Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

James Margaris for God's sake PLEASE SHUT UP

26 views

Skip to first unread message

j...@my-dejanews.com

unread,

Jan 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/25/99

Damn it really makes me sick.

I read DJ for the first time since the weekend, and every page of news has 3
or 4 posts by James Margaris. He keeps on repeating the same idiotic points
and trying to pick fights over semantic bullshit.

Damn it James, will you shut the hell up???

No one gives a damn about your definition of "for free". Stop arguing shit
like "Yeah the fight isn't really free because if I just supercombo randomly
I'll win 1 out of 100 games" and "Well I can just fierce TU when you flinch
and win that way so it's not free"

SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP!!

I'm getting a headache from reading your bullshit. You are cluttering up the
group with your crap.

Why don't you just read what people are saying? People are making interesting
points and having interesting discussions. And you go jumping in arguing
whether "for free" should mean 99-1 or 9-1, and you tell Shaun that he can't
say "Sagat can't play a poking game" because of "He _can_ play a poking game,
but he _should_ not play a poking game. You are an idiot if you say he
_can't_ play a poking game."

For fuck's sake!!! How can you be so fucking dense, James?

Stop wasting our time. Really. What is the point of these posts you make? Why
do you insist on picking fights with people over their use of "can" or
"should". EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS EXCEPT YOU.

It's really exasperating to have so much of your bullshit spread around the
group when there is real content to be found. I am tired of filtering through
your posts, and through the WORTHLESS threads you generate when I am looking
for intelligent discussion.

Please stop posting here.

Thank you,

Julien Beasley

Da Mizer

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

James Margaris

unread,

Jan 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/25/99

In article <78gfts$jo4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, j...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>Damn it really makes me sick.

Well, I guess you should prepare to get a little bit sicker then...

[clip]

>Damn it James, will you shut the hell up???

guess.

>No one gives a damn about your definition of "for free". Stop arguing shit
>like "Yeah the fight isn't really free because if I just supercombo randomly
>I'll win 1 out of 100 games" and "Well I can just fierce TU when you flinch
>and win that way so it's not free"

Well, obviously someone cares, since they are arguing with me. In fact, I seem
to remember you arguing with me, until I shot you down like the total idiot
you are.

>SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP!!
>
>I'm getting a headache from reading your bullshit. You are cluttering up the
>group with your crap.

Ummm...ok then. You can always NOT READ my posts. Novel concept, I admit.
Quite advanced actually.

>Why don't you just read what people are saying? People are making interesting
>points and having interesting discussions. And you go jumping in arguing
>whether "for free" should mean 99-1 or 9-1, and you tell Shaun that he can't
>say "Sagat can't play a poking game" because of "He _can_ play a poking game,
>but he _should_ not play a poking game. You are an idiot if you say he
>_can't_ play a poking game."

Actually, I said he SHOULD play a poking game. I do read what people are
saying, very carefully, unlike certain other barely literate people on this
group. I didn't start the Adon vs Sagat "for free" thing anyway, and that's
done with now anyway as far as I'm concerned. If people ARE making interesting
points it's because I brought the topic up (indirectly) in the first place.

>Stop wasting our time. Really. What is the point of these posts you make? Why
>do you insist on picking fights with people over their use of "can" or
>"should". EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS EXCEPT YOU.

I don't really remember picking fights over "can." What I pick fights
over is people who are waaay too loose with the way they throw certain
arguments around. If no one stops them it contributes to overall brain rot. I
took exception to the first "for free" post because in my mind not all of
those fights are for free, and to not say anything is to tacitly (look it up)
endorse that position. The last thing we need is a bunch of brain lazy US
gamers.

>It's really exasperating to have so much of your bullshit spread around the
>group when there is real content to be found. I am tired of filtering through
>your posts, and through the WORTHLESS threads you generate when I am looking
>for intelligent discussion.

Once again, you can NOT READ it. Yes, that's right. That is an option.
Speaking of worthless posts though, your posts to me have got to be the most
worthless of all. Do you really consider "hey guys, looks what I found on
Deja-News" to be a good post topic? Was that a good thread full of interesting
discussion? Does calling me a "cowfucker" constitute a good post?

The sad fact is that my posts spark discussion. Adon vs Sagat is one
example. Me arguing with Viscant led to his real life confrontation with
Spider-Dan, which produced some interesting results. Having two great MvC
players discuss, duke it out and discuss some more, that sounds worthwhile to
me.

>Please stop posting here.

Only if you say "pretty please with a cherry on top."

>Thank you,

You are very welcome.

James M

ps: Is this how you respond to me always destroying you? Please stop. Mommy!

spid...@my-dejanews.com

unread,

Jan 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/25/99

In article <78i3i7$e...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
js...@cornell.edu (James Margaris) wrote:

> The sad fact is that my posts spark discussion. Adon vs Sagat is one
> example. Me arguing with Viscant led to his real life confrontation with
> Spider-Dan, which produced some interesting results. Having two great MvC
> players discuss, duke it out and discuss some more, that sounds worthwhile to
> me.

Not to get involved with your guys' private flamewar, but your (James) posts
really had nothing to do with Viscant and I. We started the "discussion" off
of the "MvC Rankings (yet again)" thread, which I started.

(http://x12.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=418714149&CONTEXT=917305545.1808466159&hit
num=24)

He then proceeded to tell me I didn't know what I was talking about (among
other things), which I took exception to, and then it went from there.

--
Dan Thompson (SpiderDan)
[send email to] edge [at] chipware [dot] net

WhoaMoses

unread,

Jan 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/26/99

Hey SpiderDan! Who did you use to beat Viscant anyways? I know I read it but
I'm an idiot and I forgot....

Shaun Patrick Mcisaac

unread,

Jan 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/26/99

James, no one believes your crap (except I...@I.com). Please stop, since
while it's easy enough to filter you out, it's harder to kill all of the
stupid sub-threads that you generate.

Do you really want us to go paste in your garbage from dejanews so that
you can look even worse?
--
How do you spell a-n-d?

James Margaris

unread,

Jan 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/26/99

In article <78iv5j$g4g$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, spid...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>In article <78i3i7$e...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
> js...@cornell.edu (James Margaris) wrote:
>
>> The sad fact is that my posts spark discussion. Adon vs Sagat is one
>> example. Me arguing with Viscant led to his real life confrontation with
>> Spider-Dan, which produced some interesting results. Having two great MvC
>> players discuss, duke it out and discuss some more, that sounds worthwhile to
>> me.
>
>Not to get involved with your guys' private flamewar, but your (James) posts
>really had nothing to do with Viscant and I. We started the "discussion" off
>of the "MvC Rankings (yet again)" thread, which I started.
>
>(http://x12.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=418714149&CONTEXT=917305545.1808466159&hi
>t
>num=24)
>
>He then proceeded to tell me I didn't know what I was talking about (among
>other things), which I took exception to, and then it went from there.

Oops, sorry. My mistake.

As for you, Mr. McIsaac(sp?), what's with the sudden pathetic yes man
attitude. First Milo, now Julien. Practicing to be a pro sycophant or
something. Of course, both you and Julien contribute to "my" off topic sub
threads, and on the same day that Julien says I'm too OT he makes 2 posts (and
you one, I might add) about the stuff he dug up on deja news. Now THAT is an
OT thread. Do you take your hypocrisy with one lump or two?

As for my useless sub threads, they only devolve into uselessness when
people like you and Julien decide to change the topic from Adon vs. Sagat to
James Margaris is a scrub and I don't like him, what a fool, did I mention he
fucks cows?

Now, what useless threads have I started exactly? I might point out
that I never am the first to make personal attacks or wander into totally
irrevlevant making up for small penis size posturing.

My first clash with Julien came when I accused people of not exploring
enough gameplay, not making their own decisions but rather trusting the
"authority" voices. (Who are obviously good players but not always correct)
Examples I used were the fact that a lot of people wrote off Guy based on a
few offhand remarks made by John Choi; that people evaluated VC's as simply
slower, less usefull CC's, etc, even though the only similarities between VC's
and CC's are that both require no motion and both can pass through attacks.
Julien picked one example (Vega vs Zan "for free" claw swipe) and made it into
some sort of personal crusade. (As well as Sentinel vs Akuma I think, or was
that Seth?)

The reason these threads get out of hand is that guys like you have to
puff out their chest and make it into a personal matter. Then we get posts
that begin "Look, you FUCKING IDIOT..." Nobody wants to read worthless OT shit
like that. I won't back down once someone starts that sort of behavior, and I
might give some back, but ONLY in response. The flames don't start here, but
rather with the self-important morons who feel that their personal honor is
compromised if someone disagrees with them.

I TRY to get the arguments back on topic, and then you or your kind
come along and say things like "I won't give you a definition of 'for free'"
(even though that is what we are in the end arguing over) just so you can
rpolong your mindless blabber about my sexual practices or point out more of
my oh-so-incriminating spelling blunders.

Viscant made his "I hate James M" post but in the post he stayed on
topic, no flamewar developed, and the thread ended. Maybe because he didn't
claim to be able to judge my overall intellect based on comments made about a
video game? Perhaps because he was logical, organized, clear and consice?
Because he is at least semi-literate?

The typical responses I get from you and Julien are:

Totally ignore content
Not understand content
Misquote and mis-attribute arguments to me (Hugo vs Alex...hmmm)
Not answer direct questions, instead "cleverly" evading them with such
tired tripe as "that is so obvious I don't have to answer," or "you are a
scrub just for asking."
Etc, etc. Is it any wonder these threads end up being worthless? At
some points my best argument is to repost exactly what I posted before just so
(GASP!!!) YOU MIGHT READ, UNDERSTAND, AND EVEN RESPOND TO IT!!!!!!! Instead of
the "liar, liar, pants on fire" crap you pull.

I view these disputes as nothing but academic until you stick your
nose in and try to turn them into some sort of brawl. I can disagree with
someone and still respect them and not resort to name calling. That is where
the discussion ends and the useless tangential shit begins.

James M

Shaun Patrick Mcisaac

unread,

Jan 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/26/99

you can look even worse? Spiderdan has already started, shall I continue?

spid...@my-dejanews.com

unread,

Jan 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/26/99

In article <19990125192652...@ng121.aol.com>,

whoa...@aol.com (WhoaMoses) wrote:
> Hey SpiderDan! Who did you use to beat Viscant anyways? I know I read it but
> I'm an idiot and I forgot....

Red Venom/Venom, and Strider/War Machine.

Shaun Patrick Mcisaac

unread,

Jan 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/26/99

oops.

In article <F66nJ...@midway.uchicago.edu>,
Shaun Patrick Mcisaac <spmc...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>In article <78jfpd$q...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,

>James Margaris <js...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>
>> As for you, Mr. McIsaac(sp?), what's with the sudden pathetic yes man
>>attitude. First Milo, now Julien. Practicing to be a pro sycophant or
>>something. Of course, both you and Julien contribute to "my" off topic sub
>>threads, and on the same day that Julien says I'm too OT he makes 2 posts (and
>>you one, I might add) about the stuff he dug up on deja news.
>
>

> Are you refering to the Mac LcIII or the P.E.T. Ulent posts?
>Julien's original reposting of Ming's flame was a clarification. Mine was
>an adaptation, since your response fit so well.

>
>>Now THAT is an
>>OT thread. Do you take your hypocrisy with one lump or two?
>

> OT is one thing, stupid is another.

>
>> As for my useless sub threads, they only devolve into uselessness when
>>people like you and Julien decide to change the topic from Adon vs. Sagat to

>>James Margaris is a scrub[...]
>
> I've been making point after point about why the match is
>bad (->free). You've responded with the Stiltman defense of "Yah, I can
>TU that." Wash rinse repeat.

>
>> did I mention he
>>fucks cows?
>

> Goats, pigs, cows... James, you just can't get them straight.
>Maybe if we put in some hyperlinks to sound effects each one you'll get it
>straight:
>
><a href="http://www.animalsex.com/Jameslikesme1.wav">Sound 1</a>
><a href="http://www.animalsex.com/Jameslikesme2.wav">Sound 2</a>
><a href="http://www.animalsex.com/Jameslikesme3.wav">Sound 3</a>

>
>> Now, what useless threads have I started exactly? I might point out
>>that I never am the first to make personal attacks or wander into totally
>>irrevlevant making up for small penis size posturing.
>

> You're responsible for the definition of free crap, which I think
>Sol has flushed your position down the toilet rather nicely, and he took
>I...@I.com along for the ride.

>
>>few offhand remarks made by John Choi; that people evaluated VC's as simply
>>slower, less usefull CC's, etc, even though the only similarities between VC's
>>and CC's are that both require no motion and both can pass through attacks.
>

> Which is not true, but you don't mind that.

>
>> The reason these threads get out of hand is that guys like you have to
>>puff out their chest and make it into a personal matter. Then we get posts
>
> The reason these threads get out of hand is that guys like you have to

>puff out their chest and not listen to the arguments at hand, instead
>making unsuported and garbage claims like "Well, I can randomly super and
>therefore it's going to win me 1 game in 100."

>
>> I TRY to get the arguments back on topic, and then you or your kind
>>come along and say things like "I won't give you a definition of 'for free'"
>>(even though that is what we are in the end arguing over) just so you can
>>rpolong your mindless blabber about my sexual practices or point out more of
>>my oh-so-incriminating spelling blunders.
>

> I didn't give you one, BECAUSE THERE WERE ALREADY 2-3 DEFINITIONS
>GIVEN. HOW CAN YOU BE THIS DENSE?

>
>>Instead of
>>the "liar, liar, pants on fire" crap you pull.
>

> You remind me of Bill Clinton. Blame Ken Starr for the problems
>in the white house, he should have let the lies go by. Wtf kind of
>defense is that?
>
>>James M
>
>I promise to start filtering these posts from now on.

j...@my-dejanews.com

unread,

Jan 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/28/99

In article <78jfpd$q...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
js...@cornell.edu (James Margaris) wrote:

> >> The sad fact is that my posts spark discussion. Adon vs Sagat is
one

You're damn right that's a sad fact.

> The reason these threads get out of hand is that guys like you have to
> puff out their chest and make it into a personal matter. Then we get posts

> that begin "Look, you FUCKING IDIOT..." Nobody wants to read worthless OT shit
> like that. I won't back down once someone starts that sort of behavior, and I>
might give some back, but ONLY in response. The flames don't start here, but
> rather with the self-important morons who feel that their personal honor is
> compromised if someone disagrees with them.

What about the self important morons who "won't back down once someone starts
that sort of behavior"?

> The typical responses I get from you and Julien are:
>
> Totally ignore content
> Not understand content
> Misquote and mis-attribute arguments to me (Hugo vs Alex...hmmm)
> Not answer direct questions, instead "cleverly" evading them with such

Ok you stupid fuck. You posted the following crap (NB Shaun, my "yes man", as
you call him, already did this, but you conviently did not notice that
message)

Our deluded James Margaris wrote:

----BEGIN CRAP BLOCK #1------
To say that Sagat can't play poke games is a foolish statement. He can
^^^^^^
play them, he just loses them most but not all of the time. Furthermore Sagat
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
can play very aggressivly with judicious use of the tiger knee. Tiger knee,
low short, tiger knee, they flinch, uppercut. No, this is not foolproof, but
it is a strategy that works.
-----END CRAP BLOCK #1------

I note:
----BEGIN PLEA TO SHUT UP------

And you go jumping in arguing
whether "for free" should mean 99-1 or 9-1, and you tell Shaun that he can't
say "Sagat can't play a poking game" because of "He _can_ play a poking game,
but he _should_ not play a poking game. You are an idiot if you say he
_can't_ play a poking game."

