Who is the world's worst ASL player of all time?

[Sparafucil3]

If say Steve Pleva was a SIx Sigma man on the upside, about 1 in 58800 of the population, and he had played 100 games a year for 32 years with 100 DR per game then ..

His DR might be about 0.015 better than the average punter, I think this is no way sufficient to explain the game results seen as being due to being luckier, it being equivalent to getting
a +1 on the dice one in every sixty six rolls, say 4 times in every 3 games.

Depends on the DR's, doesn't it. I haven't suggested, nor would I, that luck explains it all. But I can't count the number of times I have hear "man, he rolled it when he needed it" in this game, Steve or otherwise. This game is about creating opportunities while denying your opponent opportunities. Every pip you can manufacture is a victory. The odds say, you'll win in the long run. But, as many have pointed out, the dice don't listen to the odds. Never have. Never will. And as such, someone HAS to be on the right edge and someone HAS to be on the left edge. Among equal players on a balanced scenario who play relatively flawless, luck will likely decide. The greater the disparity in skill, balance, and cleanliness of play, the greater the swing in luck has to be to sway the game for the downside guy and the less it has to swing for the upside guy. Luck is always a factor. It can be manufactured through skillful play. But rolling a 12 on WC after your opponent just advanced into the open with SMOKE cover isn't skillful, even if your opponents placement of SMOKE and moving out was. Taking advantage of that opportunity is skillful but never fool yourself. You didn't manufacture that, luck gave it to you. -- jim

 

[witchbottles]

I have frequently stopped firing after getting rate a couple times because I was worried that fickle fate was going to turn on me and I would malf. Of course by then I had broken all the targets in los.

There is the whole school of thought that if you end a scenario - especially as a defender, with every SW fully functional, you didn't shoot enough, especially if you only lost by that "lucky last move on the part of your opponent." Perhaps it wasn't luck, after all.

 

[dlazov]

I keep my dice nice and warm in my hand the whole game so that my dna which is in my sweaty palms speaks to the plastic and energizes the rolls, sometimes the stupid support weapons overheat and break down or the main gun goes kaput (should have cleaned the bore like Sgt. said) and sometimes my cardboard warriors turn into hero’s and sometimes they vaporize like blades of grass, it’s all in the dna and the rolls...

 

[Yuri0352]

I keep my dice nice and warm in my hand the whole game so that my dna which is in my sweaty palms speaks to the plastic and energizes the rolls, sometimes the stupid support weapons overheat and break down or the main gun goes kaput (should have cleaned the bore like Sgt. said) and sometimes my cardboard warriors turn into hero’s and sometimes they vaporize like blades of grass, it’s all in the dna and the rolls...

This makes more sense than anything else I've read here.

 

[von Marwitz]

If say Steve Pleva was a SIx Sigma man on the upside, about 1 in 58800 of the population, and he had played 100 games a year for 32 years with 100 DR per game then ..

... I think this is no way sufficient to explain the game results seen as being due to being luckier...

Hm, let me think about that...

It *might* just be those 100 games a year for 32 years that *could* conceivably have something to do with his game results.

von Marwitz

 

[von Marwitz]

The problems:
1. Technology to accurately track transit through time to specific range, needed at some point in the future while the donor is actually cancerous.
2. cryostasis long term storage of harvested cells for future time travel and donor use.
3. Bioethics of the entire process.

If they make a bit of a hassle, maybe they can fix that before Christmas.

von Marwitz

 

[von Marwitz]

I have frequently stopped firing after getting rate a couple times because I was worried that fickle fate was going to turn on me and I would malf. Of course by then I had broken all the targets in los.

If there is no target left alive for your ROF weapon, then it is a good time to show some restraint and to go easy on your weapon. It also shows your sportsmanship: It would be kind of inappropriate to shred some woods to go after the guys behind them which were previously out of LOS.

Go give your opponent a break (oops - no pun intended... ). Live and let live.

von Marwitz

 

[dlazov]

Sportsmanship has nothing to do with it, if you don’t kill em all they will come back to kill you, no quarter asked and none given, that broken 8-1 will battle harden to a heroic 9-1 and grab a LMG and that DMed 1/2 squad and CC you so kill em why you can says LT Greenwood, no mercy in cardboard land!

