A Lesson in Stalling and Patterns

[t3h Icy]

EDIT: I've been using this topic to make other posts, and not just this one. For first time readers, just so they don't miss any content. =P

I'm going to be pompous and say I'm RBY's best staller, and I keep seeing people do dumb things when stalling, so I'm going to share my secrets and help you n00bs that are super predictable (you know who you are =P).

First off, the main problem with stalling is people are predictable. Too predictable. Players will be unpredictable with Explosion, switches, etc, but rarely with stalling, and I don't see why not. The main thing is when both players are stalling and one is trying to switch to Tauros or Snorlax, etc, to break the stall war. The safest way to do this is to switch when the opponent will heal, and this is where you can take advantage. Generally, there's a certain percentage when people will begin healing. I find it's usually around 59%, but others are safer or more risky than other players. Anyway, most people will always heal after the same amount they always do, and that's when I can safely switch to a Physical or whatever I want to use and attack. When you don't mix-up when you heal, the opponent will know when it's safe for them to switch.

On the other side of things, if you're thinking of healing but the damage you're taking is low, then just hang around for a bit. I always use Alakazam against Chansey for this, and it works wonderfully because A) Alakazam does powerful Special damage and B) Alakazam is fast. Chansey does low amounts of damage, but often will stick around to try to drain your PP or freeze Alakazam if you're not paralyzed. Anyway, while I try to get lucky with Psychic, it's rare that I can get a KO on Chansey (unless they refuse to switch). Now I don't mind keeping Alakazam out because eventually I'll either force a switch with Special Falls or the opponent will switch to a Physical when I'm low on HP (especially when I'm paralyzed). So here's what I do: If I'm at about 55% HP, that's when I will heal when I really want to, but once the opponent figures this out, I'll wait an extra turn or two before healing again and use either Psychic or Thunder Wave. If Chansey stays, I very likely will stick around since Chansey does low damage, and I figure out that the opponent won't be switching. If the opponent does switch to Tauros or Snorlax, I either hit them with Alakazam's Psychic, or paralyze them, which helps a ton. The cool thing is that most players won't switch Chansey out unless she has high HP (if you still have Physicals), so if you don't succeed with getting a Psychic KO, Chansey heals, and you happen to be at lower HP, accidentally Thunder Waving Chansey won't matter since she has high HP, whereas it would suck if she only had 35% left.

Now in the case of Special Falls, most players will switch out at -2, and a few will at -3. So use Thunder Wave at this point (unless the opponent's likely switch is already paralyzed). Most often it will be Exeggutor, but sometimes Starmie or Jynx, or whatever the opponent wants to. If you paralyze a Pokemon on the switch, grats, that'll help out later. If Chansey however stays and heals, that's no problem either since at -2, it'll only take three Psychics to beat Chansey. Likewise with when you're healing, if the opponent doesn't switch, they probably won't be later (unless the opponent is smart and mixing up).

Another thing that bugs me is when people only have stallers left and they throw games away. If you have enough PP to KO what's left of the opposing team, you have replenishable HP, and there isn't anything that can counter you completely, never give up and see what happens with luck. Read this if you don't believe me. The only times I ever throw games away is when I have next to no PP left and the opponent's remaining Pokemon won't be able to be beaten, but I've seen the opponent forfeiting or letting their Pokemon die when I have a weakened Pokemon and a Staller left. It's sad.

One more thing I do commonly with Chansey against Starmie (when I switch into it) is use Ice Beam first. If Starmie stays, okay whatever, Starmie won't be doing anything, and perhaps you'll get a Freeze, or at least some damage. If they think you'll Thunderbolt/Thunder Wave and use Golem or Rhydon, they basically suicided with them. I do this all the time to people that don't know my playstyle, and while this isn't a super important thing to know, the tactic is important. When you use a Staller, you have replenishable HP, and if the opponent can't do anything to you outside of full paralysis a dozen turns in a row or a freeze, don't worry about making mistakes against their current Pokemon, and go for an edge against a possible switch.

And lastly on patterns, people frequently use the same pattern all the time. Suppose the opponent knew my Chansey Ice Beam trick against Starmie. Most players as the Chansey would then jump the gun on Thunderbolt. I call this the 2-Pattern, as they always do the bait attack-real attack. Or maybe they'll use Ice Beam twice and then use Thunderbolt/Thunder Wave, all the time, which I call the 3-Pattern etc. The same deal with healing prediction, always desync your patterns or the opponent will figure them out (if they're good). This isn't just for this example, or even Stallers, but everything in general, including Explosion prediction, Normal/Ground moves when the opponent may switch to Gengar etc. The more predictable you are, the easier it is for your opponent to do certain options without hesitation and even if you may not be predictable in a one-dimensional view, you might be becoming predictable by doing the same pattern of baits and attacking the current Pokemon. The same goes for when you're deciding whether to keep Exeggutor out vs Tauros or switch to Gengar.

Hopefully you can figure these out on your own and step your game up. =) Also I want to see more godly Alakazams, besides my own and Under's up-and-coming, since it's awesome. =)

[Dexter]

yeah icy you're pretty good at guessing. thanks for the tips, maybe I'll use them next time I play rock paper scissors

[t3h Icy]

Lead Paper against 90% of guys and Rock against 90% of girls.

Using the same two in a row also throws off dumb people.

[Dexter]

oh you really do know your RPS theory, no wonder you like RBY. Except girls in general tend to prefer PAPER over scissors as it is more passive and less aggressive, so you're better of with scissors against them.

My personal favorite is the avalanche (rock, rock, rock), gets inexperienced players all the time.

[t3h Icy]

I suppose it depends on who you play, but if you're against the type of girl that thinks once in a blue moon, they'll often go for Scissors as it's the last part of Rock, Paper, Scissors. Though if you know a person's personality, you can figure things out based on that too.

[t3h Icy]

For those that haven't ever played Rock, Paper, Scissors competitively, read this. The same techniques can be applied to Pokemon.

[Crystal_]

So I'm in disadvantage at stalling because I haven't played RPS. ToT

[t3h Icy]

You're actually one of the better stallers, but the main thing is breaking predictability.

It's one of the things I've seen in a lot of the top players (Nerd, Lutra, GGFan, Dexter), and I've been developing my own strategies with predictability for the last few months (around when I started to use Alakazam against Chansey), and I decided to share what I've learned so we as a community can get even better.

I'm still improving against certain people, but I've gotten stalling down so far.

