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

[Braggins]

I'm sorry, you still don't know why your argument was "unintelligent"? "Given enough matches, D3 could screw up enough to lose to DK"? Yeah, if he was half-asleep maybe. Maybe if he was losing on purpose. Maybe if the DK was Bum and the D3 was me with grab not set to C-stick.

Please read the entire thing, if only just this once.

What I was saying was kind of similar to monkey-typewriter thing someone brought up earlier, although not as extreme. I was wrong because I was saying "at high levels of play", and my personal definition of that was loose and not the general definition. If the DDD was playing at a high level then the DK would have no way of winning, it would be 100% in DDD's favor. I should have just used "high level players" because it is possible for high level players to not play at a high level at times. I also could be wrong because of giving the DK more credit than he deserved when considering his general strengths and weaknesses against DDD(not counting the infinite), for example, overestimating his ability to avoid grabs.

You said earlier in the thread that the chances of the DDD messing up enough to give the DK a chance to win are something like 1/1 billion. If we agree that is true then that would mean that the DK on average would win 1 out of every 1 billion games. and you can't really disagree with that. The largest number I used was when I said he could win 1 out of 100,000, and the smallest was 1/10,000. I am undecided on what the odds actually would be because it is so extreme, and I don't think I have any way of making a good estimate. That was all I was saying though. I may have been overestimating DK's chances when I said 1/10,000 or even 1/100,000,, and I may not have been. It may be 1/1 billion. I have admitted multiple times before that my argument is pointless because it is so extreme and doesn't actual affect anything, and I agree that it may as well be viewed as a virtual auto-win matchup. If you want want to call my argument stupid because of its pointlessness I actually agree 100%. In that sense it is stupid. If that is what you meant then I agree and apologize. It is nonsense to act like DK has any chance at all because it is so small. It is nothing more than pointless nitpicking, and I admit that. However, I don't think that my argument is stupid because it lacks logic.

On a side note, Do any DDD players actually set grab to c-stick? I'm asking purely out of curiosity.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

No.

I clearly said that given an infinite number of opportunities, it will not happen. If you think I contradicted myself, you misread.


High level of play is different because an exceptionally skilled DK can, and most likely will, beat a bad DDD. At high levels of play, the match is auto-win.
---

I'm absolutely dreading the first person who thinks gimpy is being serious.

Yeah so can't happen and would just not happen a lot are exactly the same thing now right? I don't think so!

Also I would like you to explain how it is impossible for an equal skilled DK to beat an equal skilled DDD. Okay the chain grab makes it nearly an auto win, but if the DDD is really unlucky, say his controller stuffs up or something and he can't do his best moves, the DK can seize the chance and snatch victory. Also say for a match the DDD player plays horribly because it isn't his day or he is sick or maybe from another match his hands are tired. DK say he plays really well for this match, outside the norm so he could win. And also it must be very hard to measure human skill level quantitatively.

So if you think at high levels of play it is impossible for DK to Beat DDD you are wrong. I said before it is nearly an auto win but, some ultra small chance of DK winning. Something like winning the lottery maybe, but people have won the lottery.

 

[pure_awesome]

...did an "I don't think so!" joke just make it into this thread?



Anyway, watch those commas, they'll get you.

"It will not happen alot." is different from "It will not happen, alot."


I refute your argument by highlighting the fact that if the DDD's controller spontaneously breaks in the middle of the match, he logically can't be playing at the highest level of play.

 

[Yuna]

Please read the entire thing, if only just this once.

What I was saying was kind of similar to monkey-typewriter thing someone brought up earlier, although not as extreme. I was wrong because I was saying "at high levels of play", and my personal definition of that was loose and not the general definition.

Please don't assume I haven't actually read some of your posts in their entirety.

This would be a prime example of something unintelligent/silly/asinine on your part (the using the term "high levels of play" inappropriately).

If the DDD was playing at a high level then the DK would have no way of winning, it would be 100% in DDD's favor. I should have just used "high level players" because it is possible for high level players to not play at a high level at times. I also could be wrong because of giving the DK more credit than he deserved when considering his general strengths and weaknesses against DDD(not counting the infinite), for example, overestimating his ability to avoid grabs.

Yes, this is also an unintelligent line of reasoning. Because even if they aren't playing at even close to the highest level of play, if they have grab set to the C-stick, DK is dead once he gets grabbed. And he's pretty easy to grab (as D3).

Unless the high level player is playing badly on purpose, he will never lose to a DK as D3. It is that bad of a match-up. Unless D3 fails to grab DK and keeps tripping into his fully charged Giant Punch and Fsmash, DK will not win, ever.

You said earlier in the thread that the chances of the DDD messing up enough to give the DK a chance to win are something like 1/1 billion. If we agree that is true then that would mean that the DK on average would win 1 out of every 1 billion games.

No, that's not how it works. For every single game played, DK has a 1/1 billion (I just made that number up, BTW) chance in winning. It doesn't stack, it's not like a lottery with odds where if all tickets are sold, 1 out of the total of all of the tickets (let's say 1 million) will win the grand prize.

For every match played, there will be only a 1/1 billion chance of victory for DK, no matter how many matches came before them.

and you can't really disagree with that.

I just did.

