Quick clarification on the odds presented in the video since there's been some understandable confusion in the comments over whether the math is correctly applied (i.e. Sidnev and Tristop are above average players, it's a semifinals match, etc.) - there's a difference between trying to predict what's the most likely outcome in a given moment with as much context as possible, and trying to show how rare something is across the entire historical record. For example, if I made a weather video about Death Valley, I might say something in it like "There's only been 5 times in the past 110 years where it's been over 130 degrees F. Thus, the chance of any given day being over 130 F there is an insane 1 in 8,030!" Someone could say in response, "That's not true. You'll never get that temperature in the winter, so you should only count summer days. And you should throw out cloudy days too since the sun can't shine at it's full potential there. So you see, in sunny days in the summer, it's not quite so rare as that!" Those would be relevant things to consider if you were planning a trip to Death Valley tomorrow and wanted to know the chances of a 130 F day - you'd check the calendar on what the typical temperature is at this time of year, and look at the forecast to see if it's an overcast day. But it's also completely different from what I was originally saying when I'm talking about how rare 130 F days are in that location across all of history. Similarly, when talking about Tristop and Sidnev's match, I'm not talking about how rare it would be for them to lose with these scores specifically against each other, I'm talking about how rare it would be to see a loss with these scores if you were to watch all the games in the past several months of Master's Event, which is already an incredibly elite set of matches (same as how Death Valley is already an incredibly hot place to talk about weather!)
Oh, that seems to make the statiscal analysis even more misleading. Even if you were talking about "odds of winning with these particular scores against this particular player given this player's historical record" (rather than the whole field's historical record) it would still be misleading, but if you're actually talking about the whole field's record that seems very irrelevant.
@@WilliamKiely It depends entirely on the framing of the question being asked whether something is misleading or not. I missed the mark in being clear enough on what I was trying to demonstrate in the original video, but here's yet another way of putting it. Let's say I was making a video about Michael Jordan' best basketball season in the NBA, and I was talking about how rare it is to see a season like this on a statistical level in all of NBA history, and the critique was "this is misleading, you should be comparing Michael Jordan's best season only to his own other seasons." Yeah, it's certainly another question one could pose to answer, but then the conclusion would be that Michael Jordan's best season isn't really that crazy at all in a sample size of only Michael Jordan seasons. The reframing of the question completely neuters the original purpose of showing why the season was so rare and special. So in this video about Tristop and Sidnev, it seems that for many, there was expectation that I should've presented the equivalent of live betting odds factoring in everything that would make the result more likely in that particular moment - but in only focusing on the moment, what makes the moment rare and special gets watered down. Widening the analysis to the entire historical record can show just how noteworthy the result is.
@@WilliamKiely I don't find that particularly misleading, I knew what he meant. Besides, it was a super fascinating story. Don't let the numbers get you down.
To be fair I understand you make up these numbers for entertainment purposes. But with this logic you can make up whatever numbers you want. Just include some previous matches. Or the odds that the right sperm impragnated the egg. Everything that is happening is incredibly improbable when you take into account what could be happening.
The mere fact that back in 2018, 4 years ago, tetris ends in level 29. and today, it BEGINS at level 29 speaks volume to the dedication and skill the players have attained through this decades old game
Yeah. And does anybody still remember that guy joseph? I bet when he comes back from his academic endeavours, he will be shocked and pissed as hell that all his records have been taken away from im😅😅😅😅😅😅
@@scienceevolves4417 I'm sure he knows all his records are gone, also I'm sure he'll never play again. I don't think he's interested in adapting to rolling.
Sidnev is a great friend of mine, watching that first match was an edge of seat experience, even told them "you just swept someone who b3b 1.3'ed", Tristop played so well, but somehow Sidnev was always one step ahead. the second match was heartbreaking though.
That super killscreen is pretty nifty. Love the return of the pace stat! Excellent video as always Scout. You bring out the brightest moments in the community in every vid!