[LolitaCute]

People play RPS competitively? wow

[posthuman]

Haha I was surprised too. Good stalling guide though.

[Underboss]

Ack, this just made my head hurt so much reading this, but in a very good way mind you. There is so much to learn here. This is what makes RBY exciting. It's the multiples dimensions of Rock-Paper-Scissors. You got to change up your bait-and-switch patterns. Thank you very much Icy for contributing this to the community. RBY2K10 should be as much about helping each other get better and improving our game as it is about competition and rivalry.

[t3h Icy]

It's the main way to get to the next level once you have a solid team and are fluent with it.

[t3h Icy]

BUMP

Here's a bit of a log from Harrison's RBY server, regarding prediction:

[14:18:32] t3h Icy: yeah
[14:18:36] t3h Icy: ehh
[14:18:38] t3h Icy: I just hate Wrap
[14:18:45] t3h Icy: Smogon is the only RBY community that allows it
[14:18:55] t3h Icy: but their whole site is backwards in terms of RBY
[14:19:07] t3h Icy: they use a lot of '08 teams
[14:19:20] Zilch (RBY LC): hey, at least it's not barrage eggy
[14:19:21] t3h Icy: like Eggy lead, Gengar, Chansey, Tauros, Rhydon, Zapdos
[14:19:24] t3h Icy: =P
[14:19:43] t3h Icy: Smogon players also always use Rhydon over Golem, since Explosion is risky
[14:19:45] Nitro [RBY]: Eggy lead
[14:19:53] Nitro [RBY]: no good
[14:19:57] t3h Icy: but that's because they play horribly and can't predict for the life of them
[14:20:03] Zilch (RBY LC): with golem, you need a strategy to take out Gengar
[14:20:06] t3h Icy: Eggy lead is a good lead for Zam leads
[14:20:09] t3h Icy: otherwise, he's junk
[14:20:17] t3h Icy: yeah, EQ
[14:20:20] Nitro [RBY]: he can just switch in on zam
[14:20:34] Zilch (RBY LC): a lot of lead zams have kinesis
[14:20:42] Zilch (RBY LC): so if they predict the eggy switch, they cripple your powder
[14:20:47] Nitro [RBY]: I see
[14:21:01] t3h Icy: ehh, with Zam lead, I prefer SToss
[14:21:10] t3h Icy: Kinesis itself isn't 100% accurate
[14:21:10] Nitro [RBY]: I don't see explosion as a prediction/guessing move
[14:21:11] t3h Icy: 80 iirc
[14:21:17] Nitro [RBY]: its just
[14:21:17] t3h Icy: lol guessing
[14:21:18] Nitro [RBY]: plain good
[14:21:23] Nitro [RBY]: compared to not having that option
[14:21:28] Zilch (RBY LC): one of the greatest things in RBY is switching your gengar into an explosion
[14:21:33] Nitro [RBY]: prediction is guessing Icy
[14:21:38] t3h Icy: Golem also pressures
[14:21:46] t3h Icy: not the way I look at it
[14:21:52] Zilch (RBY LC): and it's also a nice idea to mix up your exploding strategies
[14:21:54] Nitro [RBY]: it is
[14:21:59] Zilch (RBY LC): like don't always wait until the absolute last turn to boom
[14:22:01] t3h Icy: I look at it more sociologically
[14:22:05] t3h Icy: yeah
[14:22:08] Zilch (RBY LC): because that's when they'll be most likely to predict it
[14:22:11] t3h Icy: I do that with Eggy and Snorlax a lot
[14:22:13] Zilch (RBY LC): I'll often blow up Snorlax around 50%
[14:22:19] Nitro [RBY]: yea
[14:22:25] t3h Icy: I'll do it at 100% if it means a dead Chansey
[14:22:36] Nitro [RBY]: yea
[14:22:39] t3h Icy: but of course, different situations call for different tactics
[14:22:41] Nitro [RBY]: and people could guess
[14:22:44] Nitro [RBY]: that you'll do it at 100
[14:22:47] Zilch (RBY LC): Gengar exploding first turn on Jynx
[14:22:52] t3h Icy: Nitro, lol
[14:22:55] Nitro [RBY]: but explosion pressures
[14:22:59] t3h Icy: always consider the posititon someone is in
[14:23:01] Nitro [RBY]: thats the big thing
[14:23:04] t3h Icy: okay easy example
[14:23:07] Nitro [RBY]: and then once the defenses are out
[14:23:10] Nitro [RBY]: its free
[14:23:14] t3h Icy: assume I have 2 Pokemon and you have a Snorlax and a frozen Chansey
[14:23:17] Nitro [RBY]: explosion golem beats par starmie
[14:23:18] Nitro [RBY]: etc
[14:23:21] t3h Icy: would you use SelfDestruct with Snorlax?
[14:23:22] Nitro [RBY]: rhydon can't do that
[14:23:37] t3h Icy: of course not right?
[14:23:41] Nitro [RBY]: right
[14:23:45] Zilch (RBY LC): rhydon hits harder and is a bit more durable than golem, but can't blow up
[14:24:01] Nitro [RBY]: golem can trade with par'd eggs, par'd starmies
[14:24:03] t3h Icy: so what if you have a Chansey that's paralyzed and 50% health, and I have a Tauros out and an Alakazam that's fresh
[14:24:04] Nitro [RBY]: thats a great trade
[14:24:06] t3h Icy: would you SD then?
[14:24:33] Zilch (RBY LC): well, I doubt I'd enjoy switching kazam into lax
[14:24:44] t3h Icy: see
[14:24:53] Nitro [RBY]: well
[14:24:55] Nitro [RBY]: no
[14:24:57] t3h Icy: you always have to consider the situation that the opponent is in
[14:24:58] t3h Icy: exactly
[14:24:59] Nitro [RBY]: last poke chansey is going to lose
[14:25:01] t3h Icy: and I would know that
[14:25:01] Nitro [RBY]: to last poke zam
[14:25:02] Zilch (RBY LC): although I've switched kazam in on tauros before
[14:25:07] t3h Icy: so I'd be safe vs SelfD
[14:25:09] Zilch (RBY LC): out of sheer insanity
[14:25:20] t3h Icy: now of course as you get into bigger pictures, it's harder to tell
[14:25:31] t3h Icy: but if you think with that mindset, you can figure out exactly what players are planning to do
[14:25:50] Zilch (RBY LC): have you noticed how explosion in LC is almost always a guaranteed OHKO?
[14:25:51] Nitro [RBY]: I mean
[14:25:55] Nitro [RBY]: the very best you can do
[14:25:59] Nitro [RBY]: is try to explode unexpectedly
[14:26:02] Nitro [RBY]: and the very best I can do
[14:26:11] Nitro [RBY]: is analyze where it looks like you'd be exploding unexpectedly
[14:26:16] Nitro [RBY]: and then
[14:26:18] Nitro [RBY]: its guessing
[14:26:19] t3h Icy: it's not unexpected though
[14:26:26] t3h Icy: consider what your opponent has to do to win
[14:26:34] Zilch (RBY LC): if my Golem is as 10%, the one thing I'm thinking about is trying to get an explosion off
[14:26:34] t3h Icy: if you realize they need a certain Pokemon of yours dead
[14:26:38] Zilch (RBY LC): right?
[14:26:44] t3h Icy: likely
[14:26:46] Nitro [RBY]: I will EQ at 10% with golem
[14:26:48] t3h Icy: because that would be the most damaging
[14:26:53] Nitro [RBY]: catch gengar so often
[14:27:06] t3h Icy: it would depend on what the rest of yours and my team looks like
[14:27:17] Zilch (RBY LC): let's say you have 10% Golem against a 100% paralyzed Starmie
