Quote: Originally posted by smackawits on 4/12/2010I don't understand why anyone raises to the bait to discuss anything with Mr C.  He's a (old)furry nips on steroids.  At least furry grew up and has intelligent conversations now.  Let's hope Mr. C grows up as well.

Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 4/12/2010

Quote: Originally posted by smackawits on 4/12/2010 I don't understand why anyone raises to the bait to discuss anything with Mr C. He's a (old)furry nips on steroids. At least furry grew up and has intelligent conversations now. Let's hope Mr. C grows up as well.

You are, of course, correct. I will henceforth abstain.

Quote: Originally Posted By dahsdebater on 4/12/2010I'd still like him to explain how exactly they programmed extra randomness in and why they would do that

Quote: Originally Posted By arssanguinus on 4/12/2010No. You haven't because your basic premise is flawed, Colonels. And that basic premise is?And as long as you base your points on that basic flawed premise, they aren't relevant. You haven't MADE any meat and potatoes points. Your whole argument boils down to how things SHOULDN'T be like real life This couldn't be more false...I've said and always contended that the game shouldn't be as random as real life because of fixed, hard ratings and random numbers. All randomness in human life is justifiable because everything plays itself out, no ratings or preset randomness thus anything can happen on any given day of the week...a game that has hard ratings and set parameters isn't going to be/shouldn't be as random...just on format alone. Again, by taking an everything is justifiable stance, you say that the game is perfect. As long as you can justify every result with Chaminade over Virginia, then your game can never be wrong, which is a flawed statement/logic. I would still love to see that 176-24 boxscore btw., and if you don't accept that premise - and I don't - the rest of your argument is moot. I find it funny that because I can't physically prove that this is true, that there's something wrong with the engine and how it sims games from time to time, that I'm written off as wrong and irrelevant....its funny because I said the same thing to you guys, thus it isn't ok when I do it, but it fits perfectly when you do it.....ahhh the hypocrisy continues....

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 4/12/2010
I'm not sure that they program in extra randomness. They have never said they did, although several top coaches have postulated that this may be the case.

Personally, I don't think they do, because I don't think they need to. The way the engine runs produces plenty of randomness -- as I believe it should, colonels. I see no reason why HD shouldn't produce randomness similar to real life.

Now, if you started to see randomness and crazy results that far outstripped real life as far as their craziness and/or frequency (which I believe we sometimes do), that would be another story. But just like real life, we have good shooters that have terrible games, crappier players that bust out for great games, teams that win in upsets, etc.

Colonels, it's like poker -- having the better ratings gives you a better chance of achieving the desired outcome, but it doesn't guarantee it, nor should it. Just the same way that pocket aces are going to get cracked by 2-7 offsuit sometimes.

Again, the question isn't whether aces should sometimes get cracked -- of course they should. The question is whether the aces are getting cracked so often that it no longer makes sense.

Quote: Originally posted by dalter on 4/12/2010I'm not sure that they program in extra randomness. They have never said they did, although several top coaches have postulated that this may be the case. Personally, I don't think they do, because I don't think they need to. The way the engine runs produces plenty of randomness -- as I believe it should, colonels. I see no reason why HD shouldn't produce randomness similar to real life. Now, if you started to see randomness and crazy results that far outstripped real life as far as their craziness and/or frequency (which I believe we sometimes do), that would be another story. But just like real life, we have good shooters that have terrible games, crappier players that bust out for great games, teams that win in upsets, etc. Colonels, it's like poker -- having the better ratings gives you a better chance of achieving the desired outcome, but it doesn't guarantee it, nor should it. Just the same way that pocket aces are going to get cracked by 2-7 offsuit sometimes. Again, the question isn't whether aces should sometimes get cracked -- of course they should. The question is whether the aces are getting cracked so often that it no longer makes sense.

Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 4/12/2010
Please tell me where I, or anyone, said they accept ALL outliers?

I saw a 176 to 24 result the other day. I don't accept that outlier. Game results that never happen in real life are at least suspicious if not acceptable as outliers. However, if the system produces results that are plausible and consistent with the real life system it is modeling than, yes, I do accept those outliers.

There is a difference between that and your stance of accepting NO outliers.

ANd if you think 'modicum' is a 'big word' then. . heh.

And note that I put in an edit in that I did not mean to say thread and meant to say post.