Plato and Thomas Aquinas switch out Tar always. Kant says we cannot know for sure, but are nonetheless obliged by our conscience to do so. Nietzsche clicks Ice Beam. Schopenhauer ragequits turn 3.
This is kind of like a weird reframing of the prisoner's dilemma, if you call switching out "trusting" your opponent and you call staying in "betraying" your opponent. But unlike the classic example, in a simplified model, there's an extra dimension to the dilemma: both players could stay in and attack, both players could stay in and predict a switch, one player could stay in and attack while the other predicts a switch (as happened here), one player could switch and the other could stay in and attack, one player could stay in and predict, or both players could switch. So this is 9 outcomes by my count, if we simplify the lead matchup to 3 possible moves apiece (attack what's in front of you, attack the switch-in, or switch yourself). Like the prisoner's dilemma example, the least-disruptive (you could call it "most optimal" if you wanted to) choice for both players is to "trust" the other and switch out, with the least-disruptive outcome being both players switch and repeat the process with a new set of 2 pokemon (which, perhaps, have a more clear-cut advantage/disadvantage relationship than 2 mons who could potentially OHKO each other). However, as in the classic example, players are incentivized to maximize their own potential gain by staying in with their big hitters and either OHKOing the other big threat or getting a free hit off on a switch-in. As we can see in this example, while this course of action leads to the greatest reward for each individual player, it also could potentially lead to the worst outcome for the player, and they're entering into a state of (what I'll call) Schrodinger's mutually assured destruction: one of them are going to get a free KO (or at least a free attack on whatever comes in), but it could be them *or* their opponent, and so by gunning for their best possible outcome, they're also risking a very poor outcome. So while it's kind of apples to oranges, it demonstrates the same basic principle as the prisoner's dilemma: by acting in their own self-interests and trying to maximize their gains, the players also run the risk of maximizing their losses. Interesting stuff, great vid!
When people describe their thought process for reads ("I know that he knows that I know, so I'm going to predict that he's going to predict that I'm going to predict") it always reminds me of the battle of wits from The Princess Bride. People get so caught up in layers upon layers of predictions and mutual knowledge that they get almost frozen trying to figure out which of a handful of options they should take. And then sometimes your opponent throws you for a loop anyway, no matter how much thought you put in or how much you try to mitigate risk. Such is the game that we play.
as far as preparation goes - I'm admittedly not as familiar with pokemon as I am other competition, but still - I think there's often a second step in the logic people forget. "I know my opponent loves to bring mixed mence, so I won't switch out" isn't so much a flawed premise as it is a non sequitur, imo. something more concrete is necessary. maybe you know they love a certain set, and if they don't bring it, perhaps your opponent won't be as comfortable piloting the team, which is something that can actually be taken advantage of. admittedly it's tough for mii to frame this in Pokemon terms being a relative outsider, but I think there's something deeper that can be gleaned from prep than most people reach for
strongly agree from experience with the prep thing. one time in an rby tournament i saw my opponent never used gengar so i was comfortable with making gengar-weak teams. used jynx, mono normal lax, you get the idea. then my opponent actually brought gengar and i had no way to handle it, and i was screwed. prep might help you with noticing certain trends but you can never be too sure
The Tar vs Mence lead mu is yet another reason why lead Protect Tar is awesome. Really nice with Milo too; if it's Cb Mence, you definitely have a safe switch into its locked move and if it's mixed, Milo tanks that first hit easily without Spikes down.
Thanks again for the 6 explosions team it got me to 1250 rank on ADV OU ladder. Extremely flawed, as is to be expected. The team really really can't stop skarmory, zapdos, and blissey. Did Claydol, Gengar, Snorlax, Metagross, Camerupt, Cloyster. Cloyster usually as spike + explode suicide lead. Plus side is the team absolutely destroys full baton pass chain teams which dominate super low ladder play.
Your videos are the best!! I've been having trouble sleeping but somehow your content Is at the same time interesting and entertaining and also make me fall sleep super fast. Thanks!!!
"Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit" the best players in any game, not just pokemon, find a strategy that leads to wins more often than not. Being a control freak is trying to habitualise excellence
I think this is a great discussion to have. You’re way more knowledged in advanced meta so I trust your opinion on these cases. I do think that more recent pokemon metagames encourage this type of riskier behavior because the game is more volatile. To me this just shows how situational each decision in pokemon can be
I remember using Scarf + Guts Heracross in the BW UU to counter the Prankster Sableye + WoW combo to bring down Moxie Hera. People used to seethe and rage and call me a f**got, you know the usual. God I miss 2013 Showdown
@@tecul1 "tell me that when the tera suspect happened" why are you asking me that? do you think it was tested too later? or you are simply judging my knowledge of smogon? I loosely followed the decisions of banning stuff. tera was tested a few month ago, and it is not banned. My point is the informed democracy that is suspect test, is one of the best system to make collective decisions among other realistic alternatives. In the comparison between democracy and authoritarianism, there will almost always be the tradeoff between {more expertise in making smarter decision in achieving the incentivized goal} and {more accurate in creating the right incentivized goal that is consistent with well being of people}. Only pointing to the bad side of the tradeoff, is irrelevant since it would always exist. What is relevant is the net result of the tradeoff. If tiering and other bans are done in a purely authoritarian way, the incentivized goal might be enjoyment of the very top players, instead of the overall enjoyment of all players... and the later is the better goal. Even though top players have more expertise in achieving their incentivized goal.
great vid, always good hearing you dispense with the fallacial idea that you should do something because your opponent always/never does that thing. Regarding the centrality of risk, specifically in the situation of deciding what to do when you lead tar against mence, I’m still not sure what the takeaway is. Obviously, you want to switch out, because risking cb brick break is stupid. From there, though, not too many options cover both mixed mence and cb mence. Your bulky water is probably the best bet, but it still takes a chunk from hp flying or eq, and also (if your water is pert) risks getting smacked by hp grass on the next turn. Zap could be a good option but it gets smacked by cb rock slide, which also smacks skarm. Skarm also gets hit hard by mixmence’s fireblast, as you noted it sometimes goes for, anticipating the ttar switch, and can also get caught by the double switch to mag, which is a common partner for band mence. Gengar is another popular mence pivot but gets smacked hard by cb rock slide too. Bulky celebi isn’t a terrible pivot but risks hp flying and fireblast. Once you figure out if the mence is mixed or band, its easier to deal with (notwithstanding spikes that might get set up before it comes in again, making it even harder to switch in to) but on turn 1 it can be really difficult for a lot of teams to minimize risk and cover both options. I don’t think that justifys the ttar ever staying in, but its not always clear what the best way to minimize the risk is.
got into adv recently. I brick breaked the ttar turn 1, felt so smart it lived and OHKOd me with ice beam. was using mixed mence (Fire Blast, Dragon Claw, Rock Slide, Brick Break)
Dont be fancy make the optimal in a vacuum play so you dont cry yourself to sleep later at night thinking why did I let tyranitar ohko me after rock sliding it
The "best plays (not singular)" is a probabilistic distribution of different plays where one or a few plays should be used much more likely than others.... according to Nash Equilibrium in game theory Game theory is the branch of mathematics that describe how perfectly smart players would behave. For instance, take rock paper scizor. you can change the game so win with scizor gives you twice amount of points than winning with other two moves. This new game actually has an "optimal-against-perfect-player" probabilistic strategy (using scizor more than 1/3 chance, by an exact calculated amount) that can make you statistically not-lose to any player. The game would break even if two players both play optimally. Pokemon is kind of like this except that players are not perfectly rational, so if one can pick up the non-optimal pattern of your opponent, you can even win more than simply using the previous "optimal-against-perfect-player" by devaiting from it... and this is essentially pure "prediction" or pure "read" However, trying to pick up pattern of your opponent is not reliable (pure "read" is not reliable), so in most situation you just want to figure out the "optimal-against-perfect-player" probabilistic strategy, to make sure you out perform or break even with any player.... and this is the "best plays (not singular)". It is a probabilistic distribution of different plays where one or a few plays should be used much more likely than others.
