Legality Tentative: MBR Official Ruleset for 2012

[Bones0]

Kal and Bones should stop antagonizing each other and form a witty comedic duo IMO

The difference being?

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

I ban to make the metagame deeper and to make results more consistent and other things that I consider competitive qualities. I don't see the naturalistic defense as having merit of its own.

 

[Kal]

Similar justification would let me ban Falco, Sveet. That's the point. I'm not arguing for any sort of defense of "how the game is meant to be played," so I think calling it naturalistic is a misnomer. Rather, I'm talking about avoiding subjecting other players to a ruleset that only makes sense if they share your point of view. A ruling as strong as explicitly removing something from the game should not fall down to opinion about what constitutes "competitiveness."

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Everything about games is arbitrary, so thats not really an argument. If you could actually give a reasonable argument for why Falco should be banned, then maybe people would listen. I think a lot of well thought out arguments for various stage bans have been presented, unlike your argument of banning Falco, which makes the comparison a strawman.

 

[Kal]

What do you mean "everything about games is arbitrary?" It's not like we just randomly decide which characters leave or stay on a whim. We have a set of criteria for it. We clearly don't, in general, go around making haphazard, arbitrary decisions.

The point about Falco is not a strawman, Sveet. I can post some reasonable arguments about how I think the approach game is worsened, how Falco creates balance issues, or whatever. But fundamentally, these things are a matter of opinion: Falco does not break the game. In the exact same vein, the arguments against these stages all fall to matters of opinion.

Simply calling my argument a strawman does not make it one. Your justification:

I ban to make the metagame deeper and to make results more consistent and other things that I consider competitive qualities. I don't see the naturalistic defense as having merit of its own.

can exactly be used to justify just about any ban. What we consider "competitive qualities" is subjective and personal. You don't see me advocating a Falco ban, despite the fact that I do, quite literally, think the game is better without the character. Because I'm not going to force my opinions on everyone else. Falco isn't broken. The game isn't ruined, in any objective sense, by his presence. So why would I try and ban him? The same logic applies to these stages.

And you mention "making the metagame deeper." Do you not see any glaring issues with this? I mean, ignoring the fact that we discussed this earlier and I explained how trivializing stage hazards as necessarily decreasing depth was straight-up incorrect, do you think you've got some higher-power of foresight that allows you to look down the line and choose, between two rulesets, which one will produce a "deeper" metagame?

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

The post you quoted was short hand. I have never used any of those comments as justification for banning. Competitive qualities are things that should be maximized when creating rules for a competitive game, or did i miss a memo?

I would actually like to hear your full argument of why Falco makes the metagame worse, not just the shorthand. I believe if you actually elaborated, it would be even more clear that your comparison is a strawman.

As for things in games being arbitrary, they are. Final destination is the length it is, not any other size. Is this choice backed by any scientific approach? No its arbitrary. Why are there 5 cards in poker hand and not 6 or 4 or 10? Why does baseball have 4 bases? Why is a basketball hoop 10ft tall? By your approach to the argument, none of these things can ever be changed because the changes are arbitrary.

 

[Kal]

The things you're referring to as justification for banning these stages are opinions. The things I'm referring to as justification for banning Falco are opinions. The comparison isn't a straw man. You can't "prove me wrong" on any of these things, because fundamentally it falls down to opinion. Why is it that, for justifying a ban, subjective preference along the lines of "randomness is bad" is ok, but "laser that stops opponent's momentum and completely determines the pace of every match is bad" is not? Your stance on banning the stages boils down to "I prefer the consistency of Smash without Brinstar over the additional depth Brinstar provides." Which is no different than saying "I prefer the approach game present in Smash without Falco to the additional depth Falco provides." It's certainly not objectively better that we have a game with less randomness.

Your latter point just seems irrelevant. Those are arbitrary decisions that must be made. We can't make Final Destination without choosing a length. We can't play Poker without choosing a number of cards to make a hand. We can't play Basketball without deciding on the height of hoop. We can play Smash without banning Brinstar (in fact, there is no real choice being made, as Brinstar being available is the default position). Now, once we've established this, the same way we have established that a 5-card hand is the default in Poker, you're going to need more than opinion to justify a change.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Its not like I'm just making a random argument. I'm making a very detailed, well thought out argument, using facts, theory and logic. You're not even hiding behind the status quo anymore. You're saying that no change should ever be made unless it is entirely based in fact and objective measurements.

