All Forums > Hoops Dynasty = Tale of 2 Halves
3/22/2013 10:32 AM
Posted by girt25 on 3/21/2013 11:41:00 PM (view original):
billyg, I'm not sure that I agree with your line of thinking here. Even with a totally random set of events -- coin flip, whatever -- you're going to very often have runs like you see here. Flip a coin 20 times and you could get 14 heads, flip it 20 more times and it comes up 14 tails. And this game is obviously way more complicated that, with more moving parts and more things that can impact the outcome. With all of that going on, one half is a tiny sample size, and seeing frequent variation from one half to the next is something that I'd expect.
Girt - you are actually making my point for me.

IF the results I am seeing were MORE random then it would make sense.    Variation between two halves is expected.  However, what I am pointing out is not the variation aspect, but the point that MANY times a heavy underdog plays an even 1st half and then gets blown out in the 2nd half.

If the heavy underdog got blown out in the 1st half and played an even 2nd half just as many times, then it wouldnt seem so odd to me.   But it just doesnt feel like that happens nearly as much.  Follow me?
3/22/2013 2:03 PM
Posted by girt25 on 3/21/2013 11:41:00 PM (view original):
billyg, I'm not sure that I agree with your line of thinking here. Even with a totally random set of events -- coin flip, whatever -- you're going to very often have runs like you see here. Flip a coin 20 times and you could get 14 heads, flip it 20 more times and it comes up 14 tails. And this game is obviously way more complicated that, with more moving parts and more things that can impact the outcome. With all of that going on, one half is a tiny sample size, and seeing frequent variation from one half to the next is something that I'd expect.
of course you would still see some! i dont think anything i said suggests the opposite. all im saying is we see MORE than you should from simple RNG, because of feedback, and more than we did prior to the introduction of feedback.

obviously i dont expect the first and second half to look identical - all im saying is, they used to be more tightly correlated than they are now. its like saying speed is less important in the press than it used to be, and you coming back to say, its still very important. of course it is! im not making an absolute statement of any kind - only a relative one.
3/22/2013 3:16 PM
Posted by mullycj on 3/21/2013 5:21:00 PM (view original):
But this isnt treal life college basketball.  This is a computer simulation where, statistically, the 1st half should be close to the 2nd half.    If this is on purpose, then WIS is intentionally adjusting the RNG in the 2nd half.    Which is really the point of this post.
this is happening.  you're not imaginining it and it becomes most difficult to accept when your the underdog and hang with a big dog and then get "adjusted" in the second half.  surprised your just coming into this knowledge with all the time you have under your belt in this game.
3/22/2013 3:35 PM (edited)
Posted by tarvolon on 3/22/2013 7:36:00 AM (view original):
Definitely with girt.

I had a game last night in Iba that I thought made my point pretty well. Was playing a much inferior team, went down seven midway through the first half. Went on a big run, took a 12-point lead into the break and ended up winning by 21.

As it stands, that game seems pretty normal. Have a few missed shots in a row, get a deficit, but, as the better team, eventually start getting hot, outscore them by 19 in an eight minute stretch, and then cruise through the rest of the game, building the lead much more slowly from 12 to 21.

If that seven-point deficit is there at the end of the half instead of the under eight timeout, and the run is at the beginning of the second half instead of the first, it pops out in memory as one of those "tale of two halves" things. My suspicion is that this happens all the time and that we just notice it most often when it breaks along half boundaries.

Same thing happened to me today in Crum. Down 2 at the under eight, go on a run, up 19 at the half. Happens all the time. Nobody notices.

it really seems to me like you guys are arguing different points, arguing against something we are not saying. its like you are saying you disagree with me and/or mully but nothing you actually say, except that you disagree, suggests you disagree.

or maybe im missing mully's point. seems to me hes saying, look at all these come backs, these tale of two halves games. should there be so many? has anything changed to create more? and im saying yeah, feedback was introduced, that creates more.

neither of us (correct me if im wrong, mully) are saying these things dont happen or shouldnt happen. maybe you could help me out by making it a little more clear exactly what you guys take exception to, because in of the 5 or so posts that seem to suggest they disagree, i cant find anything (outside the statement as such) that actually disagrees, or makes an alternative point, or points out anything really, that is at odds with what i am saying. i cant tell if i am reading you guys wrong or the reverse, or what!
3/22/2013 3:37 PM
Posted by mullycj on 3/22/2013 10:32:00 AM (view original):
Posted by girt25 on 3/21/2013 11:41:00 PM (view original):
billyg, I'm not sure that I agree with your line of thinking here. Even with a totally random set of events -- coin flip, whatever -- you're going to very often have runs like you see here. Flip a coin 20 times and you could get 14 heads, flip it 20 more times and it comes up 14 tails. And this game is obviously way more complicated that, with more moving parts and more things that can impact the outcome. With all of that going on, one half is a tiny sample size, and seeing frequent variation from one half to the next is something that I'd expect.
Girt - you are actually making my point for me.

