Friday, December 14, 2007

I No Longer Want In It

What's the point. All that studying, working, and theorycrafting sick arena strats doesn't fucking matter. Jessica Alba. Pregnant. Game over man, game fucking over. And no, she won't be the same to me in a year. I pretty much blame the crowning scene of Knocked Up. Yum, my mouth tastes like vomit.

Speaking of arena (!?), I think we should talk about the new PTR rogue changes. No, I don't really want to talk about it. But I know you do. And I know it's important to you, so it's important to me. So let's talk. I'll listen. I'm a good listener. You smell nice today. Do you think we could maybe, you know, before talking? Okay, yeah, forget it. Let's talk.

The changes to shadowstep basically give rogues an equivalent to the elite and complicated warrior role in 2345:

Harass mage so he can't poly or chaincast, save up rage as best as possible, intercept and OMGBURST with your shaman and mage some noob who totally doesn't understand the complexitity of 5v5 arena. Speaking of burst, that Natalie Portman "I'll burst in your mouth like I'm Gushers" thing still fucking owns. Sorry, we were talking arena. Serious business.

So now rogues can act more like mini warriors, and can shadowstep ambush to warp over and potentially add pain to the assist train. Wow.

The reasons the above strategy ares o effective despite the fact that mages are a hard target in many ways : (in case that nagging extra chromosome you've got makes it non-obvious)
  • No pushback reduction on frost offensive abilities. Only now is there moderate pushback protection on Polymorph. Simply autoattacking the mage CCs him.
  • Mages are still relatively squishy and the combination of the lowest resilience, cloth armor, and a healing debuff makes mages very expensive to heal in the long run. (sucks bad to heal mages a lot in the mana war)
  • If you're near the mage, you're at least momentarily near his pet, and thus will have a good opportunity to kill it.
  • Mage defensive abilities cost a ton of mana. Forcing the mage to use them is a huge advantage in the long game.

Is this better in 5s than simply sticking a mutilate rogue on the target you want to kill? The extra burst damage and more reliable wound are hard to justify sacrificing. Moreover, does this style of play really make any sense for rogue? Either way, there's a million rogues emoing out over on GameRiot if you want to argue about rogue nonsense. Here, we'll be mourning the loss of Jessica Alba. =(

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

The Sit Exploits

So it's out there:

For all of these, make a macro that says: /sit /sit /sit

The Spell Reflect Exploit - Hit spell reflect and quickly hit your sit macro. You are immune to direct damage spells for 5 seconds. Cool bro.

The Combustion Exploit - Pop combustion. Nuke that BR priest or whatever to get a few stacks. Now after every cast, quickly hit your sit macro. You will never lose charges of combustion.

Blessed Resilience/Natural Perfection - Hit your macro when that pet is on you to proc these talents guaranteed. This has obvious use for enrage and blood craze as well. Note certain warriors speccing into Blood Craze.

Some of these are obviously more "game-breaking" than others. Hopefully, if people get more aware of this crap, it's not just the elite pvpers exploiting this stuff to win.

Other things:

Many other talents/abilities can be bypassed by sitting. (Ignite, Winter's Chill, etc)

So, cheat to win?

Avatar's Blog

So, Avatar has a blog now. Here are the contents:

Pot: Yo kettle, you SO black.
Kettle: ...

I have no special distaste for Avatar, so I'll say nothing else -- except that he's a snake. A slithery one. Hissssssssssssss. Get onomatopoeia-d.

I think the discussion of what constitutes "cheating" is mildly interesting, but I don't really have a solid opinion on the topic. It's never really been my goal to win so much as to be as solid a player as I possibly can be. That being said, I'm very competitive and play hard in arenas because I don't want other teams to be better than mine. And no, this isn't the moral fucking high ground. I play to win and have fun, but shit like win trading to get a higher rank or making persistent use of questionable game mechanics to my advantage don't really accomplish the goal of getting better at the game. SOLID SOLID SOLID.

I was dueling earlier as 33/28 on PTR which was fun, but honestly the problem with fire perhaps more than the survivability concerns, is just that the damage really isn't even there. The highpoint of the session was dueling a full season two WE Mage who hit Ice Block as I PoM Pyroed his Water Elemental.

"OMG YOURE JUST LIKE VURTNE"

He couldn't see that I was targeting his pet and not him because his mods weren't working.

