Hate Speech: Theory Fighter University: Remedial Math

[BrewtusBibulus]

I was randomly thinking about it and I came up with a great point related to Nirf referencing poker literature. In poker as in fighting games regardless of how mathematically sound your strategy is, without deception intelligent opponents will never do what you want them to do... Unless they have you beat and you are the one being trapped. You can read all the sklansky in the world, but application of math will only carry you past the lowest level of gameplay. If you want to excel in poker you need to adapt to the table at hand. If you try to use the same strategy every time you sit down in either format, you will lose. (Now before you question that last part in the realm of poker, just accept that you are playing @ 1/2NL or higher. Not micro stakes where you can number crunch all day and nobody notices.)

I could compare your calculations to determine the weight of your options to a program that can determine your "table image" from statistics. It will work until the opponent realizes your methods (provided they are smart enough), then it will be your downfall.

The variables are simply far too many and far too complicated in their interaction to try and solve for a solution. There is no single solution (regardless of how complex) and thinking that one exists is folly.

 

[WARUI_NE]

fuck math bullrush at negative frames

 

[Stryker]

If you give him nothing in that department, he basically becomes a great big coin flip (see: the difference in SC3 Asta vs. SC4 Asta).

Please I don't want to remember SC3 Asta... he deserves the name "Nightmare" a lot more than the Azure Knight... the only problem was that in SC3 all the characters except Talim, Mina and Rock were incredible powerful... and the mid tier characters were completely unpredictable (Omega's Zasalamel as example)...

Good Work Hates, as always.

PD: Don't write SC3's Asta ever... its a bad memory...

 

[MONEYMUFFINS]

If you want to use said equations to determine how you want your baseline strategy to look, that could be a very good application... or you could just favor safe options while gathering data on a new opponent. But if you get attached to the idea of favoring certain options because they are better on paper, it will bite you in the ass eventually.

This is a great point. You either go into the match with a set of assumptions because it's a proven method, or you focus on collecting data. I find whenever I play someone for the first time, the first choice can help give me an edge if the opponent falls for my setups. However, if they are ready for these moves, then not only am I losing the match, but then I need to rethink my strategy on the spot. Time is limited in a tournament, and this is dangerous. As for the second choice of downloading information first-hand, this can potentially lead to outguessing them consistently and keeping a competitive edge. However, failing to get any sort of meaningful intel leads to a loss, as well. You can only go one path or the other. And though a balance helps, everyone still has a base.

Personally, I don't really care if I beat people with my math and setups. Because then I don't really understand why I beat them. I'd rather get to know someone and feel like I won because I know how they think. But, the tournament format is too gimmicky for this, so I'll never feel like I have that satisfaction. Nonetheless, it's still a fun experiment getting to know people.

 

[Signia]

Should you assume that bullrush is more common and you "adapt" by choosing to counter it more, you are making strategic judgements based on math. The reason this is bad is because strategy is made of numbers, so if a player looked at your gameplay and realized that. They can just grab you all day and should come out ahead... Don't ask me to prove this with numbers, fuck that noise.

But if you play by a Nash equilibrium (the thing Nirf calculated), your opponent can't do any better than if they played by their Nash equilibrium. By definition, they can't do any better than that, only worse. So grabbing over and over wouldn't help. I'm pretty sure that's what that calculation is all about, finding a mix that minimizes their reward given ANY mix the opponent uses. Saying something like this makes me think you don't understand what Nirf did (though it's possible I'm the one who misunderstood -- correct me if I'm wrong!).

Otherwise, point taken. It's impossible to play by a mixed strategy anyway since we can't perfectly simulate randomness. And I already explained why you might not want to play at the equilibrium, since while they can't do any better, YOU can do better if you hard counter their mix.