---END PLEA TO SHUT UP--------

Margaris denies with:
---BEGIN MARGARIS DENIAL-----

Actually, I said he SHOULD play a poking game. I do read what people are

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

saying, very carefully, unlike certain other barely literate people on this
group.

---END MARGARIS DENIAL-------

Well? Can you get your head out of your ass please? And you have the gall to
claim you read what people are saying very carefully? You can't even read what
YOU are saying!

Well, am I doing any of the following?

> Totally ignore content
> Not understand content
> Misquote and mis-attribute arguments to me (Hugo vs Alex...hmmm)

No! It is you, your poor deluded moron. YOU are the one who ignores content.
YOU are the one who doesn't understand content. YOU are the one who
mis-attributes arguments (your own!!!!!!). Can you understand even this
simple example? Can you get it through your thick skull that your are
spouting bullshit?

Ok, ok, ok.. maybe the above wasn't clear. Maybe I somehow took "He [Sagat]can
play them [poking games], he just loses them most but not all of the time"
directly followed by "Actually, I said he SHOULD play a poking game" out of
context. Maybe I'm the one being slow here. Maybe I did not undestand the
content. And I probably misquoted the whole thing too.

Let us examine then, another piece of evidence, which I will title "CRAP BLOCK
#2".

----BEGIN CRAP BLOCK #2------
Do you really think the fight is 9.999995 - 0.000005? If you are ever in the
Northeast once. I'm sure that by throwing out totally random supers I can win
at least 1/100 of the time.
-----END CRAP BLOCK #2------

----BEGIN PLEA TO SHUT UP------

---END PLEA TO SHUT UP--------

note (for those of short term memory that this last sentence applies to BEGIN
CRAP block #1, where Margaris says "Tiger knee, low short, tiger knee, they
flinch, uppercut. No, this is not foolproof, but it is a strategy that wor
^^^^^^^^^^ ks."

Margaris defends himself with
---BEGIN MARGARIS DENIAL-----

Well, obviously someone cares, since they are arguing with me. In fact, I seem
to remember you arguing with me, until I shot you down like the total idiot
you are.

---END MARGARIS DENIAL-------

Nice response from James here. Direct, on topic, and to the point. James
starts out by pointing out the subtle distinction between a fight that goes
9.999995 - 0.000005 and one that goes 99 - 1. Thanks James! We'll be sure to
keep that in mind in future rankings charts. For free? Hell no! It's 9.999995
- 0.000005. And if you dispute that fact, James will be happy to prove it
next time you are the Northeast by doing tricky sequences that make judicious
use of the tiger knee. Beware, foolish scrub, for you may experience that
beating which is known as "The Margaris technique"., Tiger knee, low short,
tiger knee, and WHEN YOU FLINCH (as you most certainly will, under the
monumental threat of guard crush and James' sheer physical and odorific
presence) he'll blow you away with a well timed uppercut. As the master
himself says, "No, this is not foolproof, but it is a strategy that works."
It's this kind of mastery and insight into the advanced laws of probablity
and statistics that "seperates" (as james would say) him from the rest of the
group.

> tired tripe as "that is so obvious I don't have to answer," or "you are a
> scrub just for asking."
> Etc, etc. Is it any wonder these threads end up being worthless? At
> some points my best argument is to repost exactly what I posted before just so

> (GASP!!!) YOU MIGHT READ, UNDERSTAND, AND EVEN RESPOND TO IT!!!!!!! Instead of

> the "liar, liar, pants on fire" crap you pull.

James, we do read exactly what you post exactly what you posted before we
(GASP!!!) read undestand, and even respond. The problem is that without a
healthy dose of shrooms, what you say makes no sense. Haven't you noticed
this? What am I saying, of course you don't. You directly contradict yourself
in the same sentence!

> I TRY to get the arguments back on topic, and then you or your kind
> come along and say things like "I won't give you a definition of 'for free'"
> (even though that is what we are in the end arguing over) just so you can
> rpolong your mindless blabber about my sexual practices or point out more of
> my oh-so-incriminating spelling blunders.

Us kind come along, point out that you are contradicting yourself and
spouting nonsense, and THEN we examine your sexual practices. It would be so
much more fun, James, if instead of whining that 99-1 != 99.9999995 -
0.0000005, you could provide us with juicy details about your cows. For
example: -Do they moo when you enter them?

-Do you find a significant difference (besides the smell of course) between
anal and vaginal cowfucking? Is the ass any tighter?

-Have you considered fisting?

-I've been told that fucking a chicken, and then cutting off its head while
it's impaled on your tool. You get a good 2-3 minutes of wild clucking,
gyrating, and internal contractions before it dies completely. Any thoughts
on that?

With content like this, we could forgive your sexual, er, spelling, blunders.

> James M

Julien Beasley
Da Mizer

James Margaris

unread,

Jan 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/28/99

In article <78p07n$h8b$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, j...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>In article <78jfpd$q...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
> js...@cornell.edu (James Margaris) wrote:
>

Julien, you are the MOST FUCKING DENSE person I have ever, ever talked to. I
am going to spell this oput for you as slow as I can so you can see just how
exactly you are wrong, everywhere, all the time. You literally CAN NOT read.
There is no other possible conclusion.

>> >> The sad fact is that my posts spark discussion. Adon vs Sagat is
>one
>
>You're damn right that's a sad fact.
>
>> The reason these threads get out of hand is that guys like you have
> to
>> puff out their chest and make it into a personal matter. Then we get posts
>> that begin "Look, you FUCKING IDIOT..." Nobody wants to read worthless OT
> shit
>> like that. I won't back down once someone starts that sort of behavior, and
> I>
>might give some back, but ONLY in response. The flames don't start here, but
>> rather with the self-important morons who feel that their personal honor is
>> compromised if someone disagrees with them.
>
>What about the self important morons who "won't back down once someone starts
>that sort of behavior"?

Gyuh gyuh. Good one, oh clever master. Wow, what a hypocrite I must
be. Of course, the OBVIOUS difference, the point I was trying to make, that
like all point flew MILES AND MILES above your head is that I don't start
these idiotic flamewars. Read that again. I DON'T START them. Do not. As in, I
don't, the opposite of do.

You can't tell the difference between someone who STARTS something and
someone who is attacked and then defends themself? No, you can't, of course
not, becuase you are Julien Beasly, the single DUMBEST person on this group,
hands down, surpassing even the stupiest of the random 7th graders.

>
>> The typical responses I get from you and Julien are:
>>
>> Totally ignore content
>> Not understand content
>> Misquote and mis-attribute arguments to me (Hugo vs Alex...hmmm)
>> Not answer direct questions, instead "cleverly" evading them with
> such
>
>Ok you stupid fuck. You posted the following crap (NB Shaun, my "yes man", as
>you call him, already did this, but you conviently did not notice that
>message)

Oh yippeee! You ARE actually going to respond, so I can shoot you down
on EVERY SINGLE POINT you racked your brain to come up with.

>
>Our deluded James Margaris wrote:
>
>----BEGIN CRAP BLOCK #1------
> To say that Sagat can't play poke games is a foolish statement. He can
> ^^^^^^
>play them, he just loses them most but not all of the time. Furthermore Sagat
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>can play very aggressivly with judicious use of the tiger knee. Tiger knee,
>low short, tiger knee, they flinch, uppercut. No, this is not foolproof, but
>it is a strategy that works.
>-----END CRAP BLOCK #1------
>
>I note:
>----BEGIN PLEA TO SHUT UP------
>And you go jumping in arguing
>whether "for free" should mean 99-1 or 9-1, and you tell Shaun that he can't
>say "Sagat can't play a poking game" because of "He _can_ play a poking game,
>but he _should_ not play a poking game. You are an idiot if you say he
>_can't_ play a poking game."
>---END PLEA TO SHUT UP--------

NO NO NO! In plain English: Sagat *can* play a poking game. He will more
often than not lose that poking game. But, this is his best strategy, along
with mixing up tiger knees (whether or not that is too aggressive to be
"poking" is debateable) I have REPEATDLY stated that Sagat SHOULD NEVER EVER
throw a FB, since at best it allows them to build meter. I also said he can
not jump in. What else is there? YOU ARE NOT EVEN QUOTING ME!!!!! Gahhh!!! You
are quoting, of all people, YOURSELF, misquoting me. You can tell because I
*never* use underlines to accentuate, I use *stars* or CAPITALS. I looked this
up a deja-news. This is from YOUR post. it is not a quote, it is a "quote."
(As in, you attributed it to me but I didn't really say it)

Sagat can NOT JUMP in, execpt after a knockdown or in reponse to a Jag
tooth. He should NOT EVER throw FB's. He should poke and tiger knee, and
probably lose, but that is the gameplan he should follow to maximize his
chances.

This is NOT that hard to understand, is it?

>
>Margaris denies with:
>---BEGIN MARGARIS DENIAL-----
>Actually, I said he SHOULD play a poking game. I do read what people are
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>saying, very carefully, unlike certain other barely literate people on this
>group.
>---END MARGARIS DENIAL-------

It was not a denial. How can I deny something I never even said? What
I said to Mr. McIssaac is this: Sagat CAN poke, he just loses. Just because
Adon has a better poking game does not mean that Sagat can't poke at all, or
that Sagat automatically loses. I even made a hypothetical example showing
that a character with worse pokes CAN win fights USING poking. This is just
common sense though. In a purely poking match, the worse poker CAN WIN
SOMETIMES. SOMETIMES. *SOMETIMES.*

>
>Well? Can you get your head out of your ass please? And you have the gall to
>claim you read what people are saying very carefully? You can't even read what
>YOU are saying!

Hah hah hah. You mean, I can't read what YOU are saying, but I can.
Furthermore I can use deja news and see that your "quote" of me originated in
YOUR post. It's not a quote at all, it is a "weak quote" where you try to
summarize my argument for me, but YOU COMPLETLY MISSED THE POINT!

This is a direct quote of what I said to Mr. McIssaac, taken from Deja News:

-----------------------------
No, you are the idiot. Sagat can (or should) not play tiger ball games or long
range fames against anyone, with very few exceptions. Sagat has a worse poke
game and tick game than most characters, which makes him bad, but he does not
lose for free in these bad matches. How is Adon different from Chun-Li, Gen,
etc. All have anti-air that he can't penetrate and better pokes, as well as
better throw range. Why aren't these for free.

To say that Sagat can't play poke game is a foolish statement. He can

play them, he just loses them most but not all of the time.

-------------

See! SEE! This is not contradictory at all. I said

a) He can't jump in
b) He can't FB
c) He can win sometimes by poking

This is what I mean by you making up arguments for me. You read what you want
to read, because you assume I know nothing at all, make up statements out of
thin air, cram them into my mouth and then call me a hypocrite for saying
them. BUT I DON'T say them. Just like I never said Hugo beats Hyperbomb Alex.

>
>Well, am I doing any of the following?
>
>> Totally ignore content
>> Not understand content
>> Misquote and mis-attribute arguments to me (Hugo vs Alex...hmmm)
>
>No! It is you, your poor deluded moron. YOU are the one who ignores content.
>YOU are the one who doesn't understand content. YOU are the one who
>mis-attributes arguments (your own!!!!!!). Can you understand even this
>simple example? Can you get it through your thick skull that your are
>spouting bullshit?

Not only did I understand your simple example, but I've shown you that
it doesn't hold water at all. I nfact it illustrates EXACTLY what I accuse you
of.

>
>Ok, ok, ok.. maybe the above wasn't clear. Maybe I somehow took "He [Sagat]can
>play them [poking games], he just loses them most but not all of the time"
>directly followed by "Actually, I said he SHOULD play a poking game" out of
>context. Maybe I'm the one being slow here. Maybe I did not undestand the
>content. And I probably misquoted the whole thing too.

Yes, you did misquote the whole thing.
Yes, you did not understand the content.

>
>Let us examine then, another piece of evidence, which I will title "CRAP BLOCK
>#2".

Oh boy!

>----BEGIN CRAP BLOCK #2------
>Do you really think the fight is 9.999995 - 0.000005? If you are ever in the
>Northeast once. I'm sure that by throwing out totally random supers I can win
>at least 1/100 of the time.
>-----END CRAP BLOCK #2------
>
>----BEGIN PLEA TO SHUT UP------
>No one gives a damn about your definition of "for free". Stop arguing shit
>like "Yeah the fight isn't really free because if I just supercombo randomly
>I'll win 1 out of 100 games" and "Well I can just fierce TU when you flinch
>and win that way so it's not free"
>---END PLEA TO SHUT UP--------

GOD! ONCE AGAIN! The reason I brought up 9.999995 - 0.00005 is because
Mr. McIssaac, NOT ME, said that Adon would take the fight with those odds.
That was HIS, not mine. I was trying to show, (or, I DID show) that Mr.
McIssaac was incorrect, and that Sagat could win more than 1/10000, just by
doing random supers, the implication being he could win even more than that
with some strategy. 9.99995 vs 0.000005 was NOT my definition of "for free."
My definition was an easy win that requires minimal guessing and little skill.
Akuma vs Zan. Simple pattern, all the skill difference in the world can't help
him. This particular quote of yours isn't about it being for free at all
though. He said sagat could only win 1/1000000, I disagreed and PROVED (or
close enough) that I was right. Crap? Methinks not.

>note (for those of short term memory that this last sentence applies to BEGIN
>CRAP block #1, where Margaris says "Tiger knee, low short, tiger knee, they
>flinch, uppercut. No, this is not foolproof, but it is a strategy that wor
>^^^^^^^^^^ ks."
>
>Margaris defends himself with
>---BEGIN MARGARIS DENIAL-----
>Well, obviously someone cares, since they are arguing with me. In fact, I seem
>to remember you arguing with me, until I shot you down like the total idiot
>you are.
>---END MARGARIS DENIAL-------

>
>Nice response from James here. Direct, on topic, and to the point. James
>starts out by pointing out the subtle distinction between a fight that goes
>9.999995 - 0.000005 and one that goes 99 - 1. Thanks James!

Once again...I pointed out the distinction as a DIRECT CONTRADICTION
to a claim made by Mr. McIssaac. It was only marginally if at all related to
the "freeness" of the fight. It was a false claim he made and I took him to
task for it.

We'll be sure to
>keep that in mind in future rankings charts. For free? Hell no! It's 9.999995
>- 0.000005.

Actually, if you READ, yes, READ my posts, you'll see that I WOULD
consider 9.999995 to 0.00005 as free. I said 10-0, or maybe a strong 9-1. Yes,
that IS what I said. Use deja news, it was in response to Bob Painter I think.

And if you dispute that fact, James will be happy to prove it
>next time you are the Northeast by doing tricky sequences that make judicious
>use of the tiger knee. Beware, foolish scrub, for you may experience that
>beating which is known as "The Margaris technique"., Tiger knee, low short,
>tiger knee, and WHEN YOU FLINCH (as you most certainly will, under the
>monumental threat of guard crush and James' sheer physical and odorific
>presence) he'll blow you away with a well timed uppercut.

yes, actually I WILL DO exactly that, minus the smell, but including
the physical presence. And I will beat you at least 1/100. Therefore, Mr.
McIssaac is incorrect, thus proving the point I was making. Does this mean it
is or isn't for free? Who knows? WE weren't even talking about that.

As the master
>himself says, "No, this is not foolproof, but it is a strategy that works."
>It's this kind of mastery and insight into the advanced laws of probablity
>and statistics that "seperates" (as james would say) him from the rest of the
>group.

