Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 07/04/16 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    Durants a sell out nba is rigged
  2. 1 point
    None of this helps whatsoever, you need to know the exact population size, and how many targets for the draw spells each deck has access to before you even attempt this. What you're essentially looking for is: 1 (a) P(Opening 3/XX in 5/6) which are your chances to draw Pot of Cupidity in an opening hand OR: 1 (b) (i) P(NOT opening 3/XX in 5/6) because the draw spells only become relevant when you haven't drawn Cupidity (ii) AND P(opening 3/XX in 5 with fodder [ie XX/XX]) You are required to do this for each draw spell (iii) AND P(having 3/XX as the 6/7/8th card) I.E drawing 2 cards from the deck So, you'd be looking for P= (a) + [b(i)*b(ii)*b(iii)] but each individual draw spell is required to be a seperate calculation added onto (a), eg P= (a) + [b(i)*b(ii)*b(iii)] + [c(i)*c(ii)*c(iii)] The main problem I think you were having is assuming that your draw spells would be live, without realising that you can just multiply how often you will draw the spell by how often you will draw a target. Calculating it like that is essentially turning each draw spell into Pot of Greed. [Chance you draw Trade-In]*[Chance you draw Blue-Eyes], which is fig. 1(b)(ii) However, if you want even more accuracy, you're required to not only account for the chances that 1 Draw Spell (e.g BEWD + Trade-In) makes CoC live for an additional chance to draw Cupidity, but also more complex interactions like White Stone + CoC instantly making Trade-In live, or Ancient White Stone making further Trade-Ins live after resolving the first. I'm not really that competent at Statistics but I should be able to calculate this if given the required information, you might be better off asking @Bilaterus or @The Antagonist for more in-depth stuff. I'm sure Allen will come to your rescue sooner or later though.
  3. 1 point
  4. 1 point
    You probably should say this to them tbh
  5. 1 point
    did i enjoy it? the answer is no. BUT. i /could/ have enjoyed it IF i didnt feel violated.
  6. 1 point
  7. 1 point
    Currently in South Texas for 2 weddings, expecting some degree of Hispanic ratchetness to go down, looking forward to it
  8. 1 point
    last month my lgbt feminist friend dragged me along to go to the gay pride parade thing and a guy grabbed my butt and squeezed it.
  9. 1 point
  10. 1 point
    Your card explanation didnt really go deeper than spelling out what the card does, which is as you repeatedly stated common knowledge for everyone who can read card texts and doesnt further your arguments on WHY you chose to play them, WHY they are good, WHAT problems you came across this format and HOW you tried to solve them. You didn't explain what (Deck) Master Pendulum does for the deck and how special summoning Lv 8s without losing Pendulum Monsters is important. You didnt explain that playing the Spider Combo gives you a game winning play by using a card that was formely only used for defense and ressource management (Dinoster). You didnt explain why you want to play 3 Terraforming, the problem that comes up with opening double Field Spell when you are only playing Iris, the necessity to play a 2nd Field Spell that comes from it and why Oracle of Zefra is used over generic Field Spells like Necrovalley or Secret Village of the Spellcaster, which are used in many other decklists. The list goes on.
  11. 1 point
    http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/opinions/make-the-uk-the-51st-state/ Come on UK, join the dark side.
  12. 1 point
    there's a difference between unelected beaurocrats in your own country making laws?
  13. 1 point
    Game 1, I brick and play set pass for 3 turns before dying.
  14. 1 point
    this is roughly what PoC have tried to educate both white america and white britain about all along: this shit's always under the surface unless you try to actively hunt down and eliminate this sort of thinking.
  15. 1 point
  16. 1 point
    So why did you post the thread?
  17. 1 point
    There has been a massive upsurge of xenophobia since this result too; I've witnessed four separate incidences of it just this weekend. it's probably always existed, but the fact people are using this result as an excuse to show their aged and wrong beliefs is sickening.
