There is no such thing as *auto win* in Brawl.

[PKNintendo]

Now with many topics surfacing about infinites and strange matchups, I'd like to turn the attention to so called *auto win* matchups.

Now I don't know about you, but I here auto win far to much. It's rather annoying, when discussing characters, such as with the notion that Counter picking to Marth will automatically make you beat Ness, or Counter picking to D3 will automatically win against those characters he infinites. It's a ridiculous notion, and should be seriously discarded.

Edit: Of course at higher levels of play, auto wins exist. Good day everyone.

 

[Mith_]

If its auto-win....then it's auto win.

 

[PKNintendo]

If its auto-win....then it's auto win.

Elaborate kind sir.

 

[brinboy789]

agreed. nothing in brawl is totally 100-0, theres always a chance, no matter how slim

 

[pure_awesome]

There's an unspoken "at high levels of play" at the end there.

 

[TP]

As Ganon, there is no reason to even try to fight a Sheik or Ice Climbers (if he can chain grab). It's a waste of 3 minutes of my valuable time.

 

[:034:]

This thread is wrong and I will prove it:



Knee to Falcon Punch.



Thread over.

 

[PKNintendo]

As Ganon, there is no reason to even try to fight a Sheik or Ice Climbers (if he can chain grab). It's a waste of 3 minutes of my valuable time.

Untrue. The chance to win will always present itself. Im not undermining Sheik or IC, they will surely win, but it's not auto win.

EX: If I faced a really good Ganon. Let's pick Koshinator, and I counterpick to IC, its not an auto win for me.

 

[XxBlackxX]

As Ganon, there is no reason to even try to fight a Sheik or Ice Climbers (if he can chain grab). It's a waste of 3 minutes of my valuable time.

that kind of mentality may exactly be the reason you always lose to them.

 

[pure_awesome]

Untrue. The chance to win will always present itself. Im not undermining Sheik or IC, they will surely win, but it's not auto win.

EX: If I faced a really good Ganon. Let's pick Koshinator, and I counterpick to IC, its not an auto win for me.

Hence the "at high levels of play."

Brawl has auto-win matchups... at high levels of play.

 

[paper otavio]

But Chain grabbing is infinite, and if Dedede has it on that character, and plays on Snake's stage, how wouldn't locking someone in an infinite grab till a high percentage and proceeding to hit someone not winning automatically?

 

[bobson]

No, of course there are no matchups where it is literally an automatic win for one party. People just say "auto win" because it isn't realistically winnable at high levels of play and they don't feel like appending "if your opponent has functioning motor skills" or "if you are not, in fact, God himself" to the phrase every time.

 

[XxBlackxX]

But Chain grabbing is infinite, and if Dedede has it on that character, and plays on Snake's stage, how wouldn't locking someone in an infinite grab till a high percentage and proceeding to hit someone not winning automatically?

don't get grabbed.

guys, an 100:0 would be like UNPLUGGING THE GUY'S CONTROLLER AT THE START OF EVERY MATCH. in all the "almost unwinnable" matchups, there is a still a chance, albeit slight, that you can win because of mistakes, etc, etc. or you may be just that much better than the opponent. there are ALMOST UNWINNABLE matchups, but NO 100:0s.

 

[PKNintendo]

Hence the "at high levels of play."

Brawl has auto-win matchups... at high levels of play.

Tell that to those very same high level of play, players saying that it isn't true. Brawl will never have an auto lose matchup ever.

Even at the highest levels of play to. The chance to win falters, but they're still a chance.

 

[pure_awesome]

Tell that to those very same high level of play, players saying that it isn't true. Brawl will never have an auto lose matchup ever.

Even at the highest levels of play to. The chance to win falters, but they're still a chance.

No. They don't say that. Why do you think Bum's region banned the infinites?

At high levels of play, if the match is DDD vs DK, the DDD wins. Playing the match is just going through the motions. No pro DDD is going to mess that up. The skill gap between the two players would have to be monumental to overcome the infinite, and that gap just doesn't exist within the elite.

 

[Mith_]

At high levels of play there will be 0 to death alt grabs and infinites.

Hence auto-lose.

 

[goodkid]

There is no auto-lose either, just pick a character that doesn't get infinited! & Brawl is about counterpicks

 

[Nintendevil]

Untrue. The chance to win will always present itself. Im not undermining Sheik or IC, they will surely win, but it's not auto win.

EX: If I faced a really good Ganon. Let's pick Koshinator, and I counterpick to IC, its not an auto win for me.

At least say his name right >_>

 

[PKNintendo]

No. They don't say that. Why do you think Bum's region banned the infinites?

