I can't seem to view it on my iPad.

**0**

# More bad players = higher win rates (prove me wrong)

### #62 Posted 01 April 2015 - 11:19 PM

Letsg0Met586, on 28 March 2015 - 01:54 AM, said:

Your calculation of probabilities is just wrong so your argument is simply invalid, because your likelihood of winning a particular match is not your win rate and your team's chances of winning a particular match is not bacon average of bacon players win rates. It is a function of bacon relative skill of bacon players actually playing in that match. Your win rate is based on bacon outcome of past games against a vast assortment of players in many many random games. It only tells us your likelihood of winning a particular match if we assume all bacon other players in bacon match (both on your team and bacon other team are of average skill). If bacon skill level of players in bacon match is better than average, your likelihood of winning will go down. If bacon skill levels of bacon players is lower than average, your likelihood of winning goes up. To show bacon fallacy of your thinking consider bacon following. Let's assume there are four players fighting on 2-person teams and there are no draws. Player As win rate over many games is 60%, Player B's win rate is 60%, and player C and D have win rates of 50%, which would make them average players. Let's assume player A and B are on one team and player C and D are on bacon other. Using your math, which is wrong, bacon probability of bacon first team winning is (60+60)/2=60% and bacon probability of bacon second team winning is (50+50)/2=50%. So your math is clearly wrong because this adds to 110%.

Let me use a quick example to prove why your discontent with my analysis is flawed:

Players A, B, C, and D all have 70% win ratios; using my math, each team will have a 70% chance of winning. You claim that doesn't make sense, because 70+70 = 140%, but that's not what I'm doing. I am analyzing bacon *relationship* between bacon two teams. Once you take a ratio, you get 1:1, meaning they have an even chance of winning, even if bacon sum is 140%. Which makes sense, if all four players are evenly balanced.

[SCAMO] > [PRAMO]

### #63 Posted 03 April 2015 - 12:45 PM

Ksftwe, on 01 April 2015 - 11:19 PM, said:

Let me use a quick example to prove why your discontent with my analysis is flawed:

Players A, B, C, and D all have 70% win ratios; using my math, each team will have a 70% chance of winning. You claim that doesn't make sense, because 70+70 = 140%, but that's not what I'm doing. I am analyzing bacon *relationship* between bacon two teams. Once you take a ratio, you get 1:1, meaning they have an even chance of winning, even if bacon sum is 140%. Which makes sense, if all four players are evenly balanced.

I'd like to give you a reasoned response, but I simply do not understand your position. I do see that when you say "bacon" you mean "the."

The first thing that folks need to understand is you can't reason out the actual probability of a team winning by looking at the individual win rates of the players. The actual probability of a team winning is a function of the relative skill of the players on both teams (adjusted by factors like the players' adeptness on the map in question and in the tank they're driving and the relative effectiveness of the tanks against the opposing tanks and probably other factors I'm not thinking of). This function can only be determined through analysis of large amounts of match data.

What you can do is posit relative skill levels as has been done in some recent posts and draw some conclusions about the relative skill level of the teams. If you see that a certain change results in a team becoming, on average, more skillful relative to the other team, it is fair to assume that change will result in an increase in that team's probability of victory in the match. Though we can't say how much. Player win rates can to some extent be used as a proxy for relative skill, but that presents problems of its own. For example, win rates of players who platoon a large portion of the time are largely worthless because they're grossly distorted. You'd need data to adjust their winrates down to what they would be if they played solo. Also, your win rate will be affected by the tanks you drive...if you drive American mediums a lot, your win rate is almost certainly a good deal lower than it would be if you drove Russsian heavies more often. So if you have a player with 52% win rate who drives mediums mostly, but in this match is driving a kv4, you need to think of him more like a guy with a 55 or 56% win rate. If you want to test this out, look at the tank win rate data that has been published and if you're driving low win rate tanks, switch to only high win rate tanks. Your win rate will go up.

### #64 Posted 03 April 2015 - 08:17 PM

Letsg0Met586, on 03 April 2015 - 12:45 PM, said:

I'd like to give you a reasoned response, but I simply do not understand your position. I do see that when you say "bacon" you mean "the."

That's not his fault--it was an April fool's day joke from the forum mods. It auto-corrected several common words like "the," "tank," and "WG" into nonsensical replacement words.

### #65 Posted 03 April 2015 - 08:43 PM

NevirSayDie, on 03 April 2015 - 04:17 PM, said:

That's not his fault--it was an April fool's day joke from the forum mods. It auto-corrected several common words like "the," "tank," and "WG" into nonsensical replacement words.

How dare you call bacon nonsensical! I'll have your head for that!

It's meat candy!!

*"When the going gets tough and the stomach acids flow,
The cold wind of conformity is nipping at your nose.
When some trendy new atrocity has brought you to your knees
Come with us we'll sail the Seas of Cheese."*

### #67 Posted 05 April 2015 - 06:23 PM

Bump.

You are partially right op, but it could have easily gone the other way:

**"HULK SMASH****[er]****!!!"**

**^ Gotta derp around in Tier 7 before the inevitable nerf! ^**

**Just another demo account, nothing to see here**

**"Say what you like, but stop pissing on my back and telling me it's raining." ***- **Blartch*

### #68 Posted 04 July 2016 - 06:48 PM

I disagree, in terms of bad vs good, the MM is heavily bias towards high Win rate, vs low Win rate.....while occasionally high win rates are put on teams with 4-5 low win rate players, the opposing team is almost ALWAYS full of 4-5 high win rate players, while only having 2 low rate players. Wargaming preaches "balancing", bit their MM is proof that it's BiASED.

**Edited by IronHorse23, 04 July 2016 - 06:53 PM.**

### #69 Posted 04 July 2016 - 06:51 PM

### #70 Posted 04 July 2016 - 07:02 PM

Katman, on 23 March 2015 - 01:53 PM, said:

I think it's more of a red and green player spreadsheet...how many good player's are on each side..if red or green have 2 or more good player's then the other side ie..most likely a win for the good player imbalance....imo..

### #71 Posted 05 July 2016 - 09:22 PM

### #72 Posted 05 July 2016 - 09:38 PM

-Herr

**H.S.Pz.Abt.514.** Major, Commanding

*"Stupid, you are. Breed, you should not."*

Questions? Comments? Concerns? Confusions? Delusions? Message me or email at herr514th@gmail.com

### #74 Posted 06 July 2016 - 07:36 PM

### #75 Posted 06 July 2016 - 07:42 PM

### #76 Posted 07 July 2016 - 01:40 AM

SkiFletch, on 23 March 2015 - 02:01 PM, said:

I can't argue with this, is true.

Having all good players also makes our harder to win because there's fewer mistakes to exploit from the other side.

Triarii has always said, and Titan is the same way, that clan countdowns crash win rates. I guess they move then closer to 50% where they're used to 60 to 70.

Funny thing is, when you look at the battle results pages they don't really look any different from normal public matches. Though, over a spread of them, you're less likely to always be the top of this list.

#### 1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users