How can one guy have a 100% chance of winning a battle, and his competitor still retain a 10% chance? I mean, c'mon.

Probability is not a complex concept: you spin a wheel with the numbers 1-100 on it. If I own the numbers 1-20, I have a 20 percent chance of winning. At that stage, effort put in to acquire those 20 numbers has no bearing on the outcome. Effort, prestige, preferences only affect how many numbers I can have.
If I only own the number 26 and the wheel spins and 26 comes up, I have won a battle where the odds were 99-1 against.
With all due respect, the chart posted above is valueless and overthought.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 1/25/2017 9:40:00 AM (view original):
" Objectively, I know that 71% implies a 29% chance of losing, and that is how the game is designed to work"

Do you guys play other probability based games? I play a lot of cards and dice based games so to me losing even though I "should" win is something I not only am familiar with but look for in games.

Truth be told, I imagine I am a minority. I really like games where the goal is to improve your chance of an event happening as opposed there just being a y/n decision.

Yeah I love poker. But poker (and other probability based games) require hundreds or thousands of trials to show that player A is more skilled than player B.

I can beat the WSOP champ in a hand of Poker and so could my mother. My mom likely has a 40-45% chance. She couldn't beat him in 100 hands and I can't beat him in 1000 hands. No chance. The problem with HD becoming a probability game is that the number of trials is so small. If I just look at one of my teams, I'm probably in 10 battles per calendar year.

That's not enough to separate the guy who has 47% from the 53% guy. It's playing a few hands for the bracelet and not thousands so you don't know if you get an actually skilled champ or the guy who got dealt AA, AK, KK, KQ, K10 and QQ happened to beat someone who got dealt a bunch of junk. In poker good play can get sucked out, but over time, that rarely happens. In HD, I feel there aren't enough trials for recruiting to be a true representation of skill.

Posted by reinsel on 1/25/2017 11:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Trentonjoe on 1/25/2017 9:40:00 AM (view original):
" Objectively, I know that 71% implies a 29% chance of losing, and that is how the game is designed to work"

Do you guys play other probability based games? I play a lot of cards and dice based games so to me losing even though I "should" win is something I not only am familiar with but look for in games.

Truth be told, I imagine I am a minority. I really like games where the goal is to improve your chance of an event happening as opposed there just being a y/n decision.

Yeah I love poker. But poker (and other probability based games) require hundreds or thousands of trials to show that player A is more skilled than player B.

I can beat the WSOP champ in a hand of Poker and so could my mother. My mom likely has a 40-45% chance. She couldn't beat him in 100 hands and I can't beat him in 1000 hands. No chance. The problem with HD becoming a probability game is that the number of trials is so small. If I just look at one of my teams, I'm probably in 10 battles per calendar year.

That's not enough to separate the guy who has 47% from the 53% guy. It's playing a few hands for the bracelet and not thousands so you don't know if you get an actually skilled champ or the guy who got dealt AA, AK, KK, KQ, K10 and QQ happened to beat someone who got dealt a bunch of junk. In poker good play can get sucked out, but over time, that rarely happens. In HD, I feel there aren't enough trials for recruiting to be a true representation of skill.

Exactly. With a larger "n", the percentages would make a lot more sense. The other problem is that people don't post every time they win as a VH vs H, or when recruiting works "like it's supposed to" (ex: D1 team taking a recruit from a D2 team in S2). People only post about the times the lower % team wins.

I understand that point reinsel, I original had something similar in my post but it didn't make any sense, you said it better.

I do think that as the game evolves we will battle more. I was in 3-4 "battles" last recruiting period at Fordham and kinda expect that to be the norm for me. Over time, I think the frequency of battling and the ability to figureout how to adjust to losing those battles will increase.

Posted by mbriese on 1/25/2017 11:17:00 AM (view original):

Posted by reinsel on 1/25/2017 11:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Trentonjoe on 1/25/2017 9:40:00 AM (view original):
" Objectively, I know that 71% implies a 29% chance of losing, and that is how the game is designed to work"

Do you guys play other probability based games? I play a lot of cards and dice based games so to me losing even though I "should" win is something I not only am familiar with but look for in games.

Truth be told, I imagine I am a minority. I really like games where the goal is to improve your chance of an event happening as opposed there just being a y/n decision.