Oh, ouch...I spell things wrong sometimes, what a lesser being I must
be! Damn my miserable existence, damn it to hell!

>> tired tripe as "that is so obvious I don't have to answer," or "you are a
>> scrub just for asking."
>> Etc, etc. Is it any wonder these threads end up being worthless? At
>> some points my best argument is to repost exactly what I posted before just
> so
>> (GASP!!!) YOU MIGHT READ, UNDERSTAND, AND EVEN RESPOND TO IT!!!!!!! Instead
> of
>> the "liar, liar, pants on fire" crap you pull.
>
>James, we do read exactly what you post exactly what you posted before we
>(GASP!!!) read undestand, and even respond. The problem is that without a
>healthy dose of shrooms, what you say makes no sense. Haven't you noticed
>this? What am I saying, of course you don't. You directly contradict yourself
>in the same sentence!

Well, I think I've done a good job of fortifying my position, and
you've done a good job of destroying yours.

[clip cow fucking nonsense]

No need to respond to the rest of this crap. You've done an admirable
job of aquitting me. Thanks.

Love ya,

James M

ps: Moooooooooooooooooo!

Shaun Patrick Mcisaac

unread,

Jan 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/29/99

I've filtered this one for the most part.

In article <78qc3i$s...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,

James Margaris <js...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>In article <78p07n$h8b$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, j...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>In article <78jfpd$q...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
>> js...@cornell.edu (James Margaris) wrote:
>>----BEGIN CRAP BLOCK #1------
>> To say that Sagat can't play poke games is a foolish statement. He can
>> ^^^^^^
>>play them, he just loses them most but not all of the time. Furthermore Sagat
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>can play very aggressivly with judicious use of the tiger knee. Tiger knee,
>>low short, tiger knee, they flinch, uppercut. No, this is not foolproof, but
>>it is a strategy that works.
>>-----END CRAP BLOCK #1------
>>I note:

>>---END PLEA TO SHUT UP--------

> MO MO MO! Mo moooo moooooo: Sagat *can* play a poking game. He will more

>often than not lose that poking game.

While it's not obvious to someone who doesn't know the context of
this NG, saying that someone can play a //such-and-such// game means that
they can do it and win with it.

> Moo, this is his best strategy, moooo

Except that, it's not sufficient for him to win the fight 9 times
out of 10.

>Mooooooooooooooooo. MOO MOO MOO MOOO MOOOOOO MO!!!!! Moooo!!! You

>are quoting, of all people, YOURSELF, misquoting me. You can tell because I

>*never* use underlines to accentuate, I use *stars* or CAPITALS. M mooooo mooo
>mo m deja-news. Mooooooooooooooooooooo. mooooooooooooooooooooooooo."
>(moooo, you attributed it to me but I didn't really say it)

It most certainly is a quote. He added an underline. Anyone
else would be a troll, but I really believe you're this stupid, as
trolls are less involved. This is the dump from dejanews, which must not
be the same things as deja-news, whatever that is...

This is unedited and can be viewed at this URL (while it's still active)
http://x9.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=436057906&search=thread&threaded=1&CONTEXT=917585721.1951399940&HIT_CONTEXT=917585660.1949302953&HIT_NUM=7&hitnum=63

///\\\///\\\BEGIN WWW.DEJANEWS.COM DUMP///\\\///\\\

Click here for over 20,000 high-tech jobs

Message 64 of 117 for search
return to search results

help

Re: "For free" in Alpha 3 (hey that rhymes)
Author:

James Margaris <js...@cornell.edu>
Date:

1999/01/23
Forum:

alt.games.sf2

James Margaris

unread,

Jan 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/29/99

Well, since I already called julien the dumbest person on this group, I guess
for the sake of consistancy I'll have to call you number 2. Let the fun begin.

In article <F6B42...@midway.uchicago.edu>, spmc...@midway.uchicago.edu

(Shaun Patrick Mcisaac) wrote:
>I've filtered this one for the most part.
>
>In article <78qc3i$s...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
>James Margaris <js...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>>In article <78p07n$h8b$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, j...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>>In article <78jfpd$q...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
>>> js...@cornell.edu (James Margaris) wrote:
>>>----BEGIN CRAP BLOCK #1------
>>> To say that Sagat can't play poke games is a foolish statement. He
> can
>>>
> ^^^^^^
>>>play them, he just loses them most but not all of the time. Furthermore Sagat
>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>can play very aggressivly with judicious use of the tiger knee. Tiger knee,
>>>low short, tiger knee, they flinch, uppercut. No, this is not foolproof, but
>>>it is a strategy that works.
>>>-----END CRAP BLOCK #1------
>>>I note:
>>>---END PLEA TO SHUT UP--------
>
>> MO MO MO! Mo moooo moooooo: Sagat *can* play a poking game. He will more
>>often than not lose that poking game.
>
> While it's not obvious to someone who doesn't know the context of
>this NG, saying that someone can play a //such-and-such// game means that
>they can do it and win with it.

Hmm...except for a few simple facts:

a) I repeatedly stated that Sagat does not win this fight, in plain
English, over and over and ever again.

b) The sentence "Sagat can play a poking game" is IMMEDIATLY followed
by the second sentence which makes the meaning perfectly clear. He can play,
but he loses more often than not.

Is this really a difficult concept. All you have to do is read TWO
sentences that occur right next to each other. Not a hard task for some of us.

>> Moo, this is his best strategy, moooo
>
> Except that, it's not sufficient for him to win the fight 9 times
>out of 10.

?!?! Who said he has to win 9 out of 10? Who said he even had to win 5
out of 10? Not me. All I said was that he doesn't lose for free. Does that
mean "win" in your mind?

>
>>Mooooooooooooooooo. MOO MOO MOO MOOO MOOOOOO MO!!!!! Moooo!!! You
>>are quoting, of all people, YOURSELF, misquoting me. You can tell because I
>>*never* use underlines to accentuate, I use *stars* or CAPITALS. M mooooo mooo
>>mo m deja-news. Mooooooooooooooooooooo. mooooooooooooooooooooooooo."
>>(moooo, you attributed it to me but I didn't really say it)
>
> It most certainly is a quote. He added an underline. Anyone
>else would be a troll, but I really believe you're this stupid, as
>trolls are less involved. This is the dump from dejanews, which must not
>be the same things as deja-news, whatever that is...

Oh MY GOD!!! Now you REALLY must be a troll. Compare the two quotes. THEY ARE
NOT THE SAME. Just read them. You are quoting the same post I quoted to
disprove him. Show me where I say the words "Sagat SHOULD NOT use a poking
game" Show me! Go on. Can;t do it, can you. Anyone who can read can tell that
the quote is not exact. Conveniently you've left out the "quote" of his so we
have nothing to compare to, but I already responded to this in my post to him.
Clearly what he has "quoted" me as saying does not appear in this post.

[clip]

>
> To say that Sagat can't play poke games is a foolish statement. He
>can
>play them, he just loses them most but not all of the time. Furthermore
>Sagat
>can play very aggressivly with judicious use of the tiger knee. Tiger
>knee,
>low short, tiger knee, they flinch, uppercut. No, this is not foolproof,
>but
>it is a strategy that works.

So, this is supposedly where the "quote" come from. So, where is it?
Where do I say "He should not use a poking game?" Hmm??? You take the term
"exact quote" rather loosely. Just like for you "Sagat does not lose for free"
= "Sagat wins 9-1", I guess the two quotes are exact as long as they use some
of the same words.
[clip]

>
> Your hypothetical is BULLSHIT. If I win, with equal damage, two
>pokes out of every three, I'll win nearly every game. You're welcome to
>learn why this is, just go take a stat class... and I dare say that this
>is worse than 2 out of 3 pokes at equal damage. And, to make it worse, as
>the damage level gets turned down further and further, the probability of
>the worse poker winning goes to *****ZERO*****. _LEARN_THIS_, PLEASE.

That would be right if the players were exactly the same skill level.
I can do the math as well as you if not better (probably better, given your
decided lack of intelligence), but just as importantly I don't blindly employ
math in non-quantifiable situations. Where did 2/3 come from? The basic math
does not take into account differences in skill levels, players adjusting to
each other's strategies (which can adapt faster), or streakiness. It doesn't
take into account a player getting frsutrated or flustered or having a bad
day. The math is right, it just doesn't apply. Anyone who thinks they can boil
down a SF2 game to a simple formula is bordering on retardation. Idiot
mathmaticians have "proven" several things that later turned out to be bogus.
In your case you are simply making a GROSS simplification to fit your
own needs. Experience tells us that worse characters can win. No math can
disprove that.

>
><ZONK, because it's written about three times above>
>> To say that Sagat can't play poke game is a foolish statement. He can
>>play them, he just loses them most but not all of the time.
>>Moo! MOO! This is not contradictory at all. Mooooo
>
> Sure it is. It's contradictory within the context of this NG.
>That's up there with the stupid objections like "it still cost you 25c to
>play, it can't be for free" which I'm sure is I...@I.COM's next post on my
>spool, or something very close to it =)

I went over this before. The two sentences occur right next to each
other. If I said he can play a poking game and left it at that you might have
a point, but by reading one whole sentence further any confusion is quickly
dispelled, if there was any, which would be odd considering that my view from
the outset was that Sagat loses. If someone is really that dense, well, they
need help. The "I" example is amusing but totally irrelevant. I suppose if you
insist on reading "he can play" as "he can play and win often" even though
that is expressly and obviously not what I stated you have a point, but then
again using that logic you could simply read extra into everything and prove
me wrong all the time.

[clip the rest]

This was really a second rate effort. You once again misquoted me, after I
spent half the last post pointing out the same thing to Jules. Do I need to
draw pictures?

You can try to ban me, since that's the only way you can stop being made to
look like a fool. However, when you consider the fact that you and Julien
attacked me, not the other way around, I don't think you'll get much support.
All I've done is respond to your attacks in a ( mostly) logical fashion, while
all you can do is make cow jokes and repeatedly make an ass of yourself by
mis-reading simple english sentences and MULTIPLY misquoting the same passage
again and again.

What a joke. Second rate for a troll. Oooh, I'm scared of being banned.
"Mommy, mommy, James hurt my ego, waaaaaaahhh!!!" Get a life loser. The only
time and space I've wasted with my posting was in direct reponse to you and
Julien, who have wasted just as much if not more than me, and of course while
my posts are 90%+ content yours are 90%+ nonsensical blundering.

James M

Shaun Patrick Mcisaac

unread,

Jan 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/29/99

In article <78rkh6$c...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,

James Margaris <js...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>
>Well, since I already called julien the dumbest person on this group, I guess
>for the sake of consistancy I'll have to call you number 2. Let the fun begin.
>In article <F6B42...@midway.uchicago.edu>, spmc...@midway.uchicago.edu
>(Shaun Patrick Mcisaac) wrote:
>>I've filtered this one for the most part.

>>>>----BEGIN CRAP BLOCK #1------
>>>> To say that Sagat can't play poke games is a foolish statement. He
>> can
>> ^^^^^^
>>>>play them, he just loses them most but not all of the time. Furthermore Sagat
>>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>can play very aggressivly with judicious use of the tiger knee. Tiger knee,
>>>>low short, tiger knee, they flinch, uppercut. No, this is not foolproof, but
>>>>it is a strategy that works.
>>>>-----END CRAP BLOCK #1------
>>>>I note:
>>>>---END PLEA TO SHUT UP--------
>>> MO MO MO! Mo moooo moooooo: Sagat *can* play a poking game. He will more
>>>often than not lose that poking game.
>>
>> While it's not obvious to someone who doesn't know the context of
>>this NG, saying that someone can play a //such-and-such// game means that
>>they can do it and win with it.
>
> Hmm...except for a few simple facts:
>
> a) I repeatedly stated that Sagat does not win this fight, in plain
>English, over and over and ever again.

Irrelevant to the point above.

> b) The sentence "Sagat can play a poking game" is IMMEDIATLY followed
>by the second sentence which makes the meaning perfectly clear. He can play,
>but he loses more often than not.

>> While it's not obvious to someone who doesn't know the context of
>>this NG, saying that someone can play a //such-and-such// game means that
>>they can do it and win with it.

> Is this really a difficult concept. All you have to do is read TWO

>sentences that occur right next to each other. Not a hard task for some of us.

You stupid fuck, I'm informing you why those sentences are
***WRONG*** and make no sense in the context of this NG, and why everyone
else has been telling you Sagat can't play a poking game.

>>> Moo, this is his best strategy, moooo
>> Except that, it's not sufficient for him to win the fight 9 times
>>out of 10.
> ?!?! Who said he has to win 9 out of 10? Who said he even had to win 5
>out of 10? Not me. All I said was that he doesn't lose for free. Does that
>mean "win" in your mind?

>> Except that, it's not sufficient for him to win the fight 9 times
>>out of 10.

it's *NOT* sufficient... meaning he will lose 9/10 (or more).

>> Your hypothetical is BULLSHIT. If I win, with equal damage, two
>>pokes out of every three, I'll win nearly every game. You're welcome to
>>learn why this is, just go take a stat class... and I dare say that this
>>is worse than 2 out of 3 pokes at equal damage. And, to make it worse, as
>>the damage level gets turned down further and further, the probability of
>>the worse poker winning goes to *****ZERO*****. _LEARN_THIS_, PLEASE.
> That would be right if the players were exactly the same skill level.
>I can do the math as well as you if not better (probably better, given your
>decided lack of intelligence), but just as importantly I don't blindly employ
>math in non-quantifiable situations. Where did 2/3 come from? The basic math
>does not take into account differences in skill levels, players adjusting to
>each other's strategies (which can adapt faster),

This is why rankings assume *equal* skill level (including for
free ranks).

> or streakiness.

Call the math department, James has to inform them of streakiness.
James, stat *does* take into account things like Sagat hitting the lottery
and geussing right 20 times in a row. Chances of him doing so? 1 game in
every 3 billion 486 million 784 thousand 401 (calculated).

>It doesn't
>take into account a player getting frsutrated or flustered or having a bad
>day. The math is right, it just doesn't apply. Anyone who thinks they can boil
>down a SF2 game to a simple formula is bordering on retardation. Idiot
>mathmaticians have "proven" several things that later turned out to be bogus.
>In your case you are simply making a GROSS simplification to fit your
>own needs. Experience tells us that worse characters can win. No math can
>disprove that.

No, you moronic fuck, the whole point of these threads are that
the worse character CANNOT win. You repeatedly saying so doesn't change
the reality of it.

>What a joke. Second rate for a troll. Mooo, I'm scared of being banned.

Thanks.
Now *GO AWAY*

James Margaris

unread,

Jan 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/29/99

News express crashed the first time I tried this so this one will be slightly
abbreviated.

[clip]

>
>> b) The sentence "Sagat can play a poking game" is IMMEDIATLY followed
>>by the second sentence which makes the meaning perfectly clear. He can play,
>>but he loses more often than not.
>
>>>
>>> While it's not obvious to someone who doesn't know the context of
>>>this NG, saying that someone can play a //such-and-such// game means that
>>>they can do it and win with it.
>
>> Is this really a difficult concept. All you have to do is read TWO
>>sentences that occur right next to each other. Not a hard task for some of us.
>
> You stupid fuck, I'm informing you why those sentences are
>***WRONG*** and make no sense in the context of this NG, and why everyone
>else has been telling you Sagat can't play a poking game.