You can make the {rock paper szizor} game more similar to pokemon... you can create game like {stall balance hyperoffensive RAIN}. Where (stall balance hyperoffensive) acts like rock paper scisser where hyper-offensive beats balance, balance beats stall, and stall beats hyper-offensive... but RAIN beats stall and balance, but lose to hyperoffense. In such case, the "optimal-against-perfect-player" probabilistic strategy is using RAIN a little more frequently than other strategies by an exact amount given by Nash Equilibrium in game theory.
@@bohanxu6125 Actually in that example the optimal thing to do would be bring rain exactly 1/3 of the time. Hyperoffense beats rain, rain beats stall, and stall beats hyperoffense, perfect rock paper scissors. Balance in that example is just rain that loses the mirror.
BKC, there is no way you like 1v1 right ? It might be my favorite meta game because specifically of the fact that it basically is at least partly about reading your opponent's soul even before turn 1
What’s your suggested move set for a Timid Tyranitar and EV spread I Just got him as a shiny and would like to keep him for my competitive team. I can't use dragon dance BTW. Thank you very much and appreciate it in advance
5:17 I'm pretty sure this statement (or the rigorous version of it) is mathematically false. As long as, there is a specific sequence of event where ttar not switching gives better outcome (given your opponent is not using strictly bad move, so to speak), then the game-theoretical optimal play will probabilistically include not switching ttar out. Ie... your optimal play is a probability distribution (Nash Equilibrium) where you sometimes do not switch out ttar and sometimes do. The exactly optimal probability distribution might be switching out ttar 99.99% of the times... but the no switching out's probability should be non-zero. A game-theoretical optimal player should play in a way (Nash Equilibrium) with build-in randomness into it.
I've noticed that I spend more time in life considering the potential outcomes of each decision I make, relying on logic and middle grounds rather than just hoping things go one way or another
I could see staying in being good if you can make the argument "If my opponent brought cb mence, I win 5v6 every time, so I can ignore the possibility that mence is banded." But I don't see how you can ever make that argument in good faith.
replay.pokemonshowdown.com/smogtours-gen3ou-680287
replay.pokemonshowdown.com/smogtours-gen3ou-673210
replay.pokemonshowdown.com/smogtours-gen3ou-677257
replay.pokemonshowdown.com/smogtours-gen3ou-674692
Alright but where is the obvious wrong use of a semicolon in the title
Allow me to speak on behalf of all zen Buddhists. We have no comment on the salamence/ttar matchup at this time.
Plato and Thomas Aquinas switch out Tar always. Kant says we cannot know for sure, but are nonetheless obliged by our conscience to do so. Nietzsche clicks Ice Beam. Schopenhauer ragequits turn 3.
Plato and Saint Augustine *
This is kind of like a weird reframing of the prisoner's dilemma, if you call switching out "trusting" your opponent and you call staying in "betraying" your opponent. But unlike the classic example, in a simplified model, there's an extra dimension to the dilemma: both players could stay in and attack, both players could stay in and predict a switch, one player could stay in and attack while the other predicts a switch (as happened here), one player could switch and the other could stay in and attack, one player could stay in and predict, or both players could switch. So this is 9 outcomes by my count, if we simplify the lead matchup to 3 possible moves apiece (attack what's in front of you, attack the switch-in, or switch yourself). Like the prisoner's dilemma example, the least-disruptive (you could call it "most optimal" if you wanted to) choice for both players is to "trust" the other and switch out, with the least-disruptive outcome being both players switch and repeat the process with a new set of 2 pokemon (which, perhaps, have a more clear-cut advantage/disadvantage relationship than 2 mons who could potentially OHKO each other). However, as in the classic example, players are incentivized to maximize their own potential gain by staying in with their big hitters and either OHKOing the other big threat or getting a free hit off on a switch-in. As we can see in this example, while this course of action leads to the greatest reward for each individual player, it also could potentially lead to the worst outcome for the player, and they're entering into a state of (what I'll call) Schrodinger's mutually assured destruction: one of them are going to get a free KO (or at least a free attack on whatever comes in), but it could be them *or* their opponent, and so by gunning for their best possible outcome, they're also risking a very poor outcome. So while it's kind of apples to oranges, it demonstrates the same basic principle as the prisoner's dilemma: by acting in their own self-interests and trying to maximize their gains, the players also run the risk of maximizing their losses. Interesting stuff, great vid!
