3-1 Legend lineups make no sense.
- Thread starter Dennis Hawk
- Start date
I'm sure someone already else said it, but relying on Azelf to get the single other side of the Legend out of your prizes is not a safe bet against the most popular deck type out there, SPs. A single spray, and you can't play your main attacking Legend the entire game.
waynegg
CotD Editor<br>Forum Moderator
Since you guys are hung up on your flawed math skills, lets take this from someone who actually gets paid for it:
With a 2-2 build each half has a 18.3% chance of being prized (roughly 1 in 5). With 3-1 + Azelf, there is only a .8% chance of both Azelf and the 1 being prized.
In the 2-2 build if you have 2 halves prized, you can reliably run 1 Legend with Azelf.
In the 3-1 if 2 halves are prized, you can reliably run 2 Legends with Azelf.
As to the dreaded "Power Spray your Azelf" situation it seems a lot want to lean on, a smart player is going to search their entire deck when they Collector (or Luxury Ball, Bebe, Communication) on T1-2. If they find that the 1 is prized, they'll pull out their Azelf and use it BEFORE their opponent can get 3 SPs in play thus avoiding the Spray entirely.
It also sets up quicker and more reliably playing a 3-1. Again to all you neigh-sayers I invite you to try it out before offhandedly dishing on a concept you obviously don't understand and havent tried. It's like you're AFRAID you will see it for yourself how wrong you are. Or don't and watch it from the other side of the table. Maybe you can convince your opponent of how it doesn't work as they take their last prize.
With a 2-2 build each half has a 18.3% chance of being prized (roughly 1 in 5). With 3-1 + Azelf, there is only a .8% chance of both Azelf and the 1 being prized.
In the 2-2 build if you have 2 halves prized, you can reliably run 1 Legend with Azelf.
In the 3-1 if 2 halves are prized, you can reliably run 2 Legends with Azelf.
As to the dreaded "Power Spray your Azelf" situation it seems a lot want to lean on, a smart player is going to search their entire deck when they Collector (or Luxury Ball, Bebe, Communication) on T1-2. If they find that the 1 is prized, they'll pull out their Azelf and use it BEFORE their opponent can get 3 SPs in play thus avoiding the Spray entirely.
It also sets up quicker and more reliably playing a 3-1. Again to all you neigh-sayers I invite you to try it out before offhandedly dishing on a concept you obviously don't understand and havent tried. It's like you're AFRAID you will see it for yourself how wrong you are. Or don't and watch it from the other side of the table. Maybe you can convince your opponent of how it doesn't work as they take their last prize.
Last edited:
Sabett
Active Member
You still fail to understand how the 3-1 line does not have an upper hand on the 2-2 line through pokemon rescues.
2 pieces are prized in a 2-2 line, we use azelf to get one piece back, so 2-1 of the line isn't prized. You can run the initial legend, and then when it's KO'd have the other piece in hand, use another rescue, and you've got your second legend.
Also you're not paying attention to the thing you quoted.
"The probability of exactly 1 of 2 possible cards from a 60 card population (a deck) being in a 6 card sample (Prizes) is ~18.3%. The probability of exactly both being there is ~.8%. The probability of at least one being there is ~19.1%. "
The chances of both pieces being prized is .8%, not 18.3%, the 18.3% is the chances of one of those cards being prized. Also, the chances of both pieces being prized are the exact same as the lone piece in a 3-1 line being prized with azelf. They're two specific cards they wouldn't create different probablities, in a 2-2 line there isn't more of a specific kind of card to increase the chances that two bottoms or two tops would be prized. For a 3-1 line between the lone legend piece and Azelf, there's nothing to increase or decrease the chances of it being prized in comparison to the two bottom, or two tops being prized in a 2-2 line.
waynegg
CotD Editor<br>Forum Moderator
That's for both being prized when there are only 2 in your deck. It has nothing to do with 2 being prized when there are 4 in your deck. The odds are higher on 2 out of 4 (as in 4 Legend pieces)than they are on 2 out of 2 (as in the 1 and Azelf exclusively in this case). You are seeing only what you want to see.
Sabett
Active Member
I see what you're saying, you meant that each half has a 18.3% of one card of one half being prized. At first it looked like you were saying that both cards of one half had a chance of being prized at 18.3%.
