If a guild wins all their gvg they will be #1, I will bet my house on it and anyone who can think can see it is inevitable. No bookie would give odds.
Match up - Leveling out the playing fields.
Black Monks :
If a guild wins all their gvg they will be #1, I will bet my house on it and anyone who can think can see it is inevitable. No bookie would give odds.
If a guild wins all their gvg they will be #1, I will bet my house on it and anyone who can think can see it is inevitable. No bookie would give odds.
Provided a guild is involved in gvg and they don't sit out, which is obvious.
Black Monks :
If a guild wins all their gvg they will be #1, I will bet my house on it and anyone who can think can see it is inevitable. No bookie would give odds.
If a guild wins all their gvg they will be #1, I will bet my house on it and anyone who can think can see it is inevitable. No bookie would give odds.
Your message has been sent, seen, successfully ignored and forgotten (by me and... Leonhard Euler).
Hi KotJ,
on first view %wins wouldn't work. The new ranking system would favour the teams playing less. But, again you guys are making comments about just the highest levels, maybe you mathematicians can work out what percentage of players that involves ( 1% ? ).
on first view %wins wouldn't work. The new ranking system would favour the teams playing less. But, again you guys are making comments about just the highest levels, maybe you mathematicians can work out what percentage of players that involves ( 1% ? ).
Peanut Butta :
Hi KotJ,
on first view %wins wouldn't work. The new ranking system would favour the teams playing less.
Hi KotJ,
on first view %wins wouldn't work. The new ranking system would favour the teams playing less.
It couldn t only be % of wins. They woild need to take into account a certain number of gcs over a period of time.
(and you could still find a way to hack it).
Explain how to hack it where you continue to build points and continue to gaurantee wins? I would love to be proven wrong. But I will gaurantee that if a guild goes the next 60 days and hits next gvg right after their last gvg and they win (not draw, but win as has been stated throughout) they will be number 1 and it is a mathematical inevitability that they would be number one.
Black Monks :
Explain how to hack it where you continue to build points and continue to gaurantee wins? I would love to be proven wrong. But I will gaurantee that if a guild goes the next 60 days and hits next gvg right after their last gvg and they win (not draw, but win as has been stated throughout) they will be number 1 and it is a mathematical inevitability that they would be number one.
Explain how to hack it where you continue to build points and continue to gaurantee wins? I would love to be proven wrong. But I will gaurantee that if a guild goes the next 60 days and hits next gvg right after their last gvg and they win (not draw, but win as has been stated throughout) they will be number 1 and it is a mathematical inevitability that they would be number one.
Ooooh now you added “and hits next gvg right after their last gvg and they win” to your sentence.... you forgot this part in your previous theorem hahahahaha
No, it was obvious assumption, yes if a guild doesn't care then they don't care. And if they don't care why would anyone else? If a guild want to be number 1 and wins all their gvg it is a mathematical inevitability that they will be 1
Black Monks :
No, it was obvious assumption, yes if a guild doesn't care then they don't care. And if they don't care why would anyone else? If a guild want to be number 1 and wins all their gvg it is a mathematical inevitability that they will be 1
No, it was obvious assumption, yes if a guild doesn't care then they don't care. And if they don't care why would anyone else? If a guild want to be number 1 and wins all their gvg it is a mathematical inevitability that they will be 1
Hahahahahaha I love how you try to find an excuse to explain your mistake.. hahaha
For the sake of the forum: This message has been sent, seen, successfully ignored and forgotten.
Not an excuse, it is an obvious assumption and it remains, why are you arguing? Chill out