Island Hermit...Why aren't you playing it?

[Tagrineth]

Take a deck.

Face it off against a deck against which the matchup isn't impossible, but tends to be rough.

Use a decklist which does not include Island Hermit, but DOES include a "generic draw" not included in the Holon Engine (Mary's Request, TV Reporter, ****, even Fieldworker/Cozmo/Bill's if that's your bag).

Play a series of matches (something like 10) and record the win/loss ratio, maybe taking notes on reasons for the wins/losses. Big contributors. Things like "did not draw into X when it was needed" (extra points for taking note of how many cards short you were, if possible), "X was prized", "Opponent flipped Heads way too darn many times", et al.

Now, replace the generic non-Holon draw with two Island Hermits.

Do the exact same matchup - don't make any changes to the opponent's deck - the same number of matches (or games).

Record win/loss ratio, and again, make note of factors that affected the wins/losses. Take extra special note of which cards Island Hermit flipped over, and what prizes were drawn after IH was played.


Things to pay attention to:

-Compare prize "quality" between the two series. Note what order prizes were drawn in games where IH was not played, compared to the prize order after playing IH. Especially note when prizes were useful vs. when prizes just added to your hand size for no reason.
-Compare 'distance' to cards you were hoping to draw into when a failure to draw a particular card cost you the game.

Note that both of these are still subjective and can vary by luck even with more powerful draw in place, as well as other gameplay conditions, but playing enough matches with both the IH and non-IH builds should minimise the error.

That sound about right?


Edit: a "control" without either IH or a generic draw, but with other cards (more Holon cards, more Copycat, another RC, etc.) would further enhance the data.

 

[Phazon Elite]

Take a deck.

Face it off against a deck against which the matchup isn't impossible, but tends to be rough.

1. Define a deck. What is a deck? Do you and I see a deck as the same thing? If not, your opinion is useless to me.

2. How rough? Suppose your deck auto-wins against all decks -- save one, against which your deck is at a 90% chance to win. Would you need a tech to overcome that 10% chance of losing? Are you that imcompetant? If so, your opinion is useless to me.

3. I have an onion. Is it a deck to you? No? Well, it is to me, and your opinion is thus useless to me.

I could do more, but I don't care.

 

[toby]

You don't have to be able to be able to compute something in order to believe in it. Hypothosis are computed. They are educated guesses. Use the Scientific Method

Problem - does the card work or not
Hypothosis - it will
Experiment - play several games
Observe - how well did I do in those games
Conclusion - I did well therefore the card is good in my deck

No computing there. You now have your self a theory that the card is good and help your deck.

I wear a red shirt to a tournament. I do well; therefore, I continue to wear a red shirt to tournaments.

Your method applies to red shirts and anything else. What you have is pseudo-science.

Well first of all you should not be a conformist just because other think differently. If you think your opinion does not matter then you have self esteem issues. Who say that the opinions of others are right. Who says you have to believe what other belive.

So, I should not believe your opinion?

If no one cared about opinion then everyone would be the same and netrual. If a card in your opinion seems good to you use it.

So, it is your opinion that I should use my opinion. But if I use my opinion, then I wouldn’t be using your opinion to use my opinion. You’ve presented me with quite a dilemma: I can’t use your opinion or my opinion. (There is a way out, though—see if you know it.)

Don't give in to peer pressure and let other tell you how to play

But I can’t listen to your opinion, because I’d be giving into peer pressure—your peer pressure: Quite a conundrum.

If someone says that a card is a dangourous cult then you tell them " uhhh no I like the card and it helps me win so I want to use it." It all depends on the subject really. I mean your families opinion it a lot more important in disision making if it is a personal or family issue, but this is a game, if you like a card then use it, if it helps you use it, if ypu don't like it then don't use it, I don't see how that is hard to understand

Oh. Other people’s opinions aren’t valid when it comes to games? And then here you are presenting your opinion about the game to me, but they don’t matter. So, I shouldn’t be listening to your opinion about the game, and I should be listening to others’ opinions.

OK I assume there is no formula because I have never seen , heard of, or used it before. I never said I was right did I? Did I say that I proved that there was one. I assumed it. I also used the scintific method to try and check.

