Post the most unwinnable matchups (serious topic)

[Grim Tuesday]

If you hit him once and stand on the top platform most of his attack can't hit you. Then you just wait (dodge any of the easily telegraphed attacks) and the MH will lose.

Timeline of Events to avoid confusion:
1. Someone says that there are no 100-0 match-ups.
2. I mention Master Hand on Battlefield (his worst stage).
3. You think I mean that the matches are in MH's favour, and explain that he can be beaten by planking as Ganondorf.
4. I thought you were talking about Ganon having 100-0 match-ups and that he can be beaten by planking him, so I say that isn't the case in Melee, only Brawl.
5. You say that you could beat my Master Hand with anything, I now realize what you mean.
6. I say that when I said "100-0", I didn't mean in Master Hand's favour.
7. You realise your mistake.
8-12. I have no idea what's going on here, I mention how good he is in doubles, you say that you didn't think he could be killed, I say that you're right and you get confused again.

xD

 

[PoundSlap]

master hand is not a valid character so stop talking about him when referring to matchups. there definately are unwinnable matchups look at brawl where Deedeedee has a 100:0 matchup against DK because of the infinite chainthrow. and similar is it to fox vs peach on pokemon stadium because of the mentioned reasons. i dont think jiggs : peach is unwinnable but its extremely in jiggs favor. unwinnable for captain falcon is the sheik matchup but then again he has a 90:10 matchup on peach. i would call everything whats strating from 75:25 unwinnable.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

You're an idiot Poundslap.

1. Why is MH not valid?
2. Dedede isn't 100-0 against Donkey Kong.
3. Fox vs. Peach isn't un-winnable on Pokemon Stadium.
4. Sheik vs. Falcon isn't un-winnable.
5. Falcon vs. Peach isn't 90-10.
6. ONLY 100-0 is un-winnable, none of this 75:25 bull-****.

 

[PoundSlap]

75:25 is unwinnable because a set consists of at least 3 games. if the matchup is 25% for you then you need a FOURTH game to win which does not exist in a bo5.

MH is banned in tourneys if you dont understand that youre the idiot. Deedeedee is 100:0 against DK because all you need is one grab. he also has the normal chaingrab on DK which you can use to position yourself for the kill. it is a guaranteed stock.

Fox vs Peach is unwinnable for peach otherwise armada would have won on PS against M2K. fox just has to shoot lasers (50%) 2 nairs (75%) one waveshine to usmash (100% -> kill)

the rest what you wrote is BS like usual. also stop making those number lists that makes you just look more stupid.

 

[Yung Mei]

poundslap, for the love of god, just stop making threads stop logging onto smashboards altogether


that or kill yourself

 

[Grim Tuesday]

^this^

75:25 is unwinnable because a set consists of at least 3 games. if the matchup is 25% for you then you need a FOURTH game to win which does not exist in a bo5.

What.

We do match-ups on a match by match basis, not on sets (because of the interference of variables like being able to change your character, and counter-picking).

MH is banned in tourneys if you dont understand that youre the idiot. Deedeedee is 100:0 against DK because all you need is one grab. he also has the normal chaingrab on DK which you can use to position yourself for the kill. it is a guaranteed stock.

Link me to a notable tournament which has a rule saying that Master Hand is banned.

Anyway, with that logic, Ice Climbers have 100-0 match-ups against everyone.

Fox vs Peach is unwinnable for peach otherwise armada would have won on PS against M2K. fox just has to shoot lasers (50%) 2 nairs (75%) one waveshine to usmash (100% -> kill)

I'm afraid that in a subjective matter like this, the majority's opinion on the match-up is more important than yours. So... no, you're wrong :/

the rest what you wrote is BS like usual. also stop making those number lists that makes you just look more stupid.

Cool story bro.

 

[Jonas]

Stop giving him attention D:

 

[PoundSlap]

ok i wont bother arguing with you anymore because i dont really think such a narrow minded person like you will ever understand that. but lemme say this CHANGING CHARACTER DOES NOT MAKE IT THE SAME MATCHUP LIKE BEFORE. do you understand it? if the matchup is fox vs peach and the nex game you switch to someone else the matchup will also change to a better one for the one who switched with peach.

also the IC example is really really dumb. you need both IC to do chaingrabs and dont forget that nana is sometimes desynced because the opponent can also attack. also IC dont get easy grab. but deeedeeeedeee gets easy grabs on DK. very easy grabs. and he doesnt have a partner that will die early that he needs for the cg. and he can also chaingrab at 400%, a percentage where nana is already dead.

im done talking to you. go and get some smash experience.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

ok i wont bother arguing with you anymore because i dont really think such a narrow minded person like you will ever understand that.[/SPOILER]

Okay.

but lemme say this CHANGING CHARACTER DOES NOT MAKE IT THE SAME MATCHUP LIKE BEFORE. do you understand it? if the matchup is fox vs peach and the nex game you switch to someone else the matchup will also change to a better one for the one who switched with peach.