What a great comment
same tbh
I didn't read but it's long with scientists' names so I like it
@@fufinmug u just watched a BKC vid abt 1 turn how u gonna goof on a long comment 😭
@@wayward41 listening good, reading bad
Us later gen players know this as the Heatran vs Landorus lead matchup and it's hilarious that this entire video is still relevant.
My brain defaults to ctc's absurd quadruple switch into staying in with heatran and losing it like an idiot whenever i read the names of these two
It got funnier when Flame Body heatran came out and immediately punished Lando for going for u-turn/knock over EQ
first day of school, and i wake up to one of the worst plays of all time
To summarize this matchup in the eyes of Zen Buddhism: the further one reaches, the easier it is to fall
When people describe their thought process for reads ("I know that he knows that I know, so I'm going to predict that he's going to predict that I'm going to predict") it always reminds me of the battle of wits from The Princess Bride. People get so caught up in layers upon layers of predictions and mutual knowledge that they get almost frozen trying to figure out which of a handful of options they should take. And then sometimes your opponent throws you for a loop anyway, no matter how much thought you put in or how much you try to mitigate risk. Such is the game that we play.
Can't wait bkc make video about how competitive pokemon can teach you algebra
rage fist and last respects damage formula 🧠
It can if you run your calcs by hand 😂
@@thereaIitsybitsyspider Real ones use an abacus for their calcs
as far as preparation goes - I'm admittedly not as familiar with pokemon as I am other competition, but still - I think there's often a second step in the logic people forget. "I know my opponent loves to bring mixed mence, so I won't switch out" isn't so much a flawed premise as it is a non sequitur, imo. something more concrete is necessary. maybe you know they love a certain set, and if they don't bring it, perhaps your opponent won't be as comfortable piloting the team, which is something that can actually be taken advantage of. admittedly it's tough for mii to frame this in Pokemon terms being a relative outsider, but I think there's something deeper that can be gleaned from prep than most people reach for
1:10 BKC is a Machiavellian let’s go welcome to the group
hmm
yes
I understand
if you want to win you shouldnt lose
strongly agree from experience with the prep thing. one time in an rby tournament i saw my opponent never used gengar so i was comfortable with making gengar-weak teams. used jynx, mono normal lax, you get the idea. then my opponent actually brought gengar and i had no way to handle it, and i was screwed. prep might help you with noticing certain trends but you can never be too sure
The people asking "Why is this video taking so long??" clearly have never been to this channel before.
kevin sensei shares his teachings once again
Always always banded brickbreak first. Too little gain to overpredict.
I’m trying to get into Gen 3. There’s so much to learn about every single generation it’s insane
I love when I know a video is going to be a banger the moment I see the title
not enough semi-colons
Omg at first I thought it was just gonna be a Ttar staying in on a bbreak but the layers to this are just hilarious
The Tar vs Mence lead mu is yet another reason why lead Protect Tar is awesome. Really nice with Milo too; if it's Cb Mence, you definitely have a safe switch into its locked move and if it's mixed, Milo tanks that first hit easily without Spikes down.
protect is so hard to fit for me
Would be awesome if it was possible to fit protect in any TTar set that doesn't give up some insanely good coverage or utility option
I've ran lead protect toxic EQ and slide before, it can do work but mostly as a surpirse
Thanks again for the 6 explosions team it got me to 1250 rank on ADV OU ladder. Extremely flawed, as is to be expected. The team really really can't stop skarmory, zapdos, and blissey. Did Claydol, Gengar, Snorlax, Metagross, Camerupt, Cloyster. Cloyster usually as spike + explode suicide lead. Plus side is the team absolutely destroys full baton pass chain teams which dominate super low ladder play.