Problem - Is there a formula
Hypothosis - no
Experiment - search pokegym and internet for any kind of pokemon formula
Observe - found none
Conclusion - are none
Theory - are none

Theorys are not always right. Laws are always right theorys are subject to change.

Problem - Is there answer to 1721 + 14109
Hypothosis - no
Experiment - search pokegym and internet for any kind answer for 1721 + 14109
Observe - found none
Conclusion - are none
Theory - is none

Now you could say, hey the Scientific Method is a formula, in that case I would be wrong as I explained how the SM could be used to see if a card is good or not.

You could be wrong? Then why should I listen to your theories?

Now you say 1000 years ago people assumed there where no virusus, Well that was there theory and later they found out that their theory was wrong.

No; they were long dead (or at least I hope they were).

In this case you don't need a formula to calculate if a card is good or not. You playtest and if you win with that card and if that card is an assest then use it. Just use the Scintific method. Find the card you want to use, guess if it will help or not, play with the card in your deck, observe how it helped or hurt your deck, conclude if you should keep it of not.

Your method isn’t scientific. It isn’t repeatable by myself, much less another experimenter. How about you propose a scientific method?

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

I'm only giving up based on your ridiculously precise standard. I'm sorry, but I doubt very many people need to be so thoroughly convinced that a card is good that only a specific mathematical formula for success (and satisfaction of it, of course) would be good enough.

Yes, it is a ridiculous precise standard. We all should just flip a coin to decide what is “good”.

Can I prove that well that Hermit is "good?" No. Can anyone prove that well that any card is good? I doubt it. Like I've already said. So it's a pretty useless standard you're trying to hold me to.

Yes, it is useless. Everybody should just say: I’m right. Which is what you have.

What are you talking about? What is this belief in this case, again...?

You apparently believe that Hermit is “good”. Why should that be the preference over doubt?

 

[Absoltrainer]

I wear a red shirt to a tournament. I do well; therefore, I continue to wear a red shirt to tournaments.

Your method applies to red shirts and anything else. What you have is pseudo-science.

No it has to be something you can test. Can you test luck? No, because there is not enough scientific evidence to conclude luck. You cannot collect consistent data on how luck affects you. If you are talking about dice, then probability, which in an essence is luck can be calculated or probability of drawing a certain card can be calculated as well, but the factor of clothing has no relation or testable connection to winning, it’s simply common sense.

So, I should not believe your opinion?

I never said that. I said believe what you want to believe

So, it is your opinion that I should use my opinion. But if I use my opinion, then I wouldn’t be using your opinion to use my opinion. You’ve presented me with quite a dilemma: I can’t use your opinion or my opinion. (There is a way out, though—see if you know it.)

OK. It's not that hard. Do what you want to do, use the card if you want. There is no math involved.

But I can’t listen to your opinion, because I’d be giving into peer pressure—your peer pressure: Quite a conundrum.

I am not giving you a conumdrum you are creating them instead of forging solutions.

Oh. Other people’s opinions aren’t valid when it comes to games? And then here you are presenting your opinion about the game to me, but they don’t matter. So, I shouldn’t be listening to your opinion about the game, and I should be listening to others’ opinions.

Wow do you even read what you post. If you want to ask questions then don't get peeved off at the answers we give.

Problem - Is there answer to 1721 + 14109
Hypothesis - no
Experiment - search pokegym and internet for any kind answer for 1721 + 14109
Observe - found none
Conclusion - are none
Theory - is none


You could be wrong? Then why should I listen to your theories?

But you have to take in common sense as a factor. That factor allows you the option of using a calculator. But in any case you preformed the scientific method and came up with an incorrect answer. You also need to consider the controlled variable, which is the way you search for your answer. What I provided about searching on Pokegym was an example of an experiment. I did not mean you have to use Pokegym. Aristotle made major achievements in study of the natural world and until the renaissance most people believed in Aristotle's laws. but he was proved wrong.

No; they were long dead (or at least I hope they were).

Whatever. That’s' completely irrelevant to the thread

Your method isn’t scientific. It isn’t repeatable by myself, much less another experimenter. How about you propose a scientific method?

