3 ms·

If it is due to chance then how is the final match not equally due to chance?

• pedrosorio 4y ago
  Plenty of people have already explained my point. The analogy with rock-paper-scissors is not that it's "due to chance". A player being "better" than another one is not a transitive property. In many games, due to different play styles you can have A>B, B>C and C>A, just like in rock-paper-scissors.
  • noobermin 4y ago
    I didn't understand your point but now I do, because "rock-paper-scissors" as a reply isn't clear enough as a statement to communicate what you wanted, which is just an example of something that isn't transitive.
• inopinatus 4y ago
  I believe the relevant point of comparison is not one of chance, but rather that the relationships involved are not transitive.
• Dylan16807 4y ago
  You're responding to someone giving a reason that isn't based on chance. Chance is a completely separate topic, but also has a simple answer. Chance doesn't mean that everyone has the same chance. If one player has 40% odds and the other has 60% odds, you want the 60% player to compete.