 

[Kal]

I was never hiding behind a status quo. I agree with your arguments on a personal level, and I think, if I were to build a fighting game from the ground up, it would largely satisfy these conditions you've deemed worthy of banning some stages. The point isn't that your argument is bad, or devoid of logic and theory. Far from it. The point is that your argument fundamentally falls to preference: whether or not we ban these stages hinges on whether you consider the resultant decrease in variance justification for the ban. This is a matter of opinion.

And yes, I'm saying we should avoid bans in the cases where we're not basing it on fact. I don't think bans that fall to "we think this makes a better game" are justifiable or fair.

 

[Shai Hulud]

Regardless of anything I say ever, you shouldn't be taking it as some infallible word. I am not all knowing. I am just another dude who plays smash. Everything anyone says should be independently researched. I don't consider my own opinions to be infallible. Why are you?

Just another dude who plays Smash and singlehandedly determines the "Official Ruleset." Sure, you pretend to listen to people's arguments and feign humility, but from reading the first 20 or so pages of this thread it's apparent you see your opinion as authoritative.

What I have learned from years of forum posting: 99% of people will never change their opinion on a topic they feel strongly about, regardless of the degree to which their arguments have been refuted.

Tell me Cactuar, during the six months in which this ruleset has been "tentative," in which you have pretended to listen to the community's thousands of posts, what changes have you actually made to the ruleset (and when)?

 

[Shai Hulud]

Those are good points Kal. I still disagree about the comparison to poker, though. The rules are set up to account for the randomness: folding a hand has minimal losses, a large number of hands are played and there is hidden information which allows for bluffing. I don't imagine poker would be played competitively if the win condition was to be the first to win 2 hands.

Poker is way, way, way, way more random than any stage in Melee. And most players do not play "a large number of hands," whatever you mean by that. Certainly for people who spend a night playing at a casino, the outcome is highly random. A good player will have losses almost half the time. Over a month of playing every day, the outcome is still pretty random. A good player will have a few negative months each year, on average. And he will occasionally have an entire year that is negative. You need a bankroll to account for the variance, in order to not go broke, and you need a lot more than you'd think. Just to play 2-5 No Limit Holdem a good player needs about 100 Buy-ins ($50,000) just to get his chance of busting down to an acceptable level, which will still occasionally happen. A break even player needs far more.

Scrubs ***** about the randomness and the bad beats all the time, but pros know the variance evens out in the long run. And this is in a game with MASSIVELY more variance than Melee. Why can't Smashers accept a tiny bit of variance? Is it worth killing most of the stages to prevent a 1% chance of losing a match you might have won otherwise, even when there's also a 1% chance you'd win a match you might have lost otherwise? And you can quibble about whether it's 1% or 5%, but it's not really the point.

I ban to make the metagame deeper and to make results more consistent and other things that I consider competitive qualities. I don't see the naturalistic defense as having merit of its own.

Are you saying that if banning something makes the metagame deeper (whatever this means), then it should be banned? As far as we know, removing the top 1/3 of characters would make the metagame deeper. Also, it's hard to imagine how continual removal of various game aspects could make it "deeper." Bans are generally cumulative, and ever-increasing, so it's likely that more stages will be banned later, and it's at least somewhat possible we could end up with 1, maybe 2 stages. If you really think this makes the game "deeper" it is a strange definition.

 

[Mahone]

people should just stop using poker analogies, i feel like 90% of the time they are pretty bad and unnecessary

i sorta agree with you shai, cactuar does seem to have his mind set on most things and i don't really think the MBR cares too much what non-MBR players think (although i think he did say he was going to make official coaching rules after i complained about it)

"And this is in a game with MASSIVELY more variance than Melee. Why can't Smashers accept a tiny bit of variance?"

This has sorta been the main argument for a while, and my answer has been that melee isn't about the long haul. People aren't making a living playing melee, usually with travel costs people are just making their money back, so if i was in armada's shoes, i would like less randomness, so i could go to just 1 american tourney and have pretty solid evidence that i outplayed everyone, rather than needed to continually go to prove my dominance...

