Understood. Despite what you or Scrotes may think, my posts on that part, were not meant to be “flame bait”.
Just saw what I saw, and misinterpreted it.
Not really, if the MMR uses larger increments than 1, you could be skipping over lots of people each win.
I think you will see much more homogenous spreads with lower winrates.
I’m not here to flame people unless they’re rude to me first 
Cant sleep so why not.
Its about the op and the statement.
If you keep winning you will eventually run into a counter wall.
This is true obviously. Its based on a trivial principle.
What op did not tell,is that following this principle also makes the following statement true.
If you keep loosing you will eventually run into a counterwall as well!
Not sure if op realizes this and the principle behind it but i asume at least some people in this thread do.
Following the same principle,if you keep winning then eventually you will run into a wall of decks that your deck does counter!
And this is equally likely as running into a counter wall!
And behold,even this statement is true.
Its a meaningless example that doesnt really adress the issue.
But i guess the game is rigged crowd is partially to blame for this because they where not specific enough in their statement.
And to izizero.
Went over this counless times already but it just does not seem to stick so one last time.
Yes i focus on the universe that i can see. Its the only thing that makes sense. My sample seize is 5 because that is what i can see. I cant include all other eudora rolls in my sample seize because i dont know what did happen there. Its completely irrelevant if there is 1000 or 1 million or even more eudora rolls. Statistics already take this into account. Those other rolls have no impact on the likelyhood of my sampleseize.
That would be something. If i could effect the odds on a roulette wheel by spinning it a thousend times more when noone is looking.
I don’t really see this as two sides of a debate. I see people making interesting claims, and then I wonder whether there’s a way for them to work out if the claims are true. If I think of something I point it out. Or point them towards some reason why their claim can’t be correct, if there’s a reason that’s already clear.
What usually happens after that is that people think you’re having a argument and they start posting giant 10 paragraph quotathons where they learn nothing.
Theoretically, yes. But before you do, you’ll run into a wall of favorable matchups. You’d need to either play poorly, have bad luck, or some combination of both to lose through this clump and reach the counter wall on the other side of it.
Before why before?
Its equally likely.
Just as it is equally likely that you will run into a wall of good matchups as it is to run into a counterwall if you keep winning.
The refinement the rigged crowd has to make is that if you keep winning you will run into a counter wall (wall to be defined as x counters in y games in a rock paper scissor meta) before you run into a string of good matchups.
Which is something you intuitively feel to be true,seeing what you said about running into a counterwall after loosing,only after first running into wall of good matchups.
Maybe i need read your op a bit more closely. To see why you make those claims. But i could not find the principle on which your statements are based at first sight.
So i simply applied the principle that makes your statement true.
Now however i begin to doubt that you based your claim on this principle which makes me wonder what principle made you make those claims.
Ima have another look to see if i can find something.
Let’s say there’s a narrow bridge, a walkway, crossing a great chasm. This bridge has ground that follows a pattern: normal ground, then “escalator” ground like you see in airports, pushing backward, then escalator ground that pushes forward, then the cycle starts over again with normal ground.
If you’re on normal ground and you want to go forward, first you’d have to overcome ground pushing backward (the counter wall) then once you past it you’d be pushed forward to the next piece of normal ground.
But if you wanted to go backwards, you’d first encounter resistance trying to push you forwards to where you just were, then if you overcame that resistance the “counter wall” would do the rest of your backwards trip for you, until you hit normal ground again.
So the experiment would look something like this.
A>B>C>A meta with the mirror beeing 50%. And the favorble matches beeing 100% ( just to keep it simple). With a b and c each beeing 33,3% of the meta.
We are talking about what happens after a winstreak so lets asume you won 5 games in a row already.
We define a counterwall as seeing 5 counters in a row.
Now if you run this experiment,after winning 5 already then eventually you will hit a counter wall. But hitting this wall is just as likely as hitting another 5 in a row winstreak.
Same story for going on a winstreak after loosing 5. Eventually it will happen but its just as likely as loosing another 5 .
We can make our starting win or loss streak as long as we want but that fundamentally does not change anything.
And if these things are not equally likely.
And a winstreak after a loss streak is more likely as you just claimed.
Then the matchmaking is rigged in exactly the way the game is rigged crowd claimed it is ,right?
Well you need to add wins and losses to the definition here.
What my simulation shows is that it’s likely to encounter a clump of counter decks 2 or more ranks thick. Let’s say it’s only two ranks thick. How many games thick is that? Different unit of measurement.
It could be only two games, if you win three games in a row. The first win puts you in Rank 1 of the clump, the second win moves you to Rank 2, the third win moves you safely out of the clump.
Or it could be infinite games thick, if you win the first two games as above, but then you lose moving you from Rank 2 to Rank 1, then you win to go to Rank 2, then you lose, then you win, lose, win, lose, win… and so on, forever.
So I’d predict that in those five games you’re talking about, you won, lost, won, lost, and won, in that order.
I am to tired.
I will read your op properly tomorrow and then give response. I think you are wrong but it does require some thinking to be accurate about why.
Wrong. You make FAR too many assumptions in your theory, starting with equal representation of archetypes. LITERALLY never happened, in any CCG. EVER.
What you expect to see wont happen because its impossible to achieve in a CCG. We cant just assume rigging because there are 60% aggro decks, 25% combo decks and 15% control decks, and you run into 6 control decks in a row.
For the “Motavation”…put your playerbase in 3 catagories:
-
F2p = 50% favourable matchups
-
Good spending players = 70% favourable matchups
-
Whales = 90% favourable matchups
It would be easy to implement a system that puts each account in one of those catagories the more money u spend.
(Like the social points system they have in china, before someone ask me for tinfoil again. 
)
F2p experience alot of weird matchup patterns.
Good spending players have sometimes patterns but not that often to become suspecious.
And the Whales dont know what some people talk about when they talk about rigged games.
Grp 1 keeps playing because its f2p and still good entertainment.
And groups 2 and 3 keep spending alot of money.
Money wise f2p crowed is just cannon fodder so that the real money spending players have something to play against.
That is what i would call motivation enough, to make people loose, to please and keep the high spending players.
No, it would literally be impossible. And it literally is impossible, because we KNOW #1 is true from millions of games of data, and #1 makes both #2 and #3 impossible.
Which game data you refering to ?
HSReplay. Vicious Syndicate. Etc.
Here’s a question for you: what is the average winrate of all Hearthstone Ranked games ever?
HSReplay is asociated with Blizzard. Do you think the numbers are trustworthy ? Took me a second to see on the About us: we create Products for Blizzard and other companies yadayada .
Yes. Within a reasonable margin of error and confidence interval. If you’re asking me if they’re exact, no, they’re not.
But you really shouldn’t need any data at all to correctly answer what the average winrate is of every Hearthstone Ranked game ever.
But u said otherwise before as hardfact now i tell you numbers can be manipulated now u say data doesnt matter. What is it now.
I guarantee the correct answer is NOT what you think it is. Its not 50%, as you are implying. its probably between 48-50%, probably just over 49%.