At high levels of play, if the match is DDD vs DK, the DDD wins. Playing the match is just going through the motions. No pro DDD is going to mess that up. The skill gap between the two players would have to be monumental to overcome the infinite, and that gap just doesn't exist within the elite.

That maybe be true, but read the posts on the D3 infinite ban thread. There's always a chance.
Im not talking 30% chance, but maybe as low as 1-5%. And ignoring those % is just wrong. It's not auto-win.

Edit: I was going to put (sp) next to his name but decided against it.

 

[Yuna]

I'd like to see you win against a good player playing one of the following match-ups as the losing character:
* Donkey Kong vs. King DeDeDe
* Bowser vs. King DeDeDe
* Captain Falcon vs. Meta Knight
* Fox vs. Pikachu

 

[pure_awesome]

That maybe be true, but read the posts on the D3 infinite ban thread. There's always a chance.
Im not talking 30% chance, but maybe as low as 1-5%. And ignoring those % is just wrong. It's not auto-win.

Edit: I was going to put (sp) next to his name but decided against it.

No. There isn't a chance at high levels of play. Everyone intelligent in the infinite thread agrees that the match-up is a slaughter. The people who are anti-ban just say that that's fine, you can counterpick.

There is no chance at high levels of play. Not 30%, not 5%, not 1%. The DK player will lose.

The only way DK can overcome the matchup is by the player being significantly better than his opponent. This does not happen within the elite.

 

[TKD+ITA+Mar=]

I think it is more along the lines of 9.9999999(repeating) to .00000000(repeating)1, technically there is still a chance, but we just round.

[For the hell of it]

* This stands for repeating -> "

9.9" = x

10x= 99.9"

10x-x= 90 = 9x

90/9= 10

9x/9= x

x=10

 

[choknater]

pure_awesome is correct.

though, that doesn't rule out that lower tier mains should always TRY to seek out possibilities to beat their worst matchups. they should always play to their strengths and try to conquer them, because that's how important discoveries are made. we can't erase the fact that they're uphill battles, but fighting the battle is what's important.

 

[PKNintendo]

I'd like to see you win against a good player playing one of the following match-ups as the losing character:
* Donkey Kong vs. King DeDeDe
* Bowser vs. King DeDeDe
* Captain Falcon vs. Meta Knight
* Fox vs. Pikachu

Weren't you the one who said that these characters have a CHANCE to beat D3 and thus the infinite shouldn't be banned? Or was that RDK.

EVERY ASSUMES I THINK THESE CHARACTERS HAVE LARGE CHANCE IN WINNING.

The chance is neglible, it's like 1%, but saying it's auto win is a wrong use of it's term.

And if we are incredibly inclined in believing that they cannot win, then why give out matchup ratios that are not 0:100. I have NEVER seen that, and people bringing up the notion get shot down. Even if it's 1:99, thats not auto-win.

 

[E.G.G.M.A.N.]

Weren't you the one who said that these characters have a CHANCE to beat D3 and thus the infinite shouldn't be banned? Or was that RDK.

EVERY ASSUMES I THINK THESE CHARACTERS HAVE LARGE CHANCE IN WINNING.

The chance is neglible, it's like 1%, but saying it's auto win is a wrong use of it's term.

My friend, sometimes things are so close to zero that we just call them zero. There's really no reason to go around saying: "there's a 0.000001% chance you can win if the other guy has a seizure" all the time. Like how "fat free" food isn't actually fat free.

 

[PKNintendo]

My friend, sometimes things are so close to zero that we just call them zero. There's really no reason to go around saying: "there's a 0.000001% chance you can win if the other guy has a seizure" all the time. Like how "fat free" food isn't actually fat free.

I like to use correct terms though. I know these matchups inside out, there's no way you'll catch me saying to Ganon main ''You can win if try hard enough'' against Sheik.

 

[Big Red]

Duh

10 when people say auto-win they aren't ******** and they realize that it is just nearly impossible to win said mathupses

 

[TKD+ITA+Mar=]

Well if you do get down to it, even if the game was programed to make Player 1 win as soon as the match started, it still wouldn't be an "auto-win." The game could crash, lighting could strike the console, Dumbledore could come back from the dead and use fire breath on the opposing player, etc, etc.

So if we go by the literal definition, there is no such thing as an auto-win anywhere, but we decide to make matches with certain difficulties and probabilities titled as auto-win, because (outliers aside) it is so close that is might as well be an "auto-win."

 

[Dragoomba]

But Chain grabbing is infinite, and if Dedede has it on that character, and plays on Snake's stage, how wouldn't locking someone in an infinite grab till a high percentage and proceeding to hit someone not winning automatically?