Those sentences are not wrong. Sagat can play a poking game. That is
true. He loses the game most of the time. That is also true. I guess if your
own pet NG definition of words takes precedence over what is written clearly
in plain English you have a point, but that's just plain dumb. The sentences
are phrased in such away so that there can't be any confusion to anyone who
can put 2 and 2 together. If you insist that "can play" means "play and win,"
even though it clearly doesn't in context (the context fo the post, not the
"NG context") well, whatever. English is your worst nightmare apparently.

>
>>>> Moo, this is his best strategy, moooo
>>> Except that, it's not sufficient for him to win the fight 9 times
>>>out of 10.
>> ?!?! Who said he has to win 9 out of 10? Who said he even had to win 5
>
>>out of 10? Not me. All I said was that he doesn't lose for free. Does that
>>mean "win" in your mind?
>
>>> Except that, it's not sufficient for him to win the fight 9 times
>>>out of 10.
>
> it's *NOT* sufficient... meaning he will lose 9/10 (or more).

Once again, sheer brilliance:

>>> it's not sufficient for him to win the fight 9 times
>>>out of 10.

> it's *NOT* sufficient... meaning he will lose 9/10 (or more).

????? So, if Sagat's strategy is not good enough to let him win 9/10, he must
lose 9/10? Are those the only two choices? Is it possible that he doesn't win
9/10, but he wins 3/10? I guess not.

Not win 9/10 = lose 9/10, not win 4/10, not 2/10, nope the only thing that is
NOT win 9/10 is lose 9/10.

Not 3 = 7. Not 6, not 8, 7.
Not Apple = Orange. Not bannanna, not pear, orange

Whee, this is fun!

><ZONK rediculous garbage. Who's not willing to concede points now? It
>is obvious that the Dejanews dump is a quote, and that it matches what
>was posted.>

Alright, I think I see your problem. Julien correctly quoted me in one part,
then misquoted me in another. You must be confusing the two. I will post the
two right after each other so you can see the difference.

Hey kids, these two paragrpahs may look the same, but look carefully
and see if you can spot the differences. Go for it guy!

_________________
Paragraph 1: What I said, according to Jules

_____________________

Now, look at the stuff in quotes. I supposedly said these exact words. Try to
find them in the next paragraph or anywhere in any of my posts. It can't be
done.

-------------------

Paragraph 2: What I actually said:

No, you are the idiot. Sagat can (or should) not play tiger ball games or
longe range games against anyone, with very few exceptions. Sagat has worse

poke game and tick game than most characters, which makes him bad, but he does

not lose for free in these bad matches. How is Adon different from Chun-Li,
Gen, etc. All have anti-air that he can't pentrate and better pokes, as well
as better throw range. Why aren't these for free.

To say that Sagat can't play poke games is a foolish statement. He can

play them, he just loses them most but not all of the time. Furthermore Sagat

can play very aggressivly with judicious use of the tiger knee. Tiger knee,
low short, tiger knee, they flinch, uppercut. No, this is not foolproof, but
it is a strategy that works.

---------------

This second paragraph Julien quoted correctly. However, I supposedly said the
stuff in quotes in paragraph 1. This is simply not the case. Let us compare
the key sentences:

a) "Sagat can't play a poking game" because of "He _can_ play a poking game,

but he _should_ not play a poking game. You are an idiot if you say he
_can't_ play a poking game."

b) To say that Sagat can't play poke games is a foolish statement. He can

play them, he just loses them most but not all of the time.

These are clearly not the same thing. The first is clearly not a
proper quote of the second. It is merely his attempt to stick words in my
mouth. There is no question about it. It is not an exact quote. End of story.
If you can find ME saying "He _can_ play a poking game,

but he _should_ not play a poking game. You are an idiot if you say he

_can't_ play a poking game." anywhere in a post, well, you win, but you won't
find it.

[clip]

> This is why rankings assume *equal* skill level (including for
>free ranks).
>
>> or streakiness.
>
> Call the math department, James has to inform them of streakiness.
>James, stat *does* take into account things like Sagat hitting the lottery
>and geussing right 20 times in a row. Chances of him doing so? 1 game in
>every 3 billion 486 million 784 thousand 401 (calculated).

You are once again proving to be amazingly dense. Streakiness is not
just simple probability. WHen players do well it can boost their confidence
and they perfrom abnormally well for a while. When they hit a rut and get
nervous, frustrated, etc, it adversly effect their performance. Stats do tell
us that players will go on random runs, a few bad guesses here, a few good
there. What I am talking about is the psychological factor, players streaking
not due to sheer luck but because of changes in confidence level, etc.

>
>>It doesn't
>>take into account a player getting frsutrated or flustered or having a bad
>>day. The math is right, it just doesn't apply. Anyone who thinks they can boil
>
>>down a SF2 game to a simple formula is bordering on retardation. Idiot
>>mathmaticians have "proven" several things that later turned out to be bogus.
>>In your case you are simply making a GROSS simplification to fit your
>>own needs. Experience tells us that worse characters can win. No math can
>>disprove that.
>
> No, you moronic fuck, the whole point of these threads are that
>the worse character CANNOT win. You repeatedly saying so doesn't change
>the reality of it.

Alright. So, I assume that you can give a ranking for any SF game such
that each character who is better overall WILL NEVER LOSE to a character who
is worse, regardless of skill level.

"the worse character CANNOT win."

So, I guess that means that HF Ken can't EVER beat HF Ryu, even if the Ken
player is better. THat does seem a bit strong, doesn't it? I mean, I bet
somebody somewhere has beaten HF Ryu with HF Ken.

"the worse character CANNOT win."

OK. Of course, logic tells us that this statement is the same as "the better
character cannot lose"

So, who is the best character in a SF game? Well, it is the one that HAS NEVER
EVER lost, of course. After all

"the worse character CANNOT win."

so, the best should ALWAYS win. So, which character in A3 has NEVER lost? A2?
Any SF game?

You are clearly a troll or an idiot. You and Jules seem to posess an infinite
number of incredibly stupid and wrong statements for me to shoot down.
"the worse character CANNOT win." is just one example.

At this point I think I'll stop. I have a pattern established, one
that I could carry on forever if I chose. It goes like this:

You make stupid point.
I show you how it is wrong.
You make the same exact point.
I tell you yes, just like before, it is wrong
You make the same stupid point again
Yes, for the third time it as just as wrong as it was before
You move onto a new stupid point and start over.

Your well of stupidity doesn't look like it's going to run dry anytime soon,
but my patience has. Anyone reading along with this flamewar can clearly see
that the two of you together can't muster even half a brain. At this point it
is tedious to just point out again and again how you are ALWAYS wrong.

"the worse character CANNOT win."
"the worse character CANNOT win."
"the worse character CANNOT win."

I dare you to try to defend that statement.

Actually, let me help you out. You can argue that when you say "the worse
character CANNOT win" you mean "win more than 50%" (win overall), in which
case you are still wrong, because differences in skill levels can more than
make up for some differences in characters. Furthermore, since I never claimed
that Sagat won more than 50%, if you meant it that way it is simply
irrelevant.

"the worse character CANNOT win."
"the worse character CANNOT win."
"the worse character CANNOT win."

Ha ha ha. We have a winner!

James M

Milo D. Cooper

unread,

Jan 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/29/99

Our Man in Japan wins again. Great post, Mr, Beasley. "99.0000005
to 0.0000005 isn't a 'for free' match!" Ba-hahahahaha!!

--
/|__Milo D. Cooper__________________EverQuest character modeler__|\
\| http://www.milos-chalkboard.net/ http://www.everquest.com/ |/

James Margaris

unread,

Jan 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/30/99

For some reason new express won't quote, but anyway:

I never said that a match that is 99.9999995 to 0.00000005 is not "for
free" In fact I DO consider that to be "for free." As I already explained
(sigh), Mr McIssaac claimed that those were the odds for Sagat vs Adon and I
disagreed. It had nothing to do with the for free-ness of the fight. I never
said that 9.999995 vs 0.00000005 was my threshold for "for free" ness, nor did
I ever imply it. I expect better from you Milo. Obviously you need to read the
post again to see what the hell we were talking about because you are
clueless.

Find where I said anything about 9.999995 vs 0.000005 being for free or not
for free. Can't do it, huh? Mr. McIssaac just threw that out of his ass as
being the odds and i disouted that. It was tangential to the topic being
discussed.

Your "man in Japan" is an idiot as well as illiterate. You are
literate, so I expect next time you might bother to read before you post. As
you can see from my response to Jules, literally everything he said was
incorrect and I shot down EVERY SINGLE point he tried to make.

James M

Shaun Patrick Mcisaac

unread,

Jan 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/30/99

In article <78t5oj$p...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,

James Margaris <js...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>> You stupid fuck, I'm informing you why those sentences are
>>***WRONG*** and make no sense in the context of this NG, and why everyone
>>else has been telling you Sagat can't play a poking game.
> Those sentences are not wrong. Sagat can play a poking game. That is
>true. He loses the game most of the time. That is also true. I guess if your
>own pet NG definition of words takes precedence over what is written clearly
>in plain English you have a point, but that's just plain dumb. The sentences

Communication is the sole purpose of language (although it's not
it's only effect), so yes, context usurps a dictionary. It's like trying
to claim that people in the US *have*to* say Ryu by the correct Japanese
pronounciation. Rye-you is fine for most of those cases. Doesn't agree
with the standards? Yup. Largely acceptable? Yup.

>English is your worst nightmare apparently.

This from someone who thinks his past behavoir was retared. (Yes,
I'm doing that on purpose.)

>>>>> Moo, this is his best strategy, moooo
>>>> Except that, it's not sufficient for him to win the fight 9 times
>>>>out of 10.

>> it's *NOT* sufficient... meaning he will lose 9/10 (or more).
>Once again, sheer brilliance:
>>>> it's not sufficient for him to win the fight 9 times
>>>>out of 10.

>> it's *NOT* sufficient... meaning he will lose 9/10 (or more).

>????? So, if Sagat's strategy is not good enough to let him win 9/10, he must
>lose 9/10? Are those the only two choices? Is it possible that he doesn't win
>9/10, but he wins 3/10? I guess not.
>Not win 9/10 = lose 9/10, not win 4/10, not 2/10, nope the only thing that is
>NOT win 9/10 is lose 9/10.
>Not 3 = 7. Not 6, not 8, 7.
>Not Apple = Orange. Not bannanna, not pear, orange

>Mooo, this is fun!

James, you fool, you can't even get a pedantic attack this off
right. Take a class in basic logic, maybe it'll help. The application of
negation across a limited set (in this case, a set of words) is too much
for you, I'm sure, but dwell on this for a while:

/\/\Begin part one
Except that, it's not (sufficient for him to win the fight) 9 times out of
10.
/\/\End part one

/\/\Begin part two
Except that, it's not (sufficient for him to win the fight 9 times out of
10).
/\/\End part two

When you've figured that out, come back.

>><ZONK rediculous garbage. Who's not willing to concede points now? It
>>is obvious that the Dejanews dump is a quote, and that it matches what
>>was posted.>

>This second paragraph Julien quoted correctly.

Yes, he paraphrased one of the paragraphs, however the one you
bitched about was the one in which he added underlines too, thereby
invalidating your crap.

>>> or streakiness.
>> Call the math department, James has to inform them of streakiness.
>>James, stat *does* take into account things like Sagat hitting the lottery
>>and geussing right 20 times in a row. Chances of him doing so? 1 game in
>>every 3 billion 486 million 784 thousand 401 (calculated).

> Baa baa baaa baaaa baaaaaaaaa mo moooooooo baaaa. Streakiness is not
>just simple probability. MMoo squeeee mo baaa mo moo moooo baaaa mooooooooo
>moo mooo moooooo squeeeeeee baaa baa moooooo. Mooo mooo baaaa moo moo moo
>moooooo, mooooooooo, moo, mooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. Moooo oo oooo
>baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, mooooooooo

>there. What I am talking about is the psychological factor, players streaking
>not due to sheer luck but because of changes in confidence level, etc.

Again, I urge you to drive over to MIT (the big bad Julien B.
Beasley is no longer there, don't worry) and tell them this. Maybe the
brain damage from being hit on the head with a stat book will be enough
to get you to stop posting this shit.
Yes, the 3486784401 stems only from the basic calculation of
randomness, but that's all you've provided for strategy; random tiger knee
pokes and the even more absurd random tiger genocides and tiger raids (I
assume you're not dense enough to use the cannon).
Also, your psychological factors DON'T APPLY. Stupid mistakes
don't count in these discussions, and neither does player J worrying that
farm animal Baaaaaa will not give him head tonight instead of
concentrating on punching sagat in the face after a wiffed TU.

<ZONK more crap>
>Mooooooo. Ba baaa a baaaaa!
>James M

James, I'm glad you've given up on your garbage, really.
Thanks.

Hugs,
Shaun

James Margaris

unread,

Jan 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/30/99

In article <F6CLG...@midway.uchicago.edu>, spmc...@midway.uchicago.edu (Shaun Patrick Mcisaac) wrote:
[clip]

I clipped the rest of your crap, it was irrelevant. You still haven't
explained why "does not win 9/10" equals "loses 9/10 or more." Because you
can't. Simple logic says that these two statements are not the same at all.

You haven't defended ""worse characters CAN'T win". Because you cannot.

You claim to mis-read English sentences based on the "context," which in your
mind DOES NOT refer to the surrounding content of the post (what we normal
people call content) but rather this vague idea of newsgroup meanings that
somehow superscedes basic common sense.

The best you can do is random insults and point out more spelling mistakes.

> Again, I urge you to drive over to MIT (the big bad Julien B.
>Beasley is no longer there, don't worry) and tell them this. Maybe the
>brain damage from being hit on the head with a stat book will be enough
>to get you to stop posting this shit.

Actually, braniac, I was at MIT over the summer. My A2 Sagat, using NO
custom combos or alpha counters (literally zero of each) was able to beat (as
in, for your clarification, win some matches, but lose the majority) Chun-Li
(played by one of the famous MIT Chuns), Charlie (again a famous Charlie guy
there) and Scott Bradburn's Sakura. Actually after a little practice I would
say I was beating his Sakura using my CC and AC-less Sagat right around 50%.
Oops, was that "name dropping?" I'm not claiming to better than Bradburn. (In
case he reads this or is told about it, this is not an attack on him at all) I
think we can agree that a full-power no holds barred Chun or Sakura should
beat my Sagat on paper "for free."

And what was my rediculous strategy? Well, here it is:

Poke with stand forward.
Jump over fireballs.
TU jump-ins.
Wakeup TU ground attacks.
Poke with low strong.
Don't stand up too often.
Trade jumping forward with Sakura low fierce. (against Sakura only, in
case this seems odd, oh easily confused one)

Seems like a crap strategy, doesn't it? Why don't you come up with a
little formula and then come back and explain to me how it was my imagination,
and that according to the math (but not reality) I actually lost every game.
After all, since I lose 2/3 pokes to Chun my odds of winning were only
1/3486784401. Gee, I guess I got really really, REALLY fucking lucky. I should
play Vegas.

> Yes, the 3486784401 stems only from the basic calculation of
>randomness, but that's all you've provided for strategy; random tiger knee
>pokes and the even more absurd random tiger genocides and tiger raids (I
>assume you're not dense enough to use the cannon).

I suppose anticipation, reading your opponent and thinking ahead could
be called random guessing. No, I take that back, it couldn't. If you get a
good read on your opponent the "random" knees and supers are far from random.