You really don't know about the Scientific Method? Take a science book any book from a school taught science class and look in the first few chapters and you will find the scientific method. It's not my method, it's the method used by scientists to solve problems. Pokegym is not involved, what is involved is:
Problem
Hypothesis
Experiment
Observe
Conclusion
Theory
In that order, so yes you could easily repeat that method and yes it is the scientific method.

Yes, it is a ridiculous precise standard. We all should just flip a coin to decide what is “good”.


Yes, it is useless. Everybody should just say: I’m right. Which is what you have.


You apparently believe that Hermit is “good”. Why should that be the preference over doubt?

New idea. Since you refuse to believe your own opinion or anyone else’s for that matter we drop the fact and you stay away from the card and never consider it, thus never coming up with a situation where you need to know how good it is. If you feel that you need proof that this card is good or bad then, how do you prove any card is good. You might as well abandon the game because you can't use any card, because there is proof mathematically that any card will be good.

You ask questions and we give answers, but if you refuse to accept those answers then don't argue. If you ask for help but you don't get the right kind you can't just refuse it. You can't expect us to say exactly what you want us to say.

Beggars can't be choosers

 

[toby]

Take a deck.

Face it off against a deck against which the matchup isn't impossible, but tends to be rough.

Use a decklist which does not include Island Hermit, but DOES include a "generic draw" not included in the Holon Engine (Mary's Request, TV Reporter, ****, even Fieldworker/Cozmo/Bill's if that's your bag).

Excellent.

Play a series of matches (something like 10) and record the win/loss ratio, maybe taking notes on reasons for the wins/losses. Big contributors. Things like "did not draw into X when it was needed" (extra points for taking note of how many cards short you were, if possible), "X was prized", "Opponent flipped Heads way too darn many times", et al.

Removing “outliers” (good vs. bad flips, horrible gaffs) is not a bad idea, but you probably need to define what an outlier is ahead of time (very precisely), and apply it equally. This is so perilous, though, that it might be best to include every sample.

Now, replace the generic non-Holon draw with two Island Hermits.

Do the exact same matchup - don't make any changes to the opponent's deck - the same number of matches (or games).

Record win/loss ratio, and again, make note of factors that affected the wins/losses. Take extra special note of which cards Island Hermit flipped over, and what prizes were drawn after IH was played.

I do not think recording anything about prizes is worthwhile. It doesn’t matter what was drawn or when. It only matters whether you won or not.

Things to pay attention to:

-Compare prize "quality" between the two series. Note what order prizes were drawn in games where IH was not played, compared to the prize order after playing IH. Especially note when prizes were useful vs. when prizes just added to your hand size for no reason.
-Compare 'distance' to cards you were hoping to draw into when a failure to draw a particular card cost you the game.

Note that both of these are still subjective and can vary by luck even with more powerful draw in place, as well as other gameplay conditions, but playing enough matches with both the IH and non-IH builds should minimise the error.

Game-play conditions do matter. One player may be more tired, anxious, hungry, etc. in one set than another. One player may also just learn better. Or one player may just be more comfortable playing one deck or against one deck than the other. This is exceedingly difficult to account for, but may be alleviated somewhat by alternating decks.

That sound about right?

Yes, except that you should design your experiment in an attempt to gain some level of confidence relative to a stated hypothesis. Ten matches just aren’t very many. Therefore, you probably won’t have much confidence that your hypothesis is met. This is especially true if there is frightfully little margin between the hypothesis and even a positive result that the hypothesis is met.

Note also that this only tells you about Hermit relative to a single pairing. It takes a slight leap of faith to believe that Hermit will work for the subject deck against other decks.

Edit: a "control" without either IH or a generic draw, but with other cards (more Holon cards, more Copycat, another RC, etc.) would further enhance the data.

I don’t think this does anything for you.

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

No it has to be something you can test. Can you test luck? No, because there is not enough scientific evidence to conclude luck.

You don't know that it's luck (I might be more confident in it; it may distract my opponents; or I may just be a very good player). What do you know? And why can't it be tested, luck or not? What are you saying: that you can only test that which there enough evidence to conclude that it is true? This makes zero sense. If it is luck, then the result of the test should reveal that it is luck. There is as much evidence to conclude the red shirt works as Hermit, according to your method. Let's just assume that I'm very good player with a great deck. I put on a red and I win. I win again. I win again. According to your method of considering how well I did with the red shirt; I did great. Therefore the shirt works.

