Posted by johnsensing on 7/17/2017 9:14:00 AM (view original):
In Naismith last night, Iowa won a 3-way battle with 19% -- Texas had 33%, Kansas had 48%. I've also had a 72-28 two-man battle loss. Unfortunate by-product of poor product testing/implementation (and a total lack of realism). IMO, the line to "have a chance to win" in a two-man battle should be set higher -- at 40% or so.

Posted by tecwrg on 7/17/2017 9:27:00 AM (view original):
You all realize that teams with a 19% chance of winning a recruiting battle should win roughly 19% of those battles. You guys sound like they should win 0% of those recruiting battles.

That's not how math works.

Unless you have some empirical evidence that underdogs are winning battles at a statistically significant higher rate than they should, then there's nothing really to see here. My guess is that such evidence does not exist, at least in a way measurable to the HD user community, because neither the "favorites" who are winning the lopsided battles, nor the underdogs who are losing the lopsided battles, are making noise in the forums the way the favorite/losers are.

Posted by johnsensing on 7/17/2017 11:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/17/2017 9:27:00 AM (view original):
You all realize that teams with a 19% chance of winning a recruiting battle should win roughly 19% of those battles. You guys sound like they should win 0% of those recruiting battles.

That's not how math works.

Unless you have some empirical evidence that underdogs are winning battles at a statistically significant higher rate than they should, then there's nothing really to see here. My guess is that such evidence does not exist, at least in a way measurable to the HD user community, because neither the "favorites" who are winning the lopsided battles, nor the underdogs who are losing the lopsided battles, are making noise in the forums the way the favorite/losers are.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I don't think anyone is arguing the math -- I'm arguing policy/gameplay. Of course as things are currently set up, someone who has a 19% chance will win 19% of the time -- my argument is that it's a poor way to set up the game, and the game should be changed so that a 19% in a three-man battle has 0% chance to win (I'm not sure where the cutoff should be in a three-man battle -- 25%? 28?). What I am advocating is that for two-person battles, if one side hasn't put in enough effort to get to a 40% probability, they should have 0% chance. That's a better gameplay mode, IMO, because then you only have losses when it's a true tossup, or at least pretty close (which is really the way it works in real life, too, which is an added benefit).

Posted by johnsensing on 7/17/2017 11:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/17/2017 9:27:00 AM (view original):
You all realize that teams with a 19% chance of winning a recruiting battle should win roughly 19% of those battles. You guys sound like they should win 0% of those recruiting battles.

That's not how math works.

Unless you have some empirical evidence that underdogs are winning battles at a statistically significant higher rate than they should, then there's nothing really to see here. My guess is that such evidence does not exist, at least in a way measurable to the HD user community, because neither the "favorites" who are winning the lopsided battles, nor the underdogs who are losing the lopsided battles, are making noise in the forums the way the favorite/losers are.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I don't think anyone is arguing the math -- I'm arguing policy/gameplay. Of course as things are currently set up, someone who has a 19% chance will win 19% of the time -- my argument is that it's a poor way to set up the game, and the game should be changed so that a 19% in a three-man battle has 0% chance to win (I'm not sure where the cutoff should be in a three-man battle -- 25%? 28?). What I am advocating is that for two-person battles, if one side hasn't put in enough effort to get to a 40% probability, they should have 0% chance. That's a better gameplay mode, IMO, because then you only have losses when it's a true tossup, or at least pretty close (which is really the way it works in real life, too, which is an added benefit).

Posted by johnsensing on 7/17/2017 11:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/17/2017 9:27:00 AM (view original):
You all realize that teams with a 19% chance of winning a recruiting battle should win roughly 19% of those battles. You guys sound like they should win 0% of those recruiting battles.

That's not how math works.

Unless you have some empirical evidence that underdogs are winning battles at a statistically significant higher rate than they should, then there's nothing really to see here. My guess is that such evidence does not exist, at least in a way measurable to the HD user community, because neither the "favorites" who are winning the lopsided battles, nor the underdogs who are losing the lopsided battles, are making noise in the forums the way the favorite/losers are.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I don't think anyone is arguing the math -- I'm arguing policy/gameplay. Of course as things are currently set up, someone who has a 19% chance will win 19% of the time -- my argument is that it's a poor way to set up the game, and the game should be changed so that a 19% in a three-man battle has 0% chance to win (I'm not sure where the cutoff should be in a three-man battle -- 25%? 28?). What I am advocating is that for two-person battles, if one side hasn't put in enough effort to get to a 40% probability, they should have 0% chance. That's a better gameplay mode, IMO, because then you only have losses when it's a true tossup, or at least pretty close (which is really the way it works in real life, too, which is an added benefit).