The largest number I used was when I said he could win 1 out of 100,000, and the smallest was 1/10,000. I am undecided on what the odds actually would be because it is so extreme, and I don't think I have any way of making a good estimate.

It is zero. Unless the high level player is having a brain fart and playing so badly you might as well replace him with a Casual player or they are deliberately losing.

 

[Hive]

yuna, do you actually read braggins posts before responding? 0.0
so many of your responses don't have anything to do with what he is saying....

however.... there are "autowins" in brawl... any possible win percentages are low enough to call them that.

 

[crate]

For every match played, there will be only a 1/1 billion chance of victory for DK, no matter how many matches came before them.

This is purely mathematical:

If the chance of an event happening is 1/1 billion per match, then the chance of it happening within n matches is

p = 1 - (1 - 1/1 billion)^n

This is nonzero and approaches 1 as n goes to infinity.

...

That said, no one is going to actually play nearly enough matches for such a figure to be anything other than effectively zero.

 

[Yuna]

yuna, do you actually read braggins posts before responding? 0.0
so many of your responses don't have anything to do with what he is saying....

I suggest the king of strawmanning brush up on their reading comprehension.

That said, no one is going to actually play nearly enough matches for such a figure to be anything other than effectively zero.

No, it doesn't stack up! It's not that one out of every 1 billion matches will be won by DK, it's that in each match played, ever, the chances of DK winning is 1 to 1 billion. If you play 10 matches, it doesn't mean that on the 10th match, DK's chance of winning will now be 10/1 billion, it will still be 1 out of 1 billion.

On the 1 billionth match, the odds of DK winning are, thus, still 1 to 1 billion.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

...did an "I don't think so!" joke just make it into this thread?

Anyway, watch those commas, they'll get you.

"It will not happen alot." is different from "It will not happen, alot."


I refute your argument by highlighting the fact that if the DDD's controller spontaneously breaks in the middle of the match, he logically can't be playing at the highest level of play.

You're probably right about the commas.

But you said that Can't happen and wouldn't happen, a lot are the same. Which they are similar but different. So you've said that DK will not beat DDD, a lot. Ok fine that is agreeing with me, but that means that DK will beat DDD some of the time if given infinite opportunities.

Say between a match the DDD player goes to the toilet, and leaves the controller on the floor by accident, and somebody steps on it. Now to make matters worse, because it is his bad day he forgot to take a 2nd controller. So he is forced to play with a busted controller.

Oh and by the way; alot is not a word, in fact my spell checker says otherwise. What you mean is a lot. My English teacher told me this

 

[Braggins]

No, that's not how it works. For every single game played, DK has a 1/1 billion (I just made that number up, BTW) chance in winning. It doesn't stack, it's not like a lottery with odds where if all tickets are sold, 1 out of the total of all of the tickets (let's say 1 million) will win the grand prize.

For every match played, there will be only a 1/1 billion chance of victory for DK, no matter how many matches came before them.

I didn't say the odds stacked. I didn't say that if the odds were 1/1 billion and he plays 1 billion games he has a 100% chance of winning a game. I said if the odds of him winning are 1/1 billion then on average he will win 1 out of 1 billion games. Although they are implied, that is exactly what probabilities mean. If you disagree with that then you don't understand math and are the one being asinine. It may take 50 billion games or it may take 5, but if the odds of something happening are 1/1 billion then that means it can happen. I realize that statement is really obvious, but I think it still needed to be said.

I just did.

So that means that you either misread my post(which could possibly be my fault), are stupid, or just haven't been taught basic probability. Which one is it?

If you now believe that the chance is zero then we obviously disagree about that, but I don't really want to try and argue against that because it is a waste of time to try and argue about something as pointless as whether the matchup is 100/0 or 99.99999999999/.00000000001

EDIT: I'm sorry If you feel I've wasted your time with this admittedly pointless debate. If its any consolation you should know that I've wasted my time as well, lol.

 

[crate]

On the 1 billionth match, the odds of DK winning are, thus, still 1 to 1 billion.

Do you understand probability? This is a serious question. What I said in no way contradicts the statement I quoted. In fact, what I said completely agrees with the statement I quoted.

If the chance of losing is 1/1 billion per match, and DDD/DK play 1 billion matches, the chance of DDD losing at least one match of those billion is

1 - (1 - 1/1billion)^1billion ~ 2/3 (pretty sure; I'm too lazy to check exactly right now though)

The chance of him losing any individual match you specify is still 1/1billion.

I can give examples with coin flips if you do not understand this and want something you can test on your own.

 

[pure_awesome]

You're probably right about the commas.

But you said that Can't happen and wouldn't happen, a lot are the same. Which they are similar but different. So you've said that DK will not beat DDD, a lot. Ok fine that is agreeing with me, but that means that DK will beat DDD some of the time if given infinite opportunities.

If I say that my heart beats alot, that doesn't automatically imply that there are times when it's not beating.

I was making a joke about the idea of an infinite number of matches. Since DK would lose every single one, he would lose... alot.

Say between a match the DDD player goes to the toilet, and leaves the controller on the floor by accident, and somebody steps on it. Now to make matters worse, because it is his bad day he forgot to take a 2nd controller. So he is forced to play with a busted controller.