[14:27:19] t3h Icy: see, Nitro, that's the first step in predictably
[14:27:23] Zilch (RBY LC): and the opponent's Gengar is alive
[14:27:31] Zilch (RBY LC): now that is an absolute guessing game
[14:27:34] t3h Icy: well it depends what I have
[14:27:40] t3h Icy: if I have Alakazam still, I would
[14:27:49] t3h Icy: because in the event of an Explosion on Gengar, I can kill with Zam
[14:27:55] t3h Icy: then when you go Starmie, I got Chansey
[14:27:56] Zilch (RBY LC): you have Zapdos in reserve
[14:27:57] t3h Icy: *go
[14:28:01] t3h Icy: or Zapdos
[14:28:01] Zilch (RBY LC): and Gengar can sleep it
[14:28:11] t3h Icy: then I would attack with Alakazam
[14:28:14] t3h Icy: knowing that you'd want to get sleep
[14:28:22] t3h Icy: since Starmie is paralyzed, you need to put something to sleep to win
[14:28:41] t3h Icy: in the event of Hypnosis miss with Gengar, or Zam CHs, you're in a bad situation
[14:28:57] t3h Icy: in the event of Explosion on Kazam, I attack Starmie with Zapdos in a very favorable match-up
[14:29:08] t3h Icy: so yes
[14:29:10] t3h Icy: I would use Explosion
[14:29:18] t3h Icy: because if you don't go Gengar, it's even easier for me
[14:29:26] t3h Icy: and if I'm wrong, I set myself up after the Explosion
[14:29:39] t3h Icy: however
[14:29:43] Nitro [RBY]: yea
[14:29:46] t3h Icy: I would have to know how smart the opponent is
[14:29:51] Nitro [RBY]: I mean explosion is extremely good
[14:29:52] t3h Icy: perhaps they'll realize this
[14:29:53] Nitro [RBY]: there's no doubt
[14:30:09] Nitro [RBY]: but I would not use explosion very often in "prediction" situations
[14:30:12] Zilch (RBY LC): let's say he has paralyzed Starmie, full health Gengar and a critically weak Tauros
[14:30:14] Nitro [RBY]: situations you are describing
[14:30:18] Nitro [RBY]: explosion is really logical
[14:30:20] Zilch (RBY LC): of course he'll switch to Tauros
[14:30:24] t3h Icy: I like Agility on Zapdos ;D
[14:30:27] t3h Icy: okay
[14:30:36] t3h Icy: so then I would use Earthquake
[14:30:40] Zilch (RBY LC): you have Golem at 10%, Alakazam and Zapdos
[14:30:50] t3h Icy: because with Zam and Zapdos, I can use Zapdos to kill Starmie and Zam to kill Tauros
[14:31:04] t3h Icy: so I either EQ Gengar or Starmie
[14:31:14] t3h Icy: if I EQ Starmie, it might FP, and I get another attack
[14:31:18] t3h Icy: if he goes Gengar, he dies
[14:31:26] t3h Icy: supposing Starmie stays in and kills Golem
[14:31:27] t3h Icy: I go Zapdos
[14:31:35] t3h Icy: I kill Starmie since Tbolt after EQ kills
[14:31:41] t3h Icy: then you go Gengar to put Zapdos to sleep
[14:31:47] t3h Icy: or at least attempt to
[14:31:59] t3h Icy: after that, I can either go to Alakazam, vs Explosion/Thunderbolt
[14:32:09] t3h Icy: but if I get a hit in first with Zapdos, you'll be in Psychic range
[14:32:14] t3h Icy: so then you might explode if you're aware of that
[14:32:23] Zilch (RBY LC): I'm just trying to imagine Ash Ketchum trying to answer this
[14:32:24] t3h Icy: Gengar can't paralyze Alakazam, so he would beat Tauros
[14:32:35] Zilch (RBY LC): he'd just use Pikachu and say some bs motivational speech
[14:32:39] t3h Icy: so lnog as Gengar doesn't explode on Alakazam, I win
[14:32:45] t3h Icy: however, I may still survive
[14:32:52] t3h Icy: so it would depend on the opponent's awareness
[14:32:58] t3h Icy: I think I would switch to Alakazam after Hypnosis though
[14:33:06] Nitro [RBY]: yea
[14:33:14] t3h Icy: but if I feel they're aware of what they need to do, I'll stay to let Zapdos get boomed on
[14:33:15] Nitro [RBY]: depending on the opponents awareness
[14:33:18] t3h Icy: then I kill Tauros with Alakazam
[14:33:20] t3h Icy: yeah
[14:33:25] Nitro [RBY]: that's the stipulation
[14:33:26] t3h Icy: if you overpredicted n00bs, you'll lose
[14:33:32] Nitro [RBY]: you can analyze that throughout a game but
[14:33:40] Zilch (RBY LC): n00bs you can often just do what's obvious and win easily
[14:33:41] Nitro [RBY]: you can never really....know
[14:33:46] t3h Icy: you can
[14:33:50] t3h Icy: I've played WW for over a year
[14:33:58] t3h Icy: I know exactly what he's doing and exactly what I'm doing
[14:34:05] t3h Icy: so I predict him predicting me, predicting him
[14:34:07] t3h Icy: etc
[14:34:09] Nitro [RBY]: yea playing someone often
[14:34:12] Nitro [RBY]: makes it easier
[14:34:13] Zilch (RBY LC): I try to be as unpredictable as possible
[14:34:21] Zilch (RBY LC): and often it makes me do incredibly stupid things
[14:34:27] Zilch (RBY LC): but sometimes I look brilliant
[14:34:28] t3h Icy: when you play new players, I like to use a bait Pokemon to learn their prediction tactics
[14:34:32] t3h Icy: =P
[14:34:58] t3h Icy: awareness of your opponent, prediction of what they can and NEED to do to win, and your own unpredictability are all keys
[14:35:09] Nitro [RBY]: right
[14:35:17] Nitro [RBY]: explosion just makes things less predictable for them in general
[14:35:22] t3h Icy: yes
[14:35:24] Nitro [RBY]: so its great
[14:35:28] t3h Icy: but if you analyze what you need to do
[14:35:32] t3h Icy: analyze what they need to do
[14:35:39] t3h Icy: often, you can figure out what they're going to do
[14:35:49] t3h Icy: when you're battling, NEVER just look at how you're going to win
[14:35:53] Nitro [RBY]: explosion golem beat goofball for me in that tourney
[14:35:53] t3h Icy: look at how your opponent will win
[14:35:57] Zilch (RBY LC): it's nice to try new moves sometimes
[14:35:58] t3h Icy: it makes everything so much easier
[14:36:01] Zilch (RBY LC): like confuse ray gengar
[14:36:08] Zilch (RBY LC): that's unexplored territory imo
[14:36:08] t3h Icy: that's another thing
[14:36:12] t3h Icy: mixing up movesets
[14:36:20] t3h Icy: Counter on Chansey/Alakazam/Jynx/Snorlax
[14:36:20] Zilch (RBY LC): or Double-Edge eggy
[14:36:24] t3h Icy: yup
[14:36:24] t3h Icy: tons
[14:36:36] t3h Icy: I like doing that in tournaments with new players
[14:36:47] Zilch (RBY LC): and I see Articuno is a beast
[14:36:49] t3h Icy: it's an edge when you can't predict your opponent due to lack of knowing how they play
[14:36:53] t3h Icy: THAT'S when it's about guessing
[14:37:06] t3h Icy: but again
[14:37:06] Zilch (RBY LC): then again, arti is one of the most predictable pokes around
[14:37:16] t3h Icy: if you know how smart the opponent is, it can help