I do enjoy the depth the stages add though, and like i said, at locals i think they should always be on, since they are not as serious in terms of cash required, and there is going to be enough of them for the better player to be clearly on top... but at internationals i don't have a problem with a stricter rule set

You're banning something to make the metagame deeper argument is very true. You're example of removing the top 1/3 is sorta crazy but i get your point...

I think a better/simpler example is removing sheik to make the mid/lower tiers (hell, even marth) more viable and with more characters comes more matchups and imo more depth.

I also don't think sveet's definition of deeper is that strange. It's more like, if I don't have to worry about getting cped to Green Greens, then I can use that time to practice matchup strategies and tech skill. In the same vein you could say midmatch, not worrying about a timer or where the ACID is on a map would allow you to focus more on your spacing and execution etc. so the CHARACTER VS CHARACTER would end up deeper, but the character's interaction with the stage would be shallower.


Poker analogies are bad section:

@sveet: what you're saying about poker only really applies to cash games. In tournaments, time restraints force players to take more chances, you need to win many coin flips, even as a pro to place in the money (also the payout model is usually pretty bad and shifted too much to the top, so that adds to the problems)... also i'm surprised kal didn't call you out on it like he did against peef, but i think you mean first to win X amount of money, # of hands won doesn't ever matter in poker, but i see your point... thats why im just saying stay away from the poker analogies, to you and kal xD

@shai: a good player will not lose even close to half the time rofl... perhaps if they are doing what most top pros do, and playing other top players, but that is because they don't care as much about the money, but more the challenge... If top players really need to make money, they could just go down several levels and destroy... I would guess Tom Dwan would only be negative like 2% of the time if he chose to play at 2-5 No limit rofl, poker is not as random as you make it out to be... the main reason for this is that worse players are bad at maximizing gains and minimizing losses... for example, if a bad player got a set of 3s on the flop 3-7-10 over Dwan's pocket Aces it would be very easy for Dwan to fold... whereas a bad player would lose all their money 99% of the time if their spots were reversed

@kal: you were right the other day about the books, i was just being an *******. It is good for beginning players to play tight because like you said they are too often way to aggressive in the stupidest way possible, plus they think that 99% of reads are physical instead of bet sizing. But I think its sorta boring to play that way and i hate it which is why i was dissing those old books...

 

[Kal]

I'm always right Mahone. <3

In all seriousness, I went back and looked at Super System. It's pretty ****ing out of date. It's just new players tend to think that real Poker is like Rounders, and a down to Earth book that teaches tight-conservative gameplay is the best way to break this.

As for the relevant Smash stuff:

I agree that, pragmatically, it's a little silly to expect the long run to take care of variance for us. It will, of course, but no one is attending hundreds of tournaments per year, so accurate results would a very long time if the variance were significant. However, my response to this is merely that the increase in variance is so very minimal that I don't understand the desire to ban the stage in response. We don't get up in arms about Peach, not just because there is some taboo around banning a character, but because the variance as a result of her random down-B is minimal. Results aren't really impacted by it in a meaningful way. And I would argue the same for stages like Brinstar and Mute City, once appropriate strategies have been implemented.

As for the definition of deeper, if you ever try and actually come up with a formal definition, you realize that it's extremely hard. You can be vague with things like:

"A game is deeper if the better player is more likely to win"

but such a notion is somewhat circular, since "better player" is defined in terms of his likelihood of winning in the first place. It usually falls to something more abstract, like

"A game is deeper if it has more options available for players to earn victory"

suggesting that "more room to improve" is a criterion for depth. I think, under this definition, it's more or less obvious that banning something removes depth, with the exception of cases where something is game-breaking. This is probably what Shai has in mind as well, which explains why it seems so very peculiar to us that, in order to maintian depth, people are needlessly removing elements.

As to your final comment before addressing everyone individually: those elements of "character vs. character" don't go away or become lessened (not always, anyway) as a result of being forced to look at the timer to know when the lava (inb4 ananda saying i cant read) is coming. However, even if they did, you're just choosing one type of depth over another. Not that I disagree with the preference or anything, but I've made my point about banning stuff to emphasize personal preference.

