"Statistical Deduction" – Quantifying the Most Skilled Format of All Time

This is the comments section for this article.


I really enjoyed reading the article and completely agree with the conclusions that you came to

I think trying to quantify skill in a game like pokemon is a daunting task. Trying to see if repeated worlds invites correlate to skill required for success will not tell you anything because of all the underlying factors involved in receiving invites that have to do with real life.

The best thing to do is to find two decks from each era: one with the percieved best consistensy and another deck that is rigged to have every card in a certain order without any search and only mediocre draw cards(ie cheren in this format). They should then play eachother with the same players repeatedly to test to see the win/loss ratio between rigged consistensy vs. Nonrigged. But even then nothing is certain.

@darkwings: Thanks! I’m glad you enjoyed it.

@medali89: I’m not following your suggestion. How would playing versus a rigged deck with mediocre draw prove anything?

Thanks for this article, Adam.

Trying to quantify skill through stats is never going to give a definititive answer, and I’m sure there are a lot of factors that can be used to question them. Nonetheless, it is interesting that what you have provided broadly supports the impression of long-time players that the game has become simplified over time.

I thought 2008 was a great format too, but it is interesting to remember that, at the time, not everyone felt the same. I remember campaigns to have Absol SW banned, dozens of threads about how Claydol ‘killed creativity’, and endless moaning about GG dominance.

You don’t know what you have until it’s gone, I guess.

Here is a little more about GG for those that are interested.
It won Cities, States, Regionals, Nationals, and Worlds.
In the current format, I don’t think there is a clear BDIF.

1 Like

I think this is the list my team and I used at Nationals in '08:

Pokemon - 20

4 Ralts SW
2 Kirlia SW
2 Gallade SW
3 Gardevoir SW
1 Gardevoir LV.X
2 Baltoy GE
2 Claydol GE
1 Duskull DP
1 Dusknoir DP
2 Tauros CG

Trainers - 24

4 Rare Candy
4 Celio’s Network
4 Team Galactic’s Wager
2 Roseanne’s Research
2 Steven’s Advice
2 Night Maintenance
2 Windstorm
2 Cessation Crystal
2 Warp Point

Energy - 16

4 Psychic
4 Double Rainbow
4 Call
2 Fighting
1 Cyclone
1 Scramble

Something close to that, at least. It definitely wasn’t optimal compared to other Gardy lists, but did pretty well. I went 7-2 lost in top 64, my one friend went 9-0 lost top 64, and my other friend went 7-2 lost top 64.

The rigged consistent deck that constantly has its setup handed to it will out perform the draw/search based luck consistent deck. The ratio of how well this matchup occurs across formats will determine the states of consistency.

Why did you leave out the stats on 7+ repeat qualifiers? O:)

1 Like

That would be too elite of company to analyze of course. According to the data you were the only US Master to qualify every year from 2004-2011. Pretty good!

Oh man, that sure is pretty impressive, isn’t it? O:)