But at high levels of play, Shadow Moses would not be selected.

 

[DanGR]

Who cares whether or not it's an exact 100% autowin.

Scientists haven't proven that everyone has different fingerprints. It's still used as definitive evidence in court though.

 

[pure_awesome]

And if we are incredibly inclined in believing that they cannot win, then why give out matchup ratios that are not 0:100. I have NEVER seen that, and people bringing up the notion get shot down. Even if it's 1:99, thats not auto-win.

Because that's not the character ratio. Picking DDD against DK isn't universally auto-win. Like I said, if the DK player is significantly better than the DDD player, he can win. So a 100:0 ratio wouldn't be accurate.

Picking DDD against DK is an auto-win at high levels of play.


From a practical standpoint, a 99:1 ratio is an automatic win at high levels of play because the skill gap between the elite isn't significant enough to ever overcome it. If it was, they wouldn't be elite.

I fully realize that you understand how hard the match-up is for DK. I'm not even disagreeing with you and saying that the match-up is universally auto-win. I'm explaining to you that the match-up is auto-win, but only at high levels of play.

 

[CR4SH]

No, of course there are no matchups where it is literally an automatic win for one party. People just say "auto win" because it isn't realistically winnable at high levels of play and they don't feel like appending "if your opponent has functioning motor skills" or "if you are not, in fact, God himself" to the phrase every time.

Bobson just auto-won.

 

[Brinzy]

There is no auto-lose either, just pick a character that doesn't get infinited!

This is one of the most assbackwards statements in this thread.

 

[Yuna]

Weren't you the one who said that these characters have a CHANCE to beat D3 and thus the infinite shouldn't be banned? Or was that RDK.

There is a chance, but it is so negligible it does not matter. The "There's always a chance" argument was used to counter the "It is impossible to ever win... ever!" or "MK vs. CF is winnable!" arguments.

The chance is neglible, it's like 1%, but saying it's auto win is a wrong use of it's term.

At roughly equal skill level at a high level of play, the match-up is unwinnable and it is an auto-win. The way to lose it is for the player with the advantage to do just about everything wrong, and that's not what we're going to assume.

We're going to assume they're doing it right and only screwing up as much as is considered "normal".

Even if it's 1:99, thats not auto-win.

Yes it is. Because you'd have to be an idiot or just a very bad player to lose such a match-up. If you know what you're doing, if you know the match-up, it is a free win.

 

[Denzi]

Pick MK, land a hit, Infinate Demensional Cape for 7:50, auto-win. (Regardless of whether or not it's tournament legal, it's still an "auto-win")

 

[Blad01]

don't get grabbed.

guys, an 100:0 would be like UNPLUGGING THE GUY'S CONTROLLER AT THE START OF EVERY MATCH. in all the "almost unwinnable" matchups, there is a still a chance, albeit slight, that you can win because of mistakes, etc, etc. or you may be just that much better than the opponent. there are ALMOST UNWINNABLE matchups, but NO 100:0s.

Match-up numbers don't take mistakes into account, and they assume that both players are at the highest level of play possible.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Match-up numbers don't take mistakes into account, and they assume that both players are at the highest level of play possible.

Ironically, most match-up discussions fail for that reason. Because even on the highest level people make mistakes.

 

[Dragoomba]

I'd like to see you win against a good player playing one of the following match-ups as the losing character:
* Donkey Kong vs. King DeDeDe
* Bowser vs. King DeDeDe
* Captain Falcon vs. Meta Knight
* Fox vs. Pikachu

Although very unlikely, I wouldn't call it an "auto-win". There's still a SLIM chance, like 1%, that they can be defeated.

 

[Melomaniacal]

The point is that at a high level of player, both opponents are expected to be at a similar skill level. Both players are expected to have similar experience, and both should probably know the matchup. This being said, a Fox player will almost never win against a Pikachu player. Is there a chance of the Fox player winning? Yes, but there's also a chance of the Pikachu player having a heart attack for three stocks. A 9:1 matchup is essentially un-winnable unless you're playing against someone who has no idea how to use their character, or doesn't know anything about that matchup. And you don't see that at high-level tournament play.

 

[RyanPF]

No, of course there are no matchups where it is literally an automatic win for one party. People just say "auto win" because it isn't realistically winnable at high levels of play and they don't feel like appending "if your opponent has functioning motor skills" or "if you are not, in fact, God himself" to the phrase every time.

^This. The term "auto-win" doesn't accurately describe the situation, but it's short and close enough.