Anytime my guy
Cringe: Zapdos lead to cover Skarm leads
Based: MAGNETON lead to cover Skarm leads
Your videos are the best!! I've been having trouble sleeping but somehow your content Is at the same time interesting and entertaining and also make me fall sleep super fast. Thanks!!!
"Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit" the best players in any game, not just pokemon, find a strategy that leads to wins more often than not. Being a control freak is trying to habitualise excellence
I think this is a great discussion to have. You’re way more knowledged in advanced meta so I trust your opinion on these cases. I do think that more recent pokemon metagames encourage this type of riskier behavior because the game is more volatile. To me this just shows how situational each decision in pokemon can be
I remember using Scarf + Guts Heracross in the BW UU to counter the Prankster Sableye + WoW combo to bring down Moxie Hera. People used to seethe and rage and call me a f**got, you know the usual.
God I miss 2013 Showdown
Alternate Title: "Pokemon made me an Epistocrat"
Literally have not been able to fall asleep for the past 5 nights. BKC please come back 😢😢
The algorithm that feeds me Alan watts lectures and competive pokemon videos has brought me here. 😑🙏
Imagine if Salamence had U turn in ADV shit would be crazy
3:14
“Is this mans banded or not?”
22:21 tyranitar having a jolly good time
I'm not familiar with how smogon really works, but I feel like suspect test is one of the best examples of an informed democracy.
tell me that when the tera suspect happened, or the 2 keldeo suspects in BW
@@tecul1
"tell me that when the tera suspect happened"
why are you asking me that? do you think it was tested too later? or you are simply judging my knowledge of smogon?
I loosely followed the decisions of banning stuff. tera was tested a few month ago, and it is not banned.
My point is the informed democracy that is suspect test, is one of the best system to make collective decisions among other realistic alternatives.
In the comparison between democracy and authoritarianism, there will almost always be the tradeoff between {more expertise in making smarter decision in achieving the incentivized goal} and {more accurate in creating the right incentivized goal that is consistent with well being of people}. Only pointing to the bad side of the tradeoff, is irrelevant since it would always exist. What is relevant is the net result of the tradeoff.
If tiering and other bans are done in a purely authoritarian way, the incentivized goal might be enjoyment of the very top players, instead of the overall enjoyment of all players... and the later is the better goal. Even though top players have more expertise in achieving their incentivized goal.
@@tecul1 even Walking Wake fr
for fun player mentality: I will use fire blast because he might stay in and pursuit, and that would be funny
Competitive Pokemon is so sweaty.
I want you to know that I always use your videos as background noise while doing yoga
4 days no video? I can only assume bkc is dead. Rip king 👑
great vid, always good hearing you dispense with the fallacial idea that you should do something because your opponent always/never does that thing. Regarding the centrality of risk, specifically in the situation of deciding what to do when you lead tar against mence, I’m still not sure what the takeaway is. Obviously, you want to switch out, because risking cb brick break is stupid. From there, though, not too many options cover both mixed mence and cb mence. Your bulky water is probably the best bet, but it still takes a chunk from hp flying or eq, and also (if your water is pert) risks getting smacked by hp grass on the next turn. Zap could be a good option but it gets smacked by cb rock slide, which also smacks skarm. Skarm also gets hit hard by mixmence’s fireblast, as you noted it sometimes goes for, anticipating the ttar switch, and can also get caught by the double switch to mag, which is a common partner for band mence. Gengar is another popular mence pivot but gets smacked hard by cb rock slide too. Bulky celebi isn’t a terrible pivot but risks hp flying and fireblast. Once you figure out if the mence is mixed or band, its easier to deal with (notwithstanding spikes that might get set up before it comes in again, making it even harder to switch in to) but on turn 1 it can be really difficult for a lot of teams to minimize risk and cover both options. I don’t think that justifys the ttar ever staying in, but its not always clear what the best way to minimize the risk is.
got into adv recently. I brick breaked the ttar turn 1, felt so smart
it lived and OHKOd me with ice beam.
