This post is about a particular statistical bias that shows up everywhere, and has nothing at all todo with me recently leaving a crappy relationship, playing HS to forget said relationship, and then getting stomped by aggro decks on ladder. Nothing. At. All.
According to some book I've read that I can't be bothered to find right now, about 1/4 of people are emotionally unavailable in relationships. Also known as 'afraid of commitment'. Or, to oversimplify, 'jerks'. Those are the people who are '1 step forward, 2 steps back' - whenever you get closer to them, they distance themselves. They don't want to get attached. Dating people like can be very frustating.
But if you're single and trying to date, it seems like *way more* than 1 out of 4 people are jerks. Maybe you're just being salty, but maybe you actually have a point*. Here's the thing, when two non-jerks date, chances are that they'll date for a good long while. But jerks don't stay in relationships all that long, so they get recycled back into the dating pool quickly, so at any particular moment they are overrepresented in the dating pool.
*Then again, if you think literally everyone you meet is a jerk, perhaps the jerk is you
So even though only 1/4 of the general population are jerks, way more than 1/4 of people who are actively looking to date are jerks. What's worse, emotionally unavailable people basically never date each other for any significant amount of time, since *at least* one person must be invested in the relationship, so the rest of us are stuck with them.
If you're not aware of this bias you may be left with the impression that *everyone are jerks*, but really it's just 1 in 4.
The same thing happens with aggro decks. Games involving aggro decks last shorter, so they get recycled back into the matchup pool more quickly. I expect aggro-aggro to have the shortest average game duration of any matchup. Meanwhile, when two control decks meet they'll be stuck playing together for a good long while.
So it seems like there are a lot more aggro players than there actually is, because aggro games are shorter.
tl;dr: emotionally unavailable people are the cancer of dating, copypasta aggro decks are the cancer of ladder, and because cancer doesn't stick to cancer the rest of us are stuck with it most of the time, so it seems like it's cancer all the way down, but it really isn't, it's just a statistical selection bias.
So you tilt IRL a well as in hs, and instead of trying something positive/fulfilling/productive to get out of tilt, you come up with some deranged statistical theory to justify your own imbalance?
So you tilt IRL a well as in hs, and instead of trying something positive/fulfilling/productive to get out of tilt, you come up with some deranged statistical theory to justify your own imbalance?
Pathetic idiots like you make me even more salty than aggro shamans! Someone writes a long post with a lot of effort in it, explaining a phenomen that we've all experienced and then theres some 14 year old skid trying to be cool by shittalking the author. Pathetic scum. And btw probs to the author the post was really interesting to read
Public Mod Note
(xskarma):
Post was warned. Flaming is never the solution. Post more respectfully next time.
This post is awesome. The connection is so absurd yet so true. Although to be fair you do have the choice of who you date (jerk radar) and who you face in HS is pretty much out of your control.
Wow, I can definitely see how this could be true, The same goes for simply picky people etc (not just jerks) I don't consider picky people to be jerks, they simply have high standards. so match up with someone that makes sense for you! but as others have said... there's no personal control over matchups in Hearthstone ladder. so as you pointed out we are pretty much stuck with playing an overrepresentation of aggro... however this also means that the bad aggro players are over represented as well. either conceding or winning quickly.
Actually I could see this as a legitimate reason that Blizzard would manipulate ladder matchups - to matchup aggro more vs. aggro and control more vs. control. Just to feed into that whole conspiracy theory ;)
Its kind of a rule of the internet. There will always be an edgy kid lurking around.
I too found this an interesting read C:
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Start of Year: Provoke the failure of 3 expansions, force nerfs on otherwise balanced cards, bring deckbuilding to an all-time low and get rotated one year earlier for being such a threat to the game's health. - Genn and Baku's historical entry on the White Book of Shit Design, shortly before retiring unpunished
Sampling bias is a bog standard statistical theory, I *wish* I'd invented it. Its application to the dating pool, and the 1/4 figure, come from the book Attached, by Levine and Heller.
I've been seeing a lot of people bitching about aggro decks on these forums, and I figured the same effect might be at play.
One could liken being in an abusive relationship with playing versus a heavy control deck. IRL some people stick with abusive partners because their self worth has been eroded to the point they will never find anyone better. In hearthstone people want to preserve their ranking so they don't concede when their opponent HP>Justicar>HP on an empty board, when the reality is they should just concede and queue into the next game.
This is why I mainly play casual. If I don't feel like playing Shaman I can simply leave. If I am in a good mood I'll have a crack at it, but the endless Zoo/Shaman on the ladder is very exhausting. There is only so much aggro I can bare to play per day.
Yeah, totally. I play my weird decks on casual, I concede right away to obviously boring decks. Why would you play top tier net decks on casual?
I played zoolock on the ladder for a while so I can't complain too much. To my defense, I just started HS again after leaving for a year, my best deck by far was a Mech Priest... try converting that to Standard now :/ I ended up dusting nearly all my GvG and Naxx cards to make more interesting standard decks. There's no way I'll ever have a good enough collection to play both standard and wild so I decided to just play standard.
Though that was a very odd comparison, it was surprisingly really good. I play Control and Aggro, though more control and TBH I really don't mind Aggro since I easily beat them with my Zoolock and Dragondin, though my C'Thun Priest stands no chance against them.