Vis-à-vis Poker analogies, I never made any actual analogies. I merely referred to the game as one with a large element of randomness that is still regarded as overwhelmingly competitive, so that people would stop thinking "less variance" means "objective better game." It doesn't, and Poker is a good example of this.

 

[Mahone]

"In all seriousness, I went back and looked at Super System. It's pretty ****ing out of date. It's just new players tend to think that real Poker is like Rounders, and a down to Earth book that teaches tight-conservative gameplay is the best way to break this. "

See i ****ing told you, it really is out of date. Honestly i didn't read the whole thing, but i didn't get the impression it was all about playing tight. Honestly, something like Phil Hellmuths karate poker bull**** is true, where i believe he tells you to only play the top 20 hands at first or some **** like that.

"However, my response to this is merely that the increase in variance is so very minimal that I don't understand the desire to ban the stage in response."

Ya, this is how i feel too in a lot of situations, but i think its very matchup dependent. Like ICs vs puff on brinstar seems more random because of nana's AI exacerbating the ACID advantage, along with breaking the stage and her being stupid. But wobbles seems to defend it so who knows....

Wobbles defending it brings up a really good point, i feel like, Kal, if you really want to convince people of your opinion, you would make more progress by explaining how specific stage hazards, like ACID, add depth, rather than just arguing in general about randomness, depth, etc. Those arguments seem to just keep going in circles as people just keep misinterpreting and using terms differently... whereas talking about the depth ACID adds will lead to more constructive debates IMO

"However, even if they did, you're just choosing one type of depth over another."

Ya thats exactly what i am saying. Its just opinion...

But my main point Kal is that IT IS JUST OPINION... and it seems like the majority of people prefer less stage interaction, so its on you to convince people why its better to have "random" stages.

also, its not that ur poker analogy wasn't a good example of the point u were making, but when the majority of people don't understand poker, and tv just shows AAs vs KKs, i don't think its a good example to use. I'm just saying u should make examples with things people understand to avoid uncessary confusion/arguments

also, also, i just read SS's glossary and its pretty ****ing funny if you haven't read it...

COFFEE-HOUSING: An attempt, by words or actions, to confuse, mislead or misdirect another player or players in the pot with you.

That term is so awesome and it actually seems necessary! I can't wait to use it irl

 

[Cactuar]

Just another dude who plays Smash and singlehandedly determines the "Official Ruleset." Sure, you pretend to listen to people's arguments and feign humility, but from reading the first 20 or so pages of this thread it's apparent you see your opinion as authoritative.

What I have learned from years of forum posting: 99% of people will never change their opinion on a topic they feel strongly about, regardless of the degree to which their arguments have been refuted.

Tell me Cactuar, during the six months in which this ruleset has been "tentative," in which you have pretended to listen to the community's thousands of posts, what changes have you actually made to the ruleset (and when)?

You aren't a significant enough individual to be worth enough of my time to actually respond with researched and referenced examples. This isn't an insult, its just... you are a nobody to me and your opinion on me is based on your interpretation of my writing and a point to point view of the timeline of my ideas through my posts. I exist outside of smashboards. I talk actively with other players about my thoughts, which causes my ideas and positions to change. But this isn't even the worst thing about you. You attack me rather than my ideas. It's just nonsense and its why I ignore the vast majority of your posts. If you were more constructive with any of your writing, I would spend more time considering it.

I don't "single handedly" determine the Ruleset, though I do joke in a way that suggests I do, and quite a few changes have been discussed and accepted as a result of discussion from this thread... soooooo... your post is grounded in incorrect information.

Calm down and lose the attitude and I'll consider you as if you were somebody, even if I don't know you. That's how I have always worked with people on these forums that I don't know personally. >.>

 

[Kal]

Wobbles defending it brings up a really good point, i feel like, Kal, if you really want to convince people of your opinion, you would make more progress by explaining how specific stage hazards, like ACID, add depth, rather than just arguing in general about randomness, depth, etc. Those arguments seem to just keep going in circles as people just keep misinterpreting and using terms differently... whereas talking about the depth ACID adds will lead to more constructive debates IMO

Well, I don't mention the specifics because they're not all that relevant to me. People will still complain that the lava hits them, and it will fall down to their fundamental preference that the stage not attack them. I don't expect to convince anyone. It's not a goal I have in mind.