I think the math is a little bit incorrect. In 16:10, CMIIW the odds of 1 in 11904 was probably taken from (1-0.58)*(1-0.99)*(1-0.98) = 0.42*0.01*0.02. The 0.42*0.01*0.02 part is the probability of SV loses in all 3 games (using the product rule, assuming the probability of each match was considered independent, i.e. ignoring fatigues and tension from the previous games and stuff). Scout argues that the probability of any player beats SV in a sweep is, indeed 0.42*0.01*0.02, because SV loses in all 3 games means the opponent pulls of a sweep. However, we are calculating the probability, or how rare of Sidnev experiencing this tragic lost; not Sidnev pulling a sweep against SV's score. What should be done is to plug Sidnev's score to the formula above, and we will get 0.61*0.39*0.16 = 0.04. This mean, during the past 3 months, Sidnev has 4% of getting swept by other player with those score. This is actually the value that we want! We can also see that 4%, or 1 in 25 odds, are not that "tragic" compared to 1 in 11904. I'm here only to mention where the math in this video is incorrect. It's only an educational comment. Obviously, congrats to SV for being the champion of CTM, and I still think losing against 1 in 25 odds is tragic. Hopefully Sidnev can become champion in the next CTM, because he definitely deserves it
P.S. note that the probabilities (the 58%, 99%, and 98%) are taken based on data of all players. The values calculated above is the probability of a player loses in all 3 games against any player, not a certain player. Surely, the probability of SV getting a sweep against Sidnev is much higher than 1 in 25. In Statistics, we call this "bias" (and I've seen people mentioning about the "bias" of the data in the comment section). Probabilities (and statistics in general) tends to mislead people. Even when I was writing the comment above, I checked the formula several times, and I'm still afraid that my math is wrong.
@@maxhaibara8828 He made it sound like he’d been comparing Sidnev’s likelihood of losing specifically to SV. No clue on that math, maybe he forgot to put it in the vid, but I imagine it matched up each of their scores across all their games. Of course, the statistics of it still have a problem of being outdated by player adrenaline, practice, relaxed gameplay in less important games, differences in equipment and setup, etc. But his point is true enough - that’s some extraordinary bad luck.
I'm surprised no one in replies mentioned it was not the chances of Sidnev losing in the finals. At 16:01 , the video says "The chances of a median player in the masters event getting a 58, 99, 98 in any 3 given games ... " so math is right. Though these probabilities "1/909" and "1/11904" definitely carries distinct meaning. Guess this is why you shouldn't confidently mock (you did not, but someone did) on something made with genuine effort.
It would be cool if the tournament shows the current percentage next to the scores next to the finals. Like a 100% score would mean it's currently the highest score in the tournament.
Why should it be biased? As far that we don't know the math behind the percentage calculus it should be perfectly fine to use the three games to get the chances to win the match. I would expect that the matched are used against groups of other played matches. The semifinal it is a partial qualitative bias, you can't compare only to other masters' semifinals but you can't quantify how much it impacts on the performance
This is true, tristop would have a slightly lower than 99.98% chance of winning with those scores specifically against sidnev haha. The overall point of that part of the analysis is that seeing scores like this in the masters event - especially 3 times in a row - are pretty rare and almost always result in victory. It takes an exceptionally talented player getting a clutch performance to achieve them, and another exceptionally talented player getting a clutch performance to beat them.
@@Ripper346. The most fundamental premise of any stochastical endeavour is the assumption that random variables are i.i.d. (identically and independently distributed). I outlined how the semifinal was neither of those two.
@@Ripper346. The joint probability of two events is not necessarily the product of the marginal probabilities. That is, if P(A) = 0.1 and P(B) = 0.1, that doesn't necessarily mean that P(A and B) = 0.01. In fact, it could be as large as 0.1, or as small as 0. For instance, if I roll a 6-sided die, I have P(roll an even number) = 1/2 and P(roll a 1) = 1/6, but P(roll an even number and roll a 1) = 0. Or alternatively, P(roll an odd number and roll a 1) = 1/6. The issue here is that the events are not independent. In the video, Scout calculated the probability of getting three sufficiently high scores in a row by looking at the fraction of games that had scores at least as good. But if your opponent gets a very good score in game 1, the odds are high that they will get another good score in game 2, because they are probably an above-average player on an above-average day. So the games are not independent. Moreover, the fact that the series was a semifinal match rather than a randomly-chosen match means that the probabilities for average Masters players don't really apply. And in this case in particular, we can see that Sidnev is far above average. A better sample to choose from would be the set of Sidnev's recent masters games, but that sample might be too small. The case is more convincing for SV, because before this point, his scores were pretty much in the middle of the pack (though he does have a top 10 PB).
Can we just appreciate though how SV picked up the ball and ran with it to the end? Pulling off that kind of W is honestly impressive. Hope Sidnev and Trist get their own Ws soon though, they seem like excellent players in their own right.