Oh and by the way; alot is not a word, in fact my spell checker says otherwise. What you mean is a lot. My English teacher told me this

Again: If the DDD is playing with a busted controller, he logically can not be playing at the highest level of play.

Simply put, and I honestly, truly do mean this in the nicest way possible, when your immediate reaction to how a character would win is "Maybe his opponent's controller breaks", you should probably just re-consider your stance.

You're correct about alot not being a formal word, but I see no reason for that to stop me from using it alot.

 

[Yuna]

I didn't say the odds stacked. I didn't say that if the odds were 1/1 billion and he plays 1 billion games he has a 100% chance of winning a game. I said if the odds of him winning are 1/1 billion then on average he will win 1 out of 1 billion games.

That is saying that the odds will stack and that if you play enough games, the odds are, he'll win.

But the odds don't state that. For every game played, there is only a 1/1 billion chance. On average, DK will win 0 matches, ever.

Although they are implied, that is exactly what probabilities mean.

This is not a simple probability check of "If I do this, it has a random chance of doing Y instead of Z one out of X times". In order for DK to win the match, certain specific conditions have to be met, i.e., D3 just playing ****tily. This will never happen when players of the highest level are involved. They will never play badly enough for DK to win against D3. The 1/1 billion (again, made up number) chance is existent only if certain conditions, man-made (on purpose) are met.

It may take 50 billion games or it may take 5, but if the odds of something happening are 1/1 billion then that means it can happen.

Can happen =/= Will happen

If you now believe that the chance is zero then we obviously disagree about that, but I don't really want to try and argue against that because it is a waste of time to try and argue about something as pointless as whether the matchup is 100/0 or 99.99999999999/.00000000001

At the highest possible level of play, it is 0. If D3 is wielded by a player at the highest level of play, it is zero. If it's a ****ty player who doesn't know how to grab DK or how to infinite using the C-stick and/or the player is losing on purpose, then the chances are higher.

Stuff.

The 1 in 1 billion (arbitrary number) is only to signify that it is not physically impossible to lose. The DK could just read the D3 perfectly, never getting grabbed, ever, while still, somehow, hitting D3. D3 could suicide a lot. D3 could screw up the infinite every single time (almost impossible if they know about the C-stick thing). D3 could try every single time he tries to dash.

However, this does not mean that on average, DK will win one out of every 1 billion games unless specific conditions, most of which require D3 to lose on purpose are met.

Match-up ratios are never written 100-0 because no match-up is physically impossible to lose.

 

[Hive]

I suggest the king of strawmanning brush up on their reading comprehension.
.

lol whatever yuna.... you say this sort of stuff about everyone you disagree with
(and I'm a girl btw <.<)
or did you need me to answer in a form you'd understand? multiquote?
let's use your own arguments, take your pick....

I suggest

- I didn't read it because I simply don't read every single post in this thread, especially ones I find uninteresting, such as yours. I tired of your posts after the umpteenth time
-I skim most threads, but sometimes I just ignore certain users straight out after they repeatedly make the sane inane arguments times and again. This specific post, however, I simply missed. I do not hold "a false pre-conceived notion [...] about [your] position"

the king of strawmanning

-This would be a prime example of something unintelligent/silly/asinine on your part (the using the term "king of strawmanning" inappropriately).

brush up on

I'm sorry, you still don't know why your argument was "unintelligent"?

their reading comprehension

-You are clearly misreading posts and/or making stuff up.

-1. lacking sense, significance, or ideas; silly: inane questions.
2. empty; void.
–noun
3. something that is empty or void, esp. the void of infinite space.
(Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. )

One that lacks sense or substance: interrupting with inane comments; angry with my inane roommate.
(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.)

devoid of intelligence [syn: asinine]
(WordNet 3.0 2006 by Princeton University.)

-It lacked sense and intelligence. I read it, I read it again, I read it a third time, I read it every time you typed it out and reworded it for a while there. It still didn't make any sense, nor was it intelligent.


- You're not readng my posts properly and/or making stuff up. Don't make stuff up and refute it because I'll call you on it!

I ignored the rest of your post because of this.

 

[crate]

I was merely posting about math. I know what I'm talking about with math. It bothers me to see people post things that are blatantly incorrect mathematically.

I know nothing about high-level Brawl so I wasn't talking about that.

 

[Brinzy]

Holy ****, crate, are you an Oberlin College student as well?

 

[Natch]

Yeah so can't happen and would just not happen a lot are exactly the same thing now right? I don't think so!

Also I would like you to explain how it is impossible for an equal skilled DK to beat an equal skilled DDD. Okay the chain grab makes it nearly an auto win, but if the DDD is really unlucky, say his controller stuffs up or something and he can't do his best moves, the DK can seize the chance and snatch victory. Also say for a match the DDD player plays horribly because it isn't his day or he is sick or maybe from another match his hands are tired. DK say he plays really well for this match, outside the norm so he could win. And also it must be very hard to measure human skill level quantitatively.

So if you think at high levels of play it is impossible for DK to Beat DDD you are wrong. I said before it is nearly an auto win but, some ultra small chance of DK winning. Something like winning the lottery maybe, but people have won the lottery.

