Stalling Vs. Not Stalling Losses

[myninja527]

Ladies and Gents,

I found myself rather bored today and I wanted to provide this proof that stalling your loses hurts you in the long run. I have attached two spreadsheets. The first has games played at the same rate of speed regardless of win or loss. The second makes the brazen assumption that every loss takes twice as long as every win. Both are designed to have equal 50/50 chance of winning or losing, but that can easily altered by adjusting the value in cell D4.

As you can see a few weeks into our experiment the percentage has been almost normalized to 50% and continues to approach with each passing week. By time the 15th iteration occurs all benefits from stalling have been erased. As we are now winning at losing at the same rate. The higher the win percentage the quicker this phenomenon occurs. I chose to use 50% for the analysis because the match making system is designed to give every player a 50/50 w/l record.

What I would really like to draw everyone's attention to is the total games played finished. By the 20th iteration, the stalling player has now played 265 games and the non stalling player has finished 400 games.


I'm sure I made some mistake and I realize partial games cannot be played, so please, flame away!

TL;DR version after 15 iterations of games played all benefits from stalling are lost. I know I made a lot of assumptions in my model, but like I said, I was bored!

[Jakeyboy20]

I'm pretty sure me and liner15 are playing y'all in 2v2 and nice work it really helped!

[myninja527]

We are, gl. It is one of our more interesting 2 v 2s

[Jakeyboy20]

Glad to hear we're not boring lol gl to you too