Also, you ignored the fact that this:
Was entirely wrong. If anything the 2-2 line would allow you to potentially run a legend more often than a 3-1 line would if 2 pieces were prized. In a 3-1 line there are only 3 combinations of what can be prized, and allow you to play a legend without relying on azelf. In a 2-2 line there are 4 combinations. And through this since both 3-1 line, and 2-2 line both have the same possibilities of getting 2 pieces prized, but the 3-1 line has a lower amount of combinations in which you can run a legend line without relying on azelf, the 2-2 line would run more consistently.
Also, you've misunderstood when I say that 2 legend pieces have the same chances of one legend piece and azelf being prized. I meant that both top pieces have the same chance of being prized as one legend piece and azelf being prized does. Whenever I said both pieces, it was always referring to only top pieces or only bottom pieces, never all 4.
Actually, the odds for 2 PARTICULAR cards (meaning that they are just any two cards, I could mark 2 energy and say it or I could just say my two Luxray GL Lv. X, both have the same odds) is .8% (the slightly less than 1/100 I mentioned earlier.) That is the odds of prizing 2 similar (meaning the same card) halves of a legend in a 2-2 line as are the odds of prizing your Azelf and the single half of your legend. If you go out to the 3rd (that's 3, THREE, as in THREE) card that would have to be prized in the 2-2 line (meaning the Azelf) to have the full thing prized, you get about the 1/1000 I mentioned earlier.
You can take the math from someone who gets paid to do it, but if you can't read what they say, it doesn't do you a bit of good. But to simplify it:
You only need 2 cards (Azelf and the single Legend Piece) to be Prized in a 3-1 Line to get an Auto Loss. You need 3 cards (either Legend Top 1 and Legend Top 2 or Legend Bottom 1 and Legend Bottom 2, and Azelf) to get an Auto Loss with a 2-2.
It doesn't take a genius to see which one is less likely to happen... Or maybe it does.
waynegg
CotD Editor<br>Forum Moderator
Still doesn't change the way it works in actual game play. Try it. Until then you have no actual experience with which to compare the 2 models. Just a bunch of blah blah blah theory. You are taking first hand experience from several different players and totally dismissing it based solely on your conjecture theorem that in no way factors in every aspect of a complete deck.
One second...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_Fallacy
Admittedly, Gambler's Fallacy is a little off of what you're talking about, but it's about the same thing, instead of expecting the odds to even themselves out, you expect them to not even out, which is even more erroneous.
And did you see my Pythagoras comment earlier? Trust the math.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_Fallacy
Admittedly, Gambler's Fallacy is a little off of what you're talking about, but it's about the same thing, instead of expecting the odds to even themselves out, you expect them to not even out, which is even more erroneous.
And did you see my Pythagoras comment earlier? Trust the math.
baby mario
Front Page Article Editor<br><a href="http://pokeg
Instead of all the headache-inducing maths and science, why doesn't anyone come back and say 'well, I tested out 3-1 and 2-2 and found that 2-2 was a much smoother, more consistent line to play'? I could relate to that.
I mean, if you are playtesting a Legend deck anyway, why not?
Otherwise this thread is heading for 'OMG someone is WRONG on the Internet!' territory.
I mean, if you are playtesting a Legend deck anyway, why not?
Otherwise this thread is heading for 'OMG someone is WRONG on the Internet!' territory.
if your legend is prized, you still have only 4 outs in your deck. (your legend piece is prized, after all)
Rescuing is actually easier with a 2-2 line then with a 3-1, and that becomes even more important when you factor in that you won't be using 3 legends in a game.
Looking purely to chances of prizing your lines (prizing your 3 legends + azelf, your 1 legend + azelf) is 5,2%.
Prizing your upper/lower parts in a 2-2 line gives you a 3,9%.
If looking purely to prizes (not factoring in power spray) 2-2 is superior in 1,3%.
When we calculate the odds of having your legends prized with your azelf in your deck, but sprayed when used.
3-1 gives you a fail rate of 12%. 2-2 gives you a fail rate of 7,3%.
Again 2-2 is 4,7% superior.
In total, 2-2 is 6% better then 3-1 with the prizes,
For rescuing them it doesn't matter, (even though i would give 2-2 the edge, because to get out 2 you wont even need a rescue to begin with)
in searching them out, 3-1 has a slight edge, i'm to lazy to calculate but 3-1 is slightly better. (because you can use your first search card to grab your 1 legend piece, and have a bigger chance to draw into the 3 piece)
overall, 2-2 still seams superior to me, especially in a format where it's easier to search then to draw cards.