If the DDD player plays horribly, he is not playing at a High Level of Play. High Levels of Play are something you see the PROS doing. These are PROS right here, and they don't make those big mistakes. If those PROS make those mistakes, they're not playing like a PRO. They are playing like a NOOB. NOOBS aren't Playing at High Levels, they're Playing at Low Levels.

Thus, at the High Levels of Play, DDD will always beat DK. However, it is entirely possible for DK to beat DDD. But then one of those PROS must've been having a bad time or something-he wasn't Playing at a High Level that day.

Does this make sense? What you say is still correct. But at High Levels of Play, DDD will always beat DK.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

If I say that my heart beats alot, that doesn't automatically imply that there are times when it's not beating.

I was making a joke about the idea of an infinite number of matches. Since DK would lose every single one, he would lose... alot.


Again: If the DDD is playing with a busted controller, he logically can not be playing at the highest level of play.

Simply put, and I honestly, truly do mean this in the nicest way possible, when your immediate reaction to how a character would win is "Maybe his opponent's controller breaks", you should probably just re-consider your stance.

You're correct about alot not being a formal word, but I see no reason for that to stop me from using it alot.

No I said if the DDD player is stepped on while his is out of the room, or tampered with. That might happen in pro competitions. I also said that if DDD was playing absolutely rubbish for that match when his hands were tired, say from a game of tennis yesterday, has had no sleep (there was a massive party next door) and he has a splitting headache, , while the pharmacy is really far away. While the DK is rested fresh and feels great, it is one of the best days of his lives- so he plays extremely well outside the norm.

So it's two players of equal skill, one in no shape to play with all sorts of problems. The other in great form and feeling great.

I am willing to agree that it will be extremely improbable like 1/100, 000 or something, (don't quote me on that because it is just a guess, I mean it is very hard to figure out) for DK to win. But in the situation described above, there is a fair chance that it is going to happen. So it isn't an auto win. As I said earlier it is like winning the lottery.

All this talk of skill levels, we don't actually know how good people are very actually, because sometimes people play very well and very bad, for their standards. It is not something you can measure quantitatively. So the best we can is Bill is about as good as Fred who is a bit better than Joe.

 

[Braggins]

That is saying that the odds will stack and that if you play enough games, the odds are, he'll win.

But the odds don't state that. For every game played, there is only a 1/1 billion chance. On average, DK will win 0 matches, ever.

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.

That is This is not a simple probability check of "If I do this, it has a random chance of doing Y instead of Z one out of X times". In order for DK to win the match, certain specific conditions have to be met, i.e., D3 just playing ****tily. This will never happen when players of the highest level are involved. They will never play badly enough for DK to win against D3. The 1/1 billion (again, made up number) chance is existent only if certain conditions, man-made (on purpose) are met.

I didn't make any point pertaining to any of this. I said I didn't want to argue if the chance was 0 or just so small its virtually nonexistent. I wouldn't know how to argue that without making things up, which is what you are doing(I admit that you may be right though, I just tend to disagree). 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.

Can happen =/= Will happen

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.

The 1 in 1 billion (arbitrary number) is only to signify that it is not physically impossible to lose. The DK could just read the D3 perfectly, never getting grabbed, ever, while still, somehow, hitting D3. D3 could suicide a lot. D3 could screw up the infinite every single time (almost impossible if they know about the C-stick thing). D3 could try every single time he tries to dash.

However, this does not mean that on average, DK will win one out of every 1 billion games unless specific conditions, most of which require D3 to lose on purpose are met.

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.

Match-up ratios are never written 100-0 because no match-up is physically impossible to lose.

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).

Just out of curiosity, do any high level DDD's actually set c-stick to grab?

 

[pure_awesome]

Again, this is all negated by the fact that there's no way that such a person would play at the highest level of play. It's really that simple.

Example, you can't take a DDD pro, hit him upside the head with a hammer, stomp on his controller, punch him in the stomach, deprive him of sleep for a couple days, get his girlfriend to break up with him, roll him down a cliffside, duct-tape the broken controller to his oven mitt-clad hands and say "This, this is the pinnacle of Smash ability."

Even if he is a DDD pro.

 

[Natch]

Just out of curiosity, do any high level DDD's actually set c-stick to grab?

Only if they're fighting against a DK. I'm sure they would go out of their way to change their controls for that given match. Especially since DDD's smash attacks are exactly spammable.

Honestly though, I'm not sure.

 

[Yuna]

- I didn't read it because I simply don't read every single post in this thread, especially ones I find uninteresting, such as yours. I tired of your posts after the umpteenth time
-I skim most threads, but sometimes I just ignore certain users straight out after they repeatedly make the sane inane arguments times and again. This specific post, however, I simply missed. I do not hold "a false pre-conceived notion [...] about [your] position"

In response to Braggins incidentaly talking about how I've ignored some of his posts in the past.

-This would be a prime example of something unintelligent/silly/asinine on your part (the using the term "king of strawmanning" inappropriately).

I don't even know what this is supposed to say. You blatantly strawmanned me several times in that one thread. I called you on it, you said nothing, as if it'd all go away.

I'm sorry, you still don't know why your argument was "unintelligent"?

In response to him asking why I think his argument was "inane" (i.e. "unintelligent")

-You are clearly misreading posts and/or making stuff up.

Because he was?