That twist in the middle about who we should really feel bad for felt like watching Cobra Kai Season 1 for the first time. Well done, cinematically-engaging and expertly informative.
would the odds of SV's scores in the final be more likely when you compare them against the scores of finalists, instead of comparing against all masters players? getting to the final in a month usually demonstrates being on good form, and it doesn't feel like a monthly finalist being able to put up a couple 1.5s is as ridiculous as 1 in 11,904
Yes, the odds would likely go up if I limited the sample size to just finals games, although I'm not 100% sure it would because the best matches don't always happen in the finals. Regardless, SV's 1.5s were still an enormous anomaly. I didn't go fully into SV's run to the finals in this video for time reasons but he was not putting up super high scores overall in the month, mostly scraping by each round, and then just absolutely crushed it in the finals.
I haven't paid that much attention to classic tetris since the last world championships, and I have to say, that new level 39 patch--making a true kill screen--is the BEST possible change for the game, holy crap, I'm so so glad people in the tetris scene aren't unreasonably resistant to change because making people play for tetrises on level 29 speed is so so so so hype
The math at 16:10 is incorrect because it assumes that the scores are completely random. To illustrate, the odds of Dog, Hufft, and other top players to get 1.4 million in each of three round is probably not too low, but for me to pull the same score would be one in several hundreds trillions if I even have any chance to do that.
"Brutal" really is the only word for this... WOW. Also, wanted to say, I've watched several of your videos in a row now, and you are fantastic at giving exactly the right context for a viewer with very little prior knowledge, but don't repeat yourself. What I mean is, having watched three or four videos in a row, I never had a "yeah, you told me that already" moment. Everything was necessary, and never felt redundant. That's difficult to do. Well done 8D
Thank you I'm not watching Tetris outside of the world championship, so thanks to your videos I can keep in touch with the ultra fast evolution of the game in between championships
3:44 part of the reason that those percentages are lower than you would think is because of how the tournament is set up. With it being a best of 5 single elimination, the best players are going to be playing more games than the worst ones. Also, as the rounds progress and matches become more even, they often take more games to be decided. What this means is that the best players will have more of an impact on the average than the worst players, which both brings the overall average up while simultaneously bringing their relative average down. If it were weighted by player rather than by game, the percentages for the top players would be much higher.
I used to play the NES version of Tetris all the time when I was a kid, but I didn't start getting into competitive Tetris until Tetris 99 came out, despite being familiar with the concept since Tetris DX on the GBC.
When you calculated the probabilities, did you treat the events as independent or dependent? Because you are essentially using percentile rankings within the data set, and because each game changes the data set, I feel that means the events are dependent events rather than independent events. Another might be the single elimination format. It seems that you treated each game in the data set as equally likely. If this were a round robin tournament, then that might be possible. But, as a single elimination format, better players who get higher scores play more games, so their games are more frequent than other players. But, if you limited the data to just the semifinals, I suspect the sample size would be too small. Finally, I'm not sure if your general proposition is accurate. A match win is a match win, right? Like, the NBA champions don't get a special trophy if they sweep their opponent. When measuring match wins, the data is agnostic of the game wins. I'm not sure that the data from individual games can be completely disconnected from the match they were played in. In any case, comparing these games to the statistics was an interesting way to put the games into context. 👍
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. Your critiques are fair if I were trying to predict exact odds of Tristop & Sidnev's match while watching it live and updating after each game. The perspective I was coming from is having tediously gathered statistics on hundreds of games, most of them pretty unremarkable, and finding two matches back to back that were really crazy - and then trying to figure out a way to quickly approximate mathematically how unusual those games were that wasn't overly complicated for the audience. So when displaying the odds, I settled on asking the question, what are the chances of Tristop winning/losing with these scores to a hypothetical completely average player in any random match or round he might play in the tournament? It's definitely not a perfect representation, because yes, I'm treating the games independently and not trying to model how streaky or inconsistent individual players are, or having a nested calculation where it's first determining Tristop's odds of facing every individual player and then determining each individual player's odds. But of course doing all that would've made the math exponentially more complicated and ultimately might not've made much of a difference (as shown at the end, SV was a slightly below average player in the tournament getting average scores and then had two insane outlier games out of nowhere in the finals). If I could redo the script, I'd add a line emphasizing that it's an approximation. But in the end the most compelling part of the match to me was the emotional narrative both players had going into the match and coming out - the math was ultimately just in service of that. As you mentioned, losing in a sweep technically results in the same outcome as losing any other way - but from an emotional perspective, it's definitely not the optimal way to lose, especially after 3 great games.
yeah that's happened to me before, not in as large a stage, but whenever I expect a piece to clear lines and it clears none, it just completely destroys my focus
Whenever I see someone die to a line drought, I'm reminded of that Tetris God skit from ways back on RUclips. These players are truly skilled, but RNG wants to chime in every now and then to pick a side.