Yeah I love poker. But poker (and other probability based games) require hundreds or thousands of trials to show that player A is more skilled than player B.

I can beat the WSOP champ in a hand of Poker and so could my mother. My mom likely has a 40-45% chance. She couldn't beat him in 100 hands and I can't beat him in 1000 hands. No chance. The problem with HD becoming a probability game is that the number of trials is so small. If I just look at one of my teams, I'm probably in 10 battles per calendar year.

That's not enough to separate the guy who has 47% from the 53% guy. It's playing a few hands for the bracelet and not thousands so you don't know if you get an actually skilled champ or the guy who got dealt AA, AK, KK, KQ, K10 and QQ happened to beat someone who got dealt a bunch of junk. In poker good play can get sucked out, but over time, that rarely happens. In HD, I feel there aren't enough trials for recruiting to be a true representation of skill.

Exactly. With a larger "n", the percentages would make a lot more sense. The other problem is that people don't post every time they win as a VH vs H, or when recruiting works "like it's supposed to" (ex: D1 team taking a recruit from a D2 team in S2). People only post about the times the lower % team wins.

Exactly. Small sample size, coupled with a cherry-picked selection of results, leads to misperceptions in how the new game is playing out broadly, among people who frequent the forums.

For the record, I've won as high, and I've lost as very high. Winning as an underdog is a ton of fun, and the possibility is necessary to encourage people to battle for commodities.

Posted by npb7768 on 1/25/2017 10:36:00 AM (view original):
How can one guy have a 100% chance of winning a battle, and his competitor still retain a 10% chance? I mean, c'mon.

You'll have to buy his autobiography to find out.

doesn't wardo have a phd in statistics from duke? I think he got that degree during the time he was dating coach k's daughter? correct me if I'm wrong, wardo

Posted by Trentonjoe on 1/25/2017 11:21:00 AM (view original):
I understand that point reinsel, I original had something similar in my post but it didn't make any sense, you said it better.

I do think that as the game evolves we will battle more. I was in 3-4 "battles" last recruiting period at Fordham and kinda expect that to be the norm for me. Over time, I think the frequency of battling and the ability to figureout how to adjust to losing those battles will increase.

I still think those samples are too small. That makes you the equivalent of a guy who's getting paid monthly and playing poker with the extra in that paycheck, but the extra only covers one or 2 buy-ins (figure you typically get into 2-4 "big" hands in a typical buy before you either build a stack or crash and burn). In one session in which we're both limited to one buy I could still beat some really great poker players enough times to matter. Other times I could be easily the best player in the room and still have a bad month and have to sit out 29 days until the next paycheck. If you're in 3-4 battles and are ahead in all 4 probability still dictates you'll lose 3+ a decent chunk of the time. In those seasons (or in this case perhaps moreso several seasons down the road), you're just hosed. Especially if you lose those battles late in recruiting. A sample size of 3-4 is still tiny since each set has to be taken somewhat independently. One bad recruiting season can hurt your team for several seasons.

Posted by bathtubhippo on 1/25/2017 4:23:00 PM (view original):
doesn't wardo have a phd in statistics from duke? I think he got that degree during the time he was dating coach k's daughter? correct me if I'm wrong, wardo

No but CoachK shared some insight on coaching though!

Stop feeding the trolls. Please, stop feeding them and let the guy crawl back under his bridge.

Posted by npb7768 on 1/25/2017 10:36:00 AM (view original):
How can one guy have a 100% chance of winning a battle, and his competitor still retain a 10% chance? I mean, c'mon.

Alternative facts.

Honestly, you can't assess your team success on one battle or one season, you see the synergy of your efforts throughout many recruiting sessions. At Clemson, I lost hurtful battles but kept at it, changed my strat (studied my adversaries recruiting pattetn, checked distances) and won some battles, got some recruits unchallenged. At PSU, Tarkanian, my strat is totally different because teams close to mine react a lot differently. The new system requires more skills, you can get a full roster if you take developmental projects along with studs. I still think % for H versus VH should be reduced by 5 %, making a low vh, versus a high h, a 60% to 40 % odds of signing. I would not reduce efforts required. But the game will frustrate you sometimes. Losing a NT to a bad SIM (i truly had the best team) on a last shot : a 3pts... is still for me the most frustrating event I have faced.