I completely agree with you about hazed. He is genuinely the main problem of TSM, not his performance, but his IGLing and strats and calling. They all suck. They get easily read, which is why they got rolled by Noble 13-2 on that ascent map.

Critical, according to reports and sources

It depends on who you ask.. Many realistic TSM fans like myself realize that TSM is fucking ass, and a tier 2 team and we don't 'overrate' them at all. Regardless of popularity, a lot of TSM fans that aren't delusional realize that they're bad (for now)

LMFAO

Decent change, but this is not what they need, they need a good fucking IGL man. Drone is a good performer, he can frag when necessary, and use proper util when necessary. His performance is not the core problem. TSM look lost, and have looked lost for 7 months straight. They lack structure and direction, completely. They lack good strats and calling when playing. This is their main problem. They just dont have any direction at all in actual games, and they get read easily. Hazed IGLing is not working clearly when they get 13-2'd.

Nah. I dont think so. But maybe. Unlikely tho

Braindead bait

I never said all cases are objective though, and this is another prime example of your low intelligence and horrible reading-comprehension skills. Please stop arguing, you genuinely don't understand how to argue in the first place, it is pathetic yet funny to see lmao.

Even if you dont back down, it doesnt change the objective fact ur wrong. I've proven you wrong multiple times in my posts, and dismantled your arguments. If you continue to reply with the same bullshit I've debunked, you're simply delusional. You can decide to not 'change ur mind' but it doesn't change the fact that you are wrong.

Opinions of the community wont change the fact that common sense is objective in many cases. not all, but many. and frankly, I couldn't care less, either. Most people on this site are genuinely stupid, or just degenerates.

"The problem is that All common sense isn't objective through common sense. If common sense is objective. Then common sense makes it objective. But that's not the case. Common sense is sometimes objective but it's objective because of other reasons. Not common sense. I think it might be hard to understand but yea.

Not the case at all. I've explained why in my previous post.

"Also that 10 reasons why the earth is round article is pretty sick. And I do agree with all the points. BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE THE EARTH IS ROUND. I just don't think common sense is objective.

Then ur factually wrong and delusional. Common sense is objective in many cases, as i explained above.

what? you're contradicting yourself. you say that common sense can be objective yet then say it isnt objective in itself, this is just incredibly false. I've shown you examples of common sense, as in, common knowledge that is objective. 1+1=2 is objective through common sense, and the earth being round is also objective through common sense, look at the link I sent you. You dont even need pictures/technology to know the earth is round. here is a piece taken from there. "If you’ve been next to a port lately, or just strolled down a beach and stared off vacantly into the horizon, you might have noticed a very interesting phenomenon: Approaching ships do not just “appear” out of the horizon (like they should have if the world was flat), but rather seem to emerge from beneath the sea.

But—you say—ships do not submerge and rise up again as they approach our view (except in Pirates of the Caribbean, but we are hereby assuming that was a fictitious movie series). The reason ships appear as if they “emerge from the waves” is because the world is not flat: It’s round.

"

and i admit, not ALL common sense is objective through common sense, for example, we all know multiple planets exist, but to find that out objectively and confirm it, we needed technology. but what does this have to do with anything? It's funny to see how ur so desperately trying to gain a point in this argument, where I've constantly debunked everything you've said. Now ur just grabbing at semantics and acting pretentious.

All good, they're rested well bro. It takes time for the others to respond anyways so its like intervals of 10 minutes between every response.

Eh doesnt matter, your argument would be invalid either way and I would debunk it.

"The 35% of elders in America statistic is also biased. Everything is. At least according to statistics. Because it would be biased depending on the age group. The selection of adults. The location. And even more in the math of it. Literally everything is biased. And I find it hard to believe that your estimation is objective if even statistics aren't."

no, it wouldnt be biased. at all. If it got a majority of the elders of america it wouldnt matter where you got them ffrom or the location at all. And the age group isnt biased at all, because it specifically refers to the elderly. and the math cant be biased, that is factually false. everything is not biased. This is just your bullshit way of coping with the fact that you're factually wrong. Statistics are definitely objective lmfao.

Statistics are objective, but that does not mean that they are factual. Objective as in, they're not subjective, but that doesnt mean that they are factually right.

"So another problem is that. Assumptions aren't objective. A quick first way to understand why. Is by using a real life example. Such as. A white man from the 1800s(NOT CURRENT, CURRENT PEOPLE ARE LESS RACISTS) sees a black man on the streets. Even though the black man is wearing casual clothes. The white man would still believe the black man is poor. This is probably as simple to them as the sky is blue or the soil on the ground is yucky to eat. I don't believe this racism is justified by any means. But common sense isn't perfect. Especially when it's by only one individual. Now let's talk about why Assumptions aren't objective from a scientific point of view. "

of course, not all assumptions are objective, which is why they are assumptions. assumptions are not factual until proven. what we're talking about is not assumptions though. A team being favoured is not an assumption, it is a fact. If the white man believed that the black man was poor, that doesnt necessarily mean he was racist wtf? He could think he's poor because maybe he's dirty, or maybe black people were historically poor at that time, or maybe he's seen a lot of black people with normal clothes who were STILL poor.