I thought you weren't going to argue with me anymore!?

Anyway, that's exactly what I'm saying. We don't judge match-ups based on sets because you can change character in sets.

also the IC example is really really dumb. you need both IC to do chaingrabs and dont forget that nana is sometimes desynced because the opponent can also attack. also IC dont get easy grab. but deeedeeeedeee gets easy grabs on DK. very easy grabs. and he doesnt have a partner that will die early that he needs for the cg. and he can also chaingrab at 400%, a percentage where nana is already dead.

Just as it is possible to hit Ice Climbers without getting grabbed (you obviously agree with this because you said that Nana can die, which will only realistically happen if she gets hit), it is also possible to attack Dedede without grabbed.

Does anyone have a link to that match on Green Greens?

im done talking to you. go and get some smash experience.

What smash experience do you have? I'm curious.

 

[MikeHaggarTHAKJB]

Stop giving him attention D:

why not talk sense into a person who just doesnt have enough experience and/or intelligence to figure it out on his own?
that said i dont think poundslaps opinions are all that stupid, the reason people are failing is because their own arguments/opinions are arguably even dumber then his. so far id say poundslap is winning the argumentation...

 

[Retroking2000]

i agree ^

100%

i just cant believe peope are so disrespectful for the love of god we play a game with mario in it -_-

 

[Mooo]

The Thing is that He actually is talked to and proven wrong, He just doesnt respond to our posts but only how He interprets them, which He ususlly doesnt do right. And everyone can prove His points wrong. There are no 100-0 matchups because every Charakter can Be Killer or stalled by every Character, 100-0 literally means someone who is brand new to the game would beat the most experienced pro, which does not apply for any Characters. He also doesn't Have any idea of math it seems, 75-25 only means 3 out of 4 times not after 3 Times it Works One Time. He also thinks a matchup is the only factor in winning a match, Why Else would 75-25 mean that at least 3 matches are needed. Furthermore, applying Poundslaps logic, 66.7-33.3 matchups can Not Be won in a bo3, Making it unwinable in the bo3 case, which is completly ********

 

[PoundSlap]

i actually like the word `Poundslap logic`. made me kinda lol
anyway my maths is right. if you have 25% chance of winning each game, chances are good that you will win one game out of 4 played.

your 66.7-33.3 example does apply to bo3 and its good to see you understand that. its also unwinnable in bo3, whereas in bo1 a 100:0 is unwinnable. thats simple math and we call this the empiric numbers.

ok but to lift the difficulty of this topic we can change it in what matchups are really hard to play. is that fine with you?

and thanks mikehaggar for making beautiful posts once again. they are always a good read.

 

[Divinokage]

and kage youre terriby mistaken about what you wrote. also stop feeling superior to people you dont know. thats not a warrior would do, warriors respect their opponents. you also need to read the OP since i havent seen you posting unwinnable matchups..

I kinda laughed inside when you said that because you assume things about me when you don't even know me personally. I am THE warrior, how can I not know these things you mentioned. And also I did say Ganon/Roy is unwinnable (or close to) in the post before, pay attention.

 

[schoin]

I am THE warrior, how can I not know these things you mentioned. .

True story also lmao!

 

[Teczer0]

To everyone, everyone does not have to agree with you. If someone doesn't agree with you there is no need for you to put down, call people dumb, or anything of the sort to anyone simply because their views aren't the same as yours.

Chill out.

 

[Charlesz]

Poundslap looooooooooooooool. L2P instead of losing and then johning......... raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaape.

-Mango

 

[Tairseth]

I'd say real logic has a 100-0 matchup against poundslap's logic. Unwinnable some would say.

 

[Derkis]

i actually like the word `Poundslap logic`. made me kinda lol
anyway my maths is right. if you have 25% chance of winning each game, chances are good that you will win one game out of 4 played.

your 66.7-33.3 example does apply to bo3 and its good to see you understand that. its also unwinnable in bo3, whereas in bo1 a 100:0 is unwinnable. thats simple math and we call this the empiric numbers.

ok but to lift the difficulty of this topic we can change it in what matchups are really hard to play. is that fine with you?

and thanks mikehaggar for making beautiful posts once again. they are always a good read.

