Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mic Qsenoch]

Back when TheExpressicist's tool was available for grabbing player stats from the Goko implementation, I looked at my win % with various cards (but not looking at the cards I almost never bought) and it looked a lot like what I got if I took my overall win % and just did random simulations of sets of 200 games or whatever. I didn't do anything particularly rigorous, but I'm not convinced that the higher or lower win percentages with a particular card are anything but just the noise from our small sample sizes.

I find it likely that it's not just noise about your overall win %. A calculation by rrenard in 2012 on how much certain cards favor more skilled players finds that some cards favor more skilled players more than others.

Since you're one of the best players, you're more skilled than your typical opponent by quite a bit. Therefore, we'd expect to find the same general pattern as would be found in a calculation like rrenard's. However, we may not have the sample size to distinguish any cards that you are particularly good at, compared to the cards that other players of similar skill level tend to win with more often.

I can't see how rrenaud's results have anything to do with what I'm talking about. I doubt if there's any correlation at all between rrenaud's results and the card win % of top players. It's a measure that looked at 2.5 million games across all iso levels. The fact that in that set Trueskill apparently is right more often with certain cards doesn't seem to say anything about whether a sample of a few hundred or thousand games can tell us anything useful about which cards a player is best with.

I don't understand your second paragraph at all.

[JW]

I can't see how rrenaud's results have anything to do with what I'm talking about. I doubt if there's any correlation at all between rrenaud's results and the card win % of top players. It's a measure that looked at 2.5 million games across all iso levels. The fact that in that set Trueskill apparently is right more often with certain cards doesn't seem to say anything about whether a sample of a few hundred or thousand games can tell us anything useful about which cards a player is best with.

I don't understand your second paragraph at all.

I'd expect that the cards at the top of rrenaud's list are correlated with the card win % of top players. Indeed, the top four are Goons, Colony/Platinum, Bishop, and Ambassador.

The second paragraph is attempting to say that if we grouped you and fellow players with similar ratings and did card win %s for the group, we'd have much bigger sample sizes and could tell that the card win %s are different for different cards. But we couldn't necessarily tell to what extent you differ from Stef who differs from SCSN, etc.

[Mic Qsenoch]

Here's a figure of win % for the top 20 isotropish players (data here, from Goko stats circa early 2015) with card in the kingdom vs that card's value on rrenaud's list.



Sad guy at the bottom is Walled Village, just too few games.

Your predicted trend would be a line from top left to bottom right (roughly). It's kind of there. The two axes are of course not from the same set of data or time period. It may be that if we had more data from the top players the correlation would be better, but that's my point really!

This is all pretty tangential to my original post, which I still don't understand how it has anything to do with the rrenaud data. When people look at their sets of 100 or 1000 games, of course there are some cards which they have won more or less with, but the deviations from the average win % as far as I can tell are not distinguishable from random. But maybe someone can show that they are. As it is, I don't consider the deviations any sort of evidence for special understanding of a card.

[Seprix]

Coppersmith for sure.

[SuperHans]

Silver is my worst card. Every game this card is in I seem to lose.

[Seprix]

Silver is my worst card. Every game this card is in I seem to lose.

Wrong thread. This is the thread called "What's the card your best at?", and not the thread called "What's the card your worst at?", where such an appropriate statement could then be made.

[SuperHans]

Silver is my worst card. Every game this card is in I seem to lose.

Wrong thread. This is the thread called "What's the card your best at?", and not the thread called "What's the card your worst at?", where such an appropriate statement could then be made.

I am best at losing with that card.

[Witherweaver]

Estate.

[Seprix]

Nobody says Curse, because Curse is clichè. Jsh already won the entire draft by saying Transmute, a terrible card that nobody likes. What card is in second place though? Hrm.

[Moneymodel]

Maybe Horn of Plenty?

[enfynet]

I'm pretty good at games where I have Followers and Trusty Steed. Village is a close 2nd.

[Seprix]

I'm pretty good at games where I have Followers and Trusty Steed. Village is a close 2nd.

To be fair, if you have both Followers AND Trusty Steed, you're pretty damn ahead.

[enfynet]

I'd find a way to lose those games

[Joseph2302]

The title of this thread is wrong: it should be you're not your.

[J Reggie]

The title of this thread is wrong: it should be you're not your.

I was wondering when someone would mention that. I didn't want to be that person.

[Limetime]

The title of this thread is wrong: it should be you're not your.

Screw phrasing and Grammer.

[Tables]

The title of this thread is wrong: it should be you're not your.

Screw phrasing and Grammer.

No thanks, I'm not interested in a threesome.

[SuperHans]

The title of this thread is wrong: it should be you're not your.

Screw phrasing and Grammer.

No thanks, I'm not interested in a threesome.

I mean are we talking Kelsey Grammer? Then sure.