" So the thing is that nothing is actually objective. Observations are just assumptions as well. Such as eyesight or even the fact that the earth is round. Because there’s no true way to prove it. That’s why all things in science are called theorems. Because they are always built off of some core assumptions. Such as in quantum physics"

No, that is factually false. Many things are objective. Observations are not assumptions, because you are observing them in real time with your eyesight. The earth is round, that is an objective fact. There is a true way to prove it, and its with pictures, videos, and logic. here's the link - https://www.popsci.com/10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round/

"There is parity symmetry. But 2 types of parity symmetry were disproven before which made a decade of research irrelevant. This is possible for anything. But our emotions believe that what we see is what we see. It might not even be real. Honestly we could be in a simulation but I’m not that much of a weirdo even though I’m atheist. And I don’t really like to concern myself with that kind of philosophy"

Its not our emotions, what we see factually exists. There is no proof at all otherwise, and the 'simulation' argument doesnt apply at all, because 1. theres no proof of it, and 2. even if it were a simulation, it would still objectively exist in our simulation, which would be our reality. So even if this is a 'fake world' it is still our reality, and therefore we measure things to be objective based on how it is in our world. Obviously you cant fucking realize how things might work out in a 'real world' if this is a simulation, which is why thats not how it works; you define facts and objective scientific discoveries based on our reality which we know to be true.

" And even in mathematics the only two very objective(not completely objective) forms of mathematics are set theory and geometry, specifically Euclidean Geometry. So what is set theory. It’s the theory that everything in this world can be categorized inside a set. But that’s also an assumption so that’s why it’s also technically not objective but also they had another problem. When you put sets inside sets. Shit didn’t work. So they had to make a rule that sets couldn’t contain other sets. And when you put this together and these 2 rules. It takes like 20 pages to prove that 1 + 1 = 2. Like common sense can be objective. "

no, it doesnt. 1+1=2 and it is factually objective completely, and is quite simple to prove. in any world, in any aspect, if you fundamentally add one to one, you get two. no matter what.

" It’s objective through other means. And Euclidean Geometry bases itself off 5 basic postulates which we already determined that assumptions are not objective which makes this already slightly subjective but. Yea everything is made sure that it doesn’t have any other assumptions that these 5 postulates. That’s why it’s so hard to disprove. Because the 5 basic postulates have never been disproved. That’s why it can be considered objective while statistics can’t be."

None of the bullshit in that paragraph is relevant, because nothing will ever disprove 1+1=2 because it is an objective fact. It is impossible to disprove. Statistics are inherently objective, but not factual. The difference being, statistics largely dont have any 'opinions' or 'emotions' involved in them. They're just data pieces, and numbers. Again, that doesnt mean they're factual, because there's no actual proof that they're factual. But obviously, we generally believe them to be true, because its highly unlikely that they're false most of the time.

"Now why does this connect to Common Sense. Well common sense is our basic ability to judge something. That’s an assumption. And it’s very often built off an assumption that could be one day disproven. Common Sense can be objective. But it’s not always objective. And common sense is not what makes it objective."

And again, common sense is still objective in certain cases, like I said. 1+1=2 is common sense which is objective. The sky is blue is common sense which is objective. The earth is round is common sense which is objectiive. You've proved nothing, and I've factually debunked you once again. Facts cannot be disproven, that is why they are facts. 1+1=2, and that will never be disproven ever.

https://www.vlr.gg/pickem/336627bc

Well yeah, no matter how you look at it, fnatic are the favourites. This is a prime example of betting not being reliable actually, because factually and objectively Fnatic are much more likely to win. They dominated Liquid before, and were #1 EU plus got 2nd at the masters lan, on top of having much more tactical depth. The accomplishments just go in their favour. Bettors going for liquid dont change the fact that fnatic are FAVOURED to win objectively, based on actual feats and results between the two teams. But yeah, this match-up wont be as one sided as it was in masters 2, where fnc 2-0'd liquid. It will be 2-1 Fnatic probably.

Ah, but even then, in the playoffs, there are still some clear favourites or even slight favourites. Liquid vs fnatic, fnatic are the favourites there for sure, they dominated liquid at iceland and are just a better team overall with tactical depth and talent. Acend vs Rix GG, acend are CLEAR favourites there, even harder than fnatic against liquid.

Participate in NSG weeklys, and if they lose in the next open, drop hazed. They've lacked structure and direction for months, they're not losing because of individual talent, its quite literally lack of good strats, chemistry, practise, and calling. They need a good IGL to iron out the squad. You dont just lose 13-2 to a tier 2 Noble just because players not showing up, its mostly due to just getting rolled with strats. If hazed cant fulfill that in this next open, replace him with a better IGL, or just disband at that point. Its a huge loss for TSM as a company because they now have no chance left at Berlin or even Champions if they dont make the next open/closed. TSM has invested too much and has managed the roster very poorly, for wayy too long.

https://www.vlr.gg/pickem/3e408a22

No, many matches have clear favourites. Sen vs Sq had sen as the clear favourite.