You cannot collect consistent data on how luck affects you. If you are talking about dice, then probability, which in an essence is luck can be calculated or probability of drawing a certain card can be calculated as well, but the factor of clothing has no relation or testable connection to winning, it’s simply common sense.

Again, you don't know that there is no relation to winning. But even if there isn't, and this is the point that you can't seem to grasp, your method of testing a few matches with Hermit may also show a false trend. It is common sense that the sun revolves around the earth once each day. Saying something is common sense has no weight. You fail to address the issue: I’m applying the red shirt to your method, and it concludes that the red shirt works. Why don’t you take a look at your method to see what went wrong? Such arrogance.

I never said that. I said believe what you want to believe

This is what you said:

Well first of all you should not be a conformist just because other think differently. If you think your opinion does not matter then you have self esteem issues. Who say that the opinions of others are right. Who says you have to believe what other belive.

Isn’t the implication here that I shouldn’t believe you? For example, you think differently, therefore perhaps I shouldn’t conform to your thoughts. Etc. Do you read what you write?

OK. It's not that hard. Do what you want to do, use the card if you want. There is no math involved.

Apparently it is that hard. You seem to continually imply that I shouldn’t be using your opinions, and then proceed to bombard me with them. Here’s yet another one: No math involved. If I shouldn’t listen to your opinion, then you’re implying that there might be math involved.

I am not giving you a conumdrum you are creating them instead of forging solutions.

Yes, you are giving conundrums. Do you read what you write? As to forging solutions: 123 + 453 = -4234. I can forge “solution” all day, but they may be erroneous. Burning the witches of Salem was a solution. I guess that’s your cup of tea.

Wow do you even read what you post. If you want to ask questions then don't get peeved off at the answers we give.

Your particular answers are illogical. And what is worse: you pretend they aren’t. Don’t blame the messenger.

But you have to take in common sense as a factor.

I used the same method as you. It isn’t my fault that your method doesn’t incorporate common sense. It’s your method; don’t fault me.

You could well use your own common to see that there is point to my raving. Searching the net proves nothing about whether a method exists. One thousand years ago, viruses existed; yet, no amount of searching could reveal them. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

That factor allows you the option of using a calculator. But in any case you preformed the scientific method and came up with an incorrect answer.

That is my point: I used your method (not very scientific, I might add), and it came to the wrong conclusion. That makes your method dubious.

You also need to consider the controlled variable, which is the way you search for your answer. What I provided about searching on Pokegym was an example of an experiment. I did not mean you have to use Pokegym.

It’s your method. If you would like to add caveats, please do so.

Aristotle made major achievements in study of the natural world and until the renaissance most people believed in Aristotle's laws. but he was proved wrong.

And your point is what: Theories may be wrong? Strangely you object to my treating your theories (no math required, etc.) with skepticism. Why is that? Are you somehow more infallible than Aristotle? You make no sense.

Whatever. That’s' completely irrelevant to the thread

That you say it is irrelevant doesn’t make it so. Your pronouncements from whatever high mountain you’re on carries no weight. They didn’t find out. Errors are not so easily found as you purport.

You really don't know about the Scientific Method? Take a science book any book from a school taught science class and look in the first few chapters and you will find the scientific method. It's not my method, it's the method used by scientists to solve problems. Pokegym is not involved, what is involved is:
Problem
Hypothesis
Experiment
Observe
Conclusion
Theory
In that order, so yes you could easily repeat that method and yes it is the scientific method.

You are the one with Pokegym is his method. I mimic your method to show it as a fraud. You’re missing the whole point of the scientific method. That you seek to teach me is laughable.

New idea. Since you refuse to believe your own opinion or anyone else’s for that matter we drop the fact and you stay away from the card and never consider it, thus never coming up with a situation where you need to know how good it is. If you feel that you need proof that this card is good or bad then, how do you prove any card is good.

My original question to Tagrineth was how Hermit could be “tried”. I don’t need proof one way or the other. My point is that the way people are “trying” it is fraught with danger. Of course, I’m extremely foolish to even try.

