Patrick Hoban

Duelist
  • Content count

    9744
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6392 Based God

About Patrick Hoban

  • Rank
    The Forbidden One
  • Birthday 10/23/92

Contact Methods

  • ICQ 0

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  • Location Athens, Georgia

Recent Profile Visitors

24685 profile views
  1. Yeah, I'm sure that's why we're disagreeing too. "Consistency and power doesn't tell me how something wins." My definition of power was the impact something successful had on the game. Having more power makes intuitive sense as being better than less power, because it means you'll have more impact on the game. Consistency is all about making that impact successful. It also makes intuitive sense that you would want something that had a big impact on the game to be successful, thus it's clearly good to increase consistency. And the book goes on to talk about how to maximize consistency and power in your decks. EX) Running fewer cards increases consistency. On that note, you said I make it seem like there is a tradeoff between power and consistency, which you don't think exists. Let's say I could play a 40 card Nekroz deck without Nekroz of Gungnir or a 41 card deck with Nekroz of Gungnir. You don't need to quantify how much to see that there is a definite tradeoff of power and consistency here. My power is increased, because I have more cards I can search. My overall number of options goes up (increase in power), at the tradeoff of a decrease in consistency from having one more card in my deck and seeing my best cards that much less. I am kind of under the impression you rejected my definitions, and then read the chapter using your own definitions expecting it to make sense.
  2. Matchup percentages, even when given a large enough sample to be fairly accurate, may say who wins, but they don't say why it wins. Power and consistency do and that's more useful for building the best deck in the room.
  3. It's not nonsense when I explicitly tell you what it means in the context of the book. We both want to win more, but saying "I just care that it wins" doesn't tell you how it wins. Consistency and power do.
  4. What you're saying might be true, but I defined power as "the impact of a successful play on winning the game." In his video it's pretty clear he missed the "successful" part that's in the definition.
  5. You're missing a big part of power and consistency. Power assumes the play works. Consistency deals with making it work. Let's look at Ritual Beasts as an example. If they resolve their combo, they're going to win. Simple as that. They're going to have an unbreakable field. They have a really high power level because when it works, they win, and power assumes that it's working. Consistency deals with how well it works. Something with a lot of consistency would have a lot of cards that could get to this combo. Ritual Beasts have relatively few cards, thus they may not draw the combo very often. Consistency also deals with how well it can perform through what the opponent has. Because every combo involves a normal summon, they lose a lot of consistency because if you stop the normal summon you stop the whole play. This makes then not very consistent, but very powerful because you win the game when it does work, it just doesn't work that often. The rate that I am talking about is how often you can make your play successfully, and power is how good it is assuming it's successful. I also think thinking in terms of matchups is a great way to be above average, but never define the game. If you've got three decks in a format, none of them will ever beat all three enough to dominate a format, or there would only be one deck in the format. To dominate a tournament you need a deck outside of the format that is both more powerful and more consistent. One that doesn't care about matchups, because it's straight up better.
  6. No, of course not. But I think there's a difference between acknowledging there's psychology involved and stating to a judge you intend to gain an advantage over something the policy document says should be random. I think this debate isn't resolvable. We're arguing about which makes the most logical sense, while Konami put "must be random" and rock, paper, scissors (something not random) as the right way to go about it when logically speaking they can't both be true.
  7. I'm not saying playing rock, paper, scissors is illegal, I'm saying I think doing it with the intention of making it less random is illegal because then it was your intention to do what the policy documents explicitly say not to do. Aren't penalties always a matter of intention? If a player draws an extra card and shuffles their hand, the difference between a game loss and a dq is intention. Unintentionally doing it would just be an irreparable game state, but intentionally doing it would be cheating. It's always the role of the judge to determine intention and that's exactly how they assign a penalty. If you went up to the judge after the round and said you were trying to get him to play rock, paper, scissors to gain an advantage, then I think it'd be completely reasonable for them to give you a penalty. It's not like I don't see what you're saying, but I'm sure you see what I'm saying too.
  8. In the policy documents it says, "At the beginning of the Match, Duelists should use a random method to decide who chooses to go first." http://www.yugioh-card.com/en/gameplay/penalty_guide/Yu-Gi-Oh! Tournament Policy v1.4 2013November14.pdf
  9. I would argue that your thought experiment to make them choose rock isn't just unethical, it's illegal. The rules specifically say that who decides who goes first must be random and in that scenario you're attempting to make it not random.
  10. It seemed like your main critique of the Circle section was that I just happened to find people that were good in my area, and that doesn't do anything if you live in an area where people aren't good. When I met Ben he was 12 years old. When I met Desmond he was playing Karakuri Wind Ups. Do you think I really just stumbled into good players, or do you think we created a culture from scratch that valued the things I described in the book?
  11. I'm a big Quickdraw fan.
  12. Does anyone know where I can get the final standings for the whole tournament (not just swiss)?
  13. I don't know anything about what you're talking about. I just copied the same post I made on Facebook to here.
  14. This is why Duelistgroundz has 11 members on at a time now. You guys can't appreciate anything.
  15. This game’s long and illustrious competitive history began in Madison Square Garden with the 2003 Yu-Gi-Oh! World Championship. Since that time hundreds of redoubtable champions have been crowned in the search for glory. Until now this game’s history has been segmented, fractured, and devoid of a cohesive and comprehensive documentation. Today all that changes. https://champtrade.com/games/yugioh/rank/champrank It is my esteemed pleasure to introduce to you ChampRank! It is the world’s first database that documents every event to date and uses a points algorithm to rank players based off of their tournament performance. Every player who has ever topped a single premier event is ranked. Yahir Amat, a brilliant computer programmer, developed the platform for his site ChampTrade. ChampTrade will function similar to eBay by allowing buyers and sellers to meet in a common marketplace, and it is designed exclusively for TCGs. ChampRank tracks every Shonen Jump Championships (SJC), Yu-Gi-Oh Championship Series (YCS), World Championship Qualifiers (WCQ), Pharaoh Tours (PT), Pharaoh Tour Finals (PTF), Fortune Tours (FT), Fortune Tour Finals (FTF), ARG Circuit Series (ARGCS), and World Championship (WC). The further you make it in top cut, the more points you receive, and different events are weighed differently to create a comprehensive ranking for every player. CCGs can be added if someone has the info to create a comprehensive list. This program is still in its developmental stages and as such, there are bound to be some errors. Since it is a computer program, there may be some errors in names from when the tournament was originally documented. For example, one tournament may document “Michael Smith” as making top cut, while another tournament may list “Mike Smith.” While they may be the same person, the computer program won’t be able to distinguish the difference and will record them as two separate people. This is an easy fix and any time it or any other error occurs just bring it to my attention and I’ll ask Yahir to fix it. I’d like to give a special thanks to Yahir for all his hard work on this program. He’s created something truly great! This release is a huge milestone for competitive play. It is a prestigious list filled with all the great names in our game’s history. It’s certainly an honor to be a part of such an esteemed list!