"Of course, no match has a clear favorite, the only thing we're looking for is the classification of making a team "favored" over another, which is making the determination, that one team is more likely to win(doesn't mean they will, but you have a reason to believe, that they are more likely to win). That's why odds exist, there is a certain probability that one team will win and there is another probability that the other team will win. If one team has a higher probability than the other, it means the team is favored, but this probability varies, some are clear others are not.

Anyways thanks for making the pick'em. I don't think the result will prove you wrong, or me right, it's just a fun experiment."

As for this, I'm not quite sure why you're stating obvious facts to me, based on my stances in the argument I think it's obvious that I realize those facts, its what I was arguing the whole time, that the team that is favoured is more likely to win, and only when they're favoured to win clearly can you call them favoured. 'Slightly' favoured isnt really favoured at all, its more of a preference or opinion, generally favourites are clear. But yeah, the pick'em is just for fun and shit.

"COMMON SENSE IS SUBJECTIVE. THAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR ARGUMENT. Like no one's common sense is perfect and it's always affected by bias. That's the problem. Estimating is biased. Ask anyone in statistics as well. Everything is biased. But saying your common sense is less subjective than a ton of sport betters. Is possible. But I'd highly doubt it. Betters also watch the matches. So they also see how they play so they can spot much more factors than just match results. So yea.

no, its not always subjective. 1+1=2 is common sense. it is not subjective. it is objective. It's' not always affected by bias, that is factually false. Estimating is not biased, when it comes to determining what team is favoured to win in a match-up. It is objective and factual and is based on a multitude of relevant factors. Everything is not biased. You are delusional. A statistic that for example proves that 35% of elders in America are likely to die to Covid is not biased. Facts like the earth being round is not biased. Its not even completely common sense, either, it's just facts and logic that I'm using to prove you wrong. Match results are the most relevant factors.

"And also Soniqs only lost 13 times while they've won 80 times. That's really good. That's even better than sentinels record."

This means nothing at all, but is also factually false. They have many more losses, do more research. Also, even if this statistic was true, it is still horrible. That's 13 times against tier 2 teams. Those 80 wins also include wins in their inferior OCE region. You're using a strawman fallacy, pathetic to see. Sentinels record of losing is mostly against actual tier 1 teams, and a few rare upsets.

"I don't know where you're getting that Soniqs lost many times in the tier 2 scene. When they're pretty much dominating it. While renegades(one of the biggest t2 teams) have a record of 15-48. That's around 68% while soniqs is 86%. But many would consider that info useless because they're only fighting tier 2 teams. But the fact is that they're actually playing really well. And that they're probably above tier 1.5 right now and can easily be tier 1 if they faced another team. If they faced another team. Your match results would be absolute shit but the betters who are willing to bet. Probably also watch tier 2 games because they are invested enough to bet. So they know that Soniqs could easily do it."

They have lost many times in the finals or grand finals. Winning doesnt matter if you still lose to other tier 2 teams in the higher bracket matches. Also, the idea that soniqs are even close to tier 1.5 or tier 1 is factually false. They are nowhere NEAR that at all. They got rolled by SEN on both maps that sen is good on, and they lose to tier 2 teams as well. Soniqs would never beat a tier 1 team, again, they even lost to TSM, who is borderline tier 2 at the bottom of tier 1 LMAO. Your argument is factually invalid.

You have no basis to say that they aren't right now. That's just you making unproven conjecture. When sentinels lost to BBG, no one said that they werent the best still, we just said "Ok, we have to wait and see more data if Sentinels losing to BBG was a fluke, or if sentinels have fallen off". We still have to wait and see, with Fnatic. But either way, Fnatic are still favourites going into their match with Liquid, because Fnatic dominated liquid at iceland 2-0 and are just the better team, as the #1 EU.

"But Fnatic's playstyle which is similar to some playstyles in NA was shown to be usually much more affective against sentinels than other playstyles. Such as the Hyper aggressive FaZe plastyle. That shit doesn't work against sentinels. And a slow counterstrat team doesn't work against sentinels because sentinels have better players. The only really true way to beat sentinels is too have better strats. And Fnatic probably have one of the best strat books in EU."

I don't particularly care about your take on Fnatic at all here, because it has nothing to do with our argument. I'll assume that this is just you trying to avoid rebutting my argument because you know you're wrong. But all good either way.

I'm not afraid at all, it's just that it'd be annoying to have to argue with you again and explain why your argument is wrong again if my pick'em for favourites differed from bettors even though my favourite would be based on facts and objective results and accomplishments. Also, not every match-up has a clear favourite. A match like Guild vs. BDS doesnt have a clear favourite, or even G2 vs FPX. We could do it for fun though, I've already made my pickem. Here it is. https://www.vlr.gg/pickem/3e408a22

I'll make note of that lmao. It's just to emphasize that what I'm saying is not subjective, but is backed by fact.