> Also, your psychological factors DON'T APPLY. Stupid mistakes
>don't count in these discussions, and neither does player J worrying that
>farm animal Baaaaaa will not give him head tonight instead of
>concentrating on punching sagat in the face after a wiffed TU.

Good one. You got me there. Excellent use of tired humor to not make a
point. Good players NEVER get frustrated. NEVER. Good players never get in a
rut. Nope. Never. Impossible. Good players have no psyche's, only bad ones do.
Brilliant. Stupid mistakes are things like flubbing an uppercut, not things
like playing tenativly or second guessing yourself.

"worse characters CAN'T win"
"does not win 9/10" equals "loses 9/10 or more."
"worse characters CAN'T win"
"worse characters CAN'T win"
"worse characters CAN'T win"
"does not win 9/10" equals "loses 9/10 or more."
"worse characters CAN'T win"
"worse characters CAN'T win"
"does not win 9/10" equals "loses 9/10 or more."
"worse characters CAN'T win"
"worse characters CAN'T win"

I'm still waiting for the explanation.... Everyone on this group can see how
foolish you look at this point.

If I were you I would just claim that you misunderstood basically everything.
Then, your status would be downgraded from "incredibly stupid" to the slightly
less bad "easily confused."

XOXOXOXOXOX

James M

ps: Those cow jokes...they cut to the quick. I suppose they're supposed to
mask the utter lack of content and intelligent thought (which must be like
anti-matter to you) in your posts.

James Margaris

unread,

Jan 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/30/99

FUCKING news-express. Oh well, I have to make this short, i have things to do.
Never click "save" when halfway through a post...

[clip]

In this section you invoked "Beaslys law." I don't knw what that is nor do I
care. You also said that Scott Bradburn sucks. He beat John CHoi at B2. He
does not suck. Watch your mouth.

>
>>> Yes, the 3486784401 stems only from the basic calculation of
>>>randomness, but that's all you've provided for strategy; random tiger knee
>>>pokes and the even more absurd random tiger genocides and tiger raids (I
>>>assume you're not dense enough to use the cannon).
>> I suppose anticipation, reading your opponent and thinking ahead could
>
>>be called random guessing. No, I take that back, it couldn't. If you get a
>>good read on your opponent the "random" knees and supers are far from random.
>

> You put up the random super crapola, not me. You remember, random
>supers for one win in one hundred?

Yes, I did say that I could win 1/100 with random supers. Of course, I
could win more than that if I used a real strategy. Like I said before, my
real strategy would be poking, tiger knees, anticipatory (not random) supers,
etc.

>
>>point. Good players NEVER get frustrated. NEVER. Good players never get in a
>>rut. Nope. Never. Impossible. Good players have no psyche's, only bad ones do.
>
>>Brilliant. Stupid mistakes are things like flubbing an uppercut, not things
>>like playing tenativly or second guessing yourself.
>

> Yup.

I can't even tell if you are agreeing with me here or not.

>
>>ps: Those cow jokes...they cut to the quick. I suppose they're supposed to
>>mask the utter lack of content and intelligent thought (which must be like
>>anti-matter to you) in your posts.
>

> Actually, they're just there to snip away all of the noise you
>generate... which is a high %. And while we're on the subject of
>anti-matter... tell me what the type and charge are on the quarks of an
>anti-omega particle.

This is irrelevant. I don't claim to know a lot about physics. There
are a million questions I can come up with that you don't know the answer to.
That means nothing.

>
>In article <78u1t5$3...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,

>James Margaris <js...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>>In article <F6CLG...@midway.uchicago.edu>, spmc...@midway.uchicago.edu
> (Shaun Patrick Mcisaac) wrote:
>>I clipped the rest of your crap, it was irrelevant. You still haven't
>>explained why "does not win 9/10" equals "loses 9/10 or more." Because you
>>can't. Simple logic says that these two statements are not the same at all.
>

> I did explain it, but you can't read and so you snipped it.

Once again...if you aplly not over on element of a limited set you
will only end up with lose 9/10 if that is the only other choice. Let x be a
number from 0-10, representing how many wins Sagat gets. Our set is:

0/10, 1/10...10/10.

Now, "not 9/10" could be 1/10 or 0/10, but it could also be 3/10, 5/10, etc.
Give it up. Not only is this correft under set theory and logic, but it is
just plain obvious.

>>You haven't defended ""worse characters CAN'T win". Because you cannot.
>

> Not every bad matchup is for free -- I have never said that.

But you did say "worse characters CAN'T win"

But
>when one character beats another one like say, ST Akuma vs Half the cast,
>it is.

I can agree with that.

No real reason for Akuma to get anything but perfects, but there
>are other matches which are for free which don't involve methodical
>patterns, just overwhelming advantages in certain situations.

It depends on how oeverwhelming. In Akuma vs Zan the pattern is very
narrow. In Cammy vs Hawk, if Hawk can uppercut her leg (Onaje says she can, I
don't know myself), so he COULD win if he guesses insanely well, but I would
still (as I said before) consider this "for free" under a slightly loose
definition, because the mind games and the difference in skill between the
players ha minimal impact.

Now, I know
>you can't accept this definition of for free, because it requires that the
>superior character be played without doing stupid things. If A has the
>advantage in every situation, or can force winning situations then the
>game is an uphill battle.

Yes, that is why I said Sagat loses.

What if that character A can do 3 times the
>damage per attack and they (A and B) are able to hit each other an
>approxiamately equal number of times? While it is not obvious, as long as
>the damage setting is low enough (and this is very important), A is going
>to be winning for free.

It IS obvious, I can do the math. As the damage goes down, B must get
luckier to make up the difference. However, in no match is the damage 3:1, and
even more absurd, why should we assume they hit each other the same amount?
Ever heard of a perfect?

[clip the rest of the explanation]

Give up on the math angle man. It can't hold water and you know it. First of
all, the situation is NOT QUANTIFIABLE. Why should we say A hits B 50%? You
are ignoring:

Reflexes
Ability to mix it up and stay unpredictable
Ability to predict the opponent
Timing
Distancing Skills
Every other player skill

You ignore all these and come up with strict blanket numbers that
cover every case? Give me a break. Yes, the math is right, but it is not
applicable. What are the chances of me winning the lottery? Well, I either win
or I don't, so it must be 1/2. I either hit or get hit, I guess it must be
1/2. See a problem here?

Perfects happen. The law of averages only applies when all things are
equal. In this case the player skill is not equal. Yes, both players may be
competent and not flub basic moves, but one can still be better than the
other. You can not tell me that timing skills do not change the math, nor do
distancing skills or anything esle. Of course they do! How they do, well, who
the hell knows? If you can come up with a working formula for that then you
win.

In T. Hawk vs Cammy the scenario is very limited, the above skills
don't come into play very much, and the effect of differing player skills is
minimized. This is not true with Sagat vs Adon, which is much more open ended.

If I jump in, do i airblock, attack, or CC? If you JT do I jump
straight up and combo you, do I cleanly TU it, do I block it and TU
afterwards, does it hit me? If you JK, do I take the hit and super, do I block
and TU, do I throw (if you were epecting the uppercut), do you outpoke me? If
I knee? Do I fake the super and throw? Do I fake the throw and super?

Clearly this scenario is very open, and the skills of the players to
adapt and predict will influence it a great deal. You CANNOT say that we will
trade hits at an equal rate.

What about my adventures at MIT. I had matches where I fought Chun, a
better poker, much more damage (since I don't CC), low roundhouse air defense,
etc, and won. Not with a lucky super either. I antipated here, out poked
there, and pulled out a victory. The math is suppose to model reality; you
seem to think you can bend reality to match the math. Perfects happen. I saw
Jogn Choi perfect a decent Charlie player with Sakura at B2. Did they trade
hits 1:1. Hell no. The ratio of hits was more like 35:0. Or, if you count
combos as 1 big hit, it was only 4 or 5 : 0, but in that case even with low
damage settings it only takes a few lucky combos to win.

You are assuming the situation is random. It is not. Ever played a
Wolvie who finishes a blcoked combo with fatal claw. They are the ultimate in
predictable players. I can "guess" that they will Fatal Claw, but it is a very
educated guess. Just like when you see a car approach a red light, you "guess"
that it will stop, but it is obviously not a random guessing game. If you can
read your opponent well "random" guesses are not as random as they appear. If
I super is the chance of me hitting 100% No. is it 50%, just yes or no? Not
really. Face it, the math is not applicable. I'm sure you;ve heard of Chaos
theory, in which small disturbances create wild results. In this case your
model is disturbed, but not in a small way at all. The model simply does not
fit what it is trying to describe. You ignore player skill entirely, which is
at least 50% of it in free scenario matches.

Yes, two competent players can have different skill levels. This is
not questionable. If you want to argue that someone playing Sagat vs Adon
against his exact clone would lose all the time, well maybe, but who cares?

James M

James Margaris

unread,

Jan 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/30/99

OK, here is the thing I thought news express deleted: It is mostly redundant
but there are a few extra point in this

In article <F6D14...@midway.uchicago.edu>, spmc...@midway.uchicago.edu
(Shaun Patrick Mcisaac) wrote:
[clip "Beasly's first law," I don't have the time to look it up, nor do I
care]

>
>> And what was my rediculous strategy? Well, here it is:
>> Poke with stand forward.
>> Jump over fireballs.
>> TU jump-ins.
>> Wakeup TU ground attacks.
>> Poke with low strong.
>> Don't stand up too often.
>> Trade jumping forward with Sakura low fierce. (against Sakura only, in
>
>>case this seems odd, oh easily confused one)
>> Seems like a crap strategy, doesn't it?
>

>It *is* a crap strategy. Sounds like MIT has taken a nose dive since I
>was last there, since you were poking with Sagat and not losing rounds for
>your foolishness. Hell you TU'ed jumpins. They *MUST* suck for not CCing
>through them and destroying you. Either that, or you've got selective
>memory. See Beasley's law.

Of course I was losing rounds. Just not all of them. yes, I did TU
jump-ins. However, most of those jump-ins were cross up attempts with Sakura
(or someone else) that I hit with a wake up. If they CC they can't hit me,
they end up running off and wasting all their meter facing the wrong
direction. Don't try to tell me that good Sakuras don't try to crossup or
something. Despite overall degradation of my controller skills, my wake-up
uppercut timing is very good.

When they jump normally, sure they can CC, but then again I can simply
not uppercut, and they waste all their meter. It's a "guessing game," but with
good anticipation tghe guesses are in my favor.

BTW, Bradburn beat John Choi at B2 at and came in like 4th or
something. Maybe you don't know who he is, but no way does he "suck."

>>1/3486784401. Gee, I guess I got really really, REALLY fucking lucky. I should
>
>>play Vegas.
>

> Please do. Sell your computer for extra cash while you're at it.

Offhand remark, that was your only choice. Backed into a corner, make
a joke.

Yes, I did say I could use random supers for one win in a hundred, the
point being that if I DID NOT use random supers but actually played for real I
could win more than that, since truly random supers is clearly one of the
worst strategies availiabl. I did not claim that random supers was my
gameplan. I just claimed I could win 1/100 with that plan. Like i said before,
my plan is tiger knees, poking, antipatory supers, etc.

>
>>> Also, your psychological factors DON'T APPLY. Stupid mistakes
>>>don't count in these discussions, and neither does player J worrying that
>>>farm animal Baaaaaa will not give him head tonight instead of
>>>concentrating on punching sagat in the face after a wiffed TU.
>> Good one. You got me there. Excellent use of tired humor to not make a
>

>>point. Good players NEVER get frustrated. NEVER. Good players never get in a
>>rut. Nope. Never. Impossible. Good players have no psyche's, only bad ones do.
>
>>Brilliant. Stupid mistakes are things like flubbing an uppercut, not things
>>like playing tenativly or second guessing yourself.
>
> Yup.

So, are you agreeing with me? That good players do second guess
themselves or get "stuck in a rut." Either way, to ignore the skill of both
players, the timing, the reflexes, the ablility to "mix it up" and stay
unpredictable, the pattern detection skills of both players, distancing
skills, etc., and make the blanket claim of 2/3 is utterly retarded.

>>ps: Those cow jokes...they cut to the quick. I suppose they're supposed to
>>mask the utter lack of content and intelligent thought (which must be like
>>anti-matter to you) in your posts.
>
> Actually, they're just there to snip away all of the noise you
>generate... which is a high %. And while we're on the subject of
>anti-matter... tell me what the type and charge are on the quarks of an
>anti-omega particle.

Ooohhh. Wow. This makes sense! If I don't know the answer to a physics
question, I must not be smart. I guess that would also mean I don't know
anything about SF. It just logically follows! I'm smarter than you, I've
demonstrated that beyond doubt. (Or, you are a giant troll) Maybe you just
don't take the time to formulate good reponses, so you might just be lazy I
guess. But, there are plenty of things I know and you don't, and vice-versa.
Never did I claim to know much about anti-matter, and no-one can claim that
that is a litmus test for intelligence.Knowledge, maybe, but I have little
interest in physics. I could pose a million questions, some of which you won't
have a clue about, but why bother? That's true for anybody.

So, I have no idea what the type and charge is, nor do I really care.
Sorry. I guess that makes me not so smart, huh?

Should be a piece of cake for someone as smart as
>you. I'm sure you can find it online if you look so only you will know if
>you were "knowlegeable" (aysi) enough to recall it, but I think it's
>enough for now.

No, I'm too lazy. I could find it in a book or online, (yes, a book!)
but I don't care. I'm not going to play "Answer these questions to prove your
intelligence" because I don't have the time. As for my spelling, there is no
doubt that I can't spell very well. Get over it.

You still haven't
>>explained why "does not win 9/10" equals "loses 9/10 or more." Because you
>>can't. Simple logic says that these two statements are not the same at all.
>
> I did explain it, but you can't read and so you snipped it.

I read it, you said something about allying whatever to a limited set.
Now, if we take the limited set of ratio's x/10, where x is between 1 and 10,
(and is the number out of ten that Sagat wins) we have:

0/10, 1/10, 2/10....10/10

Therefore, NOT 9/10 is the entire set except for 9/10, which does include 1/10
but also includes 2/10, 5/10, etc. Face it, you cannot explain this away
because not only is this correct in formal logic and set theory but it is also
just plain obvious common sense.

>
>>You haven't defended ""worse characters CAN'T win". Because you cannot.
>
> Not every bad matchup is for free -- I have never said that.

But you did say "worse characters CAN'T win" Still waiting for the
explanation...

But
>when one character beats another one like say, ST Akuma vs Half the cast,
>it is.

I agree that some bad matchups are for free and some are not. Duh.

>No real reason for Akuma to get anything but perfects, but there
>are other matches which are for free which don't involve methodical
>patterns, just overwhelming advantages in certain situations.

This is true to a point. However, the less methodical the pattern, the
more educated guessing is required on the part of both particpants, and then
the skill of the players, not the rank of the characters, comes more into
play. In Adon vs Sagat the pattern is loose enough to allow plenty of
branching. If Sagat can antipate he can "guess" right. I say guess in quotes
becuase while it is technically guessing, it is an educated one. Just like
when you see a car approach a red light you "guess" it will stop, but that
hardly makes it a simple guessing game. A good mind game player can triumph if
they have enough opportunities to guess right. In Akuma vs Zan, Zan can know
what Akuma will do and he still can't do much about it.

Now, I know
>you can't accept this definition of for free, because it requires that the
>superior character be played without doing stupid things.

