Posted by zorzii on 10/10/2017 4:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by possumfiend on 10/10/2017 4:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 10/10/2017 2:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/10/2017 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/10/2017 2:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/10/2017 1:47:00 PM (view original):
The skill is in managing risks, volatility and contingencies. What buddha said about coaches necessarily always recruiting the “best talent available” simply isn’t true. Good coaches are finding other ways to build good teams, and are having success. The elite-only is a viable strategy, as long as you’re willing to deal with the scarcity and volatility of the commodities you’re relying on. There’s nothing “artificial” about how these skills and strategies are weighed against each other.

So what skills did Coach A employ in getting his team to the Final Four using EE quality players yet prevented them to leave early? He somehow managed to keep 2 guys ranked in top 20 on the big board to stay. Which particular skills did he utilize to make that happen or increase his probability of that happening?

You know the answer. The next question is, do you know the difference between random and probabilistic? Random is based entirely on chance, where all possible outcomes are of relative equal likelihood. Probabilistic is based partially on chance, where the likelihood of each possible outcome is individually calculated by determined - and to some extent, knowable - factors. I’m not being jerky, not everyone understands the difference.

So Coach A accepted the risk (both the demand/scarcity of the commodities he sought, and their volatility) because he deemed the potential reward (exclusive use of the commodities excellent attributes for x number of seasons) to be worth it.

You are making an analysis by not taking into account important datas about this game, datas that people are trying to illustrate with absurd situations. The question is not who adjusted better or do some recuperate better than others or it's the way it is, the game was designed that way... you knew the rules.

It's about is it fair? Is there another way to go about this that will prevent these occurrences from being a deterministic factor in which owner will be doomed and which will get a break. We all proposed good solutions, heck KCDeVil just came up with an outside the box idea that would fix it partially (the recruiting part).

It’s about fair? Are you suggesting the guy who didn’t lose any of his potential EE’s cheated? That he exploited a loophole that he found that keeps his great players from leaving?

zorzii is the guy that spends his life savings trying to win the lottery because he believes it’s the only way to get rich. He claims to know the risk of the decision but spends all his money anyway. Then when he loses he complains that the lottery system isn’t fair because he’s broke and can’t pay his bills and someone else who just bought a quick pick - on a whim - won the multi million dollar grand prize

Again, beside the point, you are debating something I am not talking about. I am saying the consequences of risk should be the same for everyone, not only those who get a bad probabilistic sequence.

Team A is robbing a bank, the coach has 40% to get killed, 40% to get two years, 20 % to walk free.
Team A robs a bank, coach get killed.
Team B robs a bank, gets two years.
Team C gets the cash and is free.

That's your ee system, a bit more complicated.

How is it fair?

Because everyone has the same choice, and the same risk. You can choose to rob a bank. Or you can go about another way to make a living.

Posted by Benis on 10/10/2017 2:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/10/2017 1:47:00 PM (view original):
The skill is in managing risks, volatility and contingencies. What buddha said about coaches necessarily always recruiting the “best talent available” simply isn’t true. Good coaches are finding other ways to build good teams, and are having success. The elite-only is a viable strategy, as long as you’re willing to deal with the scarcity and volatility of the commodities you’re relying on. There’s nothing “artificial” about how these skills and strategies are weighed against each other.

So what skills did Coach A employ in getting his team to the Final Four using EE quality players yet prevented them to leave early? He somehow managed to keep 2 guys ranked in top 20 on the big board to stay. Which particular skills did he utilize to make that happen or increase his probability of that happening?

So what were the skills that Coach A used to influence the EEs and get 3 highly rated players to stay even after making the Final Four?

Not all Bank robbers get caught, so there’s that, but they all take part in the same risk/reward behavior. The point you seem to keep missing is that something isn’t fair or unfair simply because you don’t like the results.

Posted by Benis on 10/10/2017 4:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/10/2017 2:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/10/2017 1:47:00 PM (view original):
The skill is in managing risks, volatility and contingencies. What buddha said about coaches necessarily always recruiting the “best talent available” simply isn’t true. Good coaches are finding other ways to build good teams, and are having success. The elite-only is a viable strategy, as long as you’re willing to deal with the scarcity and volatility of the commodities you’re relying on. There’s nothing “artificial” about how these skills and strategies are weighed against each other.

