Hate Speech: Theory Fighter University: Remedial Math

Synraii said:
So seeing as we're talking math now - I was talking to Belial a few months ago, discussing advantage post 2KB JUKE vs. Siegfried, Belial was adamant that the subsequent mixup is in Sieg's favour (3(B)_GI) assuming Mitsu continues to press offense. This doesn't quite stack up right in my head, can somebody clear this up for me?
Click to expand...

I dont quite remember, b/c those talks happen ALL THE TIME, but its either of those or both:
1) We were talking, wheather it is a good idea or not to JU after 2KB. Which is imo pretty obvious that you want to JU regardless of the char.
2) "Belial, my friend keeps doing 2KB, even if I JU he likes to spam move A and move B, what the hell do I do?"

To which my answer is something like this:
After you JU you have a lot of options - GI, step, atack, evade etc.
If you dont JU you get more damage and you can't do anything otg but take damage.

Problem for most people is that they cannot handle post JU situation, all they do is block high or low and get caught in a loop of pain, and then create "I-hate-mitsu" threads.
Where in fact, a thought out 2-3 defencive options can really hurt your opp. post JU game. (Which I believe is what "Siegfried example" was about)

Some general theory to end this with:
If you only use 1 option, your opp will adjust, and you soon will stop using it, and again believe mitsu is broken and its better not to JU.

So this all must be used in complex. option A must provoke a reaction, option B shoud adress that reaction. etc.
 
Actually let me break down the nash equilibrium and why it fails in this context. The Nash equilibrium is using logical math to determine trends. Smart money would play it safe, so it picks up on that and using that as an assumption scales things to be more on the safe side. This includes the knowledge of your opponent's trends as well, so it adapts both sides to the safer gameplay. Thus creating a balance from it's own logic.

This will be perfect if you already undestand your opponent's logic, but what happens when you face someone who ignores logic? They will grab you 75% of the time, and you will have to adapt to their illogical play just as the equilibrium adapted to the safe play.

My question is this, what real worth does that level of math have if you throw it out the window vs people who aren't on the same page as you? IMO you better start using more of your brain and less of your calculator or you will not be able to keep up with the adaptation in high level gameplay.
 
I normally read hates over the weekend at work. But I ended up reading this one early BC a friend of mine said it was in direct conflictwith my online tatic myth video. Its a good read I just don't see the conflict my friend was speaking on. Great read as always spot on as usual
 
BrewtusBibulus said:
Actually let me break down the nash equilibrium and why it fails in this context. The Nash equilibrium is using logical math to determine trends. Smart money would play it safe, so it picks up on that and using that as an assumption scales things to be more on the safe side. This includes the knowledge of your opponent's trends as well, so it adapts both sides to the safer gameplay. Thus creating a balance from it's own logic.

This will be perfect if you already undestand your opponent's logic, but what happens when you face someone who ignores logic? They will grab you 75% of the time, and you will have to adapt to their illogical play just as the equilibrium adapted to the safe play.

My question is this, what real worth does that level of math have if you throw it out the window vs people who aren't on the same page as you? IMO you better start using more of your brain and less of your calculator or you will not be able to keep up with the adaptation in high level gameplay.
Click to expand...
SWAG!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top