"This really gives insight into your thought process. You think your own subjective assessment of past results is more accurate, than that of thousands of sports-bettors, therefore you will always know which team is favored beforehand."

Yawn. This is getting tiring, having to explain the same thing over and over again to you, before your tiny brain can comprehend it. It's not subjective, it's objective. Sports bettors dont change the fact that Andbox was favoured. Andbox was objectively favoured because of their results. Its as simple as that. 1+1=2. Gen G were garbage for months on end, not even top 10 NA. Tier 2 team, like TSM. Andbox has been a consistent top 8 NA for the past 2-3 months. It's obvious and objectively true that abx were favourites.

"Great. I don't care about your words anymore, also learn to use quote blocks so people can actually understand what part you're responding to and what's your writing.

I want you to put your mouth where your money is. Start your pickems on the EU challengers qualifiers and we'll compare your success rate of determining which team is favored to the sports bettors."

Ok cool, so you realize that your argument is wrong yet you're too stubborn to admit it. and again, I'm not doing this challenge with you, because it has no relevance to the argument, and it wont prove you right at all. Even if the favoured team that I objectively find out on based on relevant match results and feats differs from sports bettors, it doesnt change the fact that I'm right.

It's not objectively bad at all, it's quite literally the objectively best way and factually only way to reliably determine the match favourites. Wdym many 'factors that affect a match other than the result' ?? This is just incoherent english, are you trying to state that the result of a match somehow affects a match? I dont get it, but either way, your argument is utter nonsense. Fnatic is the best team in EU until proven otherwise, G2's win against fnatic was most likely a fluke, fnatic were the clear favourites going into that, factually speaking, but again, unless fnatic starts doing actual trash, then G2's win was most likely a fluke. But if fnatic redeem themselves, stomp G2, obviously it was a fluke. Playstyles and what not still dont matter, what matters is match results and accomplishments. You cant say that other EU teams wouldnt do as good as Fnatic against SEN based on playstyle alone, but you could make an argument for this based on the fact that Fnatic were #1 in EU, therefore they had the best chance of doing the most damage to Sentinels.

"But how much more important it is. Is quite subjective. Like you'd have to actually use math and algorithms to be completely correct(which is what objective is, because estimating puts in your own bias which would affect it.) "

What? You dont have to place a measurement on it all lmao, because you can literally just look at the prize pool, the tiers of the teams playing in it, and then generally have a good idea that it is much less important. That is objective and factually analyzing it. The idea that you have to use mathematical notations to calculate an exact percentage is completely factually false, that is not at all required to determine what team is favoured. It's just common sense, you are overcomplicating it. We all know that Masters and VCT is the highest tier of tournament, and its obviously much more important than NSG weeklys. How much more, doesn't matter, it's just MUCH more significant. There is no bias involved, its literally just facts.

"Also some teams can just have bad days which would also mess this up. Like checking match results is possible. But you would have to be very good at it. And usually most of us aren't." Having bad days doesnt mess it up though? Obviously you'd account for that. Bad days are very rare, which is why they're bad days. If a team has a 'lot of bad days' then obviously they arent bad days, but rather the team is consistently bad. Sentinels had a bad day against BBG, and then to Andbox. Those were quite obvious, because they came back and stomped the competition. Just liek that, you can apply the same objective analyzation methods to any other team.

"People who bet. Usually use their money wisely unless they're just a gambler but that's not as much the case in valorant as in csgo. Like using match results will always be subjective at some part. Also u said looking at the tiers of the teams on average. Well Soniqs has always been tier 2 because they always ran into Sentinels really early on. Does that mean they are still tier 2. Probably not."

Betting has nothing to do with this convo. Match results are quite literally NEVER subjective. This assumption of yours is factually false, and I've explained why. Soniqs has always been tier 2, and still is tier 2. What do you mean its bc they ran into sentinels? That has nothing to do with it, even if they didnt go against sentinels, they obviously wouldnt have qualified to any closed qualifiers. They're a consistent tier 2 team and have never beaten a tier 1 team. They couldnt even beat TSM, which is at the very bottom of tier 1, bordering tier 2. Soniqs are still definitely tier 2. And even these teams that upset NRG and Immortals, like virtuoso, and KCP, are tier 2 as well, until we can see demonstrable consistent results against tier 1 teams.

"Their match results still look like shit because it's all renegades and shit but like there's no way to actually recognize that that is potential unless you actually watch those matches and analyze that Soniqs legitimately played it well."

They look like shit because they are shit. They lose to many tier 2 teams, not just renegades, you're clearly over compensating for your trashy argument by creating narratives out of thin air which aren't backed by actual stats. Please do more research. Soniqs played well in some matches sure, but again, against tier 2 teams. And even then, they still lost to tier 2 teams MANY times. There is no 'potential' that is hidden to us lmao.

"Like NRG can also 13-0 a lot of the teams in tier 2 probably. But they probably are much worse than Soniqs at the moment. Maybe my logic is pretty bad considering that I'm freewriting this. But your use of match results isn't objective. Nothing really is. And sports betters do use match results and feats. And they're usually better than us at this. That's the reason why betting odds are a pretty good way at finding the favored team."

