These tacos are pretty good.
Warm with lots of meat and cheese.
The lettuce is crisp and the tomatoes are yummy.
With just the right amount of sass…
Oh uh yeah… your obfuscations… whilst intriguing in their origin are still quite boring.
I dont need to prove anything…
but I might try out this 3 deck strat.
Sounds fun.
And just like all else before you, you failed.
As expected.
Don’t pursue anymore. There is nothing to gain and much to lose.
Arent you guys needed in a warmongering thread somewhere or maybe a raid over at pol? lol
… Is this an apt comparison? We’re talking about ladder, where players know which cards they will pick and have an abundance of draw available with far more consistent decks. Of course getting a 9 win in arena by sheer luck is rare (but we’re not talking about arena, nor sheer luck).
And of course, for most of the run while climbing, the player is not facing proper competition. We’re not talking about keeping consistent 70-75% runs. That would be absurd.
The most common complaint in these types of threads is getting countered when switching decks. But according to the OP, the solution to this is…switching between only 3 decks? Don’t worry about any decks and counters you lose to while switching between these 3 deck either apparently, you’re definitely beating the “algorithm” with this method.
So the “algorithm” can’t detect what cards you own when you switch decks now? Or maybe just 3 decks, but only when switching after a win? While doing this method, are the losses still because of the patent?
To sum up-
If people lose while playing the same deck, the game is rigged
If people lose while switching decks, the game is rigged
If people lose while switching between 3 decks, the game is still rigged…BUT when you eventually win and THEN switch decks again, the game is still rigged
Wouldn’t any wins while using this method be because the game is rigged too? Everything is controlled by the algorithm, but there is definitely a loophole about switching between 3 decks that ignores the rigging and lets you climb the ladder a little quicker…
Grow up dude. If you are going to report someone there is no need to to say “I’m telling!”. Just do it, or shutup.
You are right, I don’t get to say, “no it doesn’t work that way”.
Which is why I didn’t say that.
I get to say, “there’s no good reason to think that it does work that way.”
Just like there’s no good reason to believe in the teapot in orbit around Pluto.
Both are possible things that could exist. We just have no good reason to believe either does.
Please elaborate how it’s implementation works in Hearthstone.
Because I am not being sold my opponent’s decks after I lose.
Way to dance around every good point I made Jeremy
You never heard of money? Take an economics course and then come back and tell me the goal of a corporation.
Go on…
Thanks for the chuckle. I really needed that today. And nothing against Scrotie, his corrections of what I ramble are pretty spot on. But, I cannot deny this is true. 
How does Hearthstone make money by creating an algorithm that does an unspecified function, that is defeated by playing 3 different decks in the manner specified in the OP?
Maybe I missed it. There’s a lot of posts. Did you address that?
Otherwise why would you mention that it’s making Blizzard money? If you have no explanation for how it generated money.
I yam what I yam.
Even the implementation in Call of Duty isn’t something he’s really described accurately. I’m still not all the way done with the patent, but to summarize what I’ve read so far: matchmaking in Call of Duty is based upon a number of different scores, which include MMR, ping, clan/group affiliation, and whether players own different microtransactions than you own. So yes the patent is about pairing players without a particular microtransaction against people who have it so they can see it and hopefully become desirous of it.
But that’s not all it’s about. No, it doesn’t just match handgun players up against sniper rifle owners — presuming that sniper rifles are a microtransaction, which is tough to verify because I’m not sure which of the many CoD games is the focus here — but I digress. It generally matches handgun players up against sniper rifle owners with similar MMR to the handgun owners. That’s actually counter to the picture Cerufin was painting of setting players without microtransactions up for slaughter at the hands of players who have them. Although admittedly matching for skill might take a back seat if equally skilled players aren’t online or have a connections of different quality than yours.
Reminds me of a South Park episode. It’s the P2W gnomes, I swear!
Of course in reality underpants gnomes don’t exist, and the conspiracy theory that they do is copium concocted by children to avoid blaming themselves for losing
their own underwear.
I actually thought of that same episode too!
I took a crash course on economics via udemy, and honestly I’m not seeing any real way a corporation can make money by launching teapots into Pluto’s orbit.
I will always like posts that reference Russel’s Teapot. 
I was more referring to the general incentive for Blizzard to manipulate the game to the extent that it just might be required to find a tricky solution (the OP’s statements) to overcome said manipulation.
We were never discussing generalities. We were discussing one very specific thing.
If you have no idea how Blizzard makes money off this proposed algorithm, then you don’t get to be taken seriously that you believe they may be doing it.
You are supposed to ask the community for proposals on how this would work. And if you don’t have a good answer, then you must conclude that you don’t have a good reason to believe it is the way that it works.
Which was?
No, YOU don’t know how Blizzard could make money by setting up a system that would encourage FOTM deck building and MULTIPLE DECK building.
If you don’t know how Blizzard makes money with this game, then I just can’t continue to take you seriously because some things just can not be taught to certain people.
You need to understand more things about life in general. Like what motivates people to do things and how they could benefit from it. You should be careful IRL because it sounds like people could easily take advantage of you because you don’t know why they are offering you candy, for instance.
I am? Since when? I have homework? I have to ask the community what now? About what?
Proposals on how crafting 3 good decks and rotating them occasionally might help you win? OK, I’ll get right on that.
Want some candy?
You are right, I don’t know.
I find it suspicious that you would claim it’s to hard to explain.
Because that’s a common excuse for someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about.