-1. lacking sense, significance, or ideas; silly: inane questions.
2. empty; void.
–noun
3. something that is empty or void, esp. the void of infinite space.
(Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. )

One that lacks sense or substance: interrupting with inane comments; angry with my inane roommate.
(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.)

devoid of intelligence [syn: asinine]
(WordNet 3.0 2006 by Princeton University.)

He spoke as if the only definition of "inane" were "without substance". I proved him wrong.

-It lacked sense and intelligence. I read it, I read it again, I read it a third time, I read it every time you typed it out and reworded it for a while there. It still didn't make any sense, nor was it intelligent.

Again more debate over whether or not his argument was inane.

- You're not readng my posts properly and/or making stuff up. Don't make stuff up and refute it because I'll call you on it!

Because he was.

I ignored the rest of your post because of this.

Because I did.

So basically, all you have is me calling him on making stuff up/misreading posts and TL;DR:ing him. Good job exposing my wicked ways! And good job not actually reading the posts I'm responding to before accusing me of not responding to them properly!

Because almost every single one of those supposed examples of me strawmanning (and you find zero of these, BTW), going off-topic, saying irrelevant stuff and whatever was invalid since they weren't strawmanning, off-topic (within the confines of what is currently being discussed, Braggin's position or irrelevant!

Wow, Hive! Good job owning yourself! You must be so proud!

 

[Braggins]

Only if they're fighting against a DK. I'm sure they would go out of their way to change their controls for that given match. Especially since DDD's smash attacks are exactly spammable.

Honestly though, I'm not sure.

I didn't think they would in general. If they don't then they wouldn't ever have their controls set that way for the first game of a match unless they knew they were facing a DK main. I realize the chances of a top player facing a player of equal skill and not knowing if that player plays DK or not is unlikely, but it is still possible. 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. 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. That seems kind of silly if you could do that, but I don't go to tournaments so I can't say whether or not you can for sure.

I'm just bringing up a hypothetical situation to see what you think.

 

[Braggins]

Because he was?

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.

You really should have quit while you were ahead. At first I thought you were an intelligent person with whom I disagreed and had a misunderstanding with. Now I'm just beginning to think you are a proud fool whose opinion doesn't matter. I guess that is kind of a good thing since now I don't care at all about what you think and no longer mind that you think my argument is stupid. I genuinely hope you end up proving me wrong on this one.

EDIT: AHHHHH, accidental double post again. If a mod is around please give me another infraction point. I need to be taught a lesson.

 

[Yuna]

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.

 

[Natch]

I didn't think they would in general. If they don't then they wouldn't ever have their controls set that way for the first game of a match unless they knew they were facing a DK main. I realize the chances of a top player facing a player of equal skill and not knowing if that player plays DK or not is unlikely, but it is still possible. 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. 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. That seems kind of silly if you could do that, but I don't go to tournaments so I can't say whether or not you can for sure.

I'm just bringing up a hypothetical situation to see what you think.

You asked me a question, I answered. I am not going to dance for you needlessly. Honestly, probably not. Any DDD worth his salt will know the timing. C-Stick set to grab simply allows any given player to do the infinite really really easily,

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

If I say that my heart beats alot, that doesn't automatically imply that there are times when it's not beating.

I was making a joke about the idea of an infinite number of matches. Since DK would lose every single one, he would lose... alot.


Again: If the DDD is playing with a busted controller, he logically can not be playing at the highest level of play.

Simply put, and I honestly, truly do mean this in the nicest way possible, when your immediate reaction to how a character would win is "Maybe his opponent's controller breaks", you should probably just re-consider your stance.

You're correct about alot not being a formal word, but I see no reason for that to stop me from using it alot.

When you said DK wouldn't win a lot I took it to mean that the majority of the time DK would lose but a tiny amount of the time DK would win. I think it was a mutual misunderstanding.

I agree if the two players are playing at equal skill, then wouldn't Meta Knight win almost every match, I mean it may not be easy, but if both players play at the same skill level all the time DK would always lose. But it is not an auto-lose, you actually have to beat him and it might not always work. It can happen. It is physically possible so if given an infinite amount of opportunities it will happen, there is no law of nature saying it is impossible so it is not an auto-win it is just the chance is very very small (as I will explain in my next paragraph).

I am willing to agree that it will be extremely improbable like 1/100, 000 or something, (don't quote me on that because it is just a guess, I mean it is very hard to figure out) for DK to win. But in the situation described above, there is a fair chance that it is going to happen. So it isn't an auto win. As I said earlier it is like winning the lottery. It is nearly an auto win but it isn't

All this talk of skill levels, we don't actually know how good people are very actually, because sometimes people play very well and very bad, for their standards. It is not something you can measure quantitatively. So the best we can is Bill is about as good as Fred who is a bit better than Joe.

Have you guys thought about this, we maybe here ranting on about something that has been already decided. PKNintendo said that of course it would be auto wins at high levels of play. So This discussion was perhaps... in effect pointless.

 

[Braggins]

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.

Actually I was. I've stated multiple times that nothing I'm saying deals which matchup rations, but actually how things could possibly play out, and I'm saying that again now. I'm now also stating that I am definitely talking about probabilities. Hey, you should probably accuse me of misreading posts again.

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...

I have never made any argument pertaining to any of this. I've only been speaking of probabilities and possibilities. You should probably accuse me of misreading posts again.