Though I agree that, in the interest of pragmatism, the sort of argument you mention is much better. Pragmatism has never been one of my interests, though, so I tend to stay away from it.

But my main point Kal is that IT IS JUST OPINION... and it seems like the majority of people prefer less stage interaction, so its on you to convince people why its better to have "random" stages.

The default position is for the stage to be legal. If the majority were in favor of banning Jigglypuff for subjective reasons, I wouldn't bother trying to explain to them why it's better to have Jigglypuff in the game. It's opinion, and even if I agree with opinion, the point is that opinion should not dictate a ruleset. I don't think bans based on opinion alone are justified. It's not about convincing people that the game with Brinstar is "better;" that's never going to happen. It's about convincing people not to create rules arbitrarily. And, more specifically, that their opinion being shared by more than 50% of the community does not justify a ban.

also, its not that ur poker analogy wasn't a good example of the point u were making, but when the majority of people don't understand poker, and tv just shows AAs vs KKs, i don't think its a good example to use. I'm just saying u should make examples with things people understand to avoid uncessary confusion/arguments

This a good point. For the most part, understanding Poker isn't necessary to actually appreciate or understand my example, but it's true that having a gross misunderstanding of the game would lead people to ignore it as a reference altogether.

That term is so awesome and it actually seems necessary! I can't wait to use it irl

Haha, I think we should all start using it.

 

[Mahone]

Well, I don't mention the specifics because they're not all that relevant to me. People will still complain that the lava hits them, and it will fall down to their fundamental preference that the stage not attack them. I don't expect to convince anyone. It's not a goal I have in mind.

Though I agree that, in the interest of pragmatism, the sort of argument you mention is much better. Pragmatism has never been one of my interests, though, so I tend to stay away from it.

Haha, at least you are honest about it. Thats how i figured you felt, but i figured i'd let you know anyway.

The default position is for the stage to be legal. If the majority were in favor of banning Jigglypuff for subjective reasons, I wouldn't bother trying to explain to them why it's better to have Jigglypuff in the game. It's opinion, and even if I agree with opinion, the point is that opinion should not dictate a ruleset. I don't think bans based on opinion alone are justified. It's not about convincing people that the game with Brinstar is "better;" that's never going to happen. It's about convincing people not to create rules arbitrarily. And, more specifically, that their opinion being shared by more than 50% of the community does not justify a ban.

Ya, its definitely a slippery slope. We even have a great example of it with brawl banning a bunch of stages... then proceeding to ban metaknight. Again, i'm just speaking realistically... its sorta funny cuz me and you are like exact opposites, since i actually prefer more stages and less banning, but argue against it for practical purposes, whereas i believe you said you are doing the opposite.

This a good point. For the most part, understanding Poker isn't necessary to actually appreciate or understand my example, but it's true that having a gross misunderstanding of the game would lead people to ignore it as a reference altogether.

ya, i'm not sure what other game i would use... i would use mahjong, but no one knows how to play mahjong either

Haha, I think we should all start using it.

response in LIME!

 

[Bones0]

Is Mahjong some game you made up, Mahone? Do you think you're clever?!?

 

[Mahone]

Is Mahjong some game you made up, Mahone? Do you think you're clever?!?

Mah j on g

Mah on e

This cannot be a coincidence


also, cactuar, more transparency from the MBR and less trolling would probably prevent people like shai from complaining

 

[Kal]

I actually love these stages. I prefer tournaments without them, but still definitely enjoy them. Like apples and oranges or something.

I don't think the MBR should exist at all, but I do think being more transparent would be helpful. We definitely would at least be able to discuss the ruleset in a more practical sense if they provided more on how the ruleset was reached. Though part of the issue is coming to an agreement on the criteria for banning in the first place, which I don't see happening.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

Yeah, but who are we to demand transparency? We're all "nobodies" to Cactuar, therefore we don't merit relevant, meaningful, worthwhile, or intelligent communication with him.

 

[Kal]

Well, Cactuar actually likes me. We even play League of Legends together! Sometimes. Well, once.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

I feel like the discussion between Kal and Mahone isn't anything except seeing who can say lava/acid more.