Theres no proof at all that they are worse than Soniqs, but there's also no proof to suggest they're better than Soniqs. Right now, NRG is an uncharted team, we have no way of knowing whether they will be tier 1 or tier 2, or whether their loss against virtuoso was even an upset. We have yet to see, if they will improve, which they likely will. This still has nothing to do with the argument at hand, obviously NRG is uncharted territory, they have a new roster, which doesnt justify their performance in terms of results, of course, but is still the most likely explanation for their poor performance.

And again, match ressults are definitely objective and factual. I've explained why. If you deny this, you're delusional. You can deny it all you want, but it doesn't change the objective validity of my argument. I've debunked your argument thoroughly. Sports betters are not reliable.

We should stop, because I've already factually proven you wrong and dismantled your garbage argument. There is no agreeing to disagreeing here, you can disagree all you want but it doesn't change the objective fact that I'm right.

"You can't define "favored" as outcome-independent, because you cannot verify whether that team was actually favored or not and objectively measure the performance of the criterion. This is where you are going wrong. You are just asserting your criterion is "factual" without providing any empirical evidence."

What? Of course you can? If you have Sentinels vs Soniqs, Sentinels are the clear favourite, but its POSSIBLE that soniqs could win. Its not IMPOSSIBLE, its just HIGHLY unlikely. And again, as I have stated, its determined from match results that sentinels are the favourites. The criterion is factual, and I've explained how. There is no 'empirical evidence' involved here though either? You clearly do not understand what you are talking about. When people talk about things, they use logic, logic IS the root of facts, it IS what determines what is factual or not. I've logically and factually proven you wrong.

"The entire objective of saying whether a team is favored or not is to predict whether that team will be more likely to win or not. That is literally what you imply in your posts as well, you say it's an upset, that gen.g won, when you thought andbox were clearly favored prior to the game starting. So you had outcomes in your mind, an upset and an expected win. Just like sports betting websites have odds for how likely the bettors think each team is to win. These things can be measured and compared with success-rates."

Exactly, which team will be more likely to win. Andbox were OBJECTIVELY favoured to win, based on their results, they were factually the better team based on results before the match-up. Again, sports betting is not reliable as match results. Match results are ALWAYS factual and right for favoured matchups, sports betting is not always accurate.

"You said you cannot with certainty predict, which team can win at any given moment(which I agree with), but you said you can know which team is favored to win. This doesn't make sense, you cannot know either in this case, but you can make guesses to both based on your methods. If you knew, that a coin you are tossing is 1/3rd likely to hit tails and 2/3rd likely to hit heads, then knowing for certain the outcome of a single toss doesn't matter. You can make many tosses with that coin and measure which side it is more likely to land on and make a prediction with that data. In Valorant we don't know either, we can only make educated guesses as to which one it is through various methods which have a varying success rate, none of which are valid."

It does make sense, because any team can win at any given time. However, this does not change the objective fact that a certain team was FAVOURED to win, and MORE LIKELY to win. Your analogy makes no sense, if you knew that the coin is 2/3rd likely to hit heads then obviously heads would be FAVOURED and more LIKELY to be landed on. That is a fact, as that is the higher probability. Your analogy didn't prove your argument at all, and it's pretty sad, and funny, to think about the fact that you probably think it was clever; it wasn't. In valorant we definitely can factually know which team is more likely to win, based on previous results. I've used the same example multiple times, but you havent countered it because you know you cant, it is a logical factual example proving my argument right and directly proving you wrong. (Refer to sentinels vs soniqs)

"I suggest you come back to what you wrote here in five years and read it to yourself. It has no coherence. Sounds like something I would've written when I was 14 arguing on battle.net forums. So much of the words "factual, delusional, subjective, objective" without any coherence in their meaning. I can't respond to most of this, because it's just word salad and you're not actually understanding what I'm writing."

LMAO. So basically you're admitting to being an unintelligent, stubborn yet arrogant fool who cant admit he's wrong, even when factually proven wrong. Cool I guess. You can't respond to most of my argument because you know I'm right deep down, it's just pathetic to see your excuses and how hard you're coping with the fact you lost a debate. Idk why ur even making excuses, it's not that deep. You lost and got stomped in an internet debate. Just admit you took the L, lmao. I'm not making the predictions, because they have nothing to do with our argument.

Using match results arent subjective though? You definitely have to consider the importance of matches over others, but thats still objective completely. Anyone who would argue that a NSG weekly tourney win is anywhere near the importance of a Masters 2 Reykavik win is just objectively factually wrong, and delusional. This way, you can clearly and objectively rate the importance of match results and their individual importances by looking at the tiers of the teams on average, the calibre of the teams, the prize pool, the qualification process, the format, etc. It doesn't take much brain power, just a bit of common sense. So no, sports betters are not the best way of finding the favoured team. Match results and feats are.

