|
Post by specialk on Jan 26, 2006 9:45:06 GMT
I think, that those couronneplayers with a good stat, more doubles then games, beginners or consistent players or those that are good and started new accounts, should be treated in a good way. And I also think they should have a bigger salary then those who play badly, however good they chat, never mind the doubles. Furthermore, the good players should have a tax reduction. And more beatiful partners. And the right to stat fix. These are just my thoughts though. But at least Im honest... typical - the poor, downtroden and disadvantaged suffer once again - can the bad players not at least have the beautiful partners, it would make it a little fairer. Socialism and all that
|
|
|
Post by gigaloreloaded on Jan 26, 2006 9:45:17 GMT
the theory of saying that stats show the gd players an all is correct.but in reality we all know that aint true because of the stat fixing. wether a player is gd or average all shud be treated fairly,and the way i c it that is the case.we all know hu the gd players are and we dont treat the average players ne differently cos at the end of the day this is just a gme. the way i c it the more established players simply dont like to loose 60 points to the player starting over and that is there right wether they wanna accept to ply tht person or not.
|
|
|
Post by happy on Jan 26, 2006 9:46:58 GMT
the theory of saying that stats show the gd players an all is correct.but in reality we all know that aint true because of the stat fixing. wether a player is gd or average all shud be treated fairly,and the way i c it that is the case.we all know hu the gd players are and we dont treat the average players ne differently cos at the end of the day this is just a gme. the way i c it the more established players simply dont like to loose 60 points to the player starting over and that is there right wether they wanna accept to ply tht person or not. I agree with this too!!
|
|
|
Post by Autumn Bound on Jan 26, 2006 17:15:44 GMT
the theory of saying that stats show the gd players an all is correct.but in reality we all know that aint true because of the stat fixing. wether a player is gd or average all shud be treated fairly,and the way i c it that is the case.we all know hu the gd players are and we dont treat the average players ne differently cos at the end of the day this is just a gme. the way i c it the more established players simply dont like to loose 60 points to the player starting over and that is there right wether they wanna accept to ply tht person or not. I think winafew hit the hammer on the nail, but agian this thread wasn't created to argue who's better, but since we're in this discussion: Yeah you can't always tell who's good by their stats, but you can certainly tell whos bad. Sometimes seeing their stats change the way you play, if you play a poorly statistical person you may find they play well because they often miss many shots, and one may be fooled by this and start sinking most of his/her pieces, therefore when their pieces crowd yours, you miss, and they have an easier board to clean.
|
|
|
Post by cg on Jan 26, 2006 17:52:37 GMT
Stats do not always tell the story, Consistency is key to good stats but play someone that is inconsistent and they beat you easily, does that make them good or would they need to be consistent about it and beat you in a best of ? matches?
|
|
|
Post by Autumn Bound on Jan 26, 2006 18:37:11 GMT
Ofcourse it matters, without consistency how can one say that they didn't win by fluke?
|
|
|
Post by gigaloreloaded on Jan 26, 2006 18:57:33 GMT
consistency on mini can fool you,i will not mention names but they are some top players on mini hu will not play me because thers a gd chnce ill beat them.now if they dont play me and they play others they will win consistently but does that really show how gd they r?.sometimes i loose games for the sake of it so how do my stats show how good i am?.i think on mini you can only say ur good if u beat the top players and not stats or consistency i.e win streak.
|
|
|
Post by cg on Jan 26, 2006 19:15:24 GMT
Ofcourse it matters, without consistency how can one say that they didn't win by fluke? What about consistency fluking it? Anyway I have only beat you once so does that mean I fluked it even though I swept you?
|
|
|
Post by Autumn Bound on Jan 26, 2006 19:38:29 GMT
Ofcourse it matters, without consistency how can one say that they didn't win by fluke? What about consistency fluking it? Anyway I have only beat you once so does that mean I fluked it even though I swept you? I wasn't paying attention, I hardly do when playing you. Which brings forth another factor, under estimation!
|
|
|
Post by specialk on Jan 26, 2006 19:55:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by happy on Jan 26, 2006 21:07:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by specialk on Jan 26, 2006 21:10:06 GMT
To answer your question, Id say at last we get partners, as we dont play as much and moan as much as others. No one mentionend no one forgotten. We all are entitled to our opinion and our more or less beautiful partners hehhee ;D ermmmmmmm okkkkkkkaaaaaaaaayyyyyy hahahaha
|
|