So you in fact do not understand probabilities. That clears that up. Do you realize what you said in the second sentence. Surely it is just something that was lost in translation because English is your 3rd language.
Because match-up ratios are not probability ratios (not always), especially not in cases of 95-5 and around those areas! Did I ever
say that we were speaking of probability ratios (at the very least not objective ones)?
Believe it or not, probability is the same in any language. We are, however,
not speaking about probability ratios.
Also, since I wasn't arguing against your theory that it would take man-made conditions to make this happen you clearly shouldn't have included it and are being asinine for doing so. There is absolutely no reason for you to include a statement if no one is arguing against it.
I merely stated that this 1 in 1 billion (arbitrary number) chance only exists to mark the fact that you do not automatically lose once the match has started since it is still
physically possible to win.
But
unless the D3 is losing on purpose (or pure ****), DK will win 0 out of 1 billion games. If D3 is pure ****, match-up ratios do not apply and neither do the probabilities of either side winning because at least one player is not playing the game "properly". If D3 is losing
on purpose, ratios and probabilities likewise do not apply since when people are losing
on purpose, all bets are off.
In 1 billion games, if D3 is losing on purpose in every single one of them, he'll lose every single one unless the DK tries to lose on purpose as well.
So, no, DK will lose 1 billion out of 1 billion games. We could assume a lot of things, put a lot of conditions in place, but then that's like saying that 1 out of x times, jumping off a roof won't even leave a scratch on you... if the roof is on a lego-building only 1 foot tall... if you're wearing a parachute of some kind... if you're jumping into a pool of water... if...
Also, what part of my talking about man-made conditions aimed solely at screwing up the odds to disprove that it played a role in probability when no one had argued the opposite was:
1. foolish, unintelligent, or silly; stupid: It is surprising that supposedly intelligent people can make such asinine statements.
2. of or like an ***: asinine obstinacy; asinine features.
(Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1))
I never said it will happen. I've used the word "can" in every post except my first(the one where I specifically mentioned Bum) except when dealing with specific probabilities because that requires you to use the word "will". I also said in a previous post that I don't think it will ever happen.
What I meant by this is that just because of the 1 in 1 billion chance, due to very specific conditions, there's always a chance that DK won't lose. But just because the chance exists doesn't mean it ever will, not in Competitive play.
This is another one of those pointless things I was talking about but I'll say it anyways. If you agree that all those things are technically possible, which I think you just did, no matter how unlikely, you have to admit that the scenario could possibly play out(if if its nearly a statistical impossibility), which is all I have been saying. If you factor in probability then this argument I'm making is correct.
This is a Competitive Brawl board. We're discussing Competitive play. We're discussing what happens when people play at the highest levels of play (or in your strawmanned version, players of the highest level of play playing flawed games).
Now nobody cares what
can happen. I've never argued that it cannot
ever happen. I've merely argued that your claims are too general (i.e. "1 out of 1 billion games will be won by DK!") or just flawed in general. Of course it is
possible.
But since it requires very specific conditions, i.e.
losing on purpose, the match-up is still an
auto-win (if you are actually playing to win). Of course, if you are playing to lose, it is not an auto-win, but then again, all bets are off and you never set out for that auto-
win in the first place. The match-up is an auto-win... unless one doesn't wish to win.
My bad. I didn't mean for it to be a matchup ratio, but I went ahead and wrote it like one anyways for some reason. I was referring to whether or not the chance was 0 or 1/1 billion(or some other extreme).
No, this was me telling you that I was speaking about match-up ratios and not probability lore.
You are either extremely dense or have a serious pride problem. I've clearly showed that I wasn't misreading anyone's post or making anything up. You were strawmanning me by acting like I was basing my argument on people saying that it isn't possible for high level players to make mistakes.
I'm sorry, are you saying you have never strawmanned or misread any of my posts?
Also, you wouldn't know if they were going to pick DK for games 2 or 3, and since you should expect them not to it would be risky to set your controls to that.
Since when is it not allowed to change your controls after the 1st match?
Unless you are allowed to see who they pick then decide to go back and change your controls and still hold them to their original character choice
A DK-player would have to be stupid to pick DK against D3, with or without grabs set to the C-stick. And if they switch characters, you can just switch out your tag and get rid of the C-stick grab thing. And if they then switch back to DK and force you in a Double Blind Pick-like situation, who cares?! Since when does D3 have to C-stick his smashes, anyway?
Not to mention that the timing isn't that hard. A little practice and you won't be screwing it up anytime soon.