Man, I always love the sick stories you make into YT videos, and as a TGM lover, I've always wanted to get into NES Tetris too, but FUCK do I not want to have to learn to mash a dpad to reach current high level play >.>
in CTM can each game be considered a random sample or is there interaction between the players? ie they know the other’s score and what they need to beat them in that moment. it seems like with the delay each player is essentially playing their own game blind to the otherMs board
Always love your analysis. I just wish the accounts that restream CTM would do a better job. Some have distracting backgrounds, most use music (what exactly does that have to do with Tetris?)
Excellent cloud in that scatter graph and another at the upper end given that upper end clouds will be smaller, do their significance needs to be "artificially enlarged"
Great video, very entertaining. Btw it is the 4th of April 14:27 at my place here in Austria, 2023 ofc. The odds that I finished this video at exactly this time must be 1 in 222.379. And your storytelling skills are very good!
3:36 It seems to me that these statistics do not represent the real strength of the players. Because some of these games ended due the early lose of the weak opponents, which means that the game has not reached the real limit of these players strength. The actual limits of the top players is much closer to 80-90% and the gap between Skilled and top PROs is much larger. I am sure that if you analyze all games from 1\8 to finals, you will find anomally high score in almost every game. And this is not because of the unique odds, but because the best players are much stronger than the average players. 3:36 This table represent comparing Pro to averege players, not strength limits, while the shown games represent the players strength limits
![[DRAGON BALL LEGENDS REVEALS ＆ STUFF] LEGENDS FESTIVAL 2024 Special Edition Part 2](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/af0phKxitX8/mqdefault.jpg)
Quick clarification on the odds presented in the video since there's been some understandable confusion in the comments over whether the math is correctly applied (i.e. Sidnev and Tristop are above average players, it's a semifinals match, etc.) - there's a difference between trying to predict what's the most likely outcome in a given moment with as much context as possible, and trying to show how rare something is across the entire historical record. For example, if I made a weather video about Death Valley, I might say something in it like "There's only been 5 times in the past 110 years where it's been over 130 degrees F. Thus, the chance of any given day being over 130 F there is an insane 1 in 8,030!" Someone could say in response, "That's not true. You'll never get that temperature in the winter, so you should only count summer days. And you should throw out cloudy days too since the sun can't shine at it's full potential there. So you see, in sunny days in the summer, it's not quite so rare as that!" Those would be relevant things to consider if you were planning a trip to Death Valley tomorrow and wanted to know the chances of a 130 F day - you'd check the calendar on what the typical temperature is at this time of year, and look at the forecast to see if it's an overcast day. But it's also completely different from what I was originally saying when I'm talking about how rare 130 F days are in that location across all of history. Similarly, when talking about Tristop and Sidnev's match, I'm not talking about how rare it would be for them to lose with these scores specifically against each other, I'm talking about how rare it would be to see a loss with these scores if you were to watch all the games in the past several months of Master's Event, which is already an incredibly elite set of matches (same as how Death Valley is already an incredibly hot place to talk about weather!)
Oh, that seems to make the statiscal analysis even more misleading. Even if you were talking about "odds of winning with these particular scores against this particular player given this player's historical record" (rather than the whole field's historical record) it would still be misleading, but if you're actually talking about the whole field's record that seems very irrelevant.
@@WilliamKiely It depends entirely on the framing of the question being asked whether something is misleading or not. I missed the mark in being clear enough on what I was trying to demonstrate in the original video, but here's yet another way of putting it. Let's say I was making a video about Michael Jordan' best basketball season in the NBA, and I was talking about how rare it is to see a season like this on a statistical level in all of NBA history, and the critique was "this is misleading, you should be comparing Michael Jordan's best season only to his own other seasons." Yeah, it's certainly another question one could pose to answer, but then the conclusion would be that Michael Jordan's best season isn't really that crazy at all in a sample size of only Michael Jordan seasons. The reframing of the question completely neuters the original purpose of showing why the season was so rare and special. So in this video about Tristop and Sidnev, it seems that for many, there was expectation that I should've presented the equivalent of live betting odds factoring in everything that would make the result more likely in that particular moment - but in only focusing on the moment, what makes the moment rare and special gets watered down. Widening the analysis to the entire historical record can show just how noteworthy the result is.
@@WilliamKiely I don't find that particularly misleading, I knew what he meant. Besides, it was a super fascinating story. Don't let the numbers get you down.