IF the results I am seeing were MORE random then it would make sense.    Variation between two halves is expected.  However, what I am pointing out is not the variation aspect, but the point that MANY times a heavy underdog plays an even 1st half and then gets blown out in the 2nd half.

If the heavy underdog got blown out in the 1st half and played an even 2nd half just as many times, then it wouldnt seem so odd to me.   But it just doesnt feel like that happens nearly as much.  Follow me?
This is where I disagree. That happens to me all the time.
3/22/2013 3:40 PM
Posted by gillispie on 3/22/2013 3:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tarvolon on 3/22/2013 7:36:00 AM (view original):
Definitely with girt.

I had a game last night in Iba that I thought made my point pretty well. Was playing a much inferior team, went down seven midway through the first half. Went on a big run, took a 12-point lead into the break and ended up winning by 21.

As it stands, that game seems pretty normal. Have a few missed shots in a row, get a deficit, but, as the better team, eventually start getting hot, outscore them by 19 in an eight minute stretch, and then cruise through the rest of the game, building the lead much more slowly from 12 to 21.

If that seven-point deficit is there at the end of the half instead of the under eight timeout, and the run is at the beginning of the second half instead of the first, it pops out in memory as one of those "tale of two halves" things. My suspicion is that this happens all the time and that we just notice it most often when it breaks along half boundaries.

Same thing happened to me today in Crum. Down 2 at the under eight, go on a run, up 19 at the half. Happens all the time. Nobody notices.

it really seems to me like you guys are arguing different points, arguing against something we are not saying. its like you are saying you disagree with me and/or mully but nothing you actually say, except that you disagree, suggests you disagree.

or maybe im missing mully's point. seems to me hes saying, look at all these come backs, these tale of two halves games. should there be so many? has anything changed to create more? and im saying yeah, feedback was introduced, that creates more.

neither of us (correct me if im wrong, mully) are saying these things dont happen or shouldnt happen. maybe you could help me out by making it a little more clear exactly what you guys take exception to, because in of the 5 or so posts that seem to suggest they disagree, i cant find anything (outside the statement as such) that actually disagrees, or makes an alternative point, or points out anything really, that is at odds with what i am saying. i cant tell if i am reading you guys wrong or the reverse, or what!
I read mully's point as saying these happen unusually often. You said feedback has been introduced to make it so.

I disagreed with mully in that I don't think this happens unusually often. I don't disagree with you that feedback is playing into it. I just think this would happen as much or almost as much even without feedback.
3/22/2013 7:51 PM
thanks tarvolon, i see what you mean now, and i pretty much agree with you. still agree with mully, just seems like you guys are maybe just disagreeing about the extent, but agree on the same sort of thing being present.

i think that feedback is not a huge factor - if it was, it would distort the game too much, and it may already at this point, honestly. so if 2nd half swings happened 10% of the time before, when the good team was coming back, maybe its 12-14% now. i dont know exactly, nobody does i suppose. it does seem to me that feedback has distorted the game enough to be visible to the naked eye, but i dont think its massive. so i pretty much agree with you and mully both - there are more 2nd half comebacks now, than there used to be, but its not like there are 2 or 3x as many now.
3/23/2013 9:00 AM
Posted by mullycj on 3/22/2013 10:32:00 AM (view original):
Posted by girt25 on 3/21/2013 11:41:00 PM (view original):
billyg, I'm not sure that I agree with your line of thinking here. Even with a totally random set of events -- coin flip, whatever -- you're going to very often have runs like you see here. Flip a coin 20 times and you could get 14 heads, flip it 20 more times and it comes up 14 tails. And this game is obviously way more complicated that, with more moving parts and more things that can impact the outcome. With all of that going on, one half is a tiny sample size, and seeing frequent variation from one half to the next is something that I'd expect.
Girt - you are actually making my point for me.

IF the results I am seeing were MORE random then it would make sense.    Variation between two halves is expected.  However, what I am pointing out is not the variation aspect, but the point that MANY times a heavy underdog plays an even 1st half and then gets blown out in the 2nd half.

If the heavy underdog got blown out in the 1st half and played an even 2nd half just as many times, then it wouldnt seem so odd to me.   But it just doesnt feel like that happens nearly as much.  Follow me?
Gotcha.

I still disagree though.   I have not noticed that the variation works much more one way than the other. Maybe it's happening and I haven't noticed ... but so far, I'm not seeing it.
3/23/2013 1:32 PM
i feel like the individual shooting figures for each player have tightened up - fewer 0-8 and 2-12 type games. of course, they still happen, but that seems to be one area the game works pretty hard to move back to the statistical mean, to me
of 2
All Forums > Hoops Dynasty = Tale of 2 Halves

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games