I'm not sure how I feel about the MBR providing rulesets. Personally, all my arguments are my own personal opinion and I present them to defend my own ruleset and justifications, not the MBR's ruleset specifically. The ruleset my tournaments have used since last spring is fairly similar, but instead uses only 3 stages on the strike. In my opinion, the MBR can do whatever it wants. Smart people will always think for themselves and dumb people will always follow the path of the smart people; if its not the MBR putting out the recommended rules, its some collection of TOs (Unity Ruleset) or individual TOs (FC/MLG/Pound). TOs are free to modify this ruleset however they want, and its highly suggested that they do. The MBR, in fact, doesn't really care if people use this ruleset at all.

 

[Kal]

This... sentence... is... false!

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Ummm, true. I'm gonna go with true. That was easy. I'll be honest, I think I've heard that one before, though, sorta cheating.

 

[Kal]

It's a paradox! There is no answer!

 

[Cactuar]

I thought I clearly defined that tone and approach are what makes the poster a nobody to me, not their status as a smasher or already well-known poster.

Maybe not?

 

[Hylian]

Cactuar always forgets who I am when I see him at tournaments.

 

[Kal]

Who the **** are you?

 

[Fly_Amanita]

I'm a fan of Quine's paradox:

"Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation" yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation.

 

[Shai Hulud]

You aren't a significant enough individual to be worth enough of my time to actually respond with researched and referenced examples. This isn't an insult, its just... you are a nobody to me and your opinion on me is based on your interpretation of my writing and a point to point view of the timeline of my ideas through my posts.

LOL. Are you being ironic here? I accuse you of being self-important and feigning humility and you respond by telling me I'm not a significant enough individual to be worthy of your time. I couldn't have proved my point any better.

But this isn't even the worst thing about you. You attack me rather than my ideas. It's just nonsense and its why I ignore the vast majority of your posts. If you were more constructive with any of your writing, I would spend more time considering it.

I did make a post several pages back (#2485), not directed at you per se, but at the overall logic for stage banning, and it was largely ignored. I also read dozens of well-argued, thoughtful posts made by Kal, which were either ignored or dismissed, or, when actually addressed, were wildly distorted, misconstrued, and "refuted" through general sophistry. My time is as valuable as yours, so why should I make long, well-reasoned arguments when it's clear you, and others in this thread, will not be swayed irrespective of how good the argument is?

I suspect you are only interested in input regarding stages in a pseudodemocratic sense. If enough people wanted Rainbow Cruise unbanned perhaps you would consider it, though I doubt it. If enough MBR members wanted it unbanned you'd probably do it.

I don't "single handedly" determine the Ruleset, though I do joke in a way that suggests I do, and quite a few changes have been discussed and accepted as a result of discussion from this thread... soooooo... your post is grounded in incorrect information.

Please explain how the ruleset was determined, and by whom. My understanding was that you had secret backroom discussions and then you decided what the ruleset was. And if my post is grounded in incorrect information, it's because the decision process is not transparent.

Again, what changes have been made to the ruleset as a result of this thread? I mean, assuming I'm worthy enough for you to deign to respond.

 

[Shai Hulud]

"And this is in a game with MASSIVELY more variance than Melee. Why can't Smashers accept a tiny bit of variance?"

This has sorta been the main argument for a while, and my answer has been that melee isn't about the long haul. People aren't making a living playing melee, usually with travel costs people are just making their money back, so if i was in armada's shoes, i would like less randomness, so i could go to just 1 american tourney and have pretty solid evidence that i outplayed everyone, rather than needed to continually go to prove my dominance...

I have a few points here. First, the point about Smashers not making a living with the game supports my view. Poker players have more reason to be pissed due to randomness since they could easily lose thousands of dollars due to the outcome of a single hand. The absolute worst case scenario in Smash is that someone wins $1500 instead of $1000, and this only applies occasionally and only to a small set of players. Second, randomness in the stages we are talking about is highly unlikely to affect the outcome of a match. Third, why should the rules be structured according to Armada's preferences (assuming he prefers this ruleset as you suggest)? Fourth, not all the banned stages have random elements. Rainbow Cruise has no random elements. As for the part where you can do shine "infinites" the ship is only there 1/6 of the time. DK64 also has no random elements. And neither does Jungle Japes, I think. I believe the crocodile is on a timer of 15 seconds. Mute City doesn't have randomness either. The stage moves on a timer, and the cars appear on a timer, AND you can hear them coming.