[Crystal_]

If you are constantly switching between two or three recoverers (I will call these group 1) you will beat any recoverer that is just attacking (by stalling it out of PP). But then things start happening. Stuff like Eggy or Lax (group 3, OK?) come into your Zam / Chansey switch in and threaten you with a boom. And a "group 1" advantage is usually the key to win late-game.

[t3h Icy]

I've been thinking about consistency and mindset, how many people aren't fully aware of how important they can be in battle. Mindset is external, but it can affect a player's judgement and playstyle, while consistency is something part of the game.

Personally, I absolutely love consistency, because you can always rely on it and it helps so much with planning out how you will defeat an opponent. On my standard team, I have Jynx that uses Lovely Kiss and I have Blizzard and Hyper Beam appearing 5 times across my Pokemon. Everything else always works 100% of the time (excluding 255s). With this, I can always make plans on how to beat an opponent much later in the game.

When you use an inaccurate move for other benefits, such as most recently, Hydro Pump on Starmie, you have a 20% chance of missing per attack. Of course though, Hydro Pump is significantly stronger than Surf so it can save a turn, and statistically speaking, Hydro Pump is generally a better choice over Surf in Starmie vs Tauros. However, you lose consistency. Sometimes in battle, Starmie will get the 2HKO as expected, sometimes it'll take 3 turns, still matching Surf, sometimes you'll OHKO with a CH, and others Starmie won't do any damage at all. The thing is, battles have plenty of switching so two Pokemon don't often square off 1v1, both fresh, and you'll always have the same 4 attacks against each Pokemon (so Surf may be more useful than Hydro Pump in other situations).

Now, consistency is when you can rely on something. In dire situations, if you miss with Hydro Pump, it could cost you the game, and others it will save you the game. However, until you use it, you will be unsure, and this makes planning difficult. When you have a solid plan for how things will work out, you'll be more successful than without, and you can only make reliable plans when you're using consistent moves. Of course, there are other factors including Critical Hits and side-effects, but those are out of your control.

When you remove luck from the game (as much as possible), RBY plays more like Chess, and with superior prediction and organization skills, your chances to win increase. Although luck is still a factor, most luck will be bonuses (CHs, side effects, etc), and only Full Paralysis, length of Sleep, and the opponent's effects against you will be times where you have "bad luck". If you exclude luck temporarily from your plan, you should be able to work out a way how to win (view my previous post for an example). Then as your luck and the opponent's luck become factors after each turn, you change your plan as you go. When you use more consistent moves, negative luck is less of a factor, which means your plan is more likely to work out. For example, if you have a Starmie that uses Hydro Pump, part of your plan may be to use her for beating Tauros, but if Hydro Pump misses, you have to alter things and work around that. If you use Surf, sure you may not KO Tauros as fast, but you are secured that it WILL happen (excluding 255s). Now, the opposing Tauros may get CHs, paralyze Starmie and Starmie may FP, but those are out of your own control.

When you assume and work around the worst, you prepare yourself better. Against a Sleep and Stun Exeggutor, assume your Pokemon will be put to sleep and assume other Pokemon will be paralyzed and work around that. Now in the event that either misses, that means you'll be at an even greater advantage than you once thought and your opponent may complain about "bad luck", but it's their fault for relying on something that doesn't always work.

Now of course, this is all just my personal view, but I rarely have "bad luck", except for when my Pokemon go through multiple FPs, Blizzard/Hyper Beam miss, or in the rare while where I 255 (which is usually more laughable anyway). I believe that unless you have a complete plan of each Pokemon against each of the opponent's Pokemon, that you should use reliable moves. An example would be where you could use Starmie's Hydro Pump against Tauros and then follow up with your own Tauros's Hyper Beam for the 2HKO. While it's better statistically, are you sure that you'll be able to set up that situation, where the inaccurate moves and other benefits are statistically better to use? Otherwise, I recommend the 100% moves.