To be fair I understand you make up these numbers for entertainment purposes. But with this logic you can make up whatever numbers you want. Just include some previous matches. Or the odds that the right sperm impragnated the egg. Everything that is happening is incredibly improbable when you take into account what could be happening.
Text
"Except...this video isn't about Tristop. This video is about Sidnev."
I WAS NOT PREPARED FOR THIS PLOT TWIST
same
@@unicorn_xxx3424me too
300th like !!
The mere fact that back in 2018, 4 years ago, tetris ends in level 29. and today, it BEGINS at level 29 speaks volume to the dedication and skill the players have attained through this decades old game
Yeah. And does anybody still remember that guy joseph? I bet when he comes back from his academic endeavours, he will be shocked and pissed as hell that all his records have been taken away from im😅😅😅😅😅😅
@@scienceevolves4417 I'm sure he knows all his records are gone, also I'm sure he'll never play again. I don't think he's interested in adapting to rolling.
@@Monnn_007 My opinion, is man who fine peace, its like old king giving crown new king, generation exchange.
Videos like these is what got me into this game, feels surreal being in one. ❤
GG!
GG
GG
I agree with the above 3 comments
Dude ur picture on the bracket was epic
Your storytelling is impeccable. The reveal at 13:41 completely blew me away, I was not expecting that at all!
Sidnev is a great friend of mine, watching that first match was an edge of seat experience, even told them "you just swept someone who b3b 1.3'ed", Tristop played so well, but somehow Sidnev was always one step ahead. the second match was heartbreaking though.
yeah :(
That super killscreen is pretty nifty. Love the return of the pace stat! Excellent video as always Scout. You bring out the brightest moments in the community in every vid!
Scout video about a match of mine, I have truly peaked
I would rather see you peak in the mega masters. Good luck to your games!!!
Congratulations on a great performance!
It's fair to say that SV had leveled up his skills and earned this win
After seeing him play, I can't help but think how on earth could anyone view him as an underdog? The lad is on top of the game, clearly.
I think the math is a little bit incorrect.
In 16:10, CMIIW the odds of 1 in 11904 was probably taken from (1-0.58)*(1-0.99)*(1-0.98) = 0.42*0.01*0.02. The 0.42*0.01*0.02 part is the probability of SV loses in all 3 games (using the product rule, assuming the probability of each match was considered independent, i.e. ignoring fatigues and tension from the previous games and stuff).
Scout argues that the probability of any player beats SV in a sweep is, indeed 0.42*0.01*0.02, because SV loses in all 3 games means the opponent pulls of a sweep. However, we are calculating the probability, or how rare of Sidnev experiencing this tragic lost; not Sidnev pulling a sweep against SV's score.
What should be done is to plug Sidnev's score to the formula above, and we will get 0.61*0.39*0.16 = 0.04. This mean, during the past 3 months, Sidnev has 4% of getting swept by other player with those score. This is actually the value that we want! We can also see that 4%, or 1 in 25 odds, are not that "tragic" compared to 1 in 11904.
I'm here only to mention where the math in this video is incorrect. It's only an educational comment. Obviously, congrats to SV for being the champion of CTM, and I still think losing against 1 in 25 odds is tragic. Hopefully Sidnev can become champion in the next CTM, because he definitely deserves it
P.S. note that the probabilities (the 58%, 99%, and 98%) are taken based on data of all players. The values calculated above is the probability of a player loses in all 3 games against any player, not a certain player. Surely, the probability of SV getting a sweep against Sidnev is much higher than 1 in 25. In Statistics, we call this "bias" (and I've seen people mentioning about the "bias" of the data in the comment section).
Probabilities (and statistics in general) tends to mislead people. Even when I was writing the comment above, I checked the formula several times, and I'm still afraid that my math is wrong.
@@maxhaibara8828 He made it sound like he’d been comparing Sidnev’s likelihood of losing specifically to SV. No clue on that math, maybe he forgot to put it in the vid, but I imagine it matched up each of their scores across all their games.
Of course, the statistics of it still have a problem of being outdated by player adrenaline, practice, relaxed gameplay in less important games, differences in equipment and setup, etc. But his point is true enough - that’s some extraordinary bad luck.
@@maxhaibara8828 exactly 💯😅
Was searching comment like this. Really enjoys these videos but this math is just ridiculous what he does. Math just doesn't work like that.
I'm surprised no one in replies mentioned it was not the chances of Sidnev losing in the finals. At 16:01 , the video says "The chances of a median player in the masters event getting a 58, 99, 98 in any 3 given games ... " so math is right. Though these probabilities "1/909" and "1/11904" definitely carries distinct meaning.
