Assume you have reached the Diamond rank 5, here is how:
Play 11 ranked games and concede each one after you can determine the opponent’s deck type.
Write down percentage of Rush Decks and Percentage of Control Decks for those 11 games;
If Rush decks are more than 50%, you pick a Control Deck; if Control Decks are more than 50%, you pick a Rush deck.
Play 11 ranked games and repeat 2-4.
One logic behind it is:
You need to know the real time local stats of the player distribution in terms of rush/control.
Only control can beat rush deck with high margin and vice versa. You don’t want to pick a control deck to play against other control decks more than neccesary.
This algo is to reach high win rate and low grinding time.
Aggro (rush I guess you call them) decks can beat control decks though. They can also beat other aggro decks. So I would think that the answer to climbing to legendary is to play an aggro deck.
So many holes with your theory, but the obvious one is being that you think Control decks beat aggro decks right now in this meta.
That would normally be the case.
However, in this meta do you know how many Control decks are favored against Treant Druid?
None. Not a single one.
It beats Control Warrior, Control Priest, Control Warlock, Blood DK and all Mage decks.
Now, if you want to count Highlander Shaman as a Control deck, then it has a 49.5% win ratio against that.
Your logic is highly flawed because you severely underestimate the power of aggro decks right now.
Remember, the player distribution will be different for:
Someone playing in New York at 2pm and
Someone playing in Iowa at 2am
Only the distribution of that local at that time/date matters to your climbing.
That’s why you base your deck theme on the last 11 games you played.
One more thing: I said vice versa, meaning you play control against local aggro meta, and play aggro if your local is control meta. The idea is to bring an anti-meta deck to climb faster and catch the imbalance during that local time period.
Lastly, I never said which control or rush deck to play against the meta. That leaves to your strategical input.
This is just the Roulette Fallacy (Gambler’s Fallacy) in Hearthstone form. I could explain it, but it can be a bit complicated. Basically, what you are saying is a logical fallacy and a problem with your conclusion being illogical.
According to this view, “after observing a long run of red on the roulette wheel, for example, most people erroneously believe that black will result in a more representative sequence than the occurrence of an additional red”,[10] so people expect that a short run of random outcomes should share properties of a longer run
To put it simply:
If you faced 10000000000000 DKs in a row and DKs are only 25% of the meta population, your next chance of facing a DK is 25% assuming no rigging and that your 10000000000000 DKs in a row is purely by chance.
Advocating that your next DK opponent would be higher than 25% in that scenario is basically saying you know the game is rigged. In that case, all you have to do is prove it’s rigged with demonstrable data. But no one has done that. EVER.
You never gambled before?
If the roulette gives red 10 times in a row, the next 10 times I would confidently bet that you will see black more than red. Any roulette machine that is rigged will be reported and penalized by the gaming board.
That’s why you can double every bet to guarantee your win in roulette theoretically.
That’s why roulette has a limit for your max bet to prevent that strategy.
And this is where your thinking is logically flawed. The casinos are specifically looking for people like your thinking to play because they know the thinking is flawed.
Yes. But you won’t find one that is rigged because it’s insanely rare for one to be. They don’t need to be rigged. They will win over time because of thinking just like you said. You are falling victim to the Monte Carlo fallacy in the gambler’s fallacy.
Perhaps the most famous example of the gambler’s fallacy occurred in a game of roulette at the Monte Carlo Casino on August 18, 1913, when the ball fell in black 26 times in a row. This was an extremely uncommon occurrence: the probability of a sequence of either red or black occurring 26 times in a row is (18/37)26-1 or around 1 in 66.6 million, assuming the mechanism is unbiased. Gamblers lost millions of francs betting against black, reasoning incorrectly that the streak was causing an imbalance in the randomness of the wheel, and that it had to be followed by a long streak of red.[1]
You just went from one fallacy to a whole new one. The Martingale Strategy.
You asked if I’ve ever gambled before. I live in Nevada. Are you sure you’ve ever gambled before?