Posted by johnsensing on 7/17/2017 11:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/17/2017 9:27:00 AM (view original):
You all realize that teams with a 19% chance of winning a recruiting battle should win roughly 19% of those battles. You guys sound like they should win 0% of those recruiting battles.

That's not how math works.

Unless you have some empirical evidence that underdogs are winning battles at a statistically significant higher rate than they should, then there's nothing really to see here. My guess is that such evidence does not exist, at least in a way measurable to the HD user community, because neither the "favorites" who are winning the lopsided battles, nor the underdogs who are losing the lopsided battles, are making noise in the forums the way the favorite/losers are.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I don't think anyone is arguing the math -- I'm arguing policy/gameplay. Of course as things are currently set up, someone who has a 19% chance will win 19% of the time -- my argument is that it's a poor way to set up the game, and the game should be changed so that a 19% in a three-man battle has 0% chance to win (I'm not sure where the cutoff should be in a three-man battle -- 25%? 28?). What I am advocating is that for two-person battles, if one side hasn't put in enough effort to get to a 40% probability, they should have 0% chance. That's a better gameplay mode, IMO, because then you only have losses when it's a true tossup, or at least pretty close (which is really the way it works in real life, too, which is an added benefit).

Posted by tecwrg on 7/17/2017 11:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 7/17/2017 11:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/17/2017 9:27:00 AM (view original):
You all realize that teams with a 19% chance of winning a recruiting battle should win roughly 19% of those battles. You guys sound like they should win 0% of those recruiting battles.

That's not how math works.

Unless you have some empirical evidence that underdogs are winning battles at a statistically significant higher rate than they should, then there's nothing really to see here. My guess is that such evidence does not exist, at least in a way measurable to the HD user community, because neither the "favorites" who are winning the lopsided battles, nor the underdogs who are losing the lopsided battles, are making noise in the forums the way the favorite/losers are.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I don't think anyone is arguing the math -- I'm arguing policy/gameplay. Of course as things are currently set up, someone who has a 19% chance will win 19% of the time -- my argument is that it's a poor way to set up the game, and the game should be changed so that a 19% in a three-man battle has 0% chance to win (I'm not sure where the cutoff should be in a three-man battle -- 25%? 28?). What I am advocating is that for two-person battles, if one side hasn't put in enough effort to get to a 40% probability, they should have 0% chance. That's a better gameplay mode, IMO, because then you only have losses when it's a true tossup, or at least pretty close (which is really the way it works in real life, too, which is an added benefit).

Seems like you're the one being deliberately obtuse, because you're arguing that 19% should = 0%, and 39% should = 0%.

Again, that's not how math works.

Posted by pallas on 7/17/2017 11:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 7/17/2017 11:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/17/2017 9:27:00 AM (view original):
You all realize that teams with a 19% chance of winning a recruiting battle should win roughly 19% of those battles. You guys sound like they should win 0% of those recruiting battles.

That's not how math works.

Unless you have some empirical evidence that underdogs are winning battles at a statistically significant higher rate than they should, then there's nothing really to see here. My guess is that such evidence does not exist, at least in a way measurable to the HD user community, because neither the "favorites" who are winning the lopsided battles, nor the underdogs who are losing the lopsided battles, are making noise in the forums the way the favorite/losers are.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I don't think anyone is arguing the math -- I'm arguing policy/gameplay. Of course as things are currently set up, someone who has a 19% chance will win 19% of the time -- my argument is that it's a poor way to set up the game, and the game should be changed so that a 19% in a three-man battle has 0% chance to win (I'm not sure where the cutoff should be in a three-man battle -- 25%? 28?). What I am advocating is that for two-person battles, if one side hasn't put in enough effort to get to a 40% probability, they should have 0% chance. That's a better gameplay mode, IMO, because then you only have losses when it's a true tossup, or at least pretty close (which is really the way it works in real life, too, which is an added benefit).