It just depends on how overwhelming. Take Cammy vs T.Hawk. There is
something he can do (or, according to Onaje, personally I don't know). He can
guess when a low forward is coming and uppercut it. However, this is really
the only place he can make guesses, the pattern is still very narrow. In this
limited a scenario T. Hawk CAN win if he guesses like a clairvoyant, but I'm
willing to say (like I stated before in another post) that this could fall
under a looser definition of for free. The problem with Adon vs Sagat is that
the scenario is very open. Will you tooth? If so, will I uppercut it cleanly,
jump up and combo you, will it hit me, will I jump up and you low fierce me?
If you JK will I walk into it and super, will I block it and then uppercut
your attack? Will you block my uppercut? If I jump, will I VC through your
defense? Will I air block a knee? If I tiger knee, will I uppercut after? Will
I throw? Will I walk forward a second (to make it look like a throw) and then
super? Clearly this scenario is very open. Sagat has plenty of chances to
detect a pattern while staying unpredictable himself.

If A has the
>advantage in every situation, or can force winning situations then the
>game is an uphill battle.

Of course it is an uphill battle. That's why I said Sagat loses.

It IS obvious if you can do the math, and I assure you I can. the lower the
damage, the more good luck B needs to make up for the damage ratio between A
and B. But, who says that they hit each other the same amount? What if A
becomes predictable and B mixes it up? Not to mention the fact that Adon does
not do 3 times the damage of Sagat. Yes, if you jack the ration up high enough
(10 to 1 damage) I will concede that B basically has no chance of winning,
regardless of how good he is at anticipation. However, while true that is not
relevant to the discussion.

A just gets lucky and hits a few times, and has
>to screw up 8 or 9 times in a row in order to be on even ground, never
>mind lose. Not going to happen, if, as I said, the damage isn't high.

Yes, I understand the math. yes, under those strict arbitrary
approximations (hit same amount, 3 to 1 damage) you are correct. But, what I
capcom made a character who could not block or jump? Gee, he would lose to Ryu
for free? What if he did negative damage? I guess he would lose. WHO CARES.
This is not relevant, becuase the damage is not 3:1, nor can you make the
blanket statement that they will hit each other the same amount. Ever heard of
a perfect?

[clip more math explanation]

> Now in all the A3 machines I've seen, the damage is a lot lower
>and it's going to be hard for Sagat to get off big chunks of lucky damage
>in a short amount of time.

First of all, damage varies from machine to machine, although I do
think it is lower overall, I have played on machines where it was noticeably
(sp-I'll save you the clever retort) ) different. The point is that the "law
of averages" or whatever does not come into play. At B2 I saw John Choi
perfect a decent CHarlie player with Sakura. Did they hit about 50%. No way.
Choi hit him about (jump forward, 3x low short, 7 hit uppercut) = 11 X3 times.
33 times, compared to Charlie's zero. Actually more, since he started with a
low roundhouse or something. You could say that a combo counts as one hit, but
that hit is so damaging that it basically cancels out the argument of low
damage. In other words, if you count big combos as single hits, I only need to
get lucky a few times to win, regardless of low damage.

Look, OBVIOUSLY you can not apply such simple math to such a complex
situation. There is way to much non-quantifiable stuff. Reaction time.
Reflexes. (I suppose you can quantify these, but you wouldn't know how to put
them into a formula) Predicatbility. Anticipation. Mind games of all kinds.
Timing. Distancing. Etc.

Furthermore, I can give plenty of real life (of which the math is
supposedly a model of) situation where your math is dead wrong. Me at MIT vs
Bradburn. He can take off 30-60% in one hit. He has CC's and AC's. Me vs.
Chun-Li. Same deal, and better at poking. Yet I won sometimes. The damage was
low enough so that it wasn;t just one lucky super on my part. (Actually I
didn't use supers either really, because my joystick skills have deteriorated
a lot) The wrose character did win sometimes.

Since he's taking so long, averages will kick
>in and he'll lose.

once again, averages only apply if everything else if even. Look above
for a listt of player skills which will not be even at all.

How bad will he actually lose in A3? I'd have to look
>at the weighted trade ratios, the damage settings, and a few other things
>to tell you more precisely. Would a return of 1 part in 3 make the fight
>"for free"? Yes, as long as the guy playing Adon is a good fighter.
>Sure, he could be tired or distracted, but that has no real relevance
>here. If it was, then every fight would be 5-5 since both players might
>get bored/tired/distracted with equal likelihood and not paying attention
>to the fight.
> It is your fundamental non-understanding -- a different thing
>entirely from a misunderstanding -- of that point, that such factors
>CANNOT be allowed to influence these discussions, that gets you so much
>grief and, in the end, makes you look like an impulsive fool. That
>non-understanding renders this newsgroup, and all it's postings, useless
>when it is allowed to be. Dismissal of the logic of seperate events
>renders comparative communication incapable of assigning values and it is
>in this way that you are a cancer to this newsgroup; you strike at the
>heart of every on-topic discussion with your philosophy of rankings and of
>logic as it applies to these games. People who post the redundant "how do
>you do Akuma's death move?" are not at odds with the intent of the people
>gathered here and are gently rebuked at worst and sent on their way to
>gamefaqs.com while posts such as yours which disregard the nature of the
>newsgroup and promote the perversion of that nature are flamed, attacked,
>and ultimately, ignored.
>
>QED

Shaun Patrick Mcisaac

unread,

Jan 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/31/99

In article <79019m$k...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,

James Margaris <js...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>In article <F6D14...@midway.uchicago.edu>, spmc...@midway.uchicago.edu
>(Shaun Patrick Mcisaac) wrote:
>[clip "Beasly's first law," I don't have the time to look it up, nor do I
>care]

You should, it's good stuff.

>> You put up the random super crapola, not me. You remember, random
>>supers for one win in one hundred?
> Yes, I did say I could use random supers for one win in a hundred, the
>point being that if I DID NOT use random supers but actually played for real I
>could win more than that, since truly random supers is clearly one of the
>worst strategies availiabl. I did not claim that random supers was my
>gameplan. I just claimed I could win 1/100 with that plan. Like i said before,
>my plan is tiger knees, poking, antipatory supers, etc.

Dare I ask how often you think you'll win with that?

> Ooohhh. Wow. This makes sense! If I don't know the answer to a
>physics question, I must not be smart. I guess that would also mean I
>don't know anything about SF. It just logically follows! I'm smarter than
>you, I've
>demonstrated that beyond doubt. (Or, you are a giant troll) Maybe you just
>don't take the time to formulate good reponses, so you might just be lazy I
>guess. But, there are plenty of things I know and you don't, and vice-versa.
>Never did I claim to know much about anti-matter, and no-one can claim that
>that is a litmus test for intelligence.Knowledge, maybe, but I have little

No, you're an idiot. It is foolish to say that knowledge of
anti-matter can not be used as a litmus test for intelligence. It *can*
be a litmus test, it jut won't work most but not all of the time.

Sound familiar?

> So, I have no idea what the type and charge is, nor do I really care.
>Sorry. I guess that makes me not so smart, huh?

Just wanted to see if you knew anything about what you were
talking about, which, as you admit, you didn't/don't.

> This is true to a point. However, the less methodical the pattern, the
>more educated guessing is required on the part of both particpants, and then
>the skill of the players, not the rank of the characters, comes more into
>play.

Equal skill. EQUAL. Why does Adon have to suck?

>It IS obvious if you can do the math, and I assure you I can. the lower the
>damage, the more good luck B needs to make up for the damage ratio between A
>and B. But, who says that they hit each other the same amount? What if A
>becomes predictable and B mixes it up? Not to mention the fact that Adon does

EQUAL SKILL is why.

> Yes, I understand the math. yes, under those strict arbitrary
>approximations (hit same amount, 3 to 1 damage) you are correct. But, what I
>capcom made a character who could not block or jump? Gee, he would lose to Ryu
>for free? What if he did negative damage? I guess he would lose. WHO CARES.
>This is not relevant, becuase the damage is not 3:1, nor can you make the

Damage is 3:1 as long as my pokes set up a quadruple option and
all we do is poke.

Combos are big hits, essentially, and if you do a fifty hit combo
that does 50% (or 33%, in your example) damage, then yes, that's a pretty
*high* damage machine, regardless of what the individual hits do.

> Look, OBVIOUSLY you can not apply such simple math to such a complex
>situation.

Again I urge you to take some stat classes. The math is not
always so simple, but it works. Note, of course, that I gave some very
simple bounds to the games I described. However, you can apply some
not-so-difficult math to complex systems and get good results. People do
this for a living -- it works.

> There is way to much non-quantifiable stuff. Reaction time.
>Reflexes. (I suppose you can quantify these, but you wouldn't know how to put
>them into a formula) Predicatbility. Anticipation. Mind games of all kinds.
>Timing. Distancing. Etc.

>Bradburn. He can take off 30-60% in one hit. He has CC's and AC's. Me vs.

>Chun-Li. Same deal, and better at poking. Yet I won sometimes. The damage was
>low enough so that it wasn;t just one lucky super on my part. (Actually I
>didn't use supers either really, because my joystick skills have deteriorated
>a lot) The wrose character did win sometimes.

I'm sorry, but if you didn't SC CC or AC and you beat someone Sagat v
Chun, Chun was obviously falling asleep at the controls.

> once again, averages only apply if everything else if even. Look above
>for a listt of player skills which will not be even at all.

Equal skill. EQUAL. Why do you not understand this?

Shaun Patrick Mcisaac

unread,

Jan 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/31/99

In article <78vh4a$f...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,

James Margaris <js...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> I can't even tell if you are agreeing with me here or not.

I'll keep that in mind.

> Yes, two competent players can have different skill levels. This is
>not questionable. If you want to argue that someone playing Sagat vs Adon
>against his exact clone would lose all the time, well maybe, but who cares?

So basically, we shouldn't assume that two players have equal
skill when doing rankings? So basically, after all this time, you're
point is that one player might be better than the other, and then be able
to win a few games? Oh my #(*%, can you ever piss off. You have got to
be the thickest person I've ever met.

James Margaris

unread,

Jan 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/31/99

In article <F6EHB...@midway.uchicago.edu>, spmc...@midway.uchicago.edu (Shaun Patrick Mcisaac) wrote:
>In article <78vh4a$f...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,

>James Margaris <js...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>> I can't even tell if you are agreeing with me here or not.
>

> I'll keep that in mind.
>
><ZONK CRAP>
>

>> Yes, two competent players can have different skill levels. This is
>>not questionable. If you want to argue that someone playing Sagat vs Adon
>>against his exact clone would lose all the time, well maybe, but who cares?
>

> So basically, we shouldn't assume that two players have equal
>skill when doing rankings? So basically, after all this time, you're
>point is that one player might be better than the other, and then be able
>to win a few games? Oh my #(*%, can you ever piss off. You have got to
>be the thickest person I've ever met.

Of course you should assume that, dumb-ass. That's why I said that
Sagat loses most of the time to Adon. Yes, the rankings are put together
assuming both players are the same level. However, a match is not "for free"
just because one character is ranked higher than another. Does HF RYu beat HF
Ken "for free?" No, even though he is ranked higher.

To get a free win the better character should be able to win even when
facing a better opponent. Milo said a "free win" varied from 99-90 percent,
based upon the difference of skill. In other words, the difference in skill
does not effect the fight very much. ALthough I might not endorse those
numbers, I agree with the general concept. Skill of players has a minimal
effect on free matches.

This is not that complicated, now is it? Do you claim that any better
character beats any worse character "for free?" Why did you even bring
rankings up, when we both agree that ADon is ahead of Sagat?

Keep on digging your hole. You have no idea what is going on.

James

James Margaris

unread,

Jan 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/31/99

[clip]

> No, you're an idiot. It is foolish to say that knowledge of
>anti-matter can not be used as a litmus test for intelligence. It *can*
>be a litmus test, it jut won't work most but not all of the time.
>
> Sound familiar?

Not really. The idea of a litmus test is that it is accurate. It
should be right all of the time. Sagat's strategy, on the other hand, does not
have to be "right" all of the time, or even more than 50%.It just has to work
sometimes. For the purposes of our discussion, a good (or at least sufficient)
Sagat strategy is one that simply lets him get a few wins here and there. That
is of course not sufficient for any test. See the difference? I didn't think
so.

It was a clever attempt, but to make a point you can't just substitute
the relevant words, you also have to make sure that the basic gist remains the
same. oops.

I wouldn't.

>
>> This is true to a point. However, the less methodical the pattern, the
>
>>more educated guessing is required on the part of both particpants, and then
>>the skill of the players, not the rank of the characters, comes more into
>>play.
>

> Equal skill. EQUAL. Why does Adon have to suck?

So, basically you are arguing that since Adon is a better
character overall he beats Sagat for free. In that case, for every ranking
chart every character wins "for free" against all characters ranked below
them. Care to make that claim? C'mon, you know you want to...

Adon does not have to suck, he just has to be worse than Sagat, which
should happen about 50% of the time. Two players are never exactly the same.
For a match to be "for free" the difference in skill (assuming some
competence) should be nearly irrelevant.

><Snip James' not understand what high vs low damage is>]

Funny, I'd like you to actually show how I don;t understand it, rather
than just make the offhand remark.

>
> Combos are big hits, essentially, and if you do a fifty hit combo
>that does 50% (or 33%, in your example) damage, then yes, that's a pretty
>*high* damage machine, regardless of what the individual hits do.

Not really. We can expect a good crossup combo, depending on damage
and mode, supers used, etc., to do good damage on any machine. Any good combo
should do at least 20%, with a level three super maybe 60%+. The point is that
when it only take 2-5 "hits" to kill someone the odds can be overcome.

Look at ST. The damage is very high, compared to madern games, yet we
can still call some matches "for free." All Zan needs to do to beat Akuma is
get 1 low roundhouse then three SPD ticks, 4 hits total. yet we still say he
loses for free. So, even on high damage (up to a point, obviously) matches can
be for free. Once again, if you want to set the damage so that a good combo
does 7% damage, you may have a point.

>
>> Look, OBVIOUSLY you can not apply such simple math to such a complex
>>situation.
>

> Again I urge you to take some stat classes. The math is not
>always so simple, but it works. Note, of course, that I gave some very
>simple bounds to the games I described. However, you can apply some
>not-so-difficult math to complex systems and get good results. People do
>this for a living -- it works.

Shit. You took one basic stats course and now you know everything
about it? First of all, when people draw up models they TEST the models. Duh.
Second of all, the models they come up with are RARELY based on anything
having to do with human behavior. yes, you can model the weather relatively
simply, but modelling any human interaction is MUCH MUCH harder. Third, you
admit that your model applies only to an absurdly simplified version of the
game, where the characters for some odd reason trade 1:1. Now, what model do
you propose for the real SF? Have you tested it? Does it work? If I were to
play my Cody against your Blanka, what does the model say would happen? Hmmm?

To make a valid model you run a bunch of tests and do lots of plots
and stats analysis and regressions and discover what the important variables
are and how they interact. You don't sit in a chair and just write down a
random equation, you look at mounds of data and make sense of it. People don't
just draw up arbitrary models based on guesses, they draw them up based on
carefully studied data.

I know what I'm talking about here guy. yes, people do it for a
living, but not with humans, and they do the research first. i'd like to see
some of the regressions you've done. Next time you might want to wait until
you're past the first two weeks of stats 101 before you shoot off your mouth
like you actually know something about it.

> Equal skill. EQUAL. Why do you not understand this?