I'd like to practice some AP/fire vs WE duels on PTR before its down, so if you don't suck, come find me and spam shields on yourself till I'm oom. It'll be awesome. This last PTR has been atrocious for dueling despite good latency and pretty stable builds due to lack of interest. Partially, this is due to the new arena season, but my fear is that the whole awesomeness that was PTR is losing its allure. Why copy your character over and deal with the test server bullshit when already so many of the active PvPers are in one place. Thank you Tichondrius.

We're currently third in 3s this week though we really haven't been playing much. Competition is pretty mellow so far this season. I haven't really started playing 2s or 5s yet; I've got some ideas, but we'll see...

On that note, rumor has it that at least one more of the top Stormstrike teams is transferring to BG9. I don't want to be too emo, but 5s used to be an awesome bracket on BG5, and if anymore teams end up leaving, the bracket is looking to become a total wasteland. Then again, if 5s is your main interest, this is really no longer the battlegroup for it. (However, 5s universally seems to have lost appeal)

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Poker Noir Classroom

*This contains math and reasonably technical poker talk, BE WARNED *

Vegas, Bellagio poker room, 4:45 AM.

You shouldn't play this late into the night -- you start playing like total shit. Everyone gets cocky and stupid after four. You're thinking you'd rather be getting a little cocky and stupid in your hotel suite than grinding out this -- Is that Sammy motherfucking Farha? Wow, fuck that guy. Last time you were here you sat down at the Omaha 150-300 just to see what the big leagues were like. They were like dropping 2500 bucks in 2 hours, but you didn't give a fuck as you did manage to take a big enough hand off Farha for him to give you his fuck-off-small-time smirk and take a break for dinner. Faggot.

Raise it up. You're AH-2H on a 2 hearts flop with no pair. Calls around. You hit the heart on fourth. Raise it up.

The competition is more of the same. Same losers, different table, different night. You're here stag so you're tampon-shaped 3 year old Shuffle is all you've got for camaraderie. One earpiece in, one out, as always. I'll stand in front of you, I'll take the force of the blow. Ugh.

The tables have been softer the past few months. Everyone talks about how the death of online has meant the death of the "casual" player. Casinos are now all sharks, no fish. They say these things. Fucking retards. There's nothing casual about guys who sit at card tables at five in the morning -- some of them are just bad. That's life.

Most of these guys never really learnt to play. They've watched movies and skimmed books. Poker is a math game. Deny it all you want. Play long enough without strong math and your previous good fortune will come back to fuck you. Well, it should and I hope it does.

Poker math starts out simple.

Everyone talks outs in poker. Outs are cards that win you the hand. If you hold two hearts and the board shows two hearts, and you think a flush is a winning hand, you have nine outs from your hearts flush. (Thirteen total - four known cards) This is simple shit. People say "nuts" instead of winning hand. Yeah, that sounds cool. Nuts. "I thought I flopped the nuts." Coolio.

You can figure out your outs with all sorts of hands, but it's meaningless till you can convert the outs back to pot odds. Pot odds describe the ratio of your next bet or call to the size of the pot. If you're on fourth street with nine outs, and you know there's forty-six unknown cards in the deck, you have a nine in forty-six chance of making that winning flush. Nine in forty-six is just under twenty percent, so it's like five to one odds needed to call. That's to say if it's raised thirty bucks to you, you need the pot to hold at least one fifty to make the flush draw call.

If you're landing in deep draws without calling odds, you need to play less fucking spec hands. Spec hands are crap like Ace-X suited or suited connectors. People get seriously wet for that shit. Especially those Rounders wanna-bes. They get off on visions of straight flushes. You get off on visions of -- that can wait.

You're thinking about going into a discussion of implied odds and discounted outs. Fuck it, it's late. That shit is overstated anyways. More excuses to think qualitatively, a.k.a suck at math, and avoid doing any number work.

Most players have two problems. They poorly understand how to calculate pot odds well for when there's more than one card remaining and they fail to incorporate all the social "reading" aspects of the game into evaluating the odds. Well, guess what, it ain't that fucking hard.

Consider this scenario:

You hold 8D 8H.

You raise under the gun. Very tight player early position raises. Loose aggressive calls. You call. Three players see the flop.

Flop: AD 8S 4D

Before going further, we have a made set with a pretty useless backdoor flush draw. If two diamonds fall that don't pair the board, a diamond flush is likely a winning hand, but an 8 is extremely unlikely to be good enough unless we can push out the other diamonds.

