Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

the best player ever.

Status
Not open for further replies.
rokman said:
Are you kidding me?! OF COURSE you have lost to me, you can't even compete WITH GEORGE!!!

With that said, No one on this forum should make ridiculous comments like that. Whether it be me or someone else. Becuase in reality, anyone could lose to anyone.
Click to expand...



He's right- i lost to dawn this year at a cities lolol ANYONE who play in Fl. understands what i mean here :)

At least i didn't pull an "anthony" when i did though :)


The "Rock" is right- anyone CAN lose to anyone. This format sees to it.

You should stay on topic shiloh.


~john
 
Mewchou said:
Jeremy sure gets kicked around a lot here. He may not be the best player ever, but the guy won Worlds. He more than earned it, and deserves more respect than he gets. Did I mention he won Worlds?
Click to expand...

Everyone who knocks him is jelous, and they kick him around in an attempt to hold themselves up to some higher level of selfesteem.

Think about it - most of this thread is just jockeying for position on some imaginary ladder that really has no bearing on anything.
At the end of the day, the biggest prize is the title "world champion"

And it was Jeremy, not Seena or Moss or anyone else who got that.
I think the people bring him down because they don't want to admit that the gap between what they consider the 'elite' and the 'rest' is not as big as they would like to imply.
 
Yes Jeremy is very good and won WORLDS, and i am a little jealous because he is a Worlds winner, and 15+ to boot. but i still would not consider him the best in the world, because that he has not won a whole bunch of tournaments like Ness, and Seena and the rest of them. But still Worlds is the top prize and it takes a lot of skill to pull of a victory like that.
 
Chuck won Worlds. Moss and Seena won the STS (the Worlds of its time). Ness won the TMB and the FAT (both tourneys I would consider as big as Worlds). Fulop won Worlds (almost). So yeah, Team Allah/E4 all have won Worlds, if not come very very close in my eyes.
 
Arcanine 274 said:
Yes Jeremy is very good and won WORLDS, and i am a little jealous because he is a Worlds winner, and 15+ to boot. but i still would not consider him the best in the world, because that he has not won a whole bunch of tournaments like Ness, and Seena and the rest of them. But still Worlds is the top prize and it takes a lot of skill to pull of a victory like that.
Click to expand...
Did he win any thing else?
 
headsrcool said:
Did he win any thing else?
Click to expand...
No idea. i do not personally know him, but he still won Worlds and that is good enough for me. maybe not for some of you, but for me anyone who can win Worlds is one of the best in my book. by what've i've read here so far, it sounds like he has not won any major tournaments before, but Worlds is a major tournament. and, he won that. now, i still do not count him as the best, like Ness, Seena and the rest of them, but he's still in the top category. in my personal opinion Ness is the best i've ever had the pleasure of watching, even as a spectator. he's truly incredible. Seena is also a very close 2nd, and there are many more that tie as 2nd to me as well.
 
Yeh, I was wondering about everyone saying Chuck won at 2002 worlds... Cause there was no 15+ Age Division for 2002 Worlds...

There were 3 big tourneys (to my knowledge) for 2002 Worlds...

They were...

10- Worlds
11-14 Worlds
Pokemon Professor Tourney

Drew
 
Moss once posted a really in-depth analysis discrediting Worlds as a legitimate indicator of skill.
What he did was calculate someone winning 90% of any game they entered, and seeing the odds they had of winning it ALL. It turned out that even if you won 90% of your games( a huge feat) you only had like 25% chance to win Worlds.

Worlds was HUGELY based on luck. Matchups, resistance, SO MANY different things went into it.

Post it Moss?
 
ryanvergel said:
Moss once posted a really in-depth analysis discrediting Worlds as a legitimate indicator of skill.
What he did was calculate someone winning 90% of any game they entered, and seeing the odds they had of winning it ALL. It turned out that even if you won 90% of your games( a huge feat) you only had like 25% chance to win Worlds.

Worlds was HUGELY based on luck. Matchups, resistance, SO MANY different things went into it.

Post it Moss?
Click to expand...

I may be able to find that...Gimme a minute.

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

Hmmmm...Edit button isn't working for me...Oh well.

I found it BTW:

http://pokegym.net/forums/showpost.php?p=290484&postcount=34
 
Last edited:
If you assume you must go 6-2 in swiss and then win out your next five matches, there are 11 "must win" games to win worlds. If you have a 90% chance of winning any given match you're in, you have (.9)^11 = 0.3138 chance of winning worlds.

The conclusion is that if you are a massive favorite in all of your matches, you are a significant underdog to the field to win worlds.

The fact of the matter is you have to have a combination of luck, skill, and preparation to win worlds. Is the best player on earth the one that wins worlds? Not necessarily. Do they have to be very good? Of course.
 
Moss' problem of if you had a 90% chance to win every game is calculated completely wrong. I just did the complete math including 2/3 in elimination rounds and needing the player to go 6-2 to make the cut. If you always have a 90% chance to win your game, you would win worlds 83% of the time. If it was single elimination in top cut instead of 2/3, you only have a 57% chance of winning worlds.

You have 96% chance of top cut, and with 2/3, a 93% of t16, 91% t8, 88% t4, 86% t2 and 83% chance you win.

If you count every game as 90%, every 2/3 match is a 97.2 Winning percentage which is why no 2/3 cuts the 1st place % so much.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top