35 pt swing. Same teams Topic

a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 666 3
Pro
. . .and again, its not an unrealistic result. Unusual? Perhaps, but unreal and unusual are not the same thing, you not only commit statistical fallacies, you live them. . .
4/18/2010 9:18 PM
cthomas22255
Posts: 86 (0)
Veteran
20
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by dalter on 4/18/2010The fact that you are totally unable to grasp cthomas' coin flip examples is unreal. He's not saying that the sim is as simple as a coinflip, he's trying to give you a lesson in stats and probability 101. Which was totally lost on you. Good lord.

I tried. Maybe one day he'll have a patient professor in college (or more likely a Chinese T.A. who doesn't speak English) and he might not fare much better. Or maybe he'll actually realize we know what we're talking about (or at least understand it) and then he'll be the one arguing with teenagers on here about it.
4/18/2010 9:18 PM
dalter
Posts: 71 (0)
All Star
25
Prospect
cthomas was not making a direct comparison, no. He was explaining to you how probability in randomness works. The coin flip example was used because it's easy to follow and relate to (well ... for most adults).

His point is there is a lot of inherent randomness -- more than people would predict.

So an example like ... oh, let's say a game where a team is hot one half and cold the next ... is actually not crazy and very much within the norm of what might be expected to happen, even if a simpleton (or even the average person) might not think so at first blush.
4/18/2010 9:19 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
4/18/2010 9:21 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 4/18/2010
cthomas was not making a direct comparison, no. He was explaining to you how probability in randomness works. The coin flip example was used because it's easy to follow and relate to (well ... for most adults).

His point is there is a lot of inherent randomness -- more than people would predict.

So an example like ... oh, let's say a game where a team is hot one half and cold the next ... is actually not crazy and very much within the norm of what might be expected to happen, even if a simpleton (or even the average person) might not think so at first blush.

But if I have good reason to believe that their randomness is **** due to past experience in many of their games, why should I just accept these "odd results" as being produced from good, clean randomness? You can't prove that their RNG is good, and I can't prove that its bad, again if you want to assume its good, fine, but understand that that's a factless opinion.

Bottom line here is, if true randomness was used, ALL OF THIS IS MOOT.
4/18/2010 9:23 PM
dalter
Posts: 71 (0)
All Star
25
Prospect
You shouldn't just accept potentially odd results.

You should systemetically analyze them to figure it out. But you're not capable of doing that, so we're all at an impasse here.
4/18/2010 9:25 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 4/18/2010. . .and again, its not an unrealistic result. Unrealistic was said where and by whom? Unusual? Perhaps, but unreal and unusual are not the same thing, you not only commit statistical fallacies, you live them. . .Show me a game that was ever tied at halftime, then a team won by 41...
4/18/2010 9:25 PM
dalter
Posts: 71 (0)
All Star
25
Prospect
So let's clarify: You've backed off your stance that I am pro-WIS, and amended to say that I am pro-WIS when it comes to the sim. Is that correct?

And that's despite the fact that you've seen me say many, many times that the sim is flawed?

Just want to make sure we're on the same wavelength here.
4/18/2010 9:27 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 4/18/2010
You shouldn't just accept potentially odd results.

You should systemetically analyze them to figure it out. But you're not capable of doing that, so we're all at an impasse here.

If I knew/thought they used good randomness, then there would be nothing to say here....that's the point...that's the be all end all, but given my past experience, the arrogance of WIS admins, and the laziness of CS ticket responses (Chaminade over Virginia), I really have no reason to believe that anything works right all the time, thus I'll always kind of have this chip on my shoulder because I'll probably never see the inner workings of HD or any of their games.
4/18/2010 9:28 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 4/18/2010
So let's clarify: You've backed off your stance that I am pro-WIS, and amended to say that I am pro-WIS when it comes to the sim. Is that correct? You're right in saying that I backed off of the "you're pro-WIS" stance...I did that a long time ago really. What I said instead of is that whenever I see you post about game results that people are ******** about, they're ALWAYS in defense of the game....show me a thread, a post, anything where it isn't?