  18. 1 point
    im a filthy cheater
  19. 1 point
    That's one way you could look at it. On the other hand, we will now have tons of resources to do things that were not at all possible before. I don't want to make any promises, but our chances of having more cash tournaments (both online and live) have increased significantly. There may soon come a day where you can earn TGA store credit for referring members to the site. We may be able to hire full-time programmers for the back-end of the site rather than leaving the entire thing to rei. Things like videos, podcasts, articles, whatever, we may now be able to pay our members to do those things. I think any rational person would agree that this model is way better than the old model of run adsense + ask for donations to break even on site costs every month.
  20. 1 point
    goodbye duelistgroundz hello corporategroundz
  21. 1 point
    tbf i was playing a junk deck too but that was just unexpected
  22. 1 point
  23. 1 point
    i'll be in charge of leading the pojo mass migration xD
  24. 1 point
  25. 1 point
    Go for it, though it'd probably be better to get to more succinct points than dropping a massive document. If your convictions are well founded you'd be able to just share them and hold them up to scrutiny. unrelated. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flBpsyFbEOs
  26. 1 point
    At least you're free of Schrodinger's immigrants now; living off your welfare system while simultaneously stealing your jobs. :^)
  27. 1 point
  28. 1 point
  29. 1 point
    Well let me tell you, if you're looking for some people to tell you that your decks are trash, you've definitely come to the right place. If you're interested in being told that your mafia game is trash, we've got a forum for that too. If you're interested in being told that your music tastes are trash, we've got a forum for that too. If you're interested in being told that your anime tastes are trash, we've got a forum for that too. If you're interested in being told that your sports team is trash, we've got a forum for that too. If you're interested in being told that your pokemon team is trash, we've got a forum for that too. If you're interested in being told that your political views are trash, we've got a forum for that too.
  30. 1 point
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bw7SUeVuf8uhbG1qZEI5dXFrdmM/view?pref=2&pli=1 Here's the decklists since I haven't seen them posted anywhere yet.
  31. 1 point
  32. 1 point
    I don't know why you would only keep 1 Twin in vs the mirror, it isn't searchable, so you're just hoping to draw a 1-of exactly when you need it, which is never good logic. Twin seems fairly important as a generic versatile card, it hits Return/Escalation/Domain, can EP hit Stormforth so they can't Aether you on your turn (kinda niche but still a use) - it can hit sided Restricts (you can't always just make a R5 right away) and can hit Refpanel/Cursed Seals that can swing the game on way. Its not the greatest card ever, and I wouldn't side out engine pieces for it, but I think its a necessity at 2-3 post-side in the mirror, since you can just straight-up lose to something like Restrict/Seal/Panel. Oh, it also hits their Primes when you get into the mega grind game.
  33. 1 point
    Brilliant Fusion dump Lazuli, Edea Opponent: Oh man he has Jacks Knight in hand, his life must suck, this will probably be an easy win. In reality 902: God damn useless friends these days, can't even get me a Garnet to use.
  34. 1 point
    ngl, I regret posting that deck list to put you all through that, theres not even any valuable card choices in it
  35. 1 point
  36. 1 point