You might as well abandon the game because you can't use any card, because there is proof mathematically that any card will be good.

Perhaps you left out a word. Theories, in general, cannot be proven. It’s not about proof, but about confidence.

You ask questions and we give answers, but if you refuse to accept those answers then don't argue.

You are generous with your advice, but don’t bother to take it yourself. You could halt the arguing by simply not replying; strangely you don’t do that.

If you ask for help but you don't get the right kind you can't just refuse it. You can't expect us to say exactly what you want us to say.

I am not asking for help. Where do you get this stuff? Have you never heard of the Socratic method?

Beggars can't be choosers

You haven’t a clue, do you?

 

[Muk Man]

wow... al i was saying is that Island Hermit is a good card, and that many people seem to be overlooking it, and it's potiential. Now its a poke-debate about the scientific process...lol but...I think recording prizes is worthwhile, because it is the effect of island hermit and thus it is relitive.

Example i flipped 2 prizes 1 was an energy the other was a evolved pokemon. i drew 2 cards. because i flipped the pokemon, and i topdecked the basic, i...
1.) now have the means of getting another pokemon in play should i choose,
2.)but i really need the energy. so i can grab that
3.)or i dont need either so grabbing a "facedown"(yu gi oh) will prove to be a better play

that 1 play may contribute to your win or loss so recording it is important, just as if. I have island hermit in my hand for several turns but never played it because i wanted/need to play other supporters.

 

[ZAKtheGeek]

You apparently believe that Hermit is “good”. Why should that be the preference over doubt?

Uhh... no, that's not accurate. I think that it can be useful in some decks, and that it is underrated. I'm not at all certain about it being good in general. Either way, these ideas aren't as unbacked as you make them out to be. It's been explained plenty in this thread why knowing your prizes can be a good thing, and I doubt I have to explain why drawing cards is a useful effect as well. There are also downsides to consider. To decide if it's a worthy play, one must weigh the pros and cons. Obviously it isn't an exact objective conclusion you'll get, but it will still be an examination of facts.

Is there any doubt that Transceiver is a good card? Not particularly. Can it be objectively proven that it's good? No. But it's considered good due to the benefits of it that most people have figured out by now, as well as by its great utility in lots and lots of decks (as in, decks that were actually used to play actual games). These are really the only even somewhat viable standards we have to go by when judging cards.

 

[Tagrineth]

1. Define a deck. What is a deck? Do you and I see a deck as the same thing? If not, your opinion is useless to me.

2. How rough? Suppose your deck auto-wins against all decks -- save one, against which your deck is at a 90% chance to win. Would you need a tech to overcome that 10% chance of losing? Are you that imcompetant? If so, your opinion is useless to me.

3. I have an onion. Is it a deck to you? No? Well, it is to me, and your opinion is thus useless to me.

I could do more, but I don't care.

Thanks for the worthless flamebait. What exactly was this post trying to prove? Did you even have a point with this one besides looking like an ***?

Removing “outliers” (good vs. bad flips, horrible gaffs) is not a bad idea, but you probably need to define what an outlier is ahead of time (very precisely), and apply it equally. This is so perilous, though, that it might be best to include every sample.

I wasn't planning on *removing* the outliers, just wanted to have them recorded. Flariados, for example, relies on at least an average number of tails flips for the opponent over the course of the game. If the opponent flips an exceptionally high number of heads, that's always possible. The match results, however, should not be omitted outright, but recorded with the additional note that the opponent flipped heads far more than could be considered average (in this case, about 50%).

I do not think recording anything about prizes is worthwhile. It doesn’t matter what was drawn or when. It only matters whether you won or not.

Well, yes, the win/loss ratio is the single most important statistic. If the IH build wins more often vs. a build using a "more powerful" straight drawing card in its place, this is the most meaningful statistic as it shows IH's other effect holds merit. I wanted to take notes on prize drawing, though, so the prize quality (the purpose of IH's non-Draw effect) could be quantified somewhat. If the prize draw quality can be conclusively shown as significantly better or more useful with IH, that is also a step in the right direction, especially when compared with straight draw results from the non-IH build... but that would be harder to record.