And that's despite the fact that you've seen me say many, many times that the sim is flawed? Saying the sim is flawed is an extremely broad generalization that basically says nothing. If you can't elaborate about how the "sim is flawed" then your opinion is effectively worthless.

Just want to make sure we're on the same wavelength here.

4/18/2010 9:30 PM
dahsdebater
Posts: 10041 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 292 18
Pro
Colonels, one thing you clearly fail to understand is that the burden of proof is always on the person in the minority viewpoint, particularly when that viewpoint challenges the foundational beliefs of a community. It is a foundational belief of this community that the SIM operates in an imperfect but fair manner which uses a reasonably reliable source of random numbers. For those of us with solid reasoning skills, to think otherwise would be to leave the game. If that's not true this is a total waste of money. We don't have to prove to you that the game utilizes random numbers. That's the reasonable argument. WiS has no reason to screw us. So you have to prove that they DON'T use random numbers.

What you seem to be totally unable to grasp is sample size. At most each team takes a few dozen shots in each half. What happens in that many chances can easily be misrepresentative of a true norm. Misrepresent it one way in one half and the other in the other half and you have a fairly large discrepancy in the outcome of each half. True randomness will inevitably lead to such outcomes unless you put together much larger samples. If you had two teams play two 200-minute halves and there as a 350-point swing I'd be much, much more surprised. Still not totally shocked, but more surprised.
4/18/2010 9:57 PM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 666 3
Pro
The largest comeback in NCAA college basketball history occurred on February 16, 1994, when the University of Kentucky Wildcats overcame a 31 point deficit to defeat the Louisiana State University Tigers 99-95. LSU led 68-37 with 16 minutes in the game and Kentucky wound up winning in regulation 99-95

THat is. . . what. . a thirty five point swing from the first twenty four to the last 16? And since you made a HUGE deal about the difference between 25 and fifteen and 20 and 20 being insignificant no, Colonels, you don't get to use that excuse, although no doubt you will try. 35 points in sixteen minutes is pretty equivalent to forty points in twenty minutes, perhaps even MORE extreme.



4/18/2010 10:07 PM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 666 3
Pro
Note that that is not the largest point differential between second half and first half, just the largest COMEBACK.

4/18/2010 10:09 PM
dalter
Posts: 71 (0)
All Star
25
Prospect
a_b, I don't think it's really legitimate to say, "Well, once in 1994 a team came back from a 31-pt deficit with 16 mins to go, so ..." If we've gotta go back 16 years to legitimize a result, to me that's a problem. The good news is that we don't because we see games with disaparate halves (like the Clemson-Illinois example from this season) all the time.

colonels, please try to read (and re-read and re-read) dahs' point about sample size. Then read it 10 more times.

If you have even the smallest, most basic inkling of how stats and probability work, you'll understand that when you're dealing with such a small sample size (i.e. one half), it's quite common to see discrepancies.
4/18/2010 10:22 PM
dalter
Posts: 71 (0)
All Star
25
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 4/18/2010
Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 4/18/2010

So let's clarify: You've backed off your stance that I am pro-WIS, and amended to say that I am pro-WIS when it comes to the sim. Is that correct? You're right in saying that I backed off of the "you're pro-WIS" stance...I did that a long time ago really. What I said instead of is that whenever I see you post about game results that people are ******** about, they're ALWAYS in defense of the game....show me a thread, a post, anything where it isn't?

And that's despite the fact that you've seen me say many, many times that the sim is flawed? Saying the sim is flawed is an extremely broad generalization that basically says nothing. If you can't elaborate about how the "sim is flawed" then your opinion is effectively worthless.

Just want to make sure we're on the same wavelength here.

You telling me that my opinion is worthless.

Holy f'n ****.
4/18/2010 10:23 PM
◂ Prev 1|2|3|4|5...7 Next ▸
35 pt swing. Same teams Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.