So what skills did Coach A employ in getting his team to the Final Four using EE quality players yet prevented them to leave early? He somehow managed to keep 2 guys ranked in top 20 on the big board to stay. Which particular skills did he utilize to make that happen or increase his probability of that happening?

So what were the skills that Coach A used to influence the EEs and get 3 highly rated players to stay even after making the Final Four?

Who cares? The game is full of probabilistic events that shape the way it’s played, who has success and the outcomes of the games themselves. Random numbers are how decisions are made in gaming environments.

I lost an elite eight game two seasons ago on a three pointer at the buzzer. So unfair...the RNG literally gave the final four, and eventual championship, to the other team ... they need to fix that problem.

zorzii, you're the worst. EVERYONE is playing the same game. Yet, when things don't go your way, it's so unfair. Life ain't fair. Deal with it.

Posted by possumfiend on 10/10/2017 4:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/10/2017 4:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/10/2017 2:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/10/2017 1:47:00 PM (view original):
The skill is in managing risks, volatility and contingencies. What buddha said about coaches necessarily always recruiting the “best talent available” simply isn’t true. Good coaches are finding other ways to build good teams, and are having success. The elite-only is a viable strategy, as long as you’re willing to deal with the scarcity and volatility of the commodities you’re relying on. There’s nothing “artificial” about how these skills and strategies are weighed against each other.

So what skills did Coach A employ in getting his team to the Final Four using EE quality players yet prevented them to leave early? He somehow managed to keep 2 guys ranked in top 20 on the big board to stay. Which particular skills did he utilize to make that happen or increase his probability of that happening?

So what were the skills that Coach A used to influence the EEs and get 3 highly rated players to stay even after making the Final Four?

Who cares? The game is full of probabilistic events that shape the way it’s played, who has success and the outcomes of the games themselves. Random numbers are how decisions are made in gaming environments.

I lost an elite eight game two seasons ago on a three pointer at the buzzer. So unfair...the RNG literally gave the final four, and eventual championship, to the other team ... they need to fix that problem.

I'm glad you brought that up.

In a game analysis you can point to several things that explain why you lost that game. Tough break but there are reasons why you lost or why the score was what it was. Or what you could have done differently to give yourself a better chance of winning.

#7, #12 on big board stays but not on board goes. What things can you point to and say 'ah yeah this makes sense why it happened'.

Yep, it all comes down to the decisions we make. Choose to go heavy on EEs and sometimes it bites you in the rear end and sometimes it doesn’t.

As for game planning the beauty of that is there really is no discernible way to tell how different decisions will play out ... it’s all about the RNG no matter how much you plan.

We had a team win the NT in Crum about twenty odd seasons ago that was a literal ghost ship, the guy checked out before recruiting and his team played a -2 slowdown every game ... you can’t tell me that team out gameplanned anyone.

Posted by Benis on 10/10/2017 4:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by possumfiend on 10/10/2017 4:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/10/2017 4:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/10/2017 2:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/10/2017 1:47:00 PM (view original):
The skill is in managing risks, volatility and contingencies. What buddha said about coaches necessarily always recruiting the “best talent available” simply isn’t true. Good coaches are finding other ways to build good teams, and are having success. The elite-only is a viable strategy, as long as you’re willing to deal with the scarcity and volatility of the commodities you’re relying on. There’s nothing “artificial” about how these skills and strategies are weighed against each other.

So what skills did Coach A employ in getting his team to the Final Four using EE quality players yet prevented them to leave early? He somehow managed to keep 2 guys ranked in top 20 on the big board to stay. Which particular skills did he utilize to make that happen or increase his probability of that happening?

So what were the skills that Coach A used to influence the EEs and get 3 highly rated players to stay even after making the Final Four?

Who cares? The game is full of probabilistic events that shape the way it’s played, who has success and the outcomes of the games themselves. Random numbers are how decisions are made in gaming environments.

I lost