 

[witchbottles]

Sportsmanship has nothing to do with it, if you don’t kill em all they will come back to kill you, no quarter asked and none given, that broken 8-1 will battle harden to a heroic 9-1 and grab a LMG and that DMed 1/2 squad and CC you so kill em why you can says LT Greenwood, no mercy in cardboard land!

a lot of truth to the old adage " dead men don't rally".

 

[Aaron Cleavin]

Depends on the DR's, doesn't it. I haven't suggested, nor would I, that luck explains it all. But I can't count the number of times I have hear "man, he rolled it when he needed it" in this game, Steve or otherwise. This game is about creating opportunities while denying your opponent opportunities. Every pip you can manufacture is a victory. The odds say, you'll win in the long run. But, as many have pointed out, the dice don't listen to the odds. Never have. Never will. And as such, someone HAS to be on the right edge and someone HAS to be on the left edge. Among equal players on a balanced scenario who play relatively flawless, luck will likely decide. The greater the disparity in skill, balance, and cleanliness of play, the greater the swing in luck has to be to sway the game for the downside guy and the less it has to swing for the upside guy. Luck is always a factor. It can be manufactured through skillful play. But rolling a 12 on WC after your opponent just advanced into the open with SMOKE cover isn't skillful, even if your opponents placement of SMOKE and moving out was. Taking advantage of that opportunity is skillful but never fool yourself. You didn't manufacture that, luck gave it to you. -- jim

The way you say it though leans towards the has been on the left of the curve and will continue to be there rather than, just like anyone else, the next game has an equally likely chance of being anywhere on the curve in terms of dice as any game previous.

Does luck influence the game: yes, are certain players lucky: no, are certain players able to exploit or mitigate the vagaries of fate better than others: absolutely.

 

[Sparafucil3]

... are certain players lucky: no ...

Prove it. -- jim

 

[Aaron Cleavin]

Prove it. -- jim

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Since you are proposing something that is contrary to known laws of physics and statistics the burden of proof is on you I would think.

Proving a negative is hard one would need to show every player, or almost all, were not especially lucky.

Find one truly lucky payer with evidence and the skeptics would be most interested.

 

[Sparafucil3]

Since you are proposing something that is contrary to known laws of physics and statistics the burden of proof is on you I would think.

I was under the impression that standard distribution existed in Australia. If not, my fault. If so, in any random distribution, something or someone HAS to be right edge or left edge. There is no avoiding that. Physics need not apply. -- jim

 

[Aaron Cleavin]

I was under the impression that standard distribution existed in Australia. If not, my fault. If so, in any random distribution, something or someone HAS to be right edge or left edge. There is no avoiding that. Physics need not apply. -- jim

As I explained previously even someone who was at the Six Sigma point 1 in 588,000 would have only received a benefit of about a pip per game, nowhere near the level to
have the kind of game impact you seem to be implying. Even at this level of luckiness versus a population average the benefit is very small. The very fact that the outcomes
of summing 2d6 are normally distributed actually means that even the very luckiest person on an historic lifetime basis will have only received a very small benefit from same.

I submit you have no evidence at all that the "he gets the good dice in the clutch" is anything more than post-hoc attribution of someone who is able to very effectively
manage the mini-max risk optimizing process that is ASL.

You are making an extraordinary claim that some people are materially luckier (more than Six Sigma) in rolling dice without offering anything other than anecdotal evidence in support of same.

 

[Sparafucil3]

You are making an extraordinary claim that some people are materially luckier (more than Six Sigma) in rolling dice without offering anything other than anecdotal evidence in support of same.

Does the math rule it out or simply make it very unlikely? You're contending there is no way. We simply agree to disagree. Someone has to "lucky". That's what a normal distribution tells you. Now, the range between "lucky" and "unlucky" might be extraordinarily narrow (the mean/mode/median very close to one another with a standard deviation measured in millionths), but the math is pretty simple. Someone has to be. Even your six sigma says it can happen.

WRT to "my implying" anything, I refer you to my earlier post where I said: "Among equal players on a balanced scenario who play relatively flawless, luck will likely decide. The greater the disparity in skill, balance, and cleanliness of play, the greater the swing in luck has to be to sway the game for the downside guy and the less it has to swing for the upside guy. Luck is always a factor. It can be manufactured through skillful play." Any illusion you may have WRT me contending luck is the biggest factor is just that; illusion. I haven't said that once. That doesn't rule out that SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE, is the luckiest ASL player on the planet. Doesn't mean he has won anything, he's just lucky. -- jim

 

[von Marwitz]

"Among equal players on a balanced scenario who play relatively flawless, luck will likely decide. The greater the disparity in skill, balance, and cleanliness of play, the greater the swing in luck has to be to sway the game for the downside guy and the less it has to swing for the upside guy. Luck is always a factor. It can be manufactured through skillful play."