BAlso, 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))

Why would you make that argument if no one was arguing against it. Especially not intelligent people. You are misreading posts and being asinine.

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.

I think I've said twice now that I don't think it will ever happen, and I've made it abundantly clear that my argument is pretty pointless. You should probably accuse me of misreading posts again.

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.

I know nobody cares, that is why I keep saying it is pointless. I said I don't think it will ever happen.

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.


No, this was me telling you that I was speaking about match-up ratios and not probability lore.

Ive said many times that my argument has nothing to do with matchup rations. If you want to write the matchup as 10-0 or 9-1(to account for you not automatically winning by picking up your controller) then go ahead. I won't disagree with you on that. You should probably accuse me of misreading posts again.

I'm sorry, are you saying you have never strawmanned or misread any of my posts?

Yes, when I say that you strawmanned me, what that actually means is that I've never strawmanned you and that you you've strawmanned me. You should probably accuse me of misreading posts, making things up, and strawmanning you again.

Since when is it not allowed to change your controls after the 1st match?

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 name 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?!

I didn't simply say in between matches. I specified "after you see what character they pick". I meant that it would be silly if you could let them choose their character(say they won game 1 so its your counterpick) and then go back and change your controls from that point and then make them choose the character that they picked right before you changed your controls. I know you didn't argue against that but I was using that as an example to show how the c-stick grab thing doesn't really affect anything if DDD's don't just always set their grabs to c-stick. I also very clearly said that you shouldn't expect a DK player to pick DK against your DDD for games 2 or 3. I also never said anything about DDD c-sticking smashes. I think you should probably accuse me of misreading posts again.

 

[Yuna]

Actually I was. I've stated multiple times that nothing I'm saying deals which matchup rations, but actually how things could possibly play out, and I'm saying that again now. I'm now also stating that I am definitely talking about probabilities. Hey, you should probably accuse me of misreading posts again.

And further down in the same post, I state why the man-made conditions required for DK to win do not play a role in probability.

I have never made any argument pertaining to any of this. I've only been speaking of probabilities and possibilities. You should probably accuse me of misreading posts again.

This doesn't change the fact that the man-made requirements do not factor into probability. The probability of DK winning is actually 0.

Why would you make that argument if no one was arguing against it. Especially not intelligent people. You are misreading posts and being asinine.

Because you were making an argument that was way too general and needed elaboration.

Also, I never ever accused you of being asinine (or rather, your argument being inane) merely for arguing something no one had argued. I argued they were inane in their very nature, because of a lack of logic and validity.

I think I've said twice now that I don't think it will ever happen, and I've made it abundantly clear that my argument is pretty pointless. You should probably accuse me of misreading posts again.

I know nobody cares, that is why I keep saying it is pointless. I said I don't think it will ever happen.

Yet you still argue that since there's a possibility DK will win, according to probability, there is a chance for him to wi.

I didn't simply say in between matches. I specified "after you see what character they pick". I meant that it would be silly if you could let them choose their character(say they won game 1 so its your counterpick) and then go back and change your controls from that point and then make them choose the character that they picked right before you changed your controls. I know you didn't argue against that but I was using that as an example to show how the c-stick grab thing doesn't really affect anything if DDD's don't just always set their grabs to c-stick.

Or, if anticipating such a situation in a tournament where you are banned from setting your C-stick to grab after your opponent has chosen his character, you could just keep a tag on the Wiis you play on with C-stick set to grab, ready to be chosen at all times should it be required.

Or you could just always use a tag with C-stick set to grab since D3 doesn't need to C-stick his smashes.

I also very clearly said that you shouldn't expect a DK player to pick DK against your DDD for games 2 or 3. I also never said anything about DDD c-sticking smashes. I think you should probably accuse me of misreading posts again.

Yes, because obviously, if I say something, it must mean I'm implying you said it first, as opposed to you explicitly making it clear that what you are saying is in response to something someone has said when no one intelligent has argued it and it is obviously an idiotic thing to argue!

 

[pure_awesome]

When you said DK wouldn't win a lot I took it to mean that the majority of the time DK would lose but a tiny amount of the time DK would win. I think it was a mutual misunderstanding.

Agreed. Sorry if my wording caused the confusion.


Anyway, you're right in that DK has the capability to win. Any character can beat any character. DK can cause damage, DDD can receive it, therefore DK is capable of winning.

The problem is that a significant skill gap is needed to overcome this margin. This is true of all match-ups: A pro Wolf will need to play better than a pro Falco if he wishes to win. As match-up ratios get worse and worse, from 60-40 to 70-30, to 90-10 and beyond, the skill gap must be larger and larger between the players for the disadvantaged character to win.

But the fact is that there's only so much leeway at the highest levels of play. The match-up no longer just requires DK to play exceptionally well, it also requires DDD to play fairly poorly. And while this will, of course happen all the time, it will not happen at the highest levels of play. No elite DDD will play poorly enough to waste such a massive advantage; if they did, they wouldn't be elite.

I hope that clears things up.
EDIT: Or rather, clears up my thoughts on the subject.

 

[Braggins]

You asked me a question, I answered. I am not going to dance for you needlessly. Honestly, probably not. Any DDD worth his salt will know the timing. C-Stick set to grab simply allows any given player to do the infinite really really easily,

I sent you a private message about the last post. I hope you read it.