Guess this is why you shouldn't confidently mock (you did not, but someone did) on something made with genuine effort.
my reaction to 13:40: oh no.
It would be cool if the tournament shows the current percentage next to the scores next to the finals. Like a 100% score would mean it's currently the highest score in the tournament.
This guy's videos are the perfect watch length.
Scout, you are a shining star of this community! We are so lucky to have you breaking down matches and stats like this!
As always, another fantastic video @aGameScout
Thank you for all you do for the classic Tetris community!
Incredible video, such a good story and the way it’s presented makes it even better.
I mean
the issue with this math
is that Tristop played against the same opponent 3 times in a row
and he also played against a semi-finalist
Why should it be biased? As far that we don't know the math behind the percentage calculus it should be perfectly fine to use the three games to get the chances to win the match. I would expect that the matched are used against groups of other played matches. The semifinal it is a partial qualitative bias, you can't compare only to other masters' semifinals but you can't quantify how much it impacts on the performance
This is true, tristop would have a slightly lower than 99.98% chance of winning with those scores specifically against sidnev haha. The overall point of that part of the analysis is that seeing scores like this in the masters event - especially 3 times in a row - are pretty rare and almost always result in victory. It takes an exceptionally talented player getting a clutch performance to achieve them, and another exceptionally talented player getting a clutch performance to beat them.
@@Ripper346. The most fundamental premise of any stochastical endeavour is the assumption that random variables are i.i.d. (identically and independently distributed). I outlined how the semifinal was neither of those two.
@@Ripper346. The joint probability of two events is not necessarily the product of the marginal probabilities. That is, if P(A) = 0.1 and P(B) = 0.1, that doesn't necessarily mean that P(A and B) = 0.01. In fact, it could be as large as 0.1, or as small as 0. For instance, if I roll a 6-sided die, I have P(roll an even number) = 1/2 and P(roll a 1) = 1/6, but P(roll an even number and roll a 1) = 0. Or alternatively, P(roll an odd number and roll a 1) = 1/6. The issue here is that the events are not independent.
In the video, Scout calculated the probability of getting three sufficiently high scores in a row by looking at the fraction of games that had scores at least as good. But if your opponent gets a very good score in game 1, the odds are high that they will get another good score in game 2, because they are probably an above-average player on an above-average day. So the games are not independent. Moreover, the fact that the series was a semifinal match rather than a randomly-chosen match means that the probabilities for average Masters players don't really apply. And in this case in particular, we can see that Sidnev is far above average. A better sample to choose from would be the set of Sidnev's recent masters games, but that sample might be too small.
The case is more convincing for SV, because before this point, his scores were pretty much in the middle of the pack (though he does have a top 10 PB).
@@aGameScout Yeah, whatever the "real" probability, the event was still extraordinary. Whether it's "actually" 1 in 10,000 or 1,000 or whatever.
SV getting the shoutout he deserves GGs
That guy should have bought a lottery ticket afterwards.
Can we just appreciate though how SV picked up the ball and ran with it to the end? Pulling off that kind of W is honestly impressive. Hope Sidnev and Trist get their own Ws soon though, they seem like excellent players in their own right.
You do a wonderful job at making us feel the tension. I have no doubt that you have brought countless people to love this eSport.
13:40, the most brutal plot twist
don't really play classic tetris anymore or keep up with the scene but I always enjoy watching your videos :)
Really loved the twist at the end of this video. Such great storytelling and an amazing narrative arc. Nailed it!
god i’m so heartbroken. hoping sidnev wins ctm masters soon! either way a truly exceptional player!
That twist in the middle about who we should really feel bad for felt like watching Cobra Kai Season 1 for the first time. Well done, cinematically-engaging and expertly informative.
would the odds of SV's scores in the final be more likely when you compare them against the scores of finalists, instead of comparing against all masters players? getting to the final in a month usually demonstrates being on good form, and it doesn't feel like a monthly finalist being able to put up a couple 1.5s is as ridiculous as 1 in 11,904
Yes, the odds would likely go up if I limited the sample size to just finals games, although I'm not 100% sure it would because the best matches don't always happen in the finals. Regardless, SV's 1.5s were still an enormous anomaly. I didn't go fully into SV's run to the finals in this video for time reasons but he was not putting up super high scores overall in the month, mostly scraping by each round, and then just absolutely crushed it in the finals.
