Posted by CoachSpud on 11/24/2016 1:23:00 AM (view original):

Posted by nachopuzzle on 11/24/2016 12:20:00 AM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 11/23/2016 11:51:00 PM (view original):
Wow. Don't hurt your back. Happy Thanksgiving.

Thanks dog...and make sure to take regular breaks from sucking yourself off so you dont blowout your knees.

#stayclassy

Posted by sweetpeapapa on 11/23/2016 10:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 11/23/2016 8:23:00 AM (view original):

Posted by sweetpeapapa on 11/22/2016 10:50:00 PM (view original):
I feel bad for ya Mike. I really do. It really is sad reading your posts.

If I had your record in HD and WIS, I wouldn't go around acting like you understand any of these games. You're 500% across the board on almost 19,000 games across the website, including .530 in HD. Whatever you're doing, your strategies are just better than a flip of the coin. But you're consistent.

Maybe you should look at HBD.

I love the way you guys resort to personal attacks.

If you aren't playing anymore, then don't.

I and pretty anyone who has a different opinion have been personally attacked by Mike in extremely childish ways over and over.

But you choose to say I'm attacking someone when all I did was point out they aren't even educated enough on the subject to be part of the discussion. That's not an attack, its a fact. The data proves it. If I'm wrong bring data to show me how I'm wrong. I'll listen to anyone with data to back up their argument/theory.

I always thought of you as a good coach Hughesjr. We've played each other quite a bit, and I believe been in a few conferences together. I know you're smarter than to defend Mike, an obvious troll and a person who is arguing a subject (recruiting 3.0) he hasn't even experienced one season of yet.

For the record, I get tired of personal attacks too. But I'll point out when someone isn't qualified to be part of the discussion. That simply isn't personally attacking someone.

And neither is what vandydave said to Mike. All Vandy said was, Mike has "arrogance and ignorance in unparalleled combination". Which if you read his posts and fact check them, is about as factual as you can get on a message board. Certainly, the ignorance part cannot be debated, as he has no experience on the subject he is arguing. If someone believes it's not a fact, I've love to see data that backs that up. But you can't, because the data proves the opposite. And it can be accessed by everyone, which makes it a fact.

Feel free to take your side, I don't care. I'm not on a side. But at least be smart about it.

Posted by nachopuzzle on 11/23/2016 11:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 11/23/2016 10:21:00 PM (view original):
"The probability of a specified event occuring is not random, and is based on (usually many) actual variables."

The probability is random if, as TJ points out, "each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen." That is not the case in HD, and furthermore we can influence the process all along (unlike a flipped coin or a rolled die). Anyone whose understanding of the game stops at "random," "coin flip" or "dice roll" is at a disadvantage to those who have a higher level understanding of the game. Since I don't know what the rest of the post I partially quoted was supposed to mean, I guess I either agree or disagree with it.

TJ is correct, but you're vastly underestimating what exactly he is proposing (much like everything else you reply to). Unless you're basically relying on quantum computing (which HD is not) then "randomly' produced values are virtually impossible. HD has a system for producing those values which we perceive as random because it's the only value in which is unknowable (because it's the only thing HD can truly hide and that it wouldn't even be worthwhile to deduce how it was determined).

If you flip a quarter one million times and it lands on tails one million times in a row, it doesn't mean that it is any more likely to land on heads the next time...nor does it mean that any of those results were truly random. A coach could theoretically have a 99% chance of signing each one of 5 recruits, and manage to lose all of them. For a long long long while ahead we won't even be able to come close to deducing what the highest probability (let alone best strategy) might be, which is something years worth of data and dedicated users couldn't even do with the value of recruiting actions/distances/consideration in the old system. Which comes to the whole point --- that an increase in variable leads to decreased probability, across all outcomes.