Your thinking is all messed up and provably illogical. This is exactly why you think like you do in your original post. You need to do a bit of research as to what’s wrong with your thinking and why it’s a fallacy. It would help you be more aware of gambling traps and might even help you be a better gambler.
Almost every symptom that rigging believers attribute to rigging is in fact attributable to randomness itself. It’s hard to understate how bad people are at handling true randomness; it drives them mad, like if they saw Cthulhu.
My favorite example of this is Spotify. I think the random shuffle issue is such a beautiful example of how humans can’t handle true randomness. The human mind is so ill-equipped to handle that reality.
It’s even harder to explain to people. Their mind just doesn’t grasp it because we want to see patterns in everything.
Some guy at a casino after seeing that the past 10 spins were red…
5 minutes earlier…
Some other guy at a casino after seeing that the past 5 spins were red…
“If the roulette gives red 5 times in a row, the next 5 times I would confidently bet that you will see black more than red.”
This happens so often too. When I’m playing Roulette, so many people start jumping in as soon as a bunch of red or a bunch of black in a row is showing. It’s like clockwork.
Casino knows that this gets people to bet. In fact, they started putting in “stat boards” that show you which numbers are hot and which numbers are cold as if it matters…but people absolutely bet based on that.
No need to rig anything. People are stupid all by themselves.
House edge is not this. The house makes money because of zero and double zero. Not because you bet black or red on any given spin after 10 red or 100 red in a row.
Your betting strategy will work. For example, you only bet black after you see 8 red in a row, and you will keep defending your bet by doubling down. Say you start with $50, you will max out at 4 bets later, $100, $200, $400, $800. You win money if you you get black and you stop. You lose money if you hit 13 red in a row.
You adjust your risk profile accordingly. Lower the number required to see in a row to 5, you run the risk of hitting limit too soon. Higher the number, you don’t see action.
Let’s say there are 10 roulette tables in the house that night. You set your starting bet at “I only bet black when I see no black for 8 spins in a row”, you probably don’t get to play a single game that night. If you change it to “I only bet black if no black for 5 spins in a row”, you will see a lot of play and run the risk of wiping out in one of the game. But if not, you probably pocketing $50 each.
Once you win your first couple $50, you start to double you initial bet with higher threshold to make bigger plays.
It’s just a way to play roulette. You never beat house if you play too many. But you also don’t get wipe out if you are disciplined.
If you know gambling so well, why are you unable to see that you’re talking about the Martingale Strategy and why are you unable to see what’s wrong with it?
This is just dumb. Your bet has nothing to do with previous results. If there was 50 red in a row, the chance of black coming up is the same as it was every single time before that.
You’re literally falling for classic beginner gambling problems.
Theory is one thing. If you go to a roulette table, how often do you even see 8 in a row? once a night maybe.
It’s not that stupid.
I am not betting the next turn is red.
I am betting the house cannot make a 13 red in a row tonight.
In order to bet this, you have to defend all the way up to the 13th spin.
I already linked to you the flaw in your logic. The actual logical fallacy.
Do you know WHY it’s called a LOGICAL FALLACY?
Let me show you what a logical fallacy is:
What is the meaning of logical fallacy?
A logical fallacy is an argument that may sound convincing or true but is actually flawed. Logical fallacies are leaps of logic that lead us to an unsupported conclusion. People may commit a logical fallacy unintentionally, due to poor reasoning, or intentionally, in order to manipulate others.
The poor reasoning part applies here to you because I don’t believe you’re being intentional.
Logical fallacies mean there is a problem with your logic.
I literally linked to you the actual logical fallacies that apply to your argument.
You keep arguing against it as if it’s not a logical fallacies.
It’s a proven logical fallacy.
There is a demonstrable problem with the way you are actively thinking and you are just refusing to admit it.
I don’t know what else to do for you. Your logic is philosophically unsound, bad and flawed that dates back all the way to Aristotle.
Your argument is no longer with me, it’s with real facts and logic and I’m afraid you can’t win. The only thing you can do is find out WHY you are wrong instead of keeping thinking that you aren’t.