Game-play conditions do matter. One player may be more tired, anxious, hungry, etc. in one set than another. One player may also just learn better. Or one player may just be more comfortable playing one deck or against one deck than the other. This is exceedingly difficult to account for, but may be alleviated somewhat by alternating decks.

Well, as I said, with enough matches those effects should be minimised. The matches would also clearly not be played back to back for the entire experiment. Alternating would probably also be a good idea but I think results from swapping decks should be recorded separately, as that is a quantifiable and potentially very powerful change in the conditions (everything else being equal, two people can have wildly different play styles).

Yes, except that you should design your experiment in an attempt to gain some level of confidence relative to a stated hypothesis. Ten matches just aren’t very many. Therefore, you probably won’t have much confidence that your hypothesis is met. This is especially true if there is frightfully little margin between the hypothesis and even a positive result that the hypothesis is met.

Note also that this only tells you about Hermit relative to a single pairing. It takes a slight leap of faith to believe that Hermit will work for the subject deck against other decks.

The hypothesis would probably be something like "Island Hermit, despite drawing only 2 cards compared to ____ drawing X more cards, will help acheive victory more due to its effect of revealing prizes." Maybe generalise it more. I've never been that good at this step. ^-^; I also agree that ten matches might not be enough to derive a conclusive result, but trends will start to show after about 10 matches (defining a match as a best of three game series). 20 matches would probably be enough to rule out 'flukes' and 'donks' which would probably skew the results badly. I'd say 25-30 matches would probably be the minimum for a truly conclusive result.

Also, while this would admittedly be limited by the deck matchup, if one matchup can be shown as being improved by Island Hermit, it should only take a few test matches to determine if that advantage carries over to other matchups. Not only that, but, showing its effectiveness in even a single matchup would suggest that the card does have merits, and encourage people to try it in more decks without dismissing it outright as a "bad" card.

 

[P_A]

Guys, I think we're going a bit overboard on this one. I think it's time to cool off again. Use the card, don't use the card. Form your own opinion. Mumbo-jumbo to to try to convince others, or possibly to confuse or frustrate others is a waste of time, energy, and bandwidth.

 

[toby]

I wasn't planning on *removing* the outliers, just wanted to have them recorded.

There’s no point in recording anything that you aren’t going to use. The danger is that you may use it after seeing the results.

The Flariados, for example, relies on at least an average number of tails flips for the opponent over the course of the game. If the opponent flips an exceptionally high number of heads, that's always possible. The match results, however, should not be omitted outright, but recorded with the additional note that the opponent flipped heads far more than could be considered average (in this case, about 50%).

There’s nothing to do with the information. Suppose the Flariados foe flips 20 tails on 20 tries. What are you going to do? There may be a desire to toss the game from the samples. That would be a mistake. If you have a plan ahead of time: fine. If not, you will be under pressure when confronted with this event to toss it. That’s why it’s better just not even worry about flips.

Well, yes, the win/loss ratio is the single most important statistic. If the IH build wins more often vs. a build using a "more powerful" straight drawing card in its place, this is the most meaningful statistic as it shows IH's other effect holds merit.

I don’t see another meaningful statistic.

I wanted to take notes on prize drawing, though, so the prize quality (the purpose of IH's non-Draw effect) could be quantified somewhat. If the prize draw quality can be conclusively shown as significantly better or more useful with IH, that is also a step in the right direction, especially when compared with straight draw results from the non-IH build... but that would be harder to record.

You’re kidding yourself. If prize drawing results in wins, then the wins will show up. If it doesn’t result in wins, then it doesn’t matter one iota that the prizes were in some way “better”. Again, there is no way to use this information, so you might as well devote your time to playing more games.

Well, as I said, with enough matches those effects should be minimised. The matches would also clearly not be played back to back for the entire experiment. Alternating would probably also be a good idea but I think results from swapping decks should be recorded separately, as that is a quantifiable and potentially very powerful change in the conditions (everything else being equal, two people can have wildly different play styles).

I don’t understand. I don’t mean the Flariados player should then be the Flariados foe. That would be insane. I mean that the Flariados player should alternate between IH and non-IH. (By the way, I think Flariados makes an excellent subject, since it can readily use Mary’s, one of the strongest straight drawing cards.)