In addition to reasoning poorly, your understanding of probability is far from complete.

On a match-by-match basis and in a 75:25 match-up the disadvantaged character has a 25% to win each match. A set in this case it not unwinnable (which would place its probability at 0%, something which is not possible through the use of statistics), nor is at as infentessimally small as you suggest.

The actual probability of winning a set, if each match within the set is considered independent, can be calculated using the binomial distribution:

b(x; n, p) = C(n, x) * p^x * (1-p)^(n-x) : where x is the number of games to win, n is the total number of games played, and p is the proability of winning.

Thus, the probability of winning the set in n games is as follows:

n = 5 : b(2; 4, .25) * .25 = .0527
n = 4 : b(2; 3, .25) * .25 = .0352
n = 3 : b(3; 3, .25) = .0156

So the total probability of winning the set is .1035 or 10.35%. Not unwinnable.

Anyways, calling something unwinnable, in reality, based on numbers which you've made up (based on no evidence) and only apply to two characters fighting ideally (ie. not played by humans) in a vacuum makes absolutely no sense.

 

[MikeHaggarTHAKJB]

edit: delete

 

[PoundSlap]

In addition to reasoning poorly, your understanding of probability is far from complete.

On a match-by-match basis and in a 75:25 match-up the disadvantaged character has a 25% to win each match. A set in this case it not unwinnable (which would place its probability at 0%, something which is not possible through the use of statistics), nor is at as infentessimally small as you suggest.

The actual probability of winning a set, if each match within the set is considered independent, can be calculated using the binomial distribution:

b(x; n, p) = C(n, x) * p^x * (1-p)^(n-x) : where x is the number of games to win, n is the total number of games played, and p is the proability of winning.

Thus, the probability of winning the set in n games is as follows:

n = 5 : b(2; 4, .25) * .25 = .0527
n = 4 : b(2; 3, .25) * .25 = .0352
n = 3 : b(3; 3, .25) = .0156

So the total probability of winning the set is .1035 or 10.35%. Not unwinnable.

Anyways, calling something unwinnable, in reality, based on numbers which you've made up (based on no evidence) and only apply to two characters fighting ideally (ie. not played by humans) in a vacuum makes absolutely no sense.

sorry but theres something wrong with you if youre starting a discussion about your math knowledge if the topic is not even close to be about maths.

and you guys really take this TOO seriously. i mean, yes, its a serious topic but you dont have to take it THAT seriously. its about what matchups are especially hard in melee and the term unwinnable was just to make that clear.

anyway, what do you guys think about marth - kirby? is that kinda unwinnable for marth, since kirby can duck under marths grabs?

 

[Derkis]

sorry but theres something wrong with you if youre starting a discussion about your math knowledge if the topic is not even close to be about maths.

and you guys really take this TOO seriously. i mean, yes, its a serious topic but you dont have to take it THAT seriously. its about what matchups are especially hard in melee and the term unwinnable was just to make that clear.

anyway, what do you guys think about marth - kirby? is that kinda unwinnable for marth, since kirby can duck under marths grabs?

Normally I wouldn't, but you asserted that your "maths is right" to make a totally fallacious argument sound more plausible, even though your maths were as wrong as your other ideas about match ups. You don't mess with maths like that.

Edit: Lol, I also like to use words incorrectly to make things clearer for the reader.

 

[Charlesz]

sorry but theres something wrong with you if youre starting a discussion about your math knowledge if the topic is not even close to be about maths.

and you guys really take this TOO seriously. i mean, yes, its a serious topic but you dont have to take it THAT seriously. its about what matchups are especially hard in melee and the term unwinnable was just to make that clear.
anyway, what do you guys think about marth - kirby? is that kinda unwinnable for marth, since kirby can duck under marths grabs?

You just got wombo combo'd .

 

[Yung Mei]

ok i wont bother arguing with you anymore because i dont really think such a narrow minded person like you will ever understand that.[/SPOILER]

Okay.



I thought you weren't going to argue with me anymore!?

Anyway, that's exactly what I'm saying. We don't judge match-ups based on sets because you can change character in sets.



Just as it is possible to hit Ice Climbers without getting grabbed (you obviously agree with this because you said that Nana can die, which will only realistically happen if she gets hit), it is also possible to attack Dedede without grabbed.

