Emphasis mine. Unless you also decide to get blown up when you're trying to ward Baron, the odds of you throwing the game are not at all similar to the odds of you deciding to post on the forum.

I'm not very good but what I have noticed is that any time my team loses, its because we lack cohesiveness and teamwork. At the end of the game, your score its not what's important, its whether or not you contributed to the team at key moments in the game. That's what I've seen make the biggest impact in the games I've played. Anyone can hide in a bush and kill an unsuspecting opponent, even I can do that, but that's not what wins you games...

My main point got side tracked . lol Low elo players are more prone to mistakes. The probability of s1 making a mistake at any given time is random .

It doesn't change what the odds of you posting on the forums are were. The odds of drawing an ace off the top of a deck were 7.7%. What if I draw a king? It doesn't change the fact that the odds of me drawing an ace were 7.7%, and if I performed this experiment 100 times, I'd draw an ace about 8 times.


Let's be clear. I'm not trying to assign the odds of any individual player making a mistake that throws the match. I'm also ignoring the fact that the impact of mistakes is inversely proportional to Elo. That is to say, the tiniest of mistakes at the wrong time could cost the entire game at 2500+ Elo, but at sub-500 Elo, it's more about one player finally making a play to win the game then it is about a player making a mistake to cost the match. In fact, the lower you are in Elo, the more mistake prone you are (and everyone else in your matches), therefore individual mistakes have significantly less impact.

But nevermind all of that, because here's the real point.

If everyone on both teams is of equal skill level, then the odds of Team A having a player that makes a game-ending mistake are not higher then the odds of Team B having a player that makes a game-ending mistake. Now, in any individual game, the odds may favor one team or another, but over a large sample size, if everyone on both teams is of equal average skill level, it evens out.

If YOU are better then everyone in your matches, if you have a higher skill level, to me, this can only mean you are also less likely to make the game-ending mistake. That does not even have to necessarily mean that you are completely immune to making a game-ending mistake. All it means is that whatever your teammate Jim's odds are of making a mistake, your odds are lower.

And if your odds of making a game-ending mistake a lower then the odds of the other 9 players in the match, then your team's total odds of making a game-ending mistake are lower then the enemy team's total odds of making a game-ending mistake. The enemy team is more likely to make the game-ending mistake--your team is more likely to win.

We differ on a crucial point and that is that you can put odds on any given player moving around a map and making a choice . I see no point in continuing this discussing . My points have been made others can form opinions about what I've said .

If you would've actually read my post, you'd see that I'm not actually making that point.

I don't think any of us can put exact odds on decisions a player will make during the course of a League game. But putting odds on this isn't necessary for my point to stand.

All that's necessary is that any given player at X Elo is no more or less likely to make a game-ending mistake than any other player at X Elo, assuming the both belong there. You don't have to put odds on it, all you have to do is agree that any two players who are at a given Elo and belong at a given Elo essentially have the same odds of winning the match. We're not naming what the odds are, we're just agreeing that they're equal.

I will tell you that I have ordered Pepperoni Pizza 5 times in the last month.
I will tell you that I have ordered Cheese Pizza 5 times in the last month.
You do not know how often I have ordered pizza in the last month.

What are the odds of any given pizza I ordered being Pepperoni? You don't know.
Is it more likely that any given pizza is Pepperoni or that it is Cheese? You know that the two are equally likely.

What are you defining Elo Hell as then?
If you are defining it as an Elo range where it is impossible/very hard to carry yourself out of, you just contradicted yourself.
If you are defining it as an Elo range where there is a much higher variance than at higher Elo levels, well, that's not a statement at all. Lower skilled play will always be more random than higher skilled play, regardless of the game, ranking system, or anything else.

Right, every player has the same odds of winning--given equal skill level.

But a player with higher skill level has higher chance of winning against a player of lower skill level, right?

So if YOU are better then everyone else at your Elo (and assumption that HAS to be made in order to assume you belong at a higher Elo) then you have a higher chance of winning against players in your Elo.

Your team is composed of four players who will manage a 50% win rate in that Elo bracket and yourself. The enemy team is composed of five players who will manage a 50% win rate in that Elo bracket. Your team has greater odds of winning.

Yes, there's a random factor. No, you won't win every match.

But you can't be "stuck" in "Elo hell," because just by virtue of your team including you, your team has a greater than 50% winning chance and your presence also means the enemy team has a less than 50% win chance against your team.

Over a large sample size of games, you'll win more than you lose. You'll gain Elo.

And let me emphasize that. Large. Sample. Size.

Remember the example I gave with the aces? With only a 7.7% chance to draw an ace, it's extraordinarily unlikely that I'll actually draw a given ace on any given draw. But if I repeat the experiment enough times, the amount of times I'll draw an ace will actually start approaching 7.7%.


The randomness is only an impact on small sample sizes. Elo does not (nor is it intended to) work over the course of 1 game. It's not going to work over a handful of games. It is designed to work over a large sample size of games--and it does.

I retract my earlier post. Winning at low elo is simply based more on luck then at higher elo wheres its more based on skill . Final post guys , im not putting anymore up . If u guys can refute my earlier points great .