Resource Doubles Overview, Rules, and Q&A - Ask Questions Here! (Resource Index Inside)

Status
Not open for further replies.

DaWoblefet

Demonstrably so
is a Battle Simulator Administratoris a Community Leaderis a Programmeris a Community Contributoris a Top Researcheris a Top Tiering Contributoris a Social Media Contributor Alumnus
PS Admin
Totally wrong. That's not how math works at all.
What am I missing? Surely the odds of 1 haxy game occurring in 5 games is going to be higher than the odds of 1 haxy game occurring in 3 games. If any particular game has roughly the same probability to be a haxy game, then it's like rolling a die for a particular number. If you don't want to roll a 4 on a six-sided die, rolling the die more often is going to give you more chances of hitting the 4. Another way to put it: if you use Rock Slide 4 times, you are more likely to flinch something than if you only clicked it only 1 time.

If you have four fair games and 1 haxy game, surely you could still complain the set was lost due to hax. Or is the argument that we're trying to prevent two haxy games?
 
Last edited:
What am I missing? Surely the odds of 1 haxy game occurring in 5 games is going to be higher than the odds of 1 haxy game occurring in 3 games. If any particular game has roughly the same probability to be a haxy game, then it's like rolling a die for a particular number. If you don't want to roll a 4 on a six-sided die, rolling the die more often is going to give you more chances of hitting the 4. Another way to put it: if you use Rock Slide 4 times, you are more likely to flinch something than if you only clicked it only 1 time.

If you have four fair games and 1 haxy game, surely you could still complain the set was lost due to hax. Or is the argument that we're trying to prevent two haxy games?
Let's say that Player A is better than Player B, and if they played an infinite number of games would win 60% of the time.

In a best of 1, the probability that Player A loses is
P(0) = 40%.

In a best of 3, the probability that Player A loses is
P(0) + P(1)
= (0.4^3) + (0.4^2 * 0.6 * 3)
= 0.064 + 0.288
= 35.2%

In a best of 5, the probability that Player A loses is
P(0) + P(1) + P(2)
= (0.4^5) + (0.4^4 * 0.6 * 5) + (0.4^3 * 0.6^2 * 10)
= 0.01024 + 0.0768 0.2304
= 31.7%

And the deltas get larger the greater the starting probability you choose. 60% is conservative.
 

DaWoblefet

Demonstrably so
is a Battle Simulator Administratoris a Community Leaderis a Programmeris a Community Contributoris a Top Researcheris a Top Tiering Contributoris a Social Media Contributor Alumnus
PS Admin
Let's say that Player A is better than Player B, and if they played an infinite number of games would win 60% of the time.

In a best of 1, the probability that Player A loses is
P(0) = 40%.

In a best of 3, the probability that Player A loses is
P(0) + P(1)
= (0.4^3) + (0.4^2 * 0.6 * 3)
= 0.064 + 0.288
= 35.2%

In a best of 5, the probability that Player A loses is
P(0) + P(1) + P(2)
= (0.4^5) + (0.4^4 * 0.6 * 5) + (0.4^3 * 0.6^2 * 10)
= 0.01024 + 0.0768 0.2304
= 31.7%

And the deltas get larger the greater the starting probability you choose. 60% is conservative.
I think there's an assumption behind Player A winning 60% of the time - that is, that Player A never wins via hax. Consider a distribution such as:
Player A 50% to win (normal)
Player A 10% to win (hax)
Player B 30% to win (normal)
Player B 10% to win (hax)

It's totally fine for Player B to win here normally. We're only concerned about the distribution of haxy games. Presumably the odds of a haxy game are equal for both players. So what best-of-five does is weaken the odds of Player B winning legitimately. Surely making a set "more competitive" reduces the odds of hax occurring at all - not just for Player B. Player A getting a haxy win is still not ideal, presumably. My argument is that best-of-five increases the number of haxy games - regardless of the winner. Otherwise we're saying that the player statistically likely to win (non-hax) should always be the one to win - that doesn't seem right. Upsets based on play seem perfectly fine.

You might say then "well why not just do best-of-1". And I think it's because of the relative impact. There are advantages, for example, in recognizing player tendencies and decreasing the odds of matchup luck that best-of-1 can't provide, but best-of-3 can. The relative impact of adding more games to the set is not as substantial as best-of-1 to best-of-3 is. The math you provided shows that! Otherwise, if we truly wanted to be competitive, we could just do best-of-69 because that theoretically would increase the odds of Player A winning more. I get that's a slippery slope, but it has the assumption that best-of-5 has some other advantage over best-of-69, and I'd guess it'd be something like the other 3 points I made that you already acknowledged. But then you might as well just do best-of-three.
 
Last edited:
Anyone have an AV urshi spread that goes with Surging/CC/U-turn/Ice punch?
I think the main AV Urshifu set I’ve seen is just Max hp/max SpD Adamant, in the spirit of just being able to sit on the field for many turns and still able to fire off powerful attacks. Notably this is a 3hko from Lando’s EP that usually outspeeds and ohkos offensive Urshifu sets, allowing you to live it and ko it back:

252 SpA Life Orb Sheer Force Landorus Earth Power vs. 252 HP / 252 SpD Assault Vest Urshifu-Rapid-Strike: 165-195 (40.8 - 48.2%) -- guaranteed 3HKO

If you want a set that’s a bit more optimized

Urshifu-Rapid-Strike @ Assault Vest
Level: 100
Adamant Nature
Ability: Unseen Fist
EVs: 216 HP / 96 Atk / 196 Spe
- Surging Strikes
- Close Combat
- Ice Punch
- U-turn

This set is EV’d to ohko standard heavy-duty boots incineroar with surging strikes, while still out speeding Heatran (and thus outspeeding scarfers and weather sweepers while Urshifu is in tailwind). The HP is a dump, but does hit notable benchmarks like living an AV Adamant Rillaboom’s grassy glide:

252+ Atk Rillaboom Grassy Glide vs. 216 HP / 0 Def Urshifu-Rapid-Strike in Grassy Terrain: 320-378 (81 - 95.6%) -- guaranteed 2HKO after Grassy Terrain recovery

96+ Atk Urshifu-Rapid-Strike Surging Strikes (3 hits) vs. 252 HP / 28 Def Incineroar on a critical hit: 396-468 (100.5 - 118.7%) -- guaranteed OHKO
 
Last edited:

Crunchman

Banned deucer.
Anyone have an AV urshi spread that goes with Surging/CC/U-turn/Ice punch?
I'd like to share an AV Ursh squad I built with Yellow Paint and used in Doubles Majors this week: :spectrier: :urshifu: :rillaboom: :incineroar: :regieleki: :kyurem-black:
DADADADADADADADADA (Urshifu-Rapid-Strike) @ Assault Vest
Ability: Unseen Fist
EVs: 252 HP / 96 Atk / 28 SpD / 132 Spe
Adamant Nature
- Surging Strikes
- Ice Punch
- U-turn
- Close Combat

You'll notice the Atk investment is the same as Actuarily's spread, to OHKO Incineroar with Surging Strikes. The Speed stat is a little bit lower - since the only speed control on this team is Icy Wind and Electroweb, Urshifu is ev'ed with those benchmarks in mind, outspeeding Tapu Koko and more importantly Spectrier at -1 Speed. This does allow Urshifu to invest that much more in bulk. The exact Urshifu spread here is probably less applicable than Actuarily's optimized spread, but I enjoyed building and playing this team and hopefully this gives you some more ideas as to how you want to ev your Urshifu.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top