disappointed if I lose; but then I look at the stats of the best decks at the best ranks in the game and it makes no sense; those decks today have at best 57% which means if they play 100 games they will lose 43 times at least.
How do I solve this problem?
Only you expect a 100% win rate.
You dont.
Maybe realise that even a 57% win rate is extremely good.
By understanding the deck winrate statistics
They are grouped/filtered by ranks (otherwise they are meaningless). When you filter by ranks, only the stats of people belonging to those ranks are shown.
When you belong to some rank group, your winrate in that group is always close to 50% because you are playing against similarily good (or bad xd) opponents.
If you are a legend player looking at stats for gold and platinum, those winrate stats would not apply to you. You could expect perhaps 60% winrate or higher on a 50% winrate deck due to skill advantage.
So once your skills get bettet than your rank suggests, you will have better winrates and quickly progress out of that rank category into another and so on and so on
52% winrate deck is enough to get from 9k to 1k in a couple of hours, if you are better than the people playing in those ranks.
If you are similar to them, your winrate will vary between 49 and 55 with average being 52, and you will slowly get ranks
Basically its a grind, the more you play the better you get and more ranks you get with decks with any win rate higher than 50%
One notable thing is, its like riding a bycicle. Once you hit some rank and get stabilized in it (meaning, you didnt just highroll to that rank and dropped out from it soon like i did few days ago), it means your skill is now the same as of that new rank group and you can take a one year break and when you return you will get there very fast again.
I don’t think it’s delusional, however you are mostly at the mercy of the RNG algorithm. I’ve had decks that perform up to high 80% win rate with nearly or over 100 games played.
Answer to thread title is yes
I don’t know, I did manage to win 13 games in a row with Painlock from Plat to Diamond 10. The deck itself doesn’t have much RNG besides Symphony of Sins.
I personally don’t expect a run like that to happen but it’s a nice bonus when it does.
For D5-Legend climb it certainly feels good to have a 65-70% winrate to climb smoothly, you just move on from losses when they happen as long as you identify if you made many mistakes. But I’ve had months in the past stuck with over 300+ games, unable to eke out consistent advantages against a wide variety of decks.
No, that’s the average win rate of ALL the games played. Some of those players will have a much higher win rate and some of course will have a much lower one.
This doesn’t take into account shifts in the meta in-between patches either. So if something new pops up that becomes strong and popular two weeks after a patch, the average win rates of most decks won’t be accurate for the actual meta.
I know: it was closer to a figure of speech for the concept of “expected outcome” which is what you should expect as the average to happen and not what will definitely happen.
If I filter (hsguru) for less than ~60 games I start seeing a lot of 70%+ even on the top of Legend and they might be legit sometimes but I think the golden rule of ~80 is better.
Though that in turn implies if you go above 80 games with the same deck you might start converging very close to the expected win rate (that your own skill can master).
That’s the rule I often post about on forum
The lower the sample, the higher the variance, which means that
This is true
So those winrates shouldn’t be taken into account seriously
If you like the deck idea and have the dust to make it, then sure, try it
But you probably know the pilot with that winrate just highrolled (and maybe surprised his opponents with a new deck, but that surprise factor disappears very fast in high ranks)
I’m no help:) To me, 54% is a terrific win rate lol.
The highrollers appear very common when the recorded games are no more than 60 or it might not be exactly highrolling but a single top-20-tier player still climbing inside top 1K. When I filter for more than 60 games it becomes almost impossible to see more than 70% win rate in high ranks (especially after 80 or 100 games).
But there’s the other extreme; filtering for way too many games; that has the disadvantage of completely hiding entire archetypes so it might be smarter to filter for even as low as 100 games because some very high quality decks emerging for the first time may appear only in that case.
Yeah, it’s not just sample vs variance, there’s also the mathematical law of big numbers
The higher the numbers getting divided, the lower the result is
Like, if you go 10-5, that’s 10/15 = 66,66%
If you go 20-15, that’s 20/35 = 57,14%
If you go 30-25, that’s 30/55 = 54,54%
Note that, even though the win-loss is constant (5 wins more than losses in all cases), the winrate percentage keeps falling
That + sample/variance laws are to blame for such winrates with low samples
53% in 250 games is meaningful. It’s a tier 1 deck
53% in 25 games is a disaster.
This explains so much about my gaming experience, lol:)
Whaaaaaaaat? You spent all day yesterday arguing it wasn’t.
Not i, said the fly
Nobody has 100% win rate
complain in forums, stop playing.
You can not have higher winrate than 60% in standard. You can have up to 90+% winrate in wild, because algorithm can not work so well like it does in standard. A lot of tech cards change game outcome.
I reached 90+% winrate in wild with time warp mage from D10 to legend.
By switching to a different game.
I despise nothing more than losing to factors beyond my control.
In the past, I have even uninstalled after losing once following a 15-game win streak.
You started well but that’s a very flawed post actually. It doesn’t always keep falling. You can even start with 0%; and it may keep rising; it’s just that if WE SORT BY HIGHEST the others keep falling (because we don’t care to search for good players who started their first games with loses).
True, but the important thing is that you get the point