    Like flies on shit I can tell who will be useless before I even post something. I'll explain this for the upteenth time.   I don't care how rational or irrational any player is when I make these polls, and I don't ask anything that has to do with them as individuals. The reasoning that x people do something is just completely irrelevant to me, it's what they do that matters. If 80% of people pick first with a deck and 20% of people pick second in your estimation, you click "1st." If you don't have a good approximation because you don't go to many tournaments or what have you, you pick "I don't know." If you think about half of the population of a deck pick first, the other half picking second, you click "about 50/50" You're not assuming anything of anyone other than what you think most people will pick, and obviously people that go to tournaments will have a more informed opinion than people that don't. Just as I ask what % of the field plays a deck, I ask what % of players you think using that deck will pick 1st or 2nd, if you can see the justification behind one and not the other there has to be some cognitive dissonance at play here.   Knowing what most people are picking is more useful analytically than knowing what one person will pick. Since I don't know how many different languages I have to repeat this in before some of you guys get it, I'll do you the courtesy of, via Google Translate, doing as many as I'm not lazy enough to do:   No me importa cómo racional o irracional cualquier jugador es cuando hago estas encuestas, y no pido cualquier cosa que tenga que ver con ellos como individuos. El razonamiento de que X gente hace algo es completamente irrelevante para mí, es lo que hacen lo que importa. Si el 80% de las personas a elegir en primer lugar con una cubierta y un 20% de las personas en su selección de segunda estimación, hace clic en "1er." Si usted no tiene una buena aproximación, ya que no van a muchos torneos o lo que sea, te va a recoger "No sé." Si se piensa en la mitad de la población de una baraja recoger en primer lugar, la otra mitad la cosecha en segundo lugar, hacer clic en "50/50" Usted no está asumiendo nada de nadie que no sea lo que piensa la mayoría de la gente va a recoger, y, obviamente, las personas que ir a torneos tendrá una opinión más informada que las personas que no lo hacen. Del mismo modo que le pido lo que% del campo juega un mazo, pregunto qué% de los jugadores que piensa utilizar esa cubierta recogerá 1ª o 2ª, si se puede ver la justificación detrás de uno y no el otro tiene que haber alguna disonancia cognitiva en juega aquí.   لا يهمني كيف عقلانية أو غير عقلانية أي لاعب هو عندما أقوم بإجراء هذه الانتخابات، وأنا لا أطلب أي شيء له علاقة معهم كأفراد. من منطلق أن س الناس شيئا فقط لا صلة لها بالموضوع تماما بالنسبة لي، انها ما يفعلونه أن الأمور. إذا 80٪ من الناس اختيار أولا مع سطح السفينة و 20٪ من الناس اختيار الثاني في تقديرك، النقر فوق "1". إذا لم يكن لديك تقريب جيد لأنك لا تذهب إلى العديد من البطولات أو ما كنت، يمكنك اختيار "لا أعرف". إذا كنت تعتقد أن ما يقرب من نصف سكان سطح السفينة اختيار أولا، والنصف الآخر قطف الثانية، النقر فوق "حول 50/50" أنت لا تحمل أي شيء من أي شخص آخر غير ما كنت أعتقد أن معظم الناس سوف تختار، ومن الواضح أن الناس الذهاب إلى البطولات سيكون لها رأي أكثر استنارة من الناس التي لا. كما أطلب ما٪ من الحقل يلعب على سطح السفينة، وأنا أسأل ما٪ من لاعبي كنت تعتقد استخدام هذا سطح السفينة سوف يختار 1 أو 2، إذا كنت تستطيع رؤية المبرر وراء واحد وليس من جهة أخرى يجب أن يكون هناك بعض التنافر المعرفي في لعب هنا.   