I also don't think sveet's definition of deeper is that strange. It's more like, if I don't have to worry about getting cped to Green Greens, then I can use that time to practice matchup strategies and tech skill. In the same vein you could say midmatch, not worrying about a timer or where the ACID is on a map would allow you to focus more on your spacing and execution etc. so the CHARACTER VS CHARACTER would end up deeper, but the character's interaction with the stage would be shallower.

Knowing and using the stages is part of the depth IMO. Why is it not considered Player Vs. Stage to have to know how to combo off the different platform positions, or how to combo with no platforms on FD, to deal with the wind on DL, to deal with the lack of walled edges on BF, to deal with stage transformations on PS (which appear randomly, actually), to deal with Randall on YS, to deal with various ceiling heights, stage depths, widths, etc., etc.? These things are just part of the game. It's nonsense to think the game is "deeper" if these elements are all removed and characters just compete on one stage (which is the inevitable result of the player vs. player VS player vs stage argument).

@shai: a good player will not lose even close to half the time rofl... perhaps if they are doing what most top pros do, and playing other top players, but that is because they don't care as much about the money, but more the challenge... If top players really need to make money, they could just go down several levels and destroy... I would guess Tom Dwan would only be negative like 2% of the time if he chose to play at 2-5 No limit rofl, poker is not as random as you make it out to be... the main reason for this is that worse players are bad at maximizing gains and minimizing losses... for example, if a bad player got a set of 3s on the flop 3-7-10 over Dwan's pocket Aces it would be very easy for Dwan to fold... whereas a bad player would lose all their money 99% of the time if their spots were reversed

No offense, but you don't know what you are talking about. Every poker player thinks he knows a lot about poker, but 99% don't know anything. I used to make my living playing online poker, until the US DOJ killed it. There are plenty of players better than me, but to make decent money online you need to be at least top .1%. I do not say this to brag, but to let you know that I am not some random donkey who read a Phil Hellmuth book and suddenly thinks he is an expert. Everything I have stated about poker is not an opinion, but a fact, a result of mathematics.

Sit there ROFLing if you want, but a good player will be losing a huge part of the time. It's called variance. Obviously the exact percentages of how often a player will lose depends on the game being played, the format, the pace of the game, the skill levels of the other players, and the skill level of the player. A good player playing a mid stakes live cash game in a casino will have losses close to half the time. At a table of 9 there will usually be 4 - 6 regs, who are also winning players, and a few fish. There are just not enough fish to go around to give the player a large edge. There is also the rake to deal with, which cuts into the winrate a great deal. His winrate will be low, but enough to make good income over thousands of games. And I'm not talking about Phil Ivey going to play 1/2 deep stacked and crushing. People usually play at the highest level where they can still be winning. This increases their variance but maximizes their expectation. You would rather win 2 BB/100 hands at 5/10 than 5 BB / 100 hands at 1/2 because you will make $40 / 100 hands at 5/10 and $20 / 100 hands at 1/2, on average. At the 1/2 level you would have significantly more winning nights, but for a professional this doesn't matter, because it's about maximizing expectation, not winning money in the short term.

Just so you understand how random results are, let's look at a common situation, where you might think a pro could just crush a donkey. Say Tom Dwan goes into a heads up freezout match of NL Holdem vs. Donkeytard Jim with 50 BB stacks. Donkeytard Jim plays super aggro and just shoves all in pre flop, every hand. How often will Dwan win, assuming he plays absolutely perfectly (which he probably won't)? About 62% of the time. If the stacks are shorter (a common situation at the end of tournaments) with 30BB it's more like 42%, and it gets worse the lower the stacks get. Often in the last parts of a tournament the stacks are 10BB deep or lower. At this point the weaker player can just shove every hand and win almost half the time. There's a discussion of a highly similar problem here.

So the best player in the world vs. a trained ape who shoves the chips towards the middle will win around 62% of the time at 50BB, probably around 67% at 100BB. In Smash the best player will beat a trained ape 100% of the time. In fact the best player will beat a very good player close to 100% of the time. Even if Rainbow Cruise and Brinstar are counterpicks. The level of randomness is not even comparable.