I haven't paid that much attention to classic tetris since the last world championships, and I have to say, that new level 39 patch--making a true kill screen--is the BEST possible change for the game, holy crap, I'm so so glad people in the tetris scene aren't unreasonably resistant to change because making people play for tetrises on level 29 speed is so so so so hype
The math at 16:10 is incorrect because it assumes that the scores are completely random. To illustrate, the odds of Dog, Hufft, and other top players to get 1.4 million in each of three round is probably not too low, but for me to pull the same score would be one in several hundreds trillions if I even have any chance to do that.
I'm in disbelief that you kindly released the data!! What an incredible effort. Thanks a lot Scout! You're a real legend for that.
this is my favorite video of yours ever, its perfect and i loved it all the way through
"Brutal" really is the only word for this... WOW.
Also, wanted to say, I've watched several of your videos in a row now, and you are fantastic at giving exactly the right context for a viewer with very little prior knowledge, but don't repeat yourself. What I mean is, having watched three or four videos in a row, I never had a "yeah, you told me that already" moment. Everything was necessary, and never felt redundant. That's difficult to do. Well done 8D
Best match of the year candidate. What a match!
Love the super kill screen. Best option. No longer risks a simple endurance game.
Thank you
I'm not watching Tetris outside of the world championship, so thanks to your videos I can keep in touch with the ultra fast evolution of the game in between championships
3:44 part of the reason that those percentages are lower than you would think is because of how the tournament is set up. With it being a best of 5 single elimination, the best players are going to be playing more games than the worst ones. Also, as the rounds progress and matches become more even, they often take more games to be decided. What this means is that the best players will have more of an impact on the average than the worst players, which both brings the overall average up while simultaneously bringing their relative average down. If it were weighted by player rather than by game, the percentages for the top players would be much higher.
I really didn't think a game of Tetris would give me this much adrenaline ever
Yo he posted
Sidney after realising he had faced 1 in 11904 odds of not winning the event: EMOTIONAL DAMAGE!1!!1!!1!!1!1
Sidnev not winning each month breaks my heart 😥
Good stuff Scout! Love to see the community grow stronger (and scarier o_o) each year
Your productions are always outstanding. This one is oustandingly outstanding.
Oh been looking forward to this video!
16:23 "But in the end, it still didn't matter" cmonBruh, It was the perfect opportunity 😂😂😂
I used to play the NES version of Tetris all the time when I was a kid, but I didn't start getting into competitive Tetris until Tetris 99 came out, despite being familiar with the concept since Tetris DX on the GBC.
3:50 2nd to last on a gamescout chart ‼️‼️‼️
What a fantastic storytelling this this. I'm in awe.
Your videos are truly one of the most entertaining in the whole of RUclips!!
When you calculated the probabilities, did you treat the events as independent or dependent? Because you are essentially using percentile rankings within the data set, and because each game changes the data set, I feel that means the events are dependent events rather than independent events. Another might be the single elimination format. It seems that you treated each game in the data set as equally likely. If this were a round robin tournament, then that might be possible. But, as a single elimination format, better players who get higher scores play more games, so their games are more frequent than other players. But, if you limited the data to just the semifinals, I suspect the sample size would be too small.
Finally, I'm not sure if your general proposition is accurate. A match win is a match win, right? Like, the NBA champions don't get a special trophy if they sweep their opponent. When measuring match wins, the data is agnostic of the game wins. I'm not sure that the data from individual games can be completely disconnected from the match they were played in.
In any case, comparing these games to the statistics was an interesting way to put the games into context. 👍
What he did was total bollocks and misinformation and manipulation
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. Your critiques are fair if I were trying to predict exact odds of Tristop & Sidnev's match while watching it live and updating after each game. The perspective I was coming from is having tediously gathered statistics on hundreds of games, most of them pretty unremarkable, and finding two matches back to back that were really crazy - and then trying to figure out a way to quickly approximate mathematically how unusual those games were that wasn't overly complicated for the audience. So when displaying the odds, I settled on asking the question, what are the chances of Tristop winning/losing with these scores to a hypothetical completely average player in any random match or round he might play in the tournament? It's definitely not a perfect representation, because yes, I'm treating the games independently and not trying to model how streaky or inconsistent individual players are, or having a nested calculation where it's first determining Tristop's odds of facing every individual player and then determining each individual player's odds. But of course doing all that would've made the math exponentially more complicated and ultimately might not've made much of a difference (as shown at the end, SV was a slightly below average player in the tournament getting average scores and then had two insane outlier games out of nowhere in the finals). If I could redo the script, I'd add a line emphasizing that it's an approximation. But in the end the most compelling part of the match to me was the emotional narrative both players had going into the match and coming out - the math was ultimately just in service of that. As you mentioned, losing in a sweep technically results in the same outcome as losing any other way - but from an emotional perspective, it's definitely not the optimal way to lose, especially after 3 great games.