Je ne me soucie pas comment rationnel ou irrationnel tout joueur est quand je fais ces sondages, et je ne demande pas tout ce qui a à voir avec eux en tant qu'individus. Le raisonnement que x gens font quelque chose est juste complètement hors de propos pour moi, il est ce qu'ils font que les questions. Si 80% des personnes choisir d'abord avec un pont et 20% des personnes ramasser deuxième dans votre estimation, vous cliquez sur "1er." Si vous ne disposez pas d'une bonne approximation parce que tu ne vas pas à de nombreux tournois ou ce que vous avez, vous chercher "Je ne sais pas." Si vous pensez à la moitié de la population d'un pont choisir en premier, l'autre moitié la cueillette deuxième, vous cliquez sur "50/50" Vous n'êtes pas assumer quoi que ce soit d'une personne autre que ce que vous pensez la plupart des gens vont prendre, et évidemment des gens qui aller à des tournois auront une opinion plus éclairée que les personnes qui ne sont pas. Tout comme je demande à ce que% du champ joue un jeu, je demande ce que% des joueurs que vous pensez utiliser cette plate-forme va prendre 1ère ou 2ème, si vous pouvez voir la justification derrière l'un et pas l'autre, il doit y avoir une certaine dissonance cognitive au jouer ici.   Ich interessiere mich nicht, wie rational oder irrational jeder Spieler ist, wenn ich diese Umfragen zu machen, und ich frage nicht alles, was mit ihnen als Individuen zu tun hat. Die Argumentation, dass x Menschen etwas tun, ist einfach völlig irrelevant für mich ist es, was sie, daß die Dinge tun. Wenn 80% der Menschen zuerst mit einem Deck und 20% der Menschen abholen zweite in Ihrer Einschätzung klicken Sie "1.". Wenn Sie nicht über eine gute Annäherung, weil Sie nicht zu viele Turniere gehen Sie oder was Sie haben, wählen Sie "Ich weiß es nicht." Wenn Sie sich über die Hälfte der Bevölkerung von einem Deck denken zuerst holen, die andere Hälfte Kommissionierung zweite, klicken Sie "50/50" Du bist nichts von niemandem angenommen andere als das, was denken Sie, die meisten Leute holen, und natürlich Menschen, die gehen zu den Turnieren wird eine fundierte Meinung über die Menschen, die dies nicht tun. So wie ich fragen, was% des Feldes ein Deck spielt, frage ich mich, was% der Spieler denken Sie, dass Deck verwendet, wird der 1. oder 2. wählen, ob Sie die Rechtfertigung hinter man sehen kann und nicht der andere hat es eine kognitive Dissonanz zu sein an hier spielen.   我不在乎任何一名球员如何理性或非理性的是,当我做这些民意调查,我不问任何与他们做个人。使得x的人做一些事情就是完全不相干的给我的理由,那就是他们做什么的问题。如果80%的人先挑了甲板和20%的人在你的估计接第二个,你点击“1”。如果你没有一个很好的近似,因为你没有去很多的比赛或你有什么,你挑:“我不知道。”如果你想约半甲板的人口挑第一,另一半挑选第二,你点击“关于50/50”你不是假设比你想大多数人会挑,显然人以外的任何人的任何东西,去比赛会比不这样做的人更明智的意见。正如我问什么%的领域发挥着甲板上,我问什么%的玩家,你想使用该平台将选择第一或第二,如果你能看到的理由背后的一个而不是其他的,必须有一些认知失调在这里打球。   私は、これらの世論調査を行う際に、任意のプレイヤーがどのように合理的か不合理な気にしない、と私は個人として彼らと関係している何かを尋ねることはありません。人々が何かをするxは推論は私にちょうど完全に無関係である、それは彼らが問題があることを行うものです。人々の80%がデッキで最初に選んで、人々の20%があなたの推定で二選ぶ場合は、「第一」をクリックします。あなたは多くのトーナメントまたは何を持っているに行っていないので、あなたが良い近似をお持ちでない場合は、「私は知らない。「ピックあなたがデッキの人口の約半分が、第一、第二ピッキング残りの半分を選ぶと思われる場合は、「約50/50 "あなたはあなたが人々明らかにほとんどの人が選ぶだろうと思い、そして何よりも、他の誰のものを想定していないクリックすると、そのない人よりも、より多くの情報意見を持つことになりますトーナメントに進みます。私は、フィールドの何%がデッキを果たして尋ねるのと同じように、私はあなたが1の後ろに正当性を確認し、他のではないでいくつかの認知的不協和が存在しなければならないことができれば、第一または第二の選択されます、そのデッキを使用してと思う選手の何%尋ねますここでプレー。   Non mi importa come razionale o irrazionale qualsiasi giocatore è quando faccio questi sondaggi, e non chiedo tutto ciò che ha a che fare con loro come individui. Il ragionamento che x le persone fanno qualcosa è proprio del tutto irrilevante per me, è quello che fanno che conta. Se l'80% delle persone prima scelta con un mazzo e il 20% delle persone scegliere secondo nella vostra stima, si fa clic su "1st". Se non si dispone di una buona approssimazione, perché non si va a molti tornei o quello che hai, a prendervi "Non lo so." Se si pensa che circa la metà della popolazione di un mazzo prima scelta, l'altra metà la raccolta secondo, si fa clic su "circa 50/50" Non stai assumendo nulla di chiunque altro che cosa ne pensate maggior parte delle persone raccogliere, e ovviamente le persone che andare a tornei avranno un parere più informato rispetto alle persone che non lo fanno. Così come mi chiedo che cosa% del campo gioca un ponte, chiedo che cosa% dei giocatori si pensa usando quel ponte prenderà 1 ° o 2 °, se si può vedere la giustificazione dietro uno e non l'altro ci deve essere qualche dissonanza cognitiva a giocare qui.  