There are times of course where statistically, it wouldn't matter how inaccurate a move is, but inconsistencies still exist. If you use Gengar against another with Hypnosis, it doesn't matter if Hypnosis is 60% accurate or 95% accurate, the outcome of you putting the opponent to sleep, rather than vice versa is 50/50. However, that in itself is something you can't rely on, as you need to have favorable luck to put the opponent to sleep. Of course, it is fair and of course that the pros of winning that little bout are the same as the cons, but it's unreliable.

But, there are a few Pokemon where unreliable moves that are better statistically in certain situations can be used without risk, is for Pokemon with bad movepools. Magneton, Articuno and Omastar all learn very few moves, so doubling up on the Special moves is viable for them. In their cases, you can use both a reliable move and a possibly beneficial move, so there is no loss with having Hydro Pump, Thunder and both Ice attacks taking up moveset slots. For Starmie, Chansey and others, I don't recommend this, as you limit other options. Articuno is still a good Pokemon due to other reasons (stats mainly), but her poor movepool allows the option of having both.

Now for mindset, I think a lot of people get thrown off by said bad luck or just the feeling of being overwhelmed. When it comes to friendly matches, the purpose is to have fun and to learn, and only tournaments really concern you about winning (though the learning in friendly matches work out so you play to win too). In tournament matches, the goal (for most people I assume) is to win, and often, mindset can affect this.

I find that a lot of people give up early on in tournament matches/sets, when their chances of winning, while slim, is still realistically existent. Until the ending turn of the last game is finished, you should always be concerned with how to win. While I recommend focusing on reliability, when you're in the losing position of a game or set, you have to begin to play some luck if it's the only way you can then win, but never overdo it.

Anyway, I believe mindset is a simple concept, but some people allow themselves to make poor decisions when they are losing. A few personal experiences come to mind, such as myself vs Underboss in TBs Pools. While I was down 0-1, I continued to try to win, and at one point, it was looking very grim for me, but I still did my best. After awhile, his Gengar attempted Explosion on my Chansey, which would have won him the game and set, but it happened to 255, and he had more or less, given up on the game. In the third game, that even visibly shook him as he started to play very bull-headed and made many horrible plays, with me coming back from 0-1 to win the set. When tremendously bad luck happens, or you get completely dominated, you just have to continue doing your best. Sometimes, you may come back.

A more recent example is my 1st game against Crystal. At the point in the match, I was in a terrible position as I had a weakened, paralyzed Chansey (if I remember correctly) and I had a paralyzed Tauros against his fresh Tauros. After getting hit with Body Slam and being Fully Paralyzed, Crystal was basically ready to finish off Tauros and my Chansey, but I still tried my best and it just so happened that a stroke of luck occured. He used Body Slam putting my Tauros into Hyper Beam range, while I used Body Slam which was Critical and paralyzed his Tauros, with my own Tauros winning the Speed tie the following turn. In game 2, Crystal still played very well, but he played horribly at the start by letting his Sleeper be put to sleep, and I took control of the rest of the game.

A more positive example is Posthuman vs Dexter in OU #5, Grand Finals. In the first game, Dexter took the first game with ease and along with the pressure of Dexter being our RBY god and the usual pressure of playing in the finals, Posthuman was under a lot. But, he continued doing his best and actually took the next three games to take 1st place.

Again, mindset is a simple concept, but many people make mistakes and give up early on due to a bad mindset.

So yes, this is long (break during University), but I thought it might help people and open their minds to continue improving. What do you guys think about both consistency and mindset?

[Crystal_]

Obviously it is not the same giving up in a battle when you are in a Tauros vs Tauros matchup (what are you going to go, EQ, Blizzard, lol?) than in something like a 5vs3 matchup. In the later situation you have to continue thinking but you are not willing to do that.

according to my theory, the player that makes more errors will usually lose the battle but if both make no errors, or the same errors, luck is likely to decide the winner (this means thta you can even make no errors and lose).

For example in my first battle against Icy, he used his Lax bad (imo =P), using it against my reflect Zam (it finished para and with abaut 60% life before it switched). Abaut me, I didn't use the correct move in a crucial turn late in the game that would have let me the victory (barring a 255), without having to worry abaut the bad luck that ended up happening.

In my opinion the beggining is teh most important part of a RBY battle. It is very difficult to overcome a early-mid game disadvantage position unless your opponents makes a (usually stupid) error or you have quite a good deal of luck. Late in the game you only have to worry abaut mantaining this advantage or hoping you are the luckiest if you are in a draw.

[t3h Icy]

Actually that's an interesting perspective. I usually view following a bad start that you just have to catch up and stall (which is another reason why I like stallers). When stalling, you can slowly make it back to being in an advantage, unless more bad luck for you follows.

That's also partially the reason why Gengar vs Gengar was popular for awhile since whoever got it had a strong advantage later in the match (but eventually Alakazam and Starmie became useful as leads once we figured out how to deal with their counters (switches to their own stallers)).

I like leading Starmie most of the time because Starmie is excellent vs Gengar with only a very slight less chance of beating Gengar than Alakazam (due to a slightly lower CH rate), but Starmie also handles Exeggutor and an opposing Starmie/Alakazam well. Only Jynx gives Starmie trouble, but fortunately, Gengar is a hard counter for Jynx, so I can switch my lead to Gengar if I suspect a Jynx lead.

[Crystal_]

Gengar sucks.
Starmie is too valuable for me to be the sleep absorber, unless your team does not have a free slot to use something like Egg, Jynx or Hypno.

[t3h Icy]

It depends on the player's team and playstyle, but Starmie as Sleep bait works well for me.

[WaterWizard]

lol Gengar sucks? Hardly. However, this new anti-lead thing is catching on, making Gengar leading more difficult...

[Crystal_]

Everithing counters Gengar

[borat]

I don't see the point of this thread. Being unpredictable is one of the first lessons in Pokemon, y'know, right after... prediction itself?

Prediction at the highest level is just guessing. Situation or not, a great player is an unpredictable player by definition. You can argue millions of scenarios and not come to a single definitive conclusion on the "correct" move. Because any move that doesn't guarantee 100% an outcome is not the "correct" move. But isn't that unrealistic? I mean, pretty much nothing in Pokemon is 100%. And because of that, there might be moves a certain player in a certain situation might "prefer", but there's no guarantee. Because of that, you're still guessing, and because better players ALWAYS consider the likelyhood that you'd predict the "preferred move", therefore upping the chance of using the other "less preferred, but still beneficial" move. But because of that, you might predict their prediction and go with the straight forward move. This endless chain of "predicting predictions" just leads to one conclusion: guessing. That's what you're doing.

