Dear Colonels - Hoops Dynasty

Posts: 249 (0)

Hall of Famer

10 5 173 2 34

Prospect

Crazy stuff happens. how do you not get this??

Lets go to your "holy grail" website for an example (random.com). Set the parameters at 1-50. Then generate three numbers. What if 2, 2, 2 came up? No possible way? The odds of it happening are 125,000 to 1.

Drawing the exact same number out of 50, three consecutive times is pretty far fetched and some would say "it should never happen". But it would happen. about once ever 125,000 tries.

In HD, there are about 4,000 games each night. That means every 31 days (1 month) you have 125,000 games simmed.

You can equate 2, 2, 2, coming up in a draw to a "crazy" result in HD. It happens. Get the hell over it.

Now, let me answer a comment you will inevitably make. . . . You're going to come on here and say. . . "Well thats once a month. HD has stupid stuff happen every night". Okay, i agree with that. there are crazy result every night.

But what about 3, 3, 3? 26, 26, 26?? The odds of those coming up are also 125,000 to 1. And those will all come up in a months time (or in 125,000 attempts). . . .What about 6, 7, 8 coming up, what about 44, 45, 46? The odds of that happening are 125,000 to 1 as well!!! There's crazy results everywhere!

In the world of probabilities and odd, where everything seems so exact and statistically based, there are super random results when looked at on a case by case basis. Which you continue to do every night.

1/20/2010 3:43 PM

mrpolo09

Posts: 249 (0)

Hall of Famer

10 5 173 2 34

Prospect

another example would be to set the parameters at 1-10. then draw 10 numbers. You could, conceivably draw the number 3, seven of ten times. this would mean that 3's came up 70% of the time. "Crazy", yes. possible, YES.

But if you ran it a million times. 3 would come up ~10%. thats how all this works.

1/20/2010 3:46 PM

mrpolo09

Posts: 249 (0)

Hall of Famer

10 5 173 2 34

Prospect

another argument you make is about the real life effects that cannot be emulated by a sim. But there is a count-argument to this. . . .

You say poor results in real life are due to factors like fatigue, "cold shooting", etc, etc. . .

But an argument could be made that in a sim, where there is zero emotion, it leave more of a chance for "crazy" results.

ie - say in real life Pitt is playing weber st. say Pitt is down 8pts with 5min to play. Pitt will probably "elevate" their game. They have "experience" in big time pressure situations. On the flip end, Weber St would have a tendency to "choke". FT's might get "tougher" to make down the stretch. Palms might get sweaty. The coach might make decisions he normally wouldn't make. This is "uncharted" territory for a lower tier team. In real life Weber St would probably go on to lose this game. . . .

Take the same scenario to HD. There is zero emotion here. The sim does not look at past performance in the game. . . Say Weber St is shooting 42% on the season. In this game they are shooting 65%. The sim IS NOT going to lower their chances for the next shot just because they are currently "hot". The chance of hitting a shot is 42%. There's no outside influence. In the HD world, Weber St would probably win this game. . . .

1/20/2010 3:48 PM

metsmax

Posts: 1598 (0)

Hall of Famer

5 2 836 2

Pro

reminds me of when I was in college and played STRAT with my roommate, one time I was up at the end of the 7th game of a playoff series and he put together like 10 consecutive amazing die rolls to come back and win......I was ******....

also reminds me of the end of the most recent baseball season, my team was in first, but then everything went wrong on the last Saturday and Sunday, like ten things all happened, each of them was radically unlikely by any objective measure, like a 5% chance.....and I finished second

or like one can imagine - I mean it would never happen - that mediocre football team with a rookie QB and a rookie coach could beat the Colts, then beat the Bengals twice and then beat the Chargers.....

1/20/2010 3:51 PM

tkimble

Posts: 1347 (0)

Hall of Famer

2 335 1 1

Rookie

This is one of 3 anti-Colonels threads out there right now. Maybe he should take that as a sign, although he probably won't.

1/20/2010 3:51 PM

metsmax

Posts: 1598 (0)

Hall of Famer

5 2 836 2

Pro

it is not anti-colonels - any such inference is a result of randomness issues

1/20/2010 3:59 PM

colonels19

Posts: 4399 (0)

Hall of Famer

78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11

Prospect

Quote: Originally Posted By metsmax on 1/20/2010
reminds me of when I was in college and played STRAT with my roommate, one time I was up at the end of the 7th game of a playoff series and he put together like 10 consecutive amazing die rolls to come back and win......I was ******....

also reminds me of the end of the most recent baseball season, my team was in first, but then everything went wrong on the last Saturday and Sunday, like ten things all happened, each of them was radically unlikely by any objective measure, like a 5% chance.....and I finished second

or like one can imagine - I mean it would never happen - that mediocre football team with a rookie QB and a rookie coach could beat the Colts, then beat the Bengals twice and then beat the Chargers.....

These are all real life examples that aren't decided by pulling random numbers. I know the unexpected can happen in real life, I can watch it unfold, I can see it with my own 2 eyes. Real life randomness and sim randomness are completely different because there isn't some RNG out there pulling numbers to see what human beings will do.

1/20/2010 4:05 PM

colonels19

Posts: 4399 (0)

Hall of Famer

78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11

Prospect

Quote: Originally Posted By mrpolo09 on 1/20/2010Crazy stuff happens. how do you not get this??