Now, before going all math geek faggot at the table, what do your opponents hold? Think back to preflop. Tight player early to reraise means he's holding a top hand, AA-KK-QQ-AK-JJ, maybe AQ or 10s, if he's feeling peckish. Obviously you have to adjust your opinion on what he's likely to play by what you've seen him play, his personality, his recent hands or lack thereof, etc. But honestly, tight, Asian geezers all play the same hands the same way. The other guy, the loose aggressive caller, no matter how reckless, unless retarded, is not calling a geezer without a medium tier hand, minimum, or a spec hand that profits from lots of players and he's hoping for the blinds to limp. Figure the same hands as the geezer, with 6s-9s, A-X suited as minor possibilities. But what about other hands? You have no reason to suspect other hands until you get some better information.

You don't know that much yet. That's why you continuation bet. Your hand is also baller. Books will tell you check raise hands like this -- retarded advice. You learn a ton on third.

You bet, geezer reraises, loose aggressive folds. Call or raise?

The loose aggressive folded. That means he either didn't spike his set (he held a mid pair and didn't hit), he realized his A-X wasn't good (he didn't two pair it), or he played some nonsense garbage that you don't care about. The ace of the A-X you do care about. Now, you put the geezer on a bunch of top tier hands before, let's reevaluate the respective relative chances he holds those cards: (from weakest to strongest)

10-10: Impossible. Could not reraise second to act with the ace on board. Very low probability especially from a tight player.
A-Q: Reasonable. He could very well think this is the strongest ace out there. A reraise will let him know if this is the case.
J-J: Unlikely. Some players like to long play hands like this because they retardedly hate to fold high pairs even in the face of aces. Very low probability.
A-K: Same as A-Q. Very likely hand.
Q-Q: Unlikely. Again, against the ace, a reraise makes no sense.
K-K: Pretty unlikely. Same as with the other high pairs.
A-A: Based on his play, a very reasonable hand for him to have.

Remember the flop: AD 8S 4D


Now, there's once ace on the board. So, there are three aces left in the deck. There are no visible kings or queens. Therefore, there are three ways to have A-A, twelve ways to have A-K, and twelve ways to have A-Q. (simply 3 times 4) Very naively, geezer has, at this moment in time, about 1/9 chance of aces, and 4/9 chances of the other hands. The fact that our loose aggressive came for the ride to the flop but got out of the way makes me inclined to skew those odds slightly more in favor of the A-Q and A-K hands.

If the geezer is rocking the A-A, only the backdoor flush or hitting a fourth 8 takes the hand. Even if we hit the 8, we need him to not hit the fourth A. This is minor, but thinking about it is good practice. Also, you have to decrease the number of unknown cards in the deck when you start making assumptions about other player's hands -- a lot of people don't do this, they're bad and should kill themselves.

Anyways, so if fourth is an 8, any card but an A on fifth wins you the hand, so forty-three cards on fifth would be a win. This shit ain't obvious, so actually think about it. If fourth is a diamond, then any diamond on fifth or that fourth 8 is a win. There are 10 diamonds to go around on fourth, and assuming you catch one, the nine remaining diamonds plus that fourth 8, make ten cards on fifth wins. If fourth is an A, you're fucked and no cards win the hand for you on fifth. If fourth is any other card, only that fourth 8 on fifth is a win. Holy fuck, that was confusing:

If fourth is an 8, 43 wins.

If fourth is an A, 1 win.

If fourth is a diamond, 10 wins. There are ten ways to get a diamond on fourth, so that's a total of 100 wins.

If fourth is anything else, 1 win. (Just the 8) So, 33 total wins. (Think)

There are 45 unknown cards before fourth, and 44 by the time fifth comes around, thus 1980 total outcomes for fourth and fifth street. Of all 1980 outcomes, 178 win the hand for us. That's about 1/11.

Gosh, wasn't that fun and simple? Consider the geezer holding A-K this time instead, but consider losses because you're ahead in the hand. (It simplifies things always to think of the losing hand)

Remember the flop: AD 8S 4D

If fourth is an 8, 0 losses. (Any card wins)

If fourth is an A, 7 losses. (If geezer catches a fourth A, a second K, or the board pairs the 4, 3+3+1=7) Therefore, 2x7, 14 total losses.

If fourth is a 4, 2 losses. (Anything but an A) Therefore, 6 total losses.

If fourth is a K, 4 losses. (Anything but an A or K on fifth) 3x4, or 12 total losses.