This is especially true if you play someone you've played regularly, in which you know the other inside and out. If you're still accurately predicting each other, then both of you suck. If one person is completely raping the other, the the other sucks. You should both be "guessing" (you can call it "him predicting me predicting him predicting me", but guessing for short) in situations that call for it.

You can predict against shittier players though, they have a pretty set routine most of the time. But you can beat those players without prediction and just with "execution" more times than not.

A thread on "execution" would have been far more constructive, since that's a far less understood aspect of the earlier gens. But I take it, you haven't grasped it entirely when you say "smogon players don't even predict", or "there's 0 prediction in gsc". Execution far outweighs prediction in terms of overall influence on the outcome.

Which then brings me to the topic of "necessary" prediction. All/most of predictions should lie in this subgroup. A prediction is a gamble by definition. If there's no reward, there should be no reason for you to do it, that is, unless, there's no disadvantage either, then you're just clicking. A prediction should always accomplish something, be it a kill, a status, or just merely improving your position, it should never get you nowhere. In GSC, far more attacks amount to nothing, because almost everything can be recovered from. So really, when you "predict" with your Ttar and tbolt my resttalking Suicune, unless I was in position to die, I'll send it in over and over. You can feel like you're "outplaying me by predicting it", but really, you're not. Of course, in the instance where I decide to go to Lax instead, you'd be shit outta luck. Maybe that's what you mean by "no one predicts in GSC"? It's rare that I predict in a game I can just win by just playing it through naturally, there's no reason to. Prediction merely shortens the game, at the cost of some of that "guaranteed victory".

Anyway, to me, anything with >50% chance of things "going your way" (e.g. relying on a Thunder hit vs... not) would have a CHANCE to be the "correct" move, but even then it depends on what the outcome actually is in risk vs reward terms. In the instance where you have a 70% chance to deal some recoverable damage vs 30% chance to die, then it isn't the correct move, but then again, it still could be depending on what you have planned after. But betting the game on a Thunder hit certainly is NOT the wrong move by any means, but there could be "better" options (if there's another >70% route somewhere else).

And the way to look at Hydro Pump is: anything is better than 0%. That's to say, if Hydro Pump gives you a chance at killing something you normally wouldn't, then by definition it's a more than viable move. Let's say you had a move, let's call it Ultra Pump, that's a 30% accurate 300 base power water-move. "Statistically", it's weaker than both Surf and Hydro Pump, but in practice, it's a 30% chance for Vaporeon to OHKO Zapdos (GSC) versus a 0% chance for Surf/Hydro Pump to get that same kill. It's a 24% chance for Vaporeon to 2-shot Snorlax (with Hydro Pump turn 2) versus 0% for Hydro Pump/Surf. The only reason I ever use Surf over Hydro Pump is for PP reasons, else, Hydro Pump is plain better. It nets otherwise impossible kills, and you can't put a numerical value on that.

Another way to look at Hydro Pump is an 80% accurate "necessary prediction". Those are insanely good odds. You'd say you'd rather rely on consistent moves, but with those consistent moves, you're relying on prediction (aka guessing), which is another form of inconsistency. You can say that it's something in "your control", but it's not, it's 50% in your opponent's. So really, unless that chain of successful predictions is greater than 80%/70% in odds (and there's no way you can say that definitively), Hydro Pump/Thunder is FAR better than Surf/Thunderbolt in those instances.

And it's pretty hypocritical to hype up your own insistence on "consistency" and whatever other nonsense you've come up with, only to show that you'll still rely on a 0.4% miss opportunity if it comes down to it. Really, the worst way to win is to rob someone of a surefire victory with some crapshoot luckjob. A vocal forfeit after the match would've been the sportsmanship thing to do if you clearly don't deserve the win, especially in a tourney environment. In this instance, the better player didn't advance. But because this never happens, that's why a tournament win is hardly justification for a better player, as you have previously declared (but that's another topic altogether).

Smogon is a community, not a person. To say "Smogon players always do such and such" is a horribly uneducated generalization. Plus, aren't you technically a "Smogon player"?

Smogon has horrible information regarding the earlier gens, but houses some of the best players to ever play the game (at least member-wise, albeit, many wouldn't really associate themselves with any community really). And you haven't really played enough games with any of the old vets to warrant dismissing their skill. I haven't really seen you do anything amazing, or show nearly the same dominance/influence that players like Vineon and Hipmonlee have.

[t3h Icy]

I should probably point out I don't play GSC, but from what I've seen it hasn't seemed like there's much prediction, so my apologies for that then. Maybe I should watch your matches.

Anywho, regarding prediction, the more you're in your opponent's head, the more accurately you're able to predict (obvious). Ultimately, while it can be viewed as guessing, if are somehow smart enough to figure out precisely what the opponent is truly thinking and truly planning, you can reach 100% consistency with prediction. Of course, that should be impossible for anyone, unless there's a colossal skill gap, and even then you may make a mistake or two. However, through practice and understanding your opponent's playstyle and personality, you can accurately predict them. Eventually if they're observant enough to figure out what you're doing to them, they can counter that and it goes back and forth with the most adaptive player predicting more correctly. I suppose you can call it "guessing" when two very intelligent players are against each other, but I view it more in not understanding everything the opponent thinks. Unless a player were to use a random generator for their decisions, you can figure them out if you go deeply enough. Again, there's a point where it becomes impossible for most people.

So call that "guessing" if you wish.

Now, against a brand new opponent to you, then it is guessing initially until you can figure out the opponent's mindset. This is also why I hate 1-game sets for tournaments since you don't have enough time to feel your opponent out and get used to them.