Do you know how to read? Or do you just have a genuine lack of brain cells, because you'd think its obvious who does the judging and how it gets judged? People do the judging with objective and factual decisions by looking at match results and accomplishments. I haven't proved your argument right at all, lmfao. Betting is not always factual when it comes to looking at the favourites. It's entirely possible to have a scenario in which the clear favourite doesn't get betted the most, and the clear underdog gets betted the most? It's unlikely, and unreasonable , but still possible, and therefore proves that betting odds arent reliable 100% of the time like match results and accomplishments are. Just because a bunch of people bet for the underdog doesnt make them the favourite, the favourite is still the one more likelier to win. Anyways, I've proved you wrong factually, and objectively speaking, and with no intention to insult you at all, you are DEFINITIONALLY a dumbass, and retarded.

Deadass man, I'm not being mean here at all, my intention is just to be blunt and reasonable, you're genuinely stupid LMAO. You haven't made a single good point at all, and it's pathetic how you keep trying to 1 up me and retort with some bullshit argument that you probably thought was clever in your head. Nice try though, you got debunked hard by me.

"you're structuring your argument like you're about to submit it to your fifth grade teacher. even your mindless insults calling me a dumbass and stating my lack of intelligence (when I haven't said a thing about YOU as a person to begin with!) sound like something an 11yo would come up with. the fact that you even need to use personal insults to get your point across signifies how weak it is."

Well the lack of intelligence is just a fact, wasn't even meant as an insult lmfao. I'm just being blunt about factual observations related to you, you're genuinely unintelligent. when did I have to use personal insults to get my point across? I already explained my argument and debunked YOURS before i even 'insulted' you lmao.

Again, your definition of favourite is not the one and only definition of favourite. Just because YOU believe thats what the definition is, doesnt mean anything. favourite definition - a competitor judged most likely to win https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/favorite

literally, merriam webster dictionary definition. It proves me right, you have no sources, just the bullshit that you managed to pull out of your ass and pass off as 'valid' and 'true' in absence of your argument, LMFAO. It's genuinely funny seeing how desperate you are, shifting your argument every single time. You realize that you have no chance with the main argument we were discussing, now you proceed to try and dispute semantics with me about the definition of favourite. Pretentious fuck.

So there you go, being a favourite has nothing to do necessarily with betting, just being the most likely option to win, and the way to determine that most likely factor, is obviously, as I've explained, through match results and accomplishments.

"'m not conjuring up another couple hundred words to reply to what you've written, but I will say this: the reason I changed your example is because it makes no sense. no team is the best at every single thing, and no team is the worst at every single thing. "

its theoretical. even if they're not the best at every aspect, they're still the best in most of the aspects, so you're arguing semantics there and you're still factually wrong. You dont need to be the best at every aspect to be the best team lmao. Sentinels, they're not the best at every aspect, yet they're overwhelmingly the best in most aspects and dont have any 'very weak' aspects.

" as for your counterargument to my second point, I have nothing to say. it's pointless arguing over who looks up teams' records and who looks at betting odds because both of us can't be swayed. in my personal experience, though, people don't base who they think is winning a matchup based off of a team's history vs. other teams. lastly, the reason we aren't challenging your "logic" is because there's no logic to challenge. you don't seem to have the slightest clue what you're talking about, and this entire argument has just been you restating the same two things in different ways and somehow creating multiple entire essays out of it."

Of course you have nothing to say, you realize that your anecdotal evidence is just that- anecdotal, and is not representative of 'actual people' like you arrogantly claimed it was. You say that theres no logic to challenge, yet there's factually and objectively many points I've provided that are logical and you haven't even tried rebutting? If anything that proves the lack of intelligence from your side to not be able to formulate a counter-argument lmao, you're basically admitting to being a dumbass without actually saying it. Instead, you're stubborn and insecure about the fact that your garbage invalid argument got debunked, while you couldn't even defend it at all. It's funny, lol. You definitely dont understand what you're talking about, other wise you wouldnt come up with some bullshit examples to defend your argument which don't even hold up to scrutiny, and you would be able to counter me 'restasting the same two things in different ways'. Even if thats what I have done, which isnt true at all, you should be able to explain why its wrong, no? Yet you havent, because you have no logic to go off of, because you are wrong.

Also, I did respond to ur point about the 'favourite'. " I dont have to go by your definition of favourite either, theres no specific reason that ur definition would matter at all. Being the favourite just means the team that factually has the higher chances of winning, and therefore PROBABLY will win." Favourites dont necessarily have to have the most people betting for them, it doesnt have to have anything with betting in the first place, just about what team is favoured to win based on match results and accomplishments. Betting is factually not as reliable as match results and accomplishments

Anyways, I've provided even more examples above to prove you wrong, again.