If fourth is anything else, 0 losses.

So, 32 losses out of 1980 outcomes, this is about 1/62. The exact same logic can be applied for A-Q and you get the exact same odds.

So, the geezer either holds a hand where our odds of winning are 1/11, 61/62, or 61/62. That's a huge disparity. This is in explicit detail, but practically speaking, rounding off to cleaner fractions is more realistic. Realistically, these odds become, 1/10, sure thing, sure thing. This is the most precise method of calculating your raw probability of winning a given hand assuming you don't get too maverick with rounding off your fractions.

Combining your odds of winning probabilities with how you read the geezer's hand probabilities, 1/9, 4/9 and 4/9 for A-A, A-K, and A-Q respectively, leaves you with 1/90, 4/9, and 4/9 for your odds of winning, or total odds of approximately 8/9 the favorite. Clearly, all the work to calculate the odds out was a waste of time as the odds are in this instance are almost entirely dependent on the hand predictions you previously made.

So, call or raise the geezer's reraise?

You did the math. You know you're currently the favorite until you have information that changes your estimates of what he's holding. With two raises preflop plus the blinds plus the three raises already in the pot, that's 10.5 bets in the pot. Even if he turned over his hand and showed you the aces, you nearly have the odds to call. The issue is: How does my raising here change the probability distribution of the hands the geezer might hold if he calls or reraises my raise?

There are math dorks out there shitting themselves reading this. It's a very strange idea -- logically, it's obvious. You adapt your expectations of the cards your opponent holds based on his actions as the hand plays out -- this is mathematically strange however as you're somewhat arbitrarily changing your probability distribution over time. This is also why, the math above is technically wrong. To be thorough, you need to model how your estimates of what your opponents holds evolve over time -- finding a good heuristic for this is complicated, and this phenomenon is part of the skill of the poker. This is a complicated topic...

Certainly, if you were to raise and the geezer rerasies you back, you have to adjust your estimate on the likelihood he holds the aces. There is no awesome way of modeling this adjustment. A simple heuristic many players use in limit holdem is they simply double the odds of the dangerous hand (in this case the aces) with every aggressive move the player makes. In this circumstance, that doesn't seem necessary, as even with A-K or A-Q, the geezer could justifiably rereaise you again as these are quite strong hands. The biggest shift in the expected probabilities would be an increase in A-K against A-Q as the possibility that the geezer holds the ace with top kicker has certainly improved. In this hand, a called raise does not significantly implicitly strengthen the caller's hand as the difference in kickers is irrelevant to what you hold.

Is raising now as opposed to waiting for the next card pot maximizing? You hold a strong hand and want to maximize its earnings. There's always a ton of discussion on this topic -- most of it is bullshit. Nobody to my knowledge has covered this very thoroughly and discussed the price of information, the correlation between volatility in hand predictions and hand profitability, etc. It's unclear whether a raise here would damage the further earning potential of the hand, nor is it clear that such a raise strengthens the hands the geezer might hold -- therefore the raise is the right play. You gain information and increase the pot size of a pot you're favored to win. Simple, eh?

That's enough for now. There's a ton of sidepoints and whole topics uncovered that are directly related to these ideas, but it can also be a lot to digest if it's not how you normally view the game.

(Back to normal poker noir next time, but I throw this out there just to curiously see how many poker players I've got reading ^^)

Sunday, December 9, 2007

Arena Weapon Choice

After debating it for a while, staring at the vendor for a while, and having "come to a conclusion" a fuckton of times, I ended up going with the one hander. I'll break down the three options:

  • Battle Staff - Best offensive DPS style option. Particularly flexible if you move to Fire in 2.3.2. Best in PvE.
  • Penetration Staff - Felhunter killing potential?
  • Spell Blade - Overall with new OH, 35 damage, 16 resilience vs 11 hit, 46 crit, 1 stam, 5 int. But, the one hander lets you kill totems, which you really can't do with the staff.
I do think all three options are pretty viable this season, and that eventually I'd like all 3. I'm still undecided on whether 5/5 S3 is preferable to 4/5 S3 with Holo-Gogs. The 25 badges wand is also slightly interesting for those who want to rock CSD. You can blue gem the wand and the goggles, 10 resil your bracers, and 12 damage (or 9) the rest. All of this stuff is debatable/minor but it's definitely frustrating to gem up shit only to realize it isn't set up exactly how you want it.