Let the f2p loose to 5 different whales and small frys
The small fry loose to 3 whales…
There more then 3 people in that bar. See the logic?
Also i didnt talked about make people loose i was talking about the % of favourable matchups in relation to hardcounters.
It really isn’t. From a certain perspective, a human body is a brain jar that goes out and makes money 40 hours a week.
You sound like a blizzard mask. Or like a community manager on an undercover account which is probably the same.
No offence Sir.
I see the absence.
So if one whale walks into a bar, how many f2p players with 50% winrate need to be in there to give the whale a 90% winrate.
(Answer: an infinite number would be insufficient.)
That’s what I want you to believe and so I curated all the data I sent your brain over your lifetime, for you to reach that conclusion.
Well then mission accomplished, you paid shill.
I made you say that too, to reinforce blackmarket’s beliefs.
Nuh uh. He’s obviously a Russian bot.
Since you keep denying that theres a possibility that could give certain players a higher % of favourable matchups, like it is YOUR job, i am done with you arguing. Not that you get me banned again because i hurted someones feelings 
Holy cow, you actually made one valid and painful criticism. I should care less. I’ve been caring entirely too much.
Enjoy my ignore list.
Ok i had a look at your example. And i fail to see what this does proof.
I do asume the right side of your chart represents the distribution of decks at highest ranking and the left side of the chart represents the distribution of decks at the lowest ranking (correct me if i am wrong).
You ran this simulation 5 times (arguably a low amount,so i refer to the favorit argument of the game is fair crowd which is:sample seize).
But ok,disregarding sample seize,what we see in those 5 simulations:
In the first simulation the higher ranks are dominated by rock with the top rank beeing only paper (though the number of top ranks is so low that this doesnt really tell much).
In the second simulation the higher ranks are dominated by paper with the top rank beeing scissors.
The 3rd simulation is a bit difficult to describe due to outliers so ima skip this none.
4th simulation:scissors followed by rock at top ranks
5th simulation:rock followed by paper at the top ranks.
So to sum this up,what deck will dominate the top rank in this simulation is completely random. I think we can both agree on that right?
Now if i randomly pick a deck before this simulation,i am just as likely to end up in either of these charts right? I am just as likely to pick a deck that hard counters the top ranked deck as i am likely to pick a deck that is countered by the top rank deck.
So running into a wall of counters after winning x matches is just as likely as running into a wall of decks that you counter. Both of which are equally likely to run into a wall of mirror matches.
I fail to see how your example does proof anything but maybe i am missing something. If so feel free to point out what i am missing.
I love the banter but y’all geeking out on me and making my brain hurt 
It just shows that there is a sorting effect when you take a rock paper scissors game and match opponents based on their recent wins. What that means is that your opponent mix will eventually fail a randomness test.
The same effect would exist in hearthstone and other MMR systems, though how pronounced it is, and whether or not it is overshadowed by other factors , is not clear.
This is actually the opposite of how science works.
You actually attempt to eliminate all other explanations, leaving your hypothesis as the best guess.
Only very specific types of studies can be considered evidence of causality.
Exactly.
In science and in reasoning, it is not equal.
When we do hypothesis testing we test a null hypothesis, not the theory. We accept or reject a null hypothesis, not prove our theory.
No, the status quo is that it is exactly as blizzard has described it until someone proves otherwise.
Again, the claims are not and cannot be equal.
Saying, “well I don’t have any proof, but it is rigged” is a religious view, not a scientific one. It’s based on faith and beliefs, not data.
Do you use a deck tracker?
Please make four or five of these unicorn decks, play three matches with each, show us your screen shots of the alleged mirrors and the replays.
You’ve actually put up a highly testable idea, and if you’re results are good, it would be very easy for multiple people to replicate your study… even using the same decks if you want.
This. seeing it happen in the next televised event would be absolutely a reason to have significant questions.
The experiment is rather limited and doesnt tell anything. It doesnt proof that a counterwall after a winstreak is more likely then continuing the winstreak with good matchups.
If everyone runs into a counterwall like scrottie said then noone would end on top.
What is beeing missed here by everyone is that the ones who ended on top,are the ones who didnt ran into a counter wall after a winstreak…
Either way we can make this experiment a bit more accurate with a small improvement.
One of the big complaints about the counterwall is that it remains there when you switch decks. The counter decks seem to follow you.
So i would like to propose the following adjustment to this experiment.
In this improved experiment that more accurately mimicks the ladder we asume our players are smart. Our players will adept their deck based on the meta they see.
The meta we describe as the previous 5 opponents we have matched.
And for the 6th match we will then pick the deck that would have gotten the best results vs the decks that we saw in the last 5 games. And if 2 decks are tied for this best result then we will randomly chose between them And so on for all the matches after that.
The first 5 matches we will play with either random decks or 5 times the same deck equally devided across the 3 decks.
And this experiment will show that meeting a counter wall is just as likely as continuing your streak of good matchups. Which scrottie experiment didnt disproof by the way,contrary to what many of you seem to think.
Its a shame indeed and i removed the rude part. This discussion has been triggering me more then i am happy with. Its not an excuse for beeing rude,but its an explanation.
Scrottie has never been rude,i have to give him that at least. So i will try keep my patience from here on,and not let myself get triggered.
That’s probably giving me more credit than I deserve.
Again, this is you not understanding the task.
This simple experiment would suggest that the match looks at what cards are in your deck, which would be clear evidence that blizzard has been less than truthful in their descriptions.
THere’s a much easier explanation that doesn’t involve leaps of faith or convoluted reasoning about a nefarious conspiracy… maybe those players are just better at playing the game and thus they climb on a ranked ladder format.
But it won’t and I lack interest in explaining why to you.
Suffice it to say the other idea, to make a few unicorn decks, would show decisive evidence that the match considers more than wins and losses.
Take the win.
I will remove this edit once i am done writing it down for myself but feel free to follow me along the way in trying to understand this experiment.
Not in this experiment. In this experiment everyone has equall skill. Rock beats scissors 100% and the mirror is decided by a coinflip.
No need to explain anything.
This experiment has more to it then i innitially thought.
They will run a thousand arguments against you and no matter what you say, they do not care. They made up their mind.
There is no such matchmaker code. No one and let me repeat NO ONE knows the actual matchmaker rules but they claim being high and mighty on logic and reason by defending a matchmaker they don’t actually know anything about.
Think about that.
You will not convince them. They are wrong. Period. They cannot tell you what the matchmaker actually is because they do not know but will somehow defend what they think it should be. Pathetic.