This post is about a particular statistical bias that shows up everywhere, and has nothing at all todo with me recently leaving a crappy relationship, playing HS to forget said relationship, and then getting stomped by aggro decks on ladder. Nothing. At. All.
According to some book I've read that I can't be bothered to find right now, about 1/4 of people are emotionally unavailable in relationships. Also known as 'afraid of commitment'. Or, to oversimplify, 'jerks'. Those are the people who are '1 step forward, 2 steps back' - whenever you get closer to them, they distance themselves. They don't want to get attached. Dating people like can be very frustating.
But if you're single and trying to date, it seems like *way more* than 1 out of 4 people are jerks. Maybe you're just being salty, but maybe you actually have a point*. Here's the thing, when two non-jerks date, chances are that they'll date for a good long while. But jerks don't stay in relationships all that long, so they get recycled back into the dating pool quickly, so at any particular moment they are overrepresented in the dating pool.
*Then again, if you think literally everyone you meet is a jerk, perhaps the jerk is you
So even though only 1/4 of the general population are jerks, way more than 1/4 of people who are actively looking to date are jerks. What's worse, emotionally unavailable people basically never date each other for any significant amount of time, since *at least* one person must be invested in the relationship, so the rest of us are stuck with them.
If you're not aware of this bias you may be left with the impression that *everyone are jerks*, but really it's just 1 in 4.
The same thing happens with aggro decks. Games involving aggro decks last shorter, so they get recycled back into the matchup pool more quickly. I expect aggro-aggro to have the shortest average game duration of any matchup. Meanwhile, when two control decks meet they'll be stuck playing together for a good long while.
So it seems like there are a lot more aggro players than there actually is, because aggro games are shorter.
tl;dr: emotionally unavailable people are the cancer of dating, copypasta aggro decks are the cancer of ladder, and because cancer doesn't stick to cancer the rest of us are stuck with it most of the time, so it seems like it's cancer all the way down, but it really isn't, it's just a statistical selection bias.
Dating sucks. Life is irrelevant; play hearthstone.
So you tilt IRL a well as in hs, and instead of trying something positive/fulfilling/productive to get out of tilt, you come up with some deranged statistical theory to justify your own imbalance?
I am not a Mage player, just thought my avatar would go with my name.
'How many Blizzard employees do you need to fix a lamp? It does not matter, because they cannot balance the ladder.'
Check out my homebrewn Paladin deck.
Me Confuse
Tl Dr
Jerks play aggro
this is absolutely amazing!
This post is awesome. The connection is so absurd yet so true. Although to be fair you do have the choice of who you date (jerk radar) and who you face in HS is pretty much out of your control.
Blindness
Wow, I can definitely see how this could be true, The same goes for simply picky people etc (not just jerks) I don't consider picky people to be jerks, they simply have high standards. so match up with someone that makes sense for you! but as others have said... there's no personal control over matchups in Hearthstone ladder. so as you pointed out we are pretty much stuck with playing an overrepresentation of aggro... however this also means that the bad aggro players are over represented as well. either conceding or winning quickly.
Actually I could see this as a legitimate reason that Blizzard would manipulate ladder matchups - to matchup aggro more vs. aggro and control more vs. control. Just to feed into that whole conspiracy theory ;)
Its kind of a rule of the internet. There will always be an edgy kid lurking around.
I too found this an interesting read C:
Start of Year: Provoke the failure of 3 expansions, force nerfs on otherwise balanced cards, bring deckbuilding to an all-time low and get rotated one year earlier for being such a threat to the game's health.
- Genn and Baku's historical entry on the White Book of Shit Design, shortly before retiring unpunished
Sampling bias is a bog standard statistical theory, I *wish* I'd invented it. Its application to the dating pool, and the 1/4 figure, come from the book Attached, by Levine and Heller.
I've been seeing a lot of people bitching about aggro decks on these forums, and I figured the same effect might be at play.
aggro=assholes. End of story :P
One could liken being in an abusive relationship with playing versus a heavy control deck. IRL some people stick with abusive partners because their self worth has been eroded to the point they will never find anyone better. In hearthstone people want to preserve their ranking so they don't concede when their opponent HP>Justicar>HP on an empty board, when the reality is they should just concede and queue into the next game.
TL:DR, control players are wife-beaters.
10/10 Would read again
Great post and I agree with your conclusion.
I played zoolock on the ladder for a while so I can't complain too much. To my defense, I just started HS again after leaving for a year, my best deck by far was a Mech Priest... try converting that to Standard now :/ I ended up dusting nearly all my GvG and Naxx cards to make more interesting standard decks. There's no way I'll ever have a good enough collection to play both standard and wild so I decided to just play standard.
its not statistical selection bias what your saying is complete nonsense.
trying to compare a relationship to a game of hearthstone is completely idiotic.
#plzmovetosaltthread
Though that was a very odd comparison, it was surprisingly really good. I play Control and Aggro, though more control and TBH I really don't mind Aggro since I easily beat them with my Zoolock and Dragondin, though my C'Thun Priest stands no chance against them.
The Nexus comes to the Inn with my set of Heroes of the Storm Legendaries!