Why should we assume equal skill. Of course, given totally equal skill
(clones) the match is governed by probability, and the better character will
win. Does this mean that N Sagat beat O. Sagat for free? What don't you
understand? Skill in NOT equal, ever. Get over it. SOmetimes the Sagat player
will be better. The Adon won't be bad, just Sagat will be better. If it is
really "for free" Adon should still win. End of story.

James m

Chocobo

unread,

Jan 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/31/99

James Margaris wrote:

> >> This is true to a point. However, the less methodical the pattern, the
> >
> >>more educated guessing is required on the part of both particpants, and then
> >>the skill of the players, not the rank of the characters, comes more into
> >>play.
> >
> > Equal skill. EQUAL. Why does Adon have to suck?
>
> So, basically you are arguing that since Adon is a better
> character overall he beats Sagat for free. In that case, for every ranking
> chart every character wins "for free" against all characters ranked below
> them. Care to make that claim? C'mon, you know you want to...

No, he's asking you why the Adon player has to suck. Your arguments are based on
"well the Adon player will make these mistakes, then the Sagat player will
capitalize on them". I don't know where that claim about any character ranked higher
than another one wins it for free, did you just pull that out of your ass to try to
make your argument look good?

> Adon does not have to suck, he just has to be worse than Sagat, which
> should happen about 50% of the time. Two players are never exactly the same.
> For a match to be "for free" the difference in skill (assuming some
> competence) should be nearly irrelevant.

Exactly right. But you have to assume that both players are at a high skill level,
therefore Adon will not be making stupid mistakes, and doing stuff for no reason.

> > Equal skill. EQUAL. Why do you not understand this?
>
> Why should we assume equal skill. Of course, given totally equal skill
> (clones) the match is governed by probability, and the better character will
> win. Does this mean that N Sagat beat O. Sagat for free? What don't you
> understand? Skill in NOT equal, ever. Get over it. SOmetimes the Sagat player
> will be better. The Adon won't be bad, just Sagat will be better. If it is
> really "for free" Adon should still win. End of story.

What is this, the "I" argument? Look... of course no two players are going to be
perfectly equal down to the tiniest little detail. Does it really have to be said
that the two players are "appromixately equal"? Can't that just be assumed, or does
everyone have to explicity state that they're not talking about impossible,
irrelevant situations?

James Margaris

unread,

Feb 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/1/99

In article <36B4CA48...@mindspring.com>, Chocobo <cho...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>James Margaris wrote:
>
>> >> This is true to a point. However, the less methodical the pattern,
> the
>> >
>> >>more educated guessing is required on the part of both particpants, and
> then
>> >>the skill of the players, not the rank of the characters, comes more into
>> >>play.
>> >
>> > Equal skill. EQUAL. Why does Adon have to suck?
>>
>> So, basically you are arguing that since Adon is a better
>> character overall he beats Sagat for free. In that case, for every ranking
>> chart every character wins "for free" against all characters ranked below
>> them. Care to make that claim? C'mon, you know you want to...
>

>No, he's asking you why the Adon player has to suck. Your arguments are based
> on
>"well the Adon player will make these mistakes, then the Sagat player will
>capitalize on them". I don't know where that claim about any character ranked
> higher
>than another one wins it for free, did you just pull that out of your ass to
> try to
>make your argument look good?

No. OK, here we go again.

"Worse characters cannot win"

When did I assume that Adon sucks? Adon does not have to suck, he just
has to be worse than Sagat. What if Sagat does a tiger knee and Adon blocks? I
can walk up and throw, walk up and super, antipate and do a tiger uppercut,
etc. Adon has to guess. A good Adon will guess better, but will still get it
wrong some of the time. Adon can not suck and still lose this scenario. I;m
not talking about flubbing a motion. I'm talking about after a blocked JK Adon
tries to pose but I antipate and uppecut. Does that mean that Adon sucks? Not
really. It just means Sagat had better anticipation. Doing a low jab after a
blocked JK is not an obvious scrub mistake.

>"well the Adon player will make these mistakes, then the Sagat player will
>capitalize on them".

I love the way everyone abuses quotations. I understand that you are not exact
quoting, rather summarizing my argument, but that ISN'T my argument. Adon can
get outplayed and still not suck. Based on random chance, in half of all
matches the Sagat player is better than Adon.

I don't know where that claim about any character ranked
> higher
>than another one wins it for free, did you just pull that out of your ass to
> try to
>make your argument look good?

Ok, pay attention, here goes. First, there was "worse characters cannot win."
Now, granted that could mean "win most of the time." However, Mr. McIssaac
accused me saying that RANKINGS should not be based on equal skill of both
players. Of course, I DO believe that rankings should be based on the
assumption that the players using the characters are equal.

Now, if you read his post, it is clear (in part since we are not
talking about ranking but about "for free"-ness) that he is trying to somehow
rankings and "for free" -ness together. He implies that since rankings are
based on the players having equal skill, that whether a fight is "for free"
should also be based on the assumption that the players have equal skill.

In other words, if in the rankings Ryu beats Ken 9-1 the fight is "for
freem, refardless of the fact that the Ken player might be better. Now, you
still might agree with that, but, read on...

We have agreed that on a super low damage machine the worse character
will ALWAYS lose. (given equal skill for both players) So, you can (in theory)
draw up a chart where each character wins a certain matchup either 100% of the
time or 0% of the time. For example, if we say in HF Ryu beats Ken 7:3, if we
turn the damage down low enough Ryu will win 10:0, since he is better. (once
again, if the players are equal)

Now, the question is, even on that super low damage machine, is the
match "for free?" I would say no, because strict probability is not the only
factor, instead the skill of the playes make the big difference. Ken must
consitently play better than Ryu to win, true, but the question is how much
better?

So, my point is that while RANKINGS should be based on the assumption
of equal skill, "for free"-ness should not be. On a super low damage machine,
(if we did decide if a match was for free based on the assumption of equal
player skills) EVERY matchup would be "for free" in one direction or another.

The question with a match being for free is will the worse character
win even if the opponent player is better. The point of a match being "for
free" is that you can walk in without even knowing who your opponent is and be
near certain you will win. The player skills have minimal impact on a "free"
match.

So, in short, Mr McIssaac claimed that the "for free"-ness of a match
should be based on the assumption that player skills are equal. Under that
assumption, however, on a super low damage machine every match is "for free"
in one direction or the other, with does not really jive with our normal
understanding of the term for free. Going back to the earlier example, in Ryu
vs Ken in HF, even on super low damage most people would agree that a better
Ken can beat a worse Ryu, so clearly "for free" ness must not be based on the
assumption of equal skill.

I tried to make that as clear as I could. I'm not sure how good a job
I did, sorry.

>
>> Adon does not have to suck, he just has to be worse than Sagat, which
>> should happen about 50% of the time. Two players are never exactly the same.
>> For a match to be "for free" the difference in skill (assuming some
>> competence) should be nearly irrelevant.
>

>Exactly right. But you have to assume that both players are at a high skill
> level,
>therefore Adon will not be making stupid mistakes, and doing stuff for no
> reason.

Once again, see the above examples. You can make a mistake without it
being a stupid mistake. What if you try a meaty attack and your opponent does
a reversal super? That was a mistake, but was it a stupid mistake? What if you
do a low forward and I choose that time to uppercut? I'm not counting on the
Adon player doing roundhouse Jag Knees or throwing random slow low
roundhouses. I'm just saying that if the Sagat player has better reflexes, can
read his opponent well, and can be unpredictable, etc (in short, he is
better), he can win.

This is very different from Cammy vs. Hawk. Cammy does not really have
to worry about mixing it up, nor does she need to worry if her opponent gets a
read on her or mixes it better than her or has better reflexes. The player
skill is largely irrelevant.

Once again, in short, Adon does not have to suck, he just has to be
worse. The better Sagat can beat the worse Adon.

Say I entered a tournament as Akuma and I saw I was going to face
Sirlin as Zan. I wouldn't really be worried. Now, say I was entering as Ken
and I saw I was fighting Painter's Honda. I would feel much less confident,
because while both matches are in my favor, the first is for free, whereas in
the second the better player still has a chance to beat the worse one. Now, of
course, it matters how much better they have to be. (In theory, the MUCH
better Zan maybe can beat the Akuma) That can certainly be debated, but I
think you can see the distinction I'm trying to make, regardless of whether or
not you agree with this particular example.

>
>
>What is this, the "I" argument? Look... of course no two players are going to
> be
>perfectly equal down to the tiniest little detail. Does it really have to be
> said
>that the two players are "appromixately equal"? Can't that just be assumed, or
> does
>everyone have to explicity state that they're not talking about impossible,
>irrelevant situations?

So, once again the question is, how much does skill swing the match
one way or another? If skill is nearly irrelvant (Akuma vs Zan), then the
match is "for free." If skill IS fairly relevant (I would say Sagat vs Adon is
in this category) I would not say it was for free, just that one character has
the advantage. In a free match the skill difference will not impact the fight,
given a certain basic competence.

Please show me where I said that Adon has to suck and make stupid
mistakes to lose.

James M

spid...@my-dejanews.com

unread,

Feb 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/1/99

In article <F6D14...@midway.uchicago.edu>,

spmc...@midway.uchicago.edu (Shaun Patrick Mcisaac) wrote:

> >I
> >think we can agree that a full-power no holds barred Chun or Sakura should
> >beat my Sagat on paper "for free."
>

> I'll invoke Beasley's first law of time and win/loss ratios, thank
> you. You're all welcome to look it up.

Actually, to give credit where credit is due (as Julien did to begin with),
it's the Sam Kim principle, and it is as follow (from Julien's post):

"How many times have you heard the following lines?

"Yeah, XXX won the tourney, but I beat him in free play.. he's not that good"
"Yeah, XXX got a lucky super and won that game, but I coulda won" "Yeah, XXX
beat me at first 'cause I wasn't warmed up... but after a few games I got
rolling and I kicked his ass" "Yeah, XXX got a decent win streak with his
YYY. But after I came in with ZZZ, I took him off the machine easily. He's
not that good"

It doesn't matter if you win 2-1, 10-1, 20-1, or 100-1. If he wins a single
game it will always eventually become 50-50 to his mind. This is one of the
axioms of street fighter, called the Sam Kim Principle (named after Sam Kim
who first publicly pointed it out).

Examples (ppl in this example, I hold no ill will or disrespect towards you.
Many of you are my friends. It's totally normal to exaggerate into the sam kim
principle)

David Boudreau vs Seth Killian: Seth won for hours on end at the first NY
gathering in 95(?). Eventually lost one game to Dave's akuma with honda. Dave
then said he was disappointed in the quality of internet ppl's play, and that
he was on the same level [yo no offense dave! :)]

Me vs Jason (APOC) McGlone: I kicked Jason's all day in the first Vegas
gathering, losing 2 games out of 100. Jason then posted shit all over the net
about how he was better than me for MONTHS.
[HAHAHA just kidding jason dude :)... that's some OLD trash talk scrubboy :)]

Chocobo vs Kris G: Not too sure about this one, but apparently Kris G went
down, beat everyone, and then lost maybe one game. Posts for months and
months if not a year ensued about how he "wasn't that great" and "I could win
if I tried"

Allen Klein vs Sunnyvale: Allen Klein went to Sunnyvale GL before b3, lost
continuously, and then posted to the net how sunnyvale wasn't that good
because he had thrown Jason Nelson a couple of times.

...

Remember the Sam Kim principle - "If the win/loss ratio is nonzero and
positive, it will invariably approach 1 as time increases, with the rate of
increase being proportional to the original number n of wins." ie someone who
played 50 games and won 2 of them will think he is as good at least twice as
fast as the guy who only won 1 out of 50."

I can personally attest to the truth of this, as I'm sure most of you can.

--
Dan Thompson (SpiderDan)
[send email to] edge [at] chipware [dot] net

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------

James Margaris

unread,

Feb 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/1/99

In article <794q5d$8om$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, spid...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>In article <F6D14...@midway.uchicago.edu>,
> spmc...@midway.uchicago.edu (Shaun Patrick Mcisaac) wrote:
>
>> >I
>> >think we can agree that a full-power no holds barred Chun or Sakura should
>> >beat my Sagat on paper "for free."
>>
>> I'll invoke Beasley's first law of time and win/loss ratios, thank
>> you. You're all welcome to look it up.
>

[clip the principle]

Yeah, of course that happens a lot. SOmetimes there is some validity
to that type of thinking, when one player finally figures out the other and
starts winning more, but of course the other player can always adjust and
dominate again.

While this is an amusing principle it is not relevant. I did/will
state that I lost to Chun, Charlie, and Ryu the majority of the time. I took
Bison about 50% (he beat me 3-4 times in a row, then I beat him a few times,
then he switched characters), and I was beating Bradburn about 50% after a few
warmups. (In other words, I lost the first few, then we were even for the rest
of the time)

Sam Kim's rule is amusing but not relevant in this situation. End of
story. Anyone who wants to verify this can go right ahead.

James M

Chocobo

unread,

Feb 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/1/99

spid...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

> Chocobo vs Kris G: Not too sure about this one, but apparently Kris G went
> down, beat everyone, and then lost maybe one game. Posts for months and
> months if not a year ensued about how he "wasn't that great" and "I could win
> if I tried"

It seems like you have a text file for the "Sam Kim principle" that you cut and
paste when necessary... I'd appreciate it if you could take this out, since it's
not true. I thought I was good, Kris came and kicked my ass with Chun Li, and did
all right with other characters too, but I could never beat that Chun Li one
single game and I acknowledged that. I don't know where this "months and months,
if not a year" came from. I was saying that he and Omar weren't all that good
(other than the Chun Li) for a while, and that's because it was true at the time.
Of course, I wasn't any better.

spid...@my-dejanews.com

unread,

Feb 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/2/99

[snip stuff regarding equal skill]

One thing that seems to be in question is the level of skill between the two
players. I know that for rankings, the players must be "equally skilled
experts." However, in the case of a matchup that's supposedly free, I would
probably be inclined to agree with James, in that the player playing the
favored character need only to understand the basic elements of what to do.
For example, in ST, the Akuma player needs to understand at least which speed
air FBs to throw and what Zangief can try to get past them (though admittedly
in that case it isn't much), or, also in ST, Blanka vs Honda, the Honda
player merely needs to know when to low strong/far RH/headbutt. I personally
think the difference between a free matchup and one that is "merely" vastly
one-sided is in how simplistic and repetitive the favored character needs to
be. If the favored character needs to do too much thinking, it's not really
free IMO. One of the main things that defines 'free' matchups is that a more
skilled player will lose the vast majority of the time, simply because the
matchup is so tough.

Note that I am not commenting on whether or not Sagat vs Adon is free; I know
very little about A3, and care even less.

robo...@my-dejanews.com

unread,

Feb 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/2/99

In article <792gbi$a...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
js...@cornell.edu (James Margaris) wrote:
> [clip]
[snip]

> So, basically you are arguing that since Adon is a better
> character overall he beats Sagat for free. In that case, for every ranking
> chart every character wins "for free" against all characters ranked below
> them. Care to make that claim? C'mon, you know you want to...

Was this ever alluded to (i.e. A beats B for free, therefore A beats everyone
else under B for free as well)? I've tried to stay away from this thread, so
I can't comment w/authority.

[snip]

> Not really. We can expect a good crossup combo, depending on damage
> and mode, supers used, etc., to do good damage on any machine. Any good combo
> should do at least 20%, with a level three super maybe 60%+. The point is that
> when it only take 2-5 "hits" to kill someone the odds can be overcome.

