i kind of want to be drafted as mr irrelevant here

whats the opposite of recency bias?

nostalgia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosy_retrospection

Lol - I got an email telling me I went 3rd overall and responded basically saying this exact thing. Only made sense to me when I saw the drafters then I understood. There was a stretch when I came back and played pretty regularly after Traz/Shorty had mostly retired and a lot of the guys drafting were just getting started during that time.

That said I think Traz and Shorty are two of the 3 people I've ever played with on POG who when they were on were clearly on another level when it came to making reads and the reasons for making them - they weren't just right they were right for the right reasons which is much much harder.

What Soah said about Shorty definitely applies to Traz as well - his problem was twofold - one he stopped caring about convincing anyone that he was right and two he was so sick good as a villager that it was impossible for him to wolf effectively (so to be fair he didn't try too hard at that either lol)

Yeah, I pointed out that it was Donk that drafted you, so it makes complete sense to me. I think you are a round 1 pick regardless, so then it's just a matter of who of the potential round 1 picks someone wants on their team. You know you can't get them all... pick the one you personally want.

I just meant most people might not think of him since he hasn't been playing, and he doesn't have some insane rep like traz/shorty... so if you take that into consideration, you might be able to let him slip a round or two and pick him up for some really sick value...

needs a better name

can't picture myself whipping out "THAT IS JUST ROSY RETROSPECTION" in the middle of an argument

esse being drafted this high in 2014 is a joke

I'm still thinking his reveal in MTG II was tailored

CDL is a very good wolf in my experience, one of the best on 2+2.

That said, a valid argument could be made that it is precisely his bumbling, anti-village FPS style as a villager which makes him such a formidable wolf. I remember at least two recent games where I was a wolf and he was a villager and he went deep because the wolves didn't care to NK him because he was so wrong and anti-village in his play that it was a perceived benefit to keep him alive.

some of these picks are pretty lol

don't think i've ever seen essedarius in a game ever

also so many mishmash-only players (lol domer nah u good man im jk)

im betting a lot of recent vanilla-centric players are going to be nice value whenever they're picked i'd imagine

but i have a vanilla-bias

i was waiting for someone to say this about someone (preferably one of the drafters)

herbie clearly a good pick at #3 based on that alone

Lol what is "right for the right reasons?" You're either right or wrong. Being right doesn't require it to be for some reason others see or agree with.

being right for the right reasons probably just translates to being right slightly more often

and wn was clear value at whatever he went. i don't have a BIG BOARD or anything, but he fell way too far imo.

lol

probably has something to do with him being ~useless the last couple years

but like he said, he doesn't have time for it anymore, so...

i agree he's good, haven't seen him wolf recently really but he's a solid villager

also i'm kind of a fanboy but surprised luckbox hasn't been drafted yet

insanity glad you got your probs man ur a good player

don't really understand why binkles went so early, has he had even one good game recently?

If you are right, for the right reason, you are way more likely to be able to explain your reason and get the other players to go along with you. It doesn't matter if you are right but no one listens to you because they don't see what you see...

Same point for being able to articulate your right reasons... again, doesn't matter if you are right for the right reasons, if you aren't willing to explain those reasons to the thread.

And as XKF said, being right for the right reasons means you are likely to be right more often. Luckbox into being right and it's not likely to happen any more often than rand.

Insanity, would you rather be right 90% of the time and be able to explain it logically or right 91% of the time but only be able to explain 80% logically and have 11% unexplained but definitely correct? There is only one right answer here.

I disagree with this entirely. In some of traz's best games he would just say that certain people were wolves or villas and never once explain why and people still listened to him. Same thing with guys like shortline in his prime, wahoo in his prime, etc. if someone is right more often than others it is the fault of people who fail to recognize that they're correct and not those who got it right and can't explain it to the masses.

You cant explain einsteins theory of relativity to me in manner where I will understand why it is correct and the calculations would look crazy to me but I'm not going to dispute it is correct. Some things just need to be taken at face value and not be read into too much.