was using mixed mence (Fire Blast, Dragon Claw, Rock Slide, Brick Break)
This completely changed my view on life
Dont be fancy make the optimal in a vacuum play so you dont cry yourself to sleep later at night thinking why did I let tyranitar ohko me after rock sliding it
Thank you fruhdazi
The "best plays (not singular)" is a probabilistic distribution of different plays where one or a few plays should be used much more likely than others.... according to Nash Equilibrium in game theory
Game theory is the branch of mathematics that describe how perfectly smart players would behave. For instance, take rock paper scizor. you can change the game so win with scizor gives you twice amount of points than winning with other two moves. This new game actually has an "optimal-against-perfect-player" probabilistic strategy (using scizor more than 1/3 chance, by an exact calculated amount) that can make you statistically not-lose to any player. The game would break even if two players both play optimally.
Pokemon is kind of like this except that players are not perfectly rational, so if one can pick up the non-optimal pattern of your opponent, you can even win more than simply using the previous "optimal-against-perfect-player" by devaiting from it... and this is essentially pure "prediction" or pure "read"
However, trying to pick up pattern of your opponent is not reliable (pure "read" is not reliable), so in most situation you just want to figure out the "optimal-against-perfect-player" probabilistic strategy, to make sure you out perform or break even with any player.... and this is the "best plays (not singular)". It is a probabilistic distribution of different plays where one or a few plays should be used much more likely than others.
You can make the {rock paper szizor} game more similar to pokemon... you can create game like {stall balance hyperoffensive RAIN}. Where (stall balance hyperoffensive) acts like rock paper scisser where hyper-offensive beats balance, balance beats stall, and stall beats hyper-offensive... but RAIN beats stall and balance, but lose to hyperoffense.
In such case, the "optimal-against-perfect-player" probabilistic strategy is using RAIN a little more frequently than other strategies by an exact amount given by Nash Equilibrium in game theory.
@@bohanxu6125 Actually in that example the optimal thing to do would be bring rain exactly 1/3 of the time. Hyperoffense beats rain, rain beats stall, and stall beats hyperoffense, perfect rock paper scissors. Balance in that example is just rain that loses the mirror.
@@WingedEspeon
I think you are right... I probably should have used a better example.
You mean the Salamence;Tyranitar lead matchup, right?
Flamin' hot title 🔥
BKC, there is no way you like 1v1 right ? It might be my favorite meta game because specifically of the fact that it basically is at least partly about reading your opponent's soul even before turn 1
I’m taking it easy on 2x speed. It great :)
BKC is pleased
Did you ever do the vid about the bloo scandal? I may have missed it
"Perfect Bloo" uploaded December 31st
What’s your suggested move set for a Timid Tyranitar and EV spread I Just got him as a shiny and would like to keep him for my competitive team. I can't use dragon dance BTW. Thank you very much and appreciate it in advance
I'm interrupting my BKCcast nap to say that I would gladly listen to a 5 hour video where you argue why Mcmeghan is the greatest of all time.
BKC single-handedly disproves the dead internet theory
All the talk of CB Mence makes me wonder; what would Adv look like if it had the physical special split?
typa shit ive been on
5:17 I'm pretty sure this statement (or the rigorous version of it) is mathematically false.
As long as, there is a specific sequence of event where ttar not switching gives better outcome (given your opponent is not using strictly bad move, so to speak), then the game-theoretical optimal play will probabilistically include not switching ttar out.
Ie... your optimal play is a probability distribution (Nash Equilibrium) where you sometimes do not switch out ttar and sometimes do. The exactly optimal probability distribution might be switching out ttar 99.99% of the times... but the no switching out's probability should be non-zero.
A game-theoretical optimal player should play in a way (Nash Equilibrium) with build-in randomness into it.
Dropping some Anakin Skywalker shit there at the start.
I've noticed that I spend more time in life considering the potential outcomes of each decision I make, relying on logic and middle grounds rather than just hoping things go one way or another
I could see staying in being good if you can make the argument "If my opponent brought cb mence, I win 5v6 every time, so I can ignore the possibility that mence is banded." But I don't see how you can ever make that argument in good faith.
I would bone lead tyranitar with my savage salamence little consent
Shitrockers forever