Let's not try to make huge blanket statements w/out first realizing the
parameters of the argument. Two people of equal skill, *implicitly* not
making any mistakes (or at least huge mistakes). So, now you're saying that
Character A can beat Character B w/2-5 hits, and b/c of that, the odds
*should not* so heavily favor Character B -- who is claimed can beat
Character B "for free." What seems to be lacking is that both people are of
equal skill and *will or rather should* not be making fatal mistakes (see
infra below). That's where your argument is flawed. B still wins "for free"
b/c he can keep A from getting those 2-5 hits. B would never make the fatal
mistake. Note: this is diff froma simple mistake. The argument still works
if A could beat B w/1 hit. (again, see infra below).

> Look at ST. The damage is very high, compared to madern games,

Debatable.

yet we
> can still call some matches "for free." All Zan needs to do to beat Akuma is
> get 1 low roundhouse then three SPD ticks, 4 hits total. yet we still say he
> loses for free. So, even on high damage (up to a point, obviously) matches can
> be for free. Once again, if you want to set the damage so that a good combo
> does 7% damage, you may have a point.

This is so wrong. The SPD tick requires Zangief to be exposed to the wake-up
dp. Akuma can keep guessing wrong a lot more before Zangief could execute
the SPD. Wake-up dp's can be executed just as effectively as the the SPD.
Also, doesn't the SPD put people out of range? So that you don't get
repeated SPD, like in SF2 (classic, maybe Champion)... So, even assuming
Akuma makes the fatal error and is hit by Zangief's c.rh, Akuma does not have
to fear repeated SPD ticks. But, this argument is so moot. Any moron that
can throw an air-fb should have little problem disposing of Zangief, since it
would be utterly foolish for Akuma to do anything other than air-fb. Zangief
will never get in range to do anything. Akuma beats Zangief for free!
Zangief's best chances for winning is if Akuma let's go of the stick. So, if
A beats B w/one hit, but A can never get that one hit, B wins for free
(implicitly assuming that A can't keep B out).

You and "I" should start your own ng, where your subjective argumentation can
reign supreme. It makes absolutely no sense to factor in bad sticks, bad
controllers, player mood, upset stomachs, bad times of the month, etc... Why
don't you (and "I") understand that analysis requires stripping away
everything to the bare core. Of course people will never be of equal skill
unless you're playing yourself (which may not even be true, b/c the clone may
be having a good day, whereas the orginal is having a bad day.) The rankings
aren't ever 10-0 (except maybe Akuma v. Zangief, Ryu v. Elena). Any wins
that anybody gets w/the odds un-favored character is attributable to the
opponents lack of skill. That's why we should laugh very loud when Dan beats
any shotokan. The arguments must remain ***OBJECTIVE*** or there will never
be a degree of accuracy, since any fool can make any type of subjective
argument to undermine any other subjective argument (e.g. Sagat can really
hang w/Adon, if not win all the time, you just didn't see it from me b/c I
had a bad day). "For Free" is meant for easy wins. Though there is no
bright line test to determine exactly what is "For Free" (the word "free"
doesn't even exist in "I"'s universe), but I think pretty much everyone would
agree that 10-0, 9-1, 8-2, and possibly 7-3 match-ups are for free.

Dale

James Margaris

unread,

Feb 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/2/99

In article <7979be$amg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, robo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>In article <792gbi$a...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
> js...@cornell.edu (James Margaris) wrote:
>> [clip]
>[snip]
>> So, basically you are arguing that since Adon is a better
>> character overall he beats Sagat for free. In that case, for every ranking
>> chart every character wins "for free" against all characters ranked below
>> them. Care to make that claim? C'mon, you know you want to...
>
>Was this ever alluded to (i.e. A beats B for free, therefore A beats everyone
>else under B for free as well)? I've tried to stay away from this thread, so
>I can't comment w/authority.

See my response to Chocobo.

>
>[snip]
>> Not really. We can expect a good crossup combo, depending on damage
>> and mode, supers used, etc., to do good damage on any machine. Any good combo
>> should do at least 20%, with a level three super maybe 60%+. The point is
> that
>> when it only take 2-5 "hits" to kill someone the odds can be overcome.
>
>Let's not try to make huge blanket statements w/out first realizing the
>parameters of the argument. Two people of equal skill, *implicitly* not
>making any mistakes (or at least huge mistakes). So, now you're saying that
>Character A can beat Character B w/2-5 hits, and b/c of that, the odds
>*should not* so heavily favor Character B -- who is claimed can beat
>Character B "for free."

What I'm saying is that the argument that character A wins becuase of
probablity on low damage machines breaks down if you allow combos to count as
hits, in which case even on low damage a few good "hits" can win. Getting hit
by a combo is not always a stupid mistake, although it can be a fatal one.
(Sakura crossup is obvious example) What about getting hit by Gen crossup, low
short, level 3? We can say that a player will not make a stupid mistake, but
getting hit by a crossup is not stupid, just unfortunate, and we cannot rule
that out.

What seems to be lacking is that both people are of
>equal skill and *will or rather should* not be making fatal mistakes (see
>infra below).

Once again, fatal mistakes can be made by good players, just not stupid fatal
ones. Trying a wake-up reversal uppercut when they anticipate and block is
fatal, but not stupid, unless you were overly predicatable.

>> Look at ST. The damage is very high, compared to madern games,
>
>Debatable.

No it isn't. Aside from supers, normal hits and combos in ST are MUCH
stronger.
>

> yet we
>> can still call some matches "for free." All Zan needs to do to beat Akuma is
>> get 1 low roundhouse then three SPD ticks, 4 hits total. yet we still say he
>> loses for free. So, even on high damage (up to a point, obviously) matches
> can
>> be for free. Once again, if you want to set the damage so that a good combo
>> does 7% damage, you may have a point.
>
>This is so wrong. The SPD tick requires Zangief to be exposed to the wake-up
>dp. Akuma can keep guessing wrong a lot more before Zangief could execute
>the SPD. Wake-up dp's can be executed just as effectively as the the SPD.
>Also, doesn't the SPD put people out of range?

Not in the corner. The point is that in Zangief vs Akuma or Sakura vs
whoever both characters can win (yes, you can reverse the SPD but you can
reverse the crossup also) with a few hits. Yet, Zangief really does lose the
matchup for free, while Sakura does not. Clearly there is something more going
on than simple probability. Now, you can say that Sakura against Charlie trade
hits 1:1, whereas Akuma vs Zan is more like 100:1. The point here is just that
the number of hits needed to win is not always a significant number. More
significant is how hard it is for one opponent to hit the other and vice-versa
(well, these two things work together obvioulsy), which is NOT quantifiable by
anyone on this group for all but the most basic matchups. So, while we CAN
determine how many hits X needs to beat Y, how hard it is to get those hits is
very open.

Don't get hung up of the examples I've given off the top of my head.
You either believe the retarded math model or you don't, and that's the bottom
line. (All I was getting at in this part of the argument is that the math is
horribly broken)

If you actually believe you can model SF with a formula of 2
variables, well...like I said before, real mathmaticians don't draw up models
based on guesswork while sitting on their asses, they go out and do analysis.
The argument that A beats B if damage is X and they trade with ratio Y:Z is
IRRELEVANT, because no-one can say that two different players will always
trade 1:1, 10:1, or whatever, except in the most straightforward matchups.
(Akuma vs Zan you could make a good guess maybe, because there is one simple
pattern to the whole match)

>
>You and "I" should start your own ng, where your subjective argumentation can
>reign supreme. It makes absolutely no sense to factor in bad sticks, bad
>controllers, player mood, upset stomachs, bad times of the month, etc...

Hah hah hah. Tell me where I factored in any of those things. Once again, you
resort to making up my argument for me. Read what I wrote before. Relflexes.
Timing. Anticipation. Distancing. Predictability. Can you see the difference
between these and an upset stomach? What I factored in was, drum roll
please....PLAYER SKILL. Yes, that's right folks, different players have
different skills, believe it or not! The question in a free matchup is: can
the wrose player beat the better one? Or, worse, rather.

Why
>don't you (and "I") understand that analysis requires stripping away
>everything to the bare core.

You wouldn't call player skill the bare core of SF. What, pray tell,
is then? Do we really believe in the end that player skill has less to do with
SF than character choice?

"For Free" is meant for easy wins. Though there is no
>bright line test to determine exactly what is "For Free" (the word "free"
>doesn't even exist in "I"'s universe), but I think pretty much everyone would
>agree that 10-0, 9-1, 8-2, and possibly 7-3 match-ups are for free.

Next time just state your point first! You think "free" is 7-3. My def is more
complicated. For me a free win is a match you go into without sweating over,
regardless of who your opponent is. I think my definition better suits the
intrinsic notions we have about "for free" matches. If you went into your
"free" match against Valle would you still feel fine and dandy, no problemo? I
would under my definition of "for free," because mine is independent of player
skills, given a certain base competence.

James M

Shaun Patrick Mcisaac

unread,

Feb 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/3/99

In article <797fjs$r...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,

James Margaris <js...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>In article <7979be$amg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, robo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>In article <792gbi$a...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
>> js...@cornell.edu (James Margaris) wrote:
> What I'm saying is that the argument that character A wins becuase of
>probablity on low damage machines breaks down if you allow combos to count as

I think you probably missed it, but I said weighted trade ratios..
so if by random chance player A will win on three attacks out every nine,
but does 18 times as much damage, it's in player A's favor. Now, combos
doing 33% doesn't break down the math, it just makes the machine more
random (more luck based)... and the math would show that. Everything
does 100% damage, I can hit you twice as often, therefore I lose 1
round in three. They make it harder to tone down the damage scale, yes,
but that's it.

>>This is so wrong. The SPD tick requires Zangief to be exposed to the wake-up
>>dp. Akuma can keep guessing wrong a lot more before Zangief could execute
>>the SPD. Wake-up dp's can be executed just as effectively as the the SPD.
>>Also, doesn't the SPD put people out of range?

> Not in the corner. The point is that in Zangief vs Akuma or Sakura vs
>whoever both characters can win (yes, you can reverse the SPD but you can
>reverse the crossup also)

As was pointed out elsewhere, you can't reverse this. You fly off
in the wrong direction and get comboed on landing. As to Z, Akuma just
teleports away, no more repeats, but you knew that.

>hits 1:1, whereas Akuma vs Zan is more like 100:1. The point here is just that
>the number of hits needed to win is not always a significant number. More
>significant is how hard it is for one opponent to hit the other and vice-versa

and how hard the hits themselves are.

>(well, these two things work together obvioulsy), which is NOT quantifiable by
>anyone on this group for all but the most basic matchups. So, while we CAN
>determine how many hits X needs to beat Y, how hard it is to get those hits is
>very open.

Well, there a lot of non-important things too.. like the I/Onaje
bit about Hawk's short and Cammy's forward... you can strip away bunches
of stuff because they won't see the light of play or are mistakes when
they do.

> Don't get hung up of the examples I've given off the top of my head.
>You either believe the retarded math model or you don't, and that's the bottom
>line. (All I was getting at in this part of the argument is that the math is
>horribly broken)

Only the final step is the easy one.. the rest of it, how much
damage for each hit, how hard it is to get this that and the other hit...
there are many variables there (which I didn't post, becuase it was
assumed in the "weighted" bit). Don't knock it if you don't understand
it... Something = [insert big term here] ^ (3/2) is not a stupid formula..
clearer?

> If you actually believe you can model SF with a formula of 2
>variables, well...like I said before, real mathmaticians don't draw up models
>based on guesswork while sitting on their asses, they go out and do analysis.
>The argument that A beats B if damage is X and they trade with ratio Y:Z is
>IRRELEVANT, because no-one can say that two different players will always
>trade 1:1, 10:1, or whatever, except in the most straightforward matchups.

You can do it for small but significant parts of matchups like the
triple option. Zangief should be able to just about kill you off of
what, 2 (seperate) MP throws? I think Viscant and Mike Z could give you
the exact numbers, but basically you take around 60 odd percent every
time, on average.
You can then expand from there, which is exactly what is happening
in Akuma v Zan. The matchup isn't "straightforward" until you do that,
even unconsciously.

>different skills, believe it or not! The question in a free matchup is: can
>the wrose player beat the better one? Or, worse, rather.

Well, you're welcome to that definition of free, but I don't think
you're seeing eye to eye with most of the ppl here... again, context. I
think this will probably depend on your definition of player skill, too,
but I don't feel like getting that ball rolling.

>>don't you (and "I") understand that analysis requires stripping away
>>everything to the bare core.
> You wouldn't call player skill the bare core of SF. What, pray tell,
>is then? Do we really believe in the end that player skill has less to do with
>SF than character choice?

Sometimes, yes. But I think you missed the point Dale was making.
Skill may be a factor, but it's not fixed. Things that are a part of the
game's code (priority, damage) are.

>Next time just state your point first! You think "free" is 7-3. My def is more
>complicated. For me a free win is a match you go into without sweating over,

7-3 is consistant but short win streaks for the advantaged player,
so I'd say that's pretty much coasting. Not sure if I'd call it free,
either, but it's reasonable.

>intrinsic notions we have about "for free" matches. If you went into your
>"free" match against Valle would you still feel fine and dandy, no
>problemo? I

As long as I was actually an expert at playing the game? Yah,
basically, I wouldn't. As long as I've got to do 1/3 the work the same
results, and as long as I don't suck, I'm not worried about vastly
superior players. I've had to play *vastly* superior players before
<sniff, I miss those days>, and free matchups are still free - and I
wouldn't say I was/am an expert that should be a gold standard here,
either.
--
SPM...
PINE 3.95 SIGNATURE EDITOR Folder: INBOX 0 Messages
^G Get Help ^X Exit ^R Read File ^Y Prev Pg ^K Cut Text
^C Cancel ^J Justify ^W Where is ^V Next Pg ^U UnCut Text^T To Spell

Kuro

unread,

Feb 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/3/99

js...@cornell.edu (James Margaris) wrote:

>Next time just state your point first! You think "free" is 7-3. My def is more
>complicated. For me a free win is a match you go into without sweating over,
>regardless of who your opponent is. I think my definition better suits the
>intrinsic notions we have about "for free" matches. If you went into your
>"free" match against Valle would you still feel fine and dandy, no problemo? I
>would under my definition of "for free," because mine is independent of player
>skills, given a certain base competence.

The term "for free", as far as i can remember, was started in the
LA/OC area by Jeff Schaefer. We all know about Jeff's brash style
when he posted..

When using the term "for free", it's not just a statement saying
"character A beats character B 10-0 (or 9-1, or 8-2 or whatever)".
It's sometimes more than that. It's often more personal and
egotistical. When I say Honda beats Blanka in ST "for free", I'm
saying MY Honda can beat anyone's Blanka, regardless of how the
matchup actually is.

When this thread began, the reason I jumped in when you said 'Ryu/Ken
vs Honda is hardly for free' is because only once out of many matches
have I ever beaten Mike Watson's ST Ryu (who I considered to be the
best ST Ryu I've seen) in a tournament with my Honda (I've never seen
a Honda as good as mine... see the ego there?). No, it's not 10-0,
because I have won before, but in my mind there is no chance for Honda
to win that match in a tournament setting.

Anyway, in tournament-happy California, many of the 'elite' players
like to discuss things when it comes down to tournaments, which is
what it all comes down to out here. If a match is say even 7-3, even
facing an equally skilled opponent, you have to defy some pretty hefty
odds to win that in a 2 out of 3 tournament match.

--
Bob Painter
kur...@netscape.net

P.S. - If anyone is still interested in the SFA3 National Tournament
tape, send me an e-mail.

0 new messages