I agree that if all other factors are identical (scenario balance, player skill, etc.) then luck or rather the outcome of the dice will have more impact or can even become the decisive factor.

But as soon as you say that 'luck can be manufactured' by skillful play, I would object in saying that it is not 'luck' which is manufactured, but rather more favorable odds.

von Marwitz

 

[Steven Pleva]

WRT to "my implying" anything, I refer you to my earlier post where I said: "Among equal players on a balanced scenario who play relatively flawless, luck will likely decide. The greater the disparity in skill, balance, and cleanliness of play, the greater the swing in luck has to be to sway the game for the downside guy and the less it has to swing for the upside guy. Luck is always a factor. It can be manufactured through skillful play." Any illusion you may have WRT me contending luck is the biggest factor is just that; illusion. I haven't said that once. That doesn't rule out that SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE, is the luckiest ASL player on the planet. Doesn't mean he has won anything, he's just lucky. -- jim

Among equal players, I think better play will come into play more often than luck. We are not robots, we have good days and bad days. Everybody makes mistakes. One mistake at the wrong time can cost you the game against a strong opponent. Indeed, that is the mark of good play -- the ability to capitalize on mistakes and/or good fortune. Luck can swing almost any single game, but I think Aaron is fundamentally right here. In the long run it is impossible to have someone consistently on the "lucky" side without tainted dice...
Steve

 

[Sparafucil3]

Among equal players, I think better play will come into play more often than luck. We are not robots, we have good days and bad days. Everybody makes mistakes. One mistake at the wrong time can cost you the game against a strong opponent. Indeed, that is the mark of good play -- the ability to capitalize on mistakes and/or good fortune. Luck can swing almost any single game, but I think Aaron is fundamentally right here. In the long run it is impossible to have someone consistently on the "lucky" side without tainted dice...
Steve

The nature of a distribution is someone, somewhere, has to be on that side. That's simple math. That doesn't mean it plays significantly in winning or losing in the long run. In a sample size of 1, luck can play a significant role. The rest, I agree with. -- jim

 

[Sparafucil3]

But as soon as you say that 'luck can be manufactured' by skillful play, I would object in saying that it is not 'luck' which is manufactured, but rather more favorable odds.

When you tilt the odds, are you not "creating luck"? When you stick around longer than you rightfully should, allowing yourself more chances to roll the dice, aren't you manufacturing more chances to get get lucky (thus "creating luck")? IMO opinion, you are. I played a game just last week with Rob Loper via VASL. I killed one tank on a BFF shot, maintaining rate. I had two MP's left. Spun the turret with one, shot a hull down, motion target on a +6 shot. Needed a 1,1 or 1,2 and got the 1,2. Skill and imagination created the chance. The dice rewarded. IMO, I manufactured that roll, even though I didn't "rightfully deserve" the outcome. I told Rob just that when we were playing the game. -- jim

 

[von Marwitz]

When you tilt the odds, are you not "creating luck"? When you stick around longer than you rightfully should, allowing yourself more chances to roll the dice, aren't you manufacturing more chances to get get lucky (thus "creating luck")? IMO opinion, you are. I played a game just last week with Rob Loper via VASL. I killed one tank on a BFF shot, maintaining rate. I had two MP's left. Spun the turret with one, shot a hull down, motion target on a +6 shot. Needed a 1,1 or 1,2 and got the 1,2. Skill and imagination created the chance. The dice rewarded. IMO, I manufactured that roll, even though I didn't "rightfully deserve" the outcome. I told Rob just that when we were playing the game. -- jim

It boils down to the definition of 'luck'.


luck/lʌk/
noun

1. success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions.

======================

luck noun [ U ]
uk /lʌk/ us /lʌk/
A2 the force that causes things, especially good things, to happen to you by chance and not as a result of your own efforts or abilities:

=======================

luck
noun
mass noun

• 1 Success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions.

=======================

Tilting the odds is my own action. I can tilt odds, but I cannot tilt chance/luck. At least, by the definitions of luck that I follow.

Without doubt, other definitions of luck could be brought forward, that would enable you to subsume your viewpoint under.

von Marwitz