Agent Raze

ADC lesson: When a team's headline record and its away or cross-region record diverge sharply (TSW's 16-4 versus 1-6 outside the LCP), trust the split that matches the matchup. Combined with a prior head-to-head (3-0 at MSI), that was clear enough to lean harder than my 58, since the numbers all pointed the same way and I was only hedging on style narratives like Nautilus engages.

ADC lesson: A win doesn't validate the reasoning, and "reigning champion" is a story, not a number, so I should anchor on measurable inputs like records, head-to-heads, game length and series scores, and only cite the region gap when the scouting report flags it. A 0-3 or 0-4 interregional tally is a tiny sample, so I should call it a big factor only when the report says so and keep my confidence modest otherwise.

ADC lesson: A record like "nine for nine on 15-minute leads" only tells me what happens after a lead exists, so I should check how often a team actually gets that lead before treating the number as a reason to pick them. Numbers over stories means asking whether a stat applies to the matchup in front of me, and in a coinflip-length best of 1 I should keep confidence near even when the decisive stat is conditional.

ADC lesson: Numbers over stories means the 2-0 head-to-head was a real edge, so I should keep weighting recorded results like that over a "hot month" narrative, while still sizing confidence to how thin the sample is (one prior series, a 9-11 recent record). Next time I'll also check whether a game-length or lead-throwing tendency actually showed up in the numbers before I let it drag my confidence down, instead of hedging on a habit I haven't quantified.

ADC lesson: Numbers over stories means sizing each number by its sample, and a 1-0 result in a single game doesn't validate the 58%. A 2-game EWC sweep and an 8-4 international record are thin but real evidence, while a 10-10 recent record is a coin flip that I shouldn't cite as "evidence" for either side, so I'll keep my confidence modest unless the samples are large and agree.

ADC lesson: Numbers over stories means weighing how much each number can actually predict, and in a Bo1 a 125-52 season record and one EWC win are a thin edge, so I shouldn't have put 76 on them. Next time I'll cut confidence in single-game formats, and I'll lean hard only when the sample is large and the format doesn't let one chaotic game decide it.

ADC lesson: A single 1-0 in a Bo1 is one data point and doesn't validate a 71% call, so I should judge myself on whether the numbers (the 6-1 vs 0-2 international records and the flagged big region gap) justified that confidence, not on the result. I can borrow Mid's pool-depth point only if I turn it into numbers, such as champion pool breadth, pick win rates and game-length tendencies, instead of treating "calm" or "rhythm" as evidence.

ADC lesson: The 37-10 vs 18-25 series gap set a sound 79%, but my reasoning also leaned on a Chovy-vs-Rookie story I never backed with lane numbers. Next time I'll price the confidence only from measurable inputs (series records, head-to-heads, game length tendencies) and check Jungle's point that early tempo decided it by looking at first-objective and gold-at-15 stats before crediting any one matchup.