Using inconsistent moves are more than viable, but it takes away some abilities in planning out games ahead of time. Suppose you have a damaged Starmie with Thunderbolt, Thunder Wave, Hydro Pump and Recover against a Golem, and assuming switching would be unviable for both players. You would have to use Hydro Pump to KO Golem with a move that's 80% accurate over a 100% accurate move, which is inconsistent and unreliable (bad example with a poor moveset Starmie, but you get the idea). Like I said, if you're able to put yourself into situations where Hydro Pump, Thunder, etc are more of a reward than risk (where you're saving turns against Pokemon consistently), then they are completely viable, especially for Pokemon with smaller movepools like Omastar and Magneton. However, if you're forced to use inaccurate moves without saving any turns, then you're putting yourself at a disadvantage, both in having to take an unnecessary risk to KO a Pokemon in the same number of turns, and that you can't rely on that if you're planning out what you're going to do throughout the match. Since most people have different playstyles, use different Pokemon, I prefer using one team for the most part (except a backup counter team) and I play with prediction a lot, I don't use those moves as often. Thunder also isn't as useful as in GSC since RBY is more run and gun outside of the stallers.

Regarding Smogon, you can't lie and say Smogon is up to date with RBY or GSC (unless you're influencing a bunch of people). Most of their analyses and general information doesn't work quite as effectively as before or simply doesn't have situations where they happen, such as Articuno's Sky Attack OHKOing Chansey with a Critical Hit in the Articuno analysis. Unfortunately (though understandably since RBY is getting old), most Smogon players refer to them for building teams, etc. For awhile during the RBY part of the Smogon tour, there was a server filled with frequent Smogon users for RBY and I consistently beat most of them with only a few losses. I haven't played all of the veterans such as Vineon (I think for at least awhile) or Hipmonlee, but I have played against ViL awhile back and I had no trouble with him. The veterans are intelligent players because back when RBY was the main generation, they had to win by outsmarting their opponents, which I'm certain they're still capable of doing, but their teams aren't quite up to par.

Now, like I said, I hate 1-match sets since I can't adapt to my opponent quick enough, but I did place 9th/32 in the "Back to the Basics" tournament (though I may have done better due to an outside incident), and recently I placed 5th/32 in the ATQ tournament legitimately losing to Dbolt. Perhaps if it was a 3-game set, I may have overcome, or maybe he'd just have beaten me by an even greater amount, but that didn't happen so it doesn't matter. I use my superior prediction skills, and again, I'm nowhere close to 100%, but I'm confident against most players and that with a solid team and planning is how I attempt to win my matches.

And while technically I am registered for Smogon, I've signed up only for the tournament they hosted Summer 09 and I've posted a slight amount in the RBY section. "Smogon players" is more of a tag for players that refer to their old RBY information for making teams.

So, if you'd like to teach us things we don't know about execution or anything else, feel free too, because myself and I'd imagine many of this community's players are interested in learning about RBY and reaching the highest level possible. You're arguably the top GSC player, so there's certainly some aspects that can carry over to RBY. Also, if you'd like any matches, come visit our server. =)

I'll address more of your post when I can.

[borat]

Ultimately, while it can be viewed as guessing, if are somehow smart enough to figure out precisely what the opponent is truly thinking and truly planning, you can reach 100% consistency with prediction.

Yeah... no. That's not prediction. Prediction by principle never goes above... say, one standard deviation.

However, through practice and understanding your opponent's playstyle and personality, you can accurately predict them... random generator for their decisions

Good players change their playstyle and personality. You can't accurately predict them. Good players almost play as if they had a RNG in those crucial moments. This is impossible. Quite frankly, I wouldn't lose a match, nor should you, if we can practice all of this... bullshit you're spewing.

Regarding Smogon, you can't lie and say Smogon is up to date with RBY or GSC

Smogon has horrible information regarding the earlier gens, but houses some of the best players to ever play the game (at least member-wise, albeit, many wouldn't really associate themselves with any community really).

I haven't played all of the veterans such as Vineon (I think for at least awhile) or Hipmonlee, but I have played against ViL awhile back and I had no trouble with him. The veterans are intelligent players because back when RBY was the main generation, they had to win by outsmarting their opponents, which I'm certain they're still capable of doing, but their teams aren't quite up to par.

Vil gets pretty gimmicky, and you can really tell when he tries to pull one on you. And there's no reason for him not to, at least on you anyway. Log?

And based on what exactly can you declare "not up to date teams"? Smogon? Theses all players ALL pre-date Smogon (Dec. 2004) to some absurd degree (most of them 2000-2001), you can bet you're seeng Golems more than Rhydon, Egg, Zam, Chansey, Ros, etc etc when you're considering these players. RBY hasn't really changed from today vs 2003ish, but smogon's analysis has merely misled the newer generation into misinformation of a shittier past. I don't think Rhydon was ever more popular than Golem, if that's what you're basing it on. There might be a handful of new sets, a couple more gimmick sets, but for the most part, the sets are the same, the pokemon are the same, the playstyles, the team styles, they've all been fully developed by 2004 or so. There's no drastic shift in the metagame or anything, which is why the oldies using old teams are just as successful as you new guns.

I use my superior prediction skills, and again, I'm nowhere close to 100%, but I'm confident against most players and that with a solid team and planning is how I attempt to win my matches.

Bold claim that needs to be backed by examples.

This is something that's never been achieved by anyone. Perhaps you'll dominate prediction in a particular match, but against other top players, chances are, there are matches where you'll clearly be outclassed. And unless your record of "necessary prediction" against these top players is some absurdly skewed statistic that's far outside the boundary of mere chance (e.g. variance > 1) with a sample pool large enough (e.g. games played against top players > 500), this is something none of us can come close to declaring.

Btw, planning [along with decision making] = execution for the most part. There are really only a handful on turns in a game where prediction is necessary, if that. One analogy I like using is that prediction is merely the journey, but planning/execution is the destination. Prediction is always working towards something, so if you're winning mostly those unnecessary/inconsequential predictions, you're not winning anything. I'll let you have those more times than not, because you'll gain very little, whereas I only have to catch you once to put a pounding in. And quite frankly, that's not really worth it.

[t3h Icy]

Yeah... no. That's not prediction. Prediction by principle never goes above... say, one standard deviation.

Good players change their playstyle and personality. You can't accurately predict them. Good players almost play as if they had a RNG in those crucial moments. This is impossible. Quite frankly, I wouldn't lose a match, nor should you, if we can practice all of this... bullshit you're spewing.

There's a clear difference in a n00b's and a veteran's prediction. Now while it does get better and better, does it eventually cap? If someone truly does use a RNG or some other form of randomization, then it is guessing, but I'm assuming only a few do this ever (unless I'm unaware). If players make a decision by themselves, there is some reason why they chose that, and there is some way to figure that out. Again, this is assuming someone is capable of figuring that out, but nobody is capable of doing that 100%.

Definitely made me think more though and I may use a RNG for my decisions now. Thanks.