Also, your idea that pros would make more money playing low stakes than high stakes against good players is absurd. If they would make more money playing lower stakes they would do it. Poker is about money, and guys like Tom Dwan are rich. If you're talking about sitting at a table full of professionals on Late Night Poker or something, they do that because they are paid to be on the show. Even if they are breaking even on the show or slightly losing, it is still +EV or they would not do it. Being on TV also helps them sell their books to the donkeys watching it.

@kal: you were right the other day about the books, i was just being an *******. It is good for beginning players to play tight because like you said they are too often way to aggressive in the stupidest way possible, plus they think that 99% of reads are physical instead of bet sizing. But I think its sorta boring to play that way and i hate it which is why i was dissing those old books...

Most poker books are worthless, I have read 10 or 15 of them, they are sort of useful for familiarizing yourself with concepts but they won't turn anyone into a winning player. Anything written before 2000 is mostly useless. Something like Ed Miller's Small Stakes No Limit Hold Em is 10x more useful than books by guys like Doyle Brunson or Phil Hellmuth or even Dan Harrington, though Dan's books are better than most. If anyone really wants to learn to play though they should download PokerStove and read Twoplustwo.

 

[Mahone]

I really don't want to respond to your post, since i have already answered all of your non poker points in posts after or before the one you quoted, so you can just go read those if you really want to know my opinion.

I disagree with all your poker stuff, but this is not a poker thread so if you really care enough about talking about it you can pm if you want. And i'm not saying you are wrong about a lot of the poker stuff, just that it wasn't what i was talking about and maybe i misunderstood you and you misunderstood me.

 

[Kal]

We need a Poker thread.

 

[KishPrime]

I think I would enjoy talking to Shai about poker and almost anything.

Also Shai apparently we went to INN V together in 2007 - RAD. I remembered your name from when I recreated the bracket. But we didn't play.

 

[Kal]

We need a Razz tournament for Smashers.

 

[Mahone]

Oh ****ing god lol...

thats like playing green greens only...

actually razz is much worse, i don't think there is a melee analogy

edit: I like omaha hi-low as well, also, do you know if there is any poker cash game with durr and blom at the same table? I am so mad cuz after poker online got taken down, poker after dark removed all their vids and i'm guessing they are done for good and they probably would have had blom and durr at some point

 

[Kal]

I need to stop making posts that just say what we need.

But Razz is fun! I like Omaha high-low split.

Edit: pssh, don't ask me. I don't keep up with Poker nearly as much as I used to. I used to read Two + Two a lot, and I read whatever Sklansky literature I could get my hands on, and keep up with the world series, but now I'm not as interested in Poker. Still do the occasional bar free rolls, but I mostly just drink a few beers and troll everyone by being the only person to ever raise preflop, ever.

 

[Эикельманн [РУС]]

I remember when I first went to Europe back in 09 to play, and most countries had similar rulesets to this one. I was really surprised, because at that time, we didn't have such a conservative ruleset.

Now we've copied France, The Netherlands, and Sweden with having only 6 stages available. This is depressing.

Could an MBR member that had a big say on the stage list explain what the motive is for having such few available stages? I'm curious.

I'm also very curious as to why stage bans aren't allowed in 3/5 or 4/7.

 

[Shai Hulud]

I need to stop making posts that just say what we need.

But Razz is fun! I like Omaha high-low split.

Edit: pssh, don't ask me. I don't keep up with Poker nearly as much as I used to. I used to read Two + Two a lot, and I read whatever Sklansky literature I could get my hands on, and keep up with the world series, but now I'm not as interested in Poker. Still do the occasional bar free rolls, but I mostly just drink a few beers and troll everyone by being the only person to ever raise preflop, ever.

Well the U.S. government killed internet poker, so now unless you live in Las Vegas or maybe Los Angeles it's pretty hard to actually make money playing poker. So learning to play now would be pretty pointless, unless you're just playing home games or something.

Gambling is immoral and internet gambling is unlawful, thanks to our fine politicians. Guess how many modern, industrialized nations have criminalized internet poker. You ready?

Spoiler

It's just the U.S., sorry. Cuz we're awesome and stuff.