  37. 1 point
    The legend has returned.   Tell Konami about your recent strides in the study of alligator psychology and they'll unban you right away.
  38. 1 point
  39. 1 point
    http://articles.alterealitygames.com/rescue-rabbit-and-the-art-of-the-grind-game/   I remember reading this a few years ago. Articles like this exposed me to what strong technical play was and at the time, I didn't really think about the deckbuilding vs technical play argument (I don't even think it really was an argument in 2015). Focusing on grinding Rabbit mirrors (I even did the thing where both players took out the Rescue Rabbits) taught me a lot about resource trading, playing around traps and making reads, learning to use my trap cards in the correct order, and learning when to use power cards and making weaker cards seem stronger than they actually were. Focusing on technical play in 2012 landed me with a lot of x-2s at regionals, x-3 at YCS Indy 2012,,, and there was a regional top here and there. I was playing consistently but nothing was putting me over the top in most of those tournaments. I actually felt like individual techs, such as main decking Safe Zone in Rabbit, when no one else did, were large contributing factors that led to my regional tops in that format.   Those are some of my personal experiences playing my favorite deck ever, especially when people didn't realize that it was as complicated as it was in most cases, but even after those experiences, I think that now, deckbuilding is more important. Jeff has said that he has won every tournament that he ever has by doing something that other players either were not expecting or doing things that other players were not ready for. Patrick has said similar things. He does something different for every tournaments, takes risks to give him that extra edge, etc. I think that while all of this is true, technical play is important, and I don't think that strong deckbuilding is worth it without good technical play.   When Jeff Jones came to visit me and some of my friends about a year and a half ago, I got the privilege of playing him in a lot of Burning Abyss mirrors at our local shop. I was blown away by his technical skill. I don't think that at the time, his Burning Abyss was particularly different from my own, but I could not slip anything past the guy. He knew all of the right moves to make and clearly had a lot more experience than I did. As a result, he blew me out of the water in nearly every game we played. I don't think he won our games just because he was Jeff Jones but rather because Jeff has insanely strong technical play to go along with all of the things that he exploits to win the tournaments that he does.   Another example would be at YCS Chicago this past year in Nekroz format. A lot of people could tell you after the tournament was over that Pat and his group were using Solemn Scolding in their Nekroz decks to give them a legitimate advantage. What a lot of people would not be able to tell you about that tournament was that I also had Solemn Scoldings in my Nekroz deck for that event. If Pat had the deck to beat at that tournament, I also did as well, because it seems like I identified a lot of the same reasons and regards that I could exploit that tournament as well. This isn't meant to boast or say that I am in the same league as Pat by any stretch, but at the end of this tournament, Pat had topped, and I had not, despite very obviously having one of the best decks in the room, and I can again attribute this to technical play. I believe that it was Pat having strong technical play to back up him having the broken deck that he did that led him to doing so well at that YCS while I could tell that I hadn't put as much time into it as he had. I found myself misplaying in the tournament, and while I could recognize things that I should have been doing better after the games were over, not having as strong of technical play as I should have at that event led to me not topping, despite having one of the best decks in the room.   The point that I am getting with this is that I think that you can't do well without both having strong decks and strong technical play. For me, having strong technical play but not having a good enough deck will lead to a lot of "almost there" finishes while having the best deck in the room isn't enough either if you aren't strong enough to play the deck at a high enough level. To that end, I will argue that technical play is super important and that you always need strong technical play to back up the even more important skill that is deckbuilding.
  40. -1 points
    Well, some constructive criticism would be nice. Also, explain why it is awful so I can tell them dudes on Pojo
  41. -2 points
    If you use soul exchange then you use fire lake can you tribute other monsters that aren't burning abyss even if the card specifically says 2 burning abyss