Vil gets pretty gimmicky, and you can really tell when he tries to pull one on you. And there's no reason for him not to, at least on you anyway. Log?

It was a standard team, but I don't have any logs unfortunately. I do have the log where you 4-0'd me however.

And based on what exactly can you declare not up to date teams? Smogon?

Rhydons, Slowbros, having only one staller, general over-aggression, etc. From the analyses, things such as Psychic not recommended for Starmie, switching Chansey into Tauros's Hyper Beam and using Sing rather than Counter (it suggests to use Sing first, and I don't see Tauros going out before something on your team is asleep in most situations), Alakazam being the best counter against Gengar (perhaps with Reflect, but Exeggutor is generally safer and forces Explosion or a switch, and if the former, then the opponent loses Gengar for taking Explosions), Mimic over Agility for Dodrio (Agility should almost always be used if slower as long as there aren't any Rocks or other hard counters), double Normal moves on Articuno. There are a ton of examples.

Theses all players ALL pre-date Smogon (Dec. 2004) to some absurd degree (most of them 2000-2001), you can bet you're seeng Golems more than Rhydon, Egg, Zam, Chansey, Ros, etc etc when you're considering these players.

I wasn't talking about the veterans, I meant the current Smogon population that are generally more focused on the newer generations.

RBY hasn't really changed from today vs 2003ish

Not by a large margin, but there have been some.

but smogon's analysis has merely misled the newer generation into misinformation of a shittier past. I don't think Rhydon was ever more popular than Golem, if that's what you're basing it on.

The analyses are definitely not superb, but I still have seen more Rhydons than Golems for the most part by players from Smogon. Of course, Rhydon is more viable in certain situations due to the bulkier stats, but the opponents didn't seem to use and execute that well.

There might be a handful of new sets, a couple more gimmick sets, but for the most part, the sets are the same, the pokemon are the same, the playstyles, the team styles, they've all been fully developed by 2004 or so. There's no drastic shift in the metagame or anything, which is why the oldies using old teams are just as successful as you new guns.

The Pokemon are the same (the OUs), though some BLs are slightly more useful such as Articuno and Jolteon, playstyles are the same, team styles are the same but have more options (such as with stalling), not too many new gimmicks, new sets, and the metagame is mostly the same (though paralysis isn't quite as heavy overall). However, when you can have a slightly higher overall advantage or better plans for execution, why not use them?

Bold claim that needs to be backed by examples.

This is something that's never been achieved by anyone. Perhaps you'll dominate prediction in a particular match, but against other top players, chances are, there are matches where you'll clearly be outclassed.

I'm willing to play whoever, and if I'm proven wrong, then that means I can still improve and become better. From the majority of who I've faced, I've had a high consistency. Maybe I'm not as good and have only played bad players or maybe I am just guessing, but regardless of how, I do. I'd love to play the veterans and/or yourself and see how I fare.

Btw, planning [along with decision making] = execution for the most part.

Same thing, just worded differently. Execution is easier when you use reliable moves which is what I was getting at.

There are really only a handful on turns in a game where prediction is necessary, if that. One analogy I like using is that prediction is merely the journey, but planning/execution is the destination. Prediction is always working towards something, so if you're winning mostly those unnecessary/inconsequential predictions, you're not winning anything.

I heavily use planning/execution, but like I said, when I have the advantage in prediction against most of who I've played, it only adds to my chances to winning.

I'll let you have those more times than not, because you'll gain very little, whereas I only have to catch you once to put a pounding in. And quite frankly, that's not really worth it.

If your planning/execution is greater than mine overall, then yes.

[Crystal_]

Actually that's an interesting perspective. I usually view following a bad start that you just have to catch up and stall (which is another reason why I like stallers). When stalling, you can slowly make it back to being in an advantage, unless more bad luck for you follows.

The thing is that a bad start means that you are in a disadvantage at stalling. For instance a Chansey frozen, a Egg explosion that was predicted, a Chansey/Zam that accidentally was asleep, or let your only sleep inducer itself falling asleep. These things are more often than not related to recoverers (stallers). Tauros does not usually have these problems early game.

I mean, come back using your stallers is usually the most difficult thing. How do you plan to win a Zam+Star vs Zam+Star+Chan matchup, or even worse a Zam vs Zam+Star for instance?
Your only hope is often be agressive, using your Tauros/Amnesier/w-e in the correct moments to try to balance the match through a CH, FPs and/or sweeping power in general. You wont obv succeed always but imo is better doing that; if your Tauros get injured in the process but you for example beat Zam you will be in a much bettter position.
And another bad position is for example a Zam+paraChan vs Zam + Chan: it will be likely a 2 vs 1 after some stalling. Is very important to realise the stalling situation in which you are during the battle

No matter how good you are, stalling in a disadvantageous position is pretty impossible unless your opponent make terrible mistakes or you got those 4/5 consecutive FPs to beat a Zam with your Chan for example. This is what I think.

[Nerd]

I hate stalling. It's so boring... but it's important. Most players are pretty predictable, though, so there are plenty of opportunities to switch in your pokemon. The more I play someone, the better I am at predicting their actions; when I played a lot, I could practically read Icy's mind. Against Icy, I know he knows every percentage, what is the most logical choice, etc. so I react accordingly but against a random who I haven't played before, I don't know what they will do so I have to be more conservative in my prediction. As Mark Twain once wrote, "The best swordsman in the world doesn't need to fear the second best swordsman in the world; no, the person for him to be afraid of is some ignorant antagonist". Fortunately, in RBY you have no need to be afraid of the ignorant antagonist because after the initial setback these randoms are easily predicted, and if an ignorant antagonist surprises you in a double-elimination tournament you can always beat them in the first set of the grand finals, causing them to wuss out of finishing the tournament.

[t3h Icy]

looooooooool

[WaterWizard]

haha wow the Twain quote is so appropriate!

"There are some things that can beat smartness and foresight? Awkwardness and stupidity can. The best swordsman in the world doesn't need to fear the second best swordsman in the world; no, the person for him to be afraid of is some ignorant antagonist who has never had a sword in his hand before; he doesn't do the thing he ought to do, and so the expert isn't prepared for him; he does the thing he ought not to do; and often it catches the expert out and ends him on the spot."

[posthuman]

True randomness is the only thing that renders prediction useless.

Inexperience can be surprising at first, but luckily an 'expert' in this game has time to adapt.