We'll see in about a weeks time, won't we, you dumb ape? :)

I actually agree with you so fucking much, it's genuinely unreal. I don't think I've ever agreed with anyone on this braindead forum full of idiots as much as I do with you. It's just fucking common sense, isn't it? You lose to tier 2 teams like Noble and Dark Zero that grind these tier 2 tourneys, and you haven't gotten any good results in MONTHS. Obviously, you're a tier 2 team now and you should likewise be practising in tier 2 tourneys to improve your team as a whole, improve team chemistry, get more experience in matches, see what exactly is going wrong and fix it. TSM and Faze need to do this, otherwise they'll never go anywhere. (Faze less than TSM, but even then, faze should still do it.) TSM need this the MOST out of any NA team in all honesty.

The 4 teams that will qualify to Playoffs is 100T, sen, envy, and Version 1.

Basically, to find out the favourites in any given match-up which can have a reasonable favourite in the first place, the only valid and factual criterion of determining the favoured team is by looking at both teams match results and accomplishments to determine which one is obviously favoured to win.

100T 3-0 SEN

LMFAO it only took me a couple of minutes

"say team A is very strong in one aspect but very weak in another. now, say team B is decent in the aspect team A excels in and is is very strong is the aspect team A is very weak in. so, despite team A having a better record, team B might still be the favorite. that's why you look at betting odds. because they focus on the specific matchup between two teams, instead of previous records. ALSO, being the "favorite" literally means that more people favor a certain team to win. it does not mean that one team is statistically better than the other, although that does obviously play a role into who the favorite is."

So now you're shifting the argument into your own example to fit your argument, without even admitting the fact that my example proves my argument. Team A in my example is #1 in every aspect, so my example still stands and factually proves my argument. I'll entertain your example though. Even if Team A is strong in one aspect but weak in another, it wouldnt matter, they still were able to take down the best teams in the league, and have never lost. The fact of the matter is that Team A's SIGNIFICANT record of winning and never losing a single match yet proves that even though they were weak in that one aspect it doesnt matter, all their other strengths cover up for it. Team A are still the favourites. And also, this example of yours isnt realistic at all in the real world. Teams that dominate would never have 'one very weak aspect' otherwise they most likely wouldnt be able to dominate. Also, again, I'm doing this just to entertain you, I don't even have to, because you haven't countered my example which proves my argument. Your example doesn't disprove anything at all, either. I dont have to do by your definition of favourite either, theres no specific reason that ur definition would matter at all. Being the favourite just means the team that factually has the higher chances of winning, and therefore PROBABLY will win.

"also, i'd like to say that looking at the bettings odds is something that ACTUAL people do. if your friend asks you who the favorite was in a game, you look at the betting odds. the fact that you don't seem to know this leads me to believe that you've never watched an actual sports game in your life (also backed up by the fact that you replied to me with an entire paragraph like 2 minutes after I had posted my original comment).
no, not at all lmao. i'd look up stats for both of the teams, thats what 'actual' people do. its literally what 99% of people on twitter do as well, and there are thousands of people on twitter who converse about popular sports matchups. You live in your own world, when you believe that 'actual people' look at betting odds LMAO. You're delusional, and your argument is just invalid, and I've explained why and how.

Im not gonna stop writing factual, because the things I'm saying are literally factual, and they're backed by logic that you or the other guy haven't challenged... like at all.

we have pretty similar pick'ems. I have Rise winning over Xset tho, and sentinels beating Envy in lower bracket finals, then 100T beating sen in Grand finals.

No, you dont look at the betting odds, because they are not factual. Match results are factual. Example, two NBA teams play off against each other. Team A has dominated the entire league, has the most wins, hasnt lost yet at all, has taken down all the top teams to become the #1 team completely in every aspect. Team B, bottom of the league, least wins, most losses, horrible displays from almost every game. This is a clear favourite for Team A, without betting. Betting is not always a valid criterion for factually finding the favoured team in a matchup. Match results are the only factual criterion.

https://www.vlr.gg/pickem/336627bc

100T will win it all, mark my words

Rise 2-1. Rooting for the underdogs baby lets goo

Sentinels 2-1 Gen G

100T 2-1 V1

100T 2-1 Envy

Conclusion: I've already debunked and dismantled your argument. Your argument is invalid, and your premise is also invalid, you are factually wrong. If you reply with the same invalid fallacious bullshit I'll just reply with inssults and calling you delusional, because that is factually what you are. If you can reply with something actually logical, which you havent done at all yet, then I'll reply with the same.

"Let's wait a bit before chimping out and calling each other delusional. What I mean when I say whether a criterion is invalid is, that the criterion cannot reliably predict the outcome, because fundamentally; that outcome is out of the hands of the person evaluating the data. Why I bring up sports betting as an objective measure is, because it is the most reliable objective measure we have for predicting whether a team is favored or not."

Did I ever state that the criterion could predict the outcome of the match? No, your premise is false. I stated that the best criterion FOR JUDGING THE 'FAVOURED' TEAM, keyword FAVOURED team TO WIN, is to look at past results. Obviously you can only tell whether a team is favoured in a match up, not whether they would actually win. That's not what this argument is about.