Does anyone have a link to that match on Green Greens?



What smash experience do you have? I'm curious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbnTVF_CgEA

sorry but theres something wrong with you if youre starting a discussion about your math knowledge if the topic is not even close to be about maths.

and you guys really take this TOO seriously. i mean, yes, its a serious topic but you dont have to take it THAT seriously. its about what matchups are especially hard in melee and the term unwinnable was just to make that clear.

anyway, what do you guys think about marth - kirby? is that kinda unwinnable for marth, since kirby can duck under marths grabs?

normally i can handle trolling without trying- but this ******* is taking it too goddamn far

 

[PoundSlap]

i honestly dont understand why youre so mad now? beside that the marth - kirby is a legit question. marths grab game is the biggest part about marth itself; i would also say that the first thing you think of marth is his grab. and kirby can edgeguard and combo marth pretty well whereas marth cant because kirby is so small. when taking this all into account kirby has a very good matchup on marth.

 

[Mooo]

so i was playing falco against a friend of mine who is doc right? so he like knocks me off stage and capes my firebird but falco can't dodge his grabs by ducking so he can always hit me off stage **** was so unwinnable!

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I'd just like to point out to everyone who doesn't get it yet, PoundSlap has ALWAYS been trolling, every post he has made since he joined. He really isn't this stupid.

 

[Grinin]

Can we trade in PoundSlap and get ICG back? I liked his trolling way better.

 

[Kanelol]

this thread made my ****ing face hurt

 

[Stratford]

In addition to reasoning poorly, your understanding of probability is far from complete.

On a match-by-match basis and in a 75:25 match-up the disadvantaged character has a 25% to win each match. A set in this case it not unwinnable (which would place its probability at 0%, something which is not possible through the use of statistics), nor is at as infentessimally small as you suggest.

The actual probability of winning a set, if each match within the set is considered independent, can be calculated using the binomial distribution:

b(x; n, p) = C(n, x) * p^x * (1-p)^(n-x) : where x is the number of games to win, n is the total number of games played, and p is the proability of winning.

Thus, the probability of winning the set in n games is as follows:

n = 5 : b(2; 4, .25) * .25 = .0527
n = 4 : b(2; 3, .25) * .25 = .0352
n = 3 : b(3; 3, .25) = .0156

So the total probability of winning the set is .1035 or 10.35%. Not unwinnable.

Anyways, calling something unwinnable, in reality, based on numbers which you've made up (based on no evidence) and only apply to two characters fighting ideally (ie. not played by humans) in a vacuum makes absolutely no sense.

****. I wanted to do this but you saved me the trouble (and the fun).

Nice work, Derkis.

You even got that for n = 4 and 5 it's not just b(3; 4, .25) and b(3; 5, .25) because you took into account that you can't have just any combination of 3 wins and 1 or 2 losses, because if you win the first three, the set is over.

Ahh ****.

It made me pretty happy to see such beautiful math on mah smashboards.

 

[Yung Mei]

****. I wanted to do this but you saved me the trouble (and the fun).

Nice work, Derkis.

You even got that for n = 4 and 5 it's not just b(3; 4, .25) and b(3; 5, .25) because you took into account that you can't have just any combination of 3 wins and 1 or 2 losses, because if you win the first three, the set is over.

Ahh ****.

It made me pretty happy to see such beautiful math on mah smashboards.

after seeing derkis post,

Smashboards = this

Poundslap = butt plundered

 

[TheGoat]

marth vs gw for sure, haha. Fair all day

 

[hungrybox]

I can't tell if mods are complete idiots or just complying to the Board Rules.

If it's the latter then I respect it. But please, the guy is a troll, and a pretty good one. It's easy to notice that all of his threads have started with armada and johns for him.

 

[-ACE-]

Some of us would rather have him banned, trust me. He's flirting with a fine line though, even to those who are sticking by the rules and hesitant to take action. We'll see what happens.

 

[P.C. Jona]

mods are dum for not banning him

i would have done it after his first post.

its vbm

 

[Mooo]

well how can we know if he is trolling? (he is though)
can't ban someone for being dumb and in love with armada right?

 

[Moooose]

mikehaggar is poundslap

 

[P.C. Jona]

people that are from europe should all be banned

 

[The Tycon]

well how can we know if he is trolling? (he is though)
can't ban someone for being dumb and in love with armada right?

And that, sir, is the most unwinnable matchup.
this topic can be closed now.

 

[Brvtvs]

Just play me and you'll have your answer


n00bs! hahahahahahahaha