Also, I never ever accused you of being asinine (or rather, your argument being inane) merely for arguing something no one had argued. I argued they were inane in their very nature, because of a lack of logic and validity.

No, actually you kept saying over and over that I shouldn't base my argument around an argument no one is making, which I wasn't even doing. So its inane in nature and lacks logic and validity to say that "Even at high levels people make mistakes", because that was the argument no one was arguing against, and I'm pretty sure you agree with that statement. Why I used that statement in the first place no longer needs any explaining. I think I understand though, when you use a reason that hasn't been argued against it is warranted, but when I do it isn't and makes my argument lack validity. I think I understand it now.

Yet you still argue that since there's a possibility DK will win, according to probability, there is a chance for him to win.

Yes??? That is how probability works. What is wrong with you? When you say chance you must not be meaning it how it relates to probability. Either that or you are insane.

Yes, because obviously, if I say something, it must mean I'm implying you said it first, as opposed to you explicitly making it clear that what you are saying is in response to something someone has said when no one intelligent has argued it and it is obviously an idiotic thing to argue!

No, but when you say something after quoting a section of my post, and mine was the only post you quoted, I tend to get the impression it is directed at me. It might just be me, but that is how I generally think. It didn't seem any more ridiculous for you to accuse me of that considering some of the other things you've said.

To be honest, it seems extremely obvious to me that you are just scrapping to try and save face and make up for the fact that you've said ridiculous things like "For every game played, there is only a 1/1 billion chance. On average, DK will win 0 matches, ever.", and that you've accused me of doing things I wasn't doing multiple times, and accused me of doing things that you were doing multiple times. Either that or one of us is completely nuts. Decide what you want. I have nothing left to say to you on this matter.

 

[Yuna]

No, actually you kept saying over and over that I shouldn't base my argument around an argument no one is making, which I wasn't even doing.

But did I ever say that it was "inane" because of that?

So its inane in nature and lacks logic and validity to say that "Even at high levels people make mistakes", because that was the argument no one was arguing against, and I'm pretty sure you agree with that statement.

No, it was inane to argue that since people make mistakes, it was conceivable that eventually, people on the highest level of play will screw up enough to lose.

Why I used that statement in the first place no longer needs any explaining. I think I understand though, when you use a reason that hasn't been argued against it is warranted, but when I do it isn't and makes my argument lack validity. I think I understand it now.

You were arguing something no sane person would argue. I'm merely elaborating on what you're arguing.

Yes??? That is how probability works. What is wrong with you? When you say chance you must not be meaning it how it relates to probability. Either that or you are insane.

If D3 is being controlled by a player of the highest level of skill (which was your argument, might I remind you), the chances of DK winning are zero, even if their name happens to be Bum. Unless you cheat by having the D3 throw the game on purpose, it is zero.

No, but when you say something after quoting a section of my post, and mine was the only post you quoted, I tend to get the impression it is directed at me. It might just be me, but that is how I generally think. It didn't seem any more ridiculous for you to accuse me of that considering some of the other things you've said.

What I was arguing was connected to what you were arguing.

To be honest, it seems extremely obvious to me that you are just scrapping to try and save face and make up for the fact that you've said ridiculous things like "If there is a 1/1 billion chance of DK winning, then the chances of him winning are 0"

I never said that.

and that you've accused me of doing things I wasn't doing multiple times, and accused me of doing things that you were doing multiple times. Either that or one of us is completely nuts. Decide what you want. I have nothing left to say to you on this matter.

You still claim to have never misread anything I've said?

 

[Braggins]

If D3 is being controlled by a player of the highest level of skill (which was your argument, might I remind you), the chances of DK winning are zero, even if their name happens to be Bum. Unless you cheat by having the D3 throw the game on purpose, it is zero.

I know I've already stated this before, but I only said that if we agree that there is a 1/1 billion chance of it happening, then it can happen. I very very clearly said that the point of whether or not it is 0/1 billion or 1/1 billion(ir another crazy extreme) is not something I or you are really capable of arguing because it is so extreme. I also said I won't even try to argue it because it is so extreme and unimportant that it is pointless. Unless you can't read you should easily be able to understand what I've just said. So stop bringing that up as if I'm trying to argue to you that the DK for sure can give himself a chance to win and that the numerator in the fraction that describes the DK's chances isn't 0, because I am not doing that. Read my last thorough post on the subject and you will see me saying the exact same thing. I feel like I'm talking to a wall.

I never said that.

After I made the post I immediately looked up the exact quote and changed it. What you actually said was just as stupid.

You still claim to have never misread anything I've said?

I really don't even know what to say things like this anymore. Seriously, one of us is crazy.

I'm seriously done talking about this. You can post a response to this if you want to have the last word, but I really am not responding to you anymore about this subject.

 

[Yuna]

I know I've already stated this before, but I only said that if we agree that there is a 1/1 billion chance of it happening, then it can happen. I very very clearly said that the point of whether or not it is 0/1 billion or 1/1 billion(ir another crazy extreme) is not something I or you are really capable of arguing because it is so extreme.

I wasn't aware of that I've ever argued the opposite. I was also not aware of how this is in any way relevant to the discussion at hand.