The hypothesis would probably be something like "Island Hermit, despite drawing only 2 cards compared to ____ drawing X more cards, will help acheive victory more due to its effect of revealing prizes." Maybe generalise it more. I've never been that good at this step. ^-^; I also agree that ten matches might not be enough to derive a conclusive result, but trends will start to show after about 10 matches (defining a match as a best of three game series). 20 matches would probably be enough to rule out 'flukes' and 'donks' which would probably skew the results badly. I'd say 25-30 matches would probably be the minimum for a truly conclusive result.

There will be no conclusive result, ever. The best you can achieve is a certain confidence. I doubt that you will get a 90% confidence that Hermit is better, even if it is. I doubt that there is that much margin. Nonetheless, you’re on the right track. (I think even 1 donk over 20 matches is significant.)

Also, while this would admittedly be limited by the deck matchup, if one matchup can be shown as being improved by Island Hermit, it should only take a few test matches to determine if that advantage carries over to other matchups.

This is untrue. It will take the same work against each match-up, if you really want to avoid arm-waving. Nonetheless, from theoretical concerns, it would appear that Flariados should do better in every match-up (assuming it did better in one). Why wouldn’t that be the case?

Not only that, but, showing its effectiveness in even a single matchup would suggest that the card does have merits, and encourage people to try it in more decks without dismissing it outright as a "bad" card.

Without doubt. But without the data in hand, it’s hard to argue the point. Get busy. I’ll crunch your numbers if you ever get any.

 

[Papi/Manny]

Guys, I think we're going a bit overboard on this one. I think it's time to cool off again. Use the card, don't use the card. Form your own opinion. Mumbo-jumbo to to try to convince others, or possibly to confuse or frustrate others is a waste of time, energy, and bandwidth.

I second this. Really, I don't think theres ever been this much commosion over any single card or deck...this is redicious.

 

[Absoltrainer]

Guys, I think we're going a bit overboard on this one. I think it's time to cool off again. Use the card, don't use the card. Form your own opinion. Mumbo-jumbo to to try to convince others, or possibly to confuse or frustrate others is a waste of time, energy, and bandwidth.

which is why I have abandoned the thread and no longer wish to participate in the Marril like argument.

 

[Muk Man]

So After 11 pages...

Is Island Hermit being overlooked and under played?

 

[Phazon Elite]

Thanks for the worthless flamebait. What exactly was this post trying to prove? Did you even have a point with this one besides looking like an ***?

......dude, you need a new sarcasm detector.

I mean.......seriously. *shakes head*

I knew I should have put a simple "XD" at the end of my post. -_-

MM: Well, just like other draw cards -- even the Holon (CHOO-CHOO) Engine -- it has its place in certain decks. I just can't say it's one of those "duh, this goes in every deck" cards like Professor Oak and Computer Search were.

 

[PSYCO829]

if your deck has pokemon *, it could greatly benifit from island hermit

 

[Kempley05]

So After 11 pages...

Is Island Hermit being overlooked and under played?

lol, after 11 pages there can be no doubt it's not been overlooked:tongue:

EDIT: Rofl, make that 12!

 

[ZAKtheGeek]

So After 11 pages...

Is Island Hermit being overlooked and under played?

Considering how many people have simply said, "This card sucks, what is there to discuss?" Maybe...

 

[toby]

Get busy. I’ll crunch your numbers if you ever get any.

Okay. I made a spreadsheet to calculate the confidence. I tested it out. Here's an example: You play 10 matches, winning 5 without IH, and 6 with IH. You'd have a confidence of .665 that IH is better than no IH.

 

[PSYCO829]

you play 10 matches
5 with, 6 without
something just seems wrong with that...

 

[toby]

Okay. I made a spreadsheet to calculate the confidence. I tested it out. Here's an example: You play 10 matches, winning 5 without IH, and 6 with IH. You'd have a confidence of .665 that IH is better than no IH.

Tagrineth had proposed playing 10 matches for BOTH versions, i.e., 20 matches total. I'm pretending he wins 5 out of 10 (no IH), and 6 out of 10 (IH).