I watched a video like this awhile back and totally started watching Tetris tournaments. The excitement is catchy!
Never give up, no matter what the odds are against you. Congrats to all three players for a big set of incredible games!
I agree, 100%!
yeah that's happened to me before, not in as large a stage, but whenever I expect a piece to clear lines and it clears none, it just completely destroys my focus
Poor SV, his fantastic performance above his weight class overshadowed as a footnote on the greatest loss.
I hear you, but taking home over 2000 bucks makes me not feel sorry for him.
Such a great explanation, you are a treasure
Great twist! Thats some good narration.
Scout is one of the main reasons that I started playing NES Tetris in my emulator
You did SV dirty with that picture lol
Go SV!
Got me really hyped dude. Great work!
11:08 sidnev:hey the line piece!!!!!!!!
the fact that ppl are going for tetris pass 29 is insane. Thanks to the 39 super kill screen which makes the game much more exciting
An incredible story and twist.
"Never tell me the odds." - Han Solo
As a person that breathes, this storytelling made me breathless!
legendary commentary that rivals levy rosman's ability to make chess exciting
Sidney must not give up
Whenever I see someone die to a line drought, I'm reminded of that Tetris God skit from ways back on RUclips. These players are truly skilled, but RNG wants to chime in every now and then to pick a side.
Me at 6:48 thinking: wow that was quite a match good job to Sidnev for going to the finals.
"But thats just game one"
😮
still havent played tetris in like 25 years. still love your channel.
Brilliant video once again. Thanks scout
That plot twist was legitimately heartbreaking
That picture of SV though
These match analysis videos are great
I lost it at "this video is about sidnev"
Scout for tetris is like John Williams for star wars
Man, I always love the sick stories you make into YT videos, and as a TGM lover, I've always wanted to get into NES Tetris too, but FUCK do I not want to have to learn to mash a dpad to reach current high level play >.>
Is it me or sv lowkey looks like Jani's son
The Tetris Gods giveth and taketh away.
in CTM can each game be considered a random sample or is there interaction between the players? ie they know the other’s score and what they need to beat them in that moment. it seems like with the delay each player is essentially playing their own game blind to the otherMs board
"a tenth of a Tetris"
I say we all move to a Tetridecimal system
Always love your analysis. I just wish the accounts that restream CTM would do a better job. Some have distracting backgrounds, most use music (what exactly does that have to do with Tetris?)
tristop:”break the table”
absolute fire vid. how does this not have like 2 mil views
Tristop: The man God abandoned
Sidnev: The man God hated
You absolutely need to call CTWC Games with James Chen one of these years.
“One of the greatest defeats in anime history”
"mom wake up agamescout uploaded!"
The plot at like 14 minutes of 17. Thats better than most movies.
Excellent cloud in that scatter graph and another at the upper end given that upper end clouds will be smaller, do their significance needs to be "artificially enlarged"
The plot twist genuinely surprised me
Thank god they added a kill screen that can beat rolling that doesn’t just end the game.
Great video, very entertaining. Btw it is the 4th of April 14:27 at my place here in Austria, 2023 ofc. The odds that I finished this video at exactly this time must be 1 in 222.379. And your storytelling skills are very good!
incredible vid presentation
3:36 It seems to me that these statistics do not represent the real strength of the players. Because some of these games ended due the early lose of the weak opponents, which means that the game has not reached the real limit of these players strength.
The actual limits of the top players is much closer to 80-90% and the gap between Skilled and top PROs is much larger.
I am sure that if you analyze all games from 1\8 to finals, you will find anomally high score in almost every game. And this is not because of the unique odds, but because the best players are much stronger than the average players. 3:36 This table represent comparing Pro to averege players, not strength limits, while the shown games represent the players strength limits
All the games where a player intentionally topped out due to an opponent topping out early have already been filtered out
@@aGameScoutI see. But the video was interesting in any way) because of the analysis of game decisions. Hope to see more)
2:30 As a spectator I miss the days when hypertaping was the meta.
I'm sure Tristop loves this video...
loving the music 3 love! (my favorite)
we don't need a weird statistics. just ignore the numbers and enjoy the epic game!
Tristop is great, but Sidnev is just greater.
What kind os sorcery is going on with that tecnique of tapping underneath the controller?
Your best video since Joseph won the CTC