I will prove with math your loss streaks are not statistically significant

Competitive Discussion
1

Roll up kids. Post your longest loss streak and how many games you’ve played, and when that loss streak was. I will look at Overbuff profiles, and will not respond to anyone clearly embellishing their story.

Random chance is not regular. It groups and streaks data and looks very very not random. But that’s the secret - human beings are awful at being random. Ask people to pick a number from 1 to 10 and over half the time the number they pick will be 7. That’s just how we humans are. You guys claim you have proof the matchmaker is rigged against you, and I need to practice for my stats test, so it’s two birds with one stone.

Any sort of pattern will do. If you think your games are rigged, give me the details and I’ll math it for you.

Alternatively, make an argument with proof of a rigged system and I will tell you which cognitive biases you are suffering from. Mostly it’s:

  • Gambler’s fallacy - “If I win more games then I know the next one will have bad teammates”
  • Clustering illusion - “I never have back and forth, only winstreaks and losses”
1 Like
2

Omg! A widow main!

How’s that for random? :wink:

1 Like
4

Are you ok? Imao they do teach critical thinking in schools, yes. Thinking the matchmaker forces losses or wins on you is actual paranoia and YOUR PARANOIA IS THE OBVIOUS CAUSE OF YOUR SELECTION BIAS AND BELIEFS THAT THE MATCHMAKER IS FIXED. I dont know if it’s possible to be any worse at “critical thinking” than that

1 Like
6

The chance that Blizzard followed mathematical convention when creating the ranking system is pretty much 100%. It was created by statisticians employed by Blizzard. Trust me, they wouldn’t get something so fundamental wrong.

In before “but they did”, that’s exactly why I’m bringing up statistics. They matter. And the numbers say the matchmaker is fair and even-handed. You don’t need to know the inner workings, only apply statistical models to the result. What you DON’T do is claim that something well within the bounds of noise and insignificance is proof the game is rigged against you.

1 Like
7

If the games aren’t rigged explain SHD 32 game loss streak.

3 Likes
8

Can’t tell if meme at this point. Poe’s law strikes again.

3 Likes
9

If the game was statistically accurate people that buy new accounts would be placed near the same rank as their previous account.

10

That’s not actually true. What is true is that if they continue to play the new account in the same manner as the old one, they will end up in roughly the same ball park.

Placements have a history of being inaccurate. You can’t compare something that is basically using 10 points of data to reach a conclusion to the same system using hundreds of points. There’s obviously going to be a margin of error due to insufficent data on a new account.

4 Likes
11

It’s amusing how people will complain until someone steps forward and says “I can prove you wrong” then suddenly they’re quiet.

12

But I just did. He answered it and proved that it can be rigged. Rigged until it’s apparently accurate or inaccurate. So why respond?

Regardless, we don’t know how the algorithm works. It’s all speculation.

13

If it’s rigged against you, then surely it’s rigged against everyone? I wonder how people overcome their rigged games?

3 Likes
14

r/iamverysmart would be proud of this.

2 Likes
15

Who, exactly, is Blizzard’s match making system supposed to be rigging for or against?

It’s a head-to-head competitive game, and at the end of the day the across the board win % for the community is guaranteed to be EXACTLY 50% - and nothing Bliz does to the matchmaking would change that.

So, unless you think Bliz is running some kind of bookie service on the side, they have no incentive whatsoever to cheat the match-making.

Long story short, if you are having a losing streak, that’s either bad luck or it’s on you, just as it is in most sports. All the SR system is doing is trying to match you against players/teams of approximately your own expressed skill level. If you are playing below your own par, you’re probably going to lose a bunch of games. If you’re playing above your own par, you’re hopefully going to win a bunch of games. If you actually improve your overall skills, your SR should increase to reflect that.

But there’s a lot of noise. Sometimes you’re going to be matched with people who are having a bad day, or who’s play style simply doesn’t mesh with yours - even if they’re just as good otherwise. For example, if you’re a monster hanzo one-trick, and you get matched on the same team as another amazing Hanzo one-trick, your team is going to have a problem, which is that one of you is going to be off hanzo and playing way below par, and it is going to hurt your team.

Likewise if you are a dedicated diver and the rest of your team is trying to lay out a tank-ball/sniper comp, you aren’t going to be contributing well, even if you really are very good at dive. That’s just the breaks.

Note that the more adaptable YOU are, the less chance that you’ll be the weak link in your team comp - and if you’re on a serious losing streak and ready to throw your mouse out the window, maybe it’s time to go out and grab a breath of fresh air and come back tomorrow in a better mood before you flame out and tank your SR into the toilet through angry trash play.

4 Likes
16

This account got placed within 200 sr of my main so yeah…

17

I don’t think you’ll find anything wrong with this at all, but I’ll get the ball rolling so you can practice. Here’s a streak I recorded a long time ago.

wwwlllwlwlllllllwlllllllwllllllllwwwwwwwwww

Let’s see what you come up with.

19

Yay speculation threads.

Just because it sounds like it might make sense doesn’t mean it either doesn’t,…or does.

1 Like
20

That’s 43 games there, and for the sake of balance we can say the next game was an L to end the streak. So that’s 44 games. The longest streak there is 10 games long.

Complex stat math that is unnecessary to explain but can be done if needed tells me the odds of a 10 streak or higher in 44 games is 0.034081809390158924, or 3.4%. Accounting for occurances of a 10 loss streak instead, we plug it into the cumulative binomial distribution formula and recieve 0.06700204905, or 6.7%.

6.7% is not unlikely enough to prove that streaks are a flaw in the matchmaking algorithm.

It’s worth noting that even though 6.7% is still quite a low number, this doesn’t account for more matches played. It’s unlikely that one person has multiple super long streaks.

21

The math here suggests that there is probably not a flaw in the matchmaking algorithm, but it does not prove that these matches were not rigged. I’m not claiming they were rigged, I’m just stating what the math shows, it doesn’t prove anything about game rigging.

22

I came here for math but all I got was a debate club?

1 Like
23

Exactly. That’s what I’m here to prove.