Lets go to your "holy grail" website for an example (random.org). Set the parameters at 1-50. Then generate three numbers. What if 2, 2, 2 came up? No possible way? The odds of it happening are 125,000 to 1. Lol, nice odds reference...but in all seriousness, I would be completely fine with that because it would have been generated by TRUE randomness...randomness generated purely on unpredictable factors...the best randomness, period.

Drawing the exact same number out of 50, three consecutive times is pretty far fetched and some would say "it should never happen". But it would happen. about once ever 125,000 tries. If random.org drew a 2, 50 times in a row I'd be fine with it...true randomness.

In HD, there are about 4,000 games each night. That means every 31 days (1 month) you have 125,000 games simmed.

You can equate 2, 2, 2, coming up in a draw to a "crazy" result in HD. It happens. Get the hell over it. 3 numbers aren't changing the course of games like those that have been "messed up" here.

Now, let me answer a comment you will inevitably make. . . . You're going to come on here and say. . . "Well thats once a month. HD has stupid stuff happen every night". Okay, i agree with that. there are crazy result every night.

But what about 3, 3, 3? 26, 26, 26?? The odds of those coming up are also 125,000 to 1. And those will all come up in a months time (or in 125,000 attempts). . . .What about 6, 7, 8 coming up, what about 44, 45, 46? The odds of that happening are 125,000 to 1 as well!!! There's crazy results everywhere! But if it happens under TRUE randomness, you say "that's true randomness" if this happens under pseudo randomness you say "what's wrong".

In the world of probabilities and odd, where everything seems so exact and statistically based, there are super random results when looked at on a case by case basis. Which you continue to do every night. I've heard the "its only 1 game" excuse before and I don't accept that, unless in fact true randomness was used. Seble is notorious for this excuse.

1/20/2010 4:17 PM

metsmax

Posts: 1598 (0)

Hall of Famer

5 2 836 2

Pro

the question remains, how can one tell, is there any evidence, that these are nonrandom, pseudo random, distorted results - other than gut feelings and some unhappy coaches who are peeved at oddball results

1/20/2010 4:33 PM

colonels19

Posts: 4399 (0)

Hall of Famer

78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11

Prospect

Quote: Originally Posted By metsmax on 1/20/2010the question remains, how can one tell, is there any evidence, that these are nonrandom, pseudo random, distorted results - other than gut feelings and some unhappy coaches who are peeved at oddball result

So just because I can't concretely tell you why something went wrong, means that I should somehow be more comfortable with the "wrong" situations that occur? Like I said in the sushi example....if it stinks....it doesn't really matter why it stinks...the fact is its bad and I'm not eating it. If this bizarreness/extreme randomness is happening because the sim is too complex for its own good (as gin referenced and as I suggested for a while), that doesn't mean that randomness isn't any less of a problem.

1/20/2010 4:39 PM

metsmax

Posts: 1598 (0)

Hall of Famer

5 2 836 2

Pro

it isnt why, it is whether something is happening

in disease analysis, if all you have some degree of correlation but no etiology or hypothesized etiology, you dont have much

of course, if you assume there is something wrong, that ends the inquiry, but if analysis of results does not show or suggest beyond gut feeling, or dislike of seble, that isnt much

1/20/2010 4:55 PM

gin_caesar

Posts: 252 (0)

Hall of Famer

17 33 1 37 39

Prospect

It's not lupus.

1/20/2010 4:59 PM

dalter

Posts: 71 (0)

All Star

25

Prospect

I'm not sure there are too many "crazy" results. What catches my eye is the results that are so off-the-charts crazy, you wonder whether they should happen at all.

For instance, anton pointed out the other day that one of the events that spurred him to quit was when his loaded UT squad shot 13% in a NT loss.

Now, I don't have a problem with his loaded UT squad getting upset, where oftentimes colonels might. But should they ever shoot 13%? Has there ever been a NT game where a team has shot 13%? How about where the favorite shot 13%? I'm guessing not.

And that's just one example that pops into mind (and I know there are tons of games simmed, yada yada). I'm definitely not sure, but my gut is that there are results that simply should not happen.

1/20/2010 5:01 PM

mrpolo09

Posts: 249 (0)

Hall of Famer

10 5 173 2 34

Prospect

you're eyeballing results of an HD game and saying they are wrong. And since they're wrong the RNG sucks.

now you start spouting off about differences in RNG. the differences from one to the next are miniscule. How do you not get that? you're making it out like WIS is using a RNG put together by a 3rd grader for a science project....

let me explain how stupid you sound. say you are arguing about the circumference of a circle. One person calculated pi to 99 decimal spots. The other to 100 decimal spots. YEA, the second person IS MORE ACCURATE. does ANYONE notice the difference? NO (other than a supercomputer)

1/20/2010 5:06 PM

zhawks

Posts: 881 (0)

Hall of Famer

208 66 38

Pro

I love how since it isn't TRNG that he somehow views it as completely broke... Even though it is basically the exact same thing. He'd accept anything and everything that WIS offers if it was TRNG... When, basically, that is what is going on.

1/20/2010 5:18 PM

Forums

Dear Colonels Topic

Search Criteria