"There are more factors, than just match history to consider and weigh. How you measure how impressive a team's given record is requires assumptions to which there is no valid criterion. There exist objective and subjective criterion for this, but no valid criterion."

what does this even mean? Match history is obviously the only valid criterion. There are no assumptions required to assert that a team's record at Iceland like Sentinels was factually perfect, thats not an assumption, yet its measuring, objectively ,the teams record. Envy, at the playoffs, really good, consistent, got 4th. Thats a fact, there are no assumptions needing to be made about the impressiveness of their result and consistency. The valid criterion is the results in itself, its as simple as that. This is a fact, if you deny it, again, you are delusional.

"On vlr.gg gen.g was higher ranked, than andbox; on thespike.gg their ranking has andbox ranked higher, than gen.g. These are both objective criterion based on match history(and some other things), but neither of them are valid, as they do not predict future outcomes. Another objective criterion is to look at an aggregate of bettor opinions, which is what sports betting websites do. This gives a quantitative ratio between the people who think team A will win and people who think team B will win(with money bet of course). This measurement correlates better with the outcome of the game, than any ELO system, game record or other measure(if it didn't, that system would equalize the odds and it would). Therefore, objectively it is a better predictor of which team is favored over the other. This does not make it valid, but it makes it a more reliable predictor, because it outperforms any other objective measure we know of."

LMAO. what a bad example, to back up your even worse argument. Everyone with a brain knows that VLR rankings are trash, and invalid in every way. Therefore they cannot be used as any criterion, they are not objective nor valid. You cannot compare VLR rankings to match history at all lmao, because match history shows actual results in which you can factually determine the best teams in NA based on results, and not some funky invalid ELO VLR ranking. Bettor opinions again dont mean anything, they dont make a team favoured, they are not a valid criterion like match history is. Your entire premise is just so flawed, because I've never stated that there is any valid criterion for determining the outcome of a match, only for what team would be favoured. Objectively the best criterion for favoured team, is again, match results. You are delusional if you deny this.

"The measure you are using is subective(your own judgement of the teams records' & what importance it holds), rather than a quantified systemic aggregate of the opinions of many people, which is what sports betting odds are. So no, what you are proposing isn't "factually right"; it is in fact your own subjective evaluation."

No, it is not subjective because anyone with a brain would realize that a team like Sentinels would be favoured against a team like Soniqs. Once again, not because of betting, or vlr rankings, but because of match history and accomplishments. What type of retarded fucking logic are you trying to use right now? Its not my 'own judgement' of the teams records and the importance of it, its objective, if a team like soniqs wins a small NSG monthly against tier 2 teams and a team like Sentinels wins Masters 2 against the best teams in the world, obviously objectively sentinels results are much more impressive and accomplished? It is a fact, not an opinion. Your logic is completely flawed. I'm factually right, you're simply delusional, and I've explained why.

"The objective in mind is predicting which team is favored to win. The objective measure you can use to measure how good a system is at predicting which team is favored over the other is to simply take the ratio of what predictions you made and how many of them were correct.

There's a difference between calling a criterion objective and valid. To call a criterion objective means, that the criterion can quantify the objective with some sort of system. To call a criterion valid means, that the criterion must be a valid predictor of the objective. The objective being prediction of which team is favored to win. If there existed a valid criterion, then this disagreement wouldn't happen and you'd be the best sports-bettor in the world."

When I say the criterion is objective and valid, I'm using both words interchangeably. Objective as in, factually right and valid. The criterion of match results definitely predicts what team is favoured, as I've explained with the sen vs sq example. This disagreement is happening only because you're delusional and cannot accept clear facts and logic that I've explained. You disagreeing doesnt change the objective fact that I am right. And no, I wouldnt be the best sports-bettor in the world because again, theres a fundamental difference between knowing what team is favoured, and knowing what team is gonna win. You can NEVER know what team will win, that proposes knowing the future, which is impossible. But you can definitely factually know what team is favoured to win, based on match results, stats, and achievements.

"There exist many objective criterion, but no valid one. Your criterion is a subjective one based on your own observation and analysis of the match history. The vlr.gg/thespike.gg rankings are objective criterion based on ranking algorithms, which take in the teams' match histories. To evaluate which criterion is more reliable, all you need to do is calculate which criterion has the highest success-rate.

To end, I challenge you to prove, that your subjective evaluation of teams' histories will outperform the aggregate opinions of sports bettors. I'll write down the pre-match odds for each game in the European challengers qualifier playoffs and you'll make your prediction in the comments and we'll see whether your subjective assessment outperform the odds produced by sports bettors."

delusional, once again. My criterion isnt subjective, its factually objective. And I dont have to prove that my criterion is factual because I've already proved it above. We're talking about how to know what teams are favoured, not whether the favoured team would actually win or not, so the results by sports bettors compared to my 'favoured teams' results do not matter whatsoever. Regardless of results during the EMEA challengers, the factual criterion remains that certain teams are obviously favoured. Do note, though, that not ALL matchups have favoured teams obviously. Only some of them do. Like if we were to do a 100T vs Envy again, theres no clear favourite, both are extremely close, and you could argue for either one because of how close their previous match was.