Rescuing is actually easier with a 2-2 line then with a 3-1, and that becomes even more important when you factor in that you won't be using 3 legends in a game.
Looking purely to chances of prizing your lines (prizing your 3 legends + azelf, your 1 legend + azelf) is 5,2%.
Prizing your upper/lower parts in a 2-2 line gives you a 3,9%.
If looking purely to prizes (not factoring in power spray) 2-2 is superior in 1,3%.
When we calculate the odds of having your legends prized with your azelf in your deck, but sprayed when used.
3-1 gives you a fail rate of 12%. 2-2 gives you a fail rate of 7,3%.
Again 2-2 is 4,7% superior.
In total, 2-2 is 6% better then 3-1 with the prizes,
For rescuing them it doesn't matter, (even though i would give 2-2 the edge, because to get out 2 you wont even need a rescue to begin with)
in searching them out, 3-1 has a slight edge, i'm to lazy to calculate but 3-1 is slightly better. (because you can use your first search card to grab your 1 legend piece, and have a bigger chance to draw into the 3 piece)
overall, 2-2 still seams superior to me, especially in a format where it's easier to search then to draw cards.
waynegg
CotD Editor<br>Forum Moderator
That's the best you have? Gambler's Fallacy? LOL! There comes a point after hundreds of games that yield the same overwhelming results that what you claim just doesn't apply. I've read the coin flip thing that you and Sabett have trolled all over this and other threads over and over again. We aren't flipping coins. At what point of if I do A B C then X Y Z happens will you stop beating that dead horse?
If testimony from at least 3 different skilled players who have run decks both ways many, many times and which all point to the same conclusion, isn't enough for you to think 'hmm... maybe i should give it a try and just see' then you have real superiority issues that I can't help you with.
It works better. Period. 'Nuff said. I'm done with it. Argue with yourself.
Amen!
baby mario
Front Page Article Editor<br><a href="http://pokeg
Interesting . . . if true.
waynegg
CotD Editor<br>Forum Moderator
Fish and Wildlife Information Management?
Sabett
Active Member
Results can never change probability. If you flip a coin 100 times, do you expect it to give you 50 heads and 50 tails? No, right? It'll probably be slanted one way or the other. You could easily get something like 60 heads and 40 tails. But no matter how many times you flip a coin, and no matter how often a coin will flip up heads or tails, will that ever change that you have a 50/50 chance for getting heads or tails? Results have nothing to do with probability.
What he's expecting to happen is specifically called Reverse Gambler's Fallacy, its on the wiki.
Because the results don't actually tell you what is more likely to work consistently. It won't predict accurately as probability, what's more consistent.
No, results don't affect probability. How are you not understanding how the coin flip example of results not accurately depicting the actual chances of what will happen? Saying "We aren't flipping coins." has nothing to do with it. If there's a die with 4 sides blue, and 2 sides red, you roll it 100 times, and you end up rolling red more often than blue. From these results, per your take on this situation, we would have to say that red has a higher chance of coming up than blue on this die. I mean red came up more often right? So it must be more likely to come than blue most of the time. We tested it right? That has to be the probability.
There are no amount of results that transcend gambler's fallacy, gambler's fallacy will always be in effect. No amount of results that say anything one way or the ever can never hope to affect probability. There are completely unrelated.
In the event that it does.
Last edited:
Um... if you A) state what advantage it should have. Still haven't heard that. "It works better" is so vague it's not even possible to count how bad that is. I could play Donphan vs a new junior with a 1-1 Donphan line and it'd prolly end up working better than a 2-2 line. Is a 1-1 line better than a 2-2 line? Nope. :nonono:
And 3 GOOD players doing it is the problem. A good player will play better. In fact, you could simply play it better due to a psychological difference cause by your conviction that 3-1 is better.
Unless you play exactly the same decks both times, the same number of times, with the same deck with the only difference being a 2-2 vs. a 3-1, we don't believe it.
And it's not trolling. 1 out off 100 plays, your deck will be unplayable. 1 out of a 1000 ways, a 2-2 deck will be unplayable. That's how it works. 3-1 takes more space (recovery) can't set up 2, and is in all other ways inferior to the 2-2 line.
Thank you all, I'm done for today.