After I made the post I immediately looked up the exact quote and changed it. What you actually said was just as stupid.

"It is not physically impossible to lose, but it is practically impossible to lose, unless one imposes specific conditions, such as the D3 losing on purpose or quite possibly just sucking. In Competitive play, at the highest level of play/where D3 is being controlled by a player of the highest level, DK's chances of winning are 0." is stupid?

 

[fissionprime]

"It is not physically impossible to lose, but it is practically impossible to lose, unless one imposes specific conditions, such as the D3 losing on purpose or quite possibly just sucking. In Competitive play, at the highest level of play/where D3 is being controlled by a player of the highest level, DK's chances of winning are 0." is stupid?

this seems to be contradictory statement to the rest of your argument. You said yourself that it is not physically impossible to lose. Of course, being practically impossible, the chance of a DK win is negligible, and is not going to make a difference in competitive play, but it is possible nonetheless.

 

[Yuna]

this seems to be contradictory statement to the rest of your argument. You said yourself that it is not physically impossible to lose. Of course, being practically impossible, the chance of a DK win is negligible, and is not going to make a difference in competitive play, but it is possible nonetheless.

I worded that wrong. It is not physically impossible to lose but it is impossible win in practice. Unless the gap in skill is horrendous (and then, all bets are off since nobody cares what the world's best DK can do against the world's worst D3 and that's like saying the chances of being able to do X are Y, but it's Z if the person carrying out the deed is blind and deaf, i.e. artificial handicaps that change the odds) or if D3 is willfully losing the game, at which point the odds fly out the window because if D3 throws every single game, DK will actually win 100 out of 100 games, so it doesn't count.

It's not that the odds are negligible, it's that they are inexistent if the D3 is wielded by a player of the highest level (Braggin's argument was that even a player of the highest level could potentially screw up royally enough to lose the match-up, my position is that no, they really cannot).

The level of ****ty play required for someone (of the highest skill level) to actually lose the D3 vs. DK match-up are just so astronomical (meanwhile, the DK has to predict their opponent perfectly over and over and over again) that the odds are 0 to infinity.

 

[1048576]

But then that becomes the -new- "Highest Levels of Play," and it has been established that such a skill gap that would allow DK to win does not exist at the Highest Levels of Play. Therefore, M2K is Playing at a Lower Level-not on the Highest Levels of Play.

So the statement "DDD will always beat DK at the Highest Levels of Play" remains true.

So any 60-40 and up is an auto-win?

 

[salaboB]

So any 60-40 and up is an auto-win?

At low enough imbalances, mistakes or slightly off days of the better player can allow the less skilled player to win. When it gets high enough, the level of mistakes or bad playing gets so significant that it just won't happen unless they fall asleep mid-round.

 

[1048576]

Wait, you're saying the better player can make more mistakes? Wouldn't that make him the worse player?

If so, then if the D3 has an "off day" then the DK can win. It's entirely possible for Bum to predict all of M2K's D3's moves for three stocks.

 

[salaboB]

Wait, you're saying the better player can make more mistakes? Wouldn't that make him the worse player?

If so, then if the D3 has an "off day" then the DK can win. It's entirely possible for Bum to predict all of M2K's D3's moves for three stocks.

Given the disadvantage DK has versus DDD...

No. You can't just say "If M2K has an off day with DDD Bum will be good enough to win as DK." He'd have to start as a significantly better player than M2K for that to be true.

I specifically said "low enough imbalances". That can also mean "close to equal matchups". DDD vs DK does not qualify.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Agreed. Sorry if my wording caused the confusion.


Anyway, you're right in that DK has the capability to win. Any character can beat any character. DK can cause damage, DDD can receive it, therefore DK is capable of winning.

The problem is that a significant skill gap is needed to overcome this margin. This is true of all match-ups: A pro Wolf will need to play better than a pro Falco if he wishes to win. As match-up ratios get worse and worse, from 60-40 to 70-30, to 90-10 and beyond, the skill gap must be larger and larger between the players for the disadvantaged character to win.

But the fact is that there's only so much leeway at the highest levels of play. The match-up no longer just requires DK to play exceptionally well, it also requires DDD to play fairly poorly. And while this will, of course happen all the time, it will not happen at the highest levels of play. No elite DDD will play poorly enough to waste such a massive advantage; if they did, they wouldn't be elite.

I hope that clears things up.
EDIT: Or rather, clears up my thoughts on the subject.

I think we are also forgetting luck, because sometimes matches are determined on luck.

I guess you're right about that DDD vs DK. I think that the reason that DK "can't win" is because it is just so improbable that it doesn't happen. Like winning the lottery, a few times in a row. Or all the atoms in the Statue of Liberty aligning their vibrations so one of her hands wave.(maybe I'm exaggerating a bit there)

In response to Yuma: everybody makes mistakes, now given infinite opportunities a Pro will make huge numbers of mistakes. You have to see that there is a probability of making mistakes, small that it may be it is there, so it is possible.

Anyway we really should have defined the term auto win, cause now that I think of it auto win as, " It wins for you" because automatic win would mean just that, as automatic is abbreviated to auto. While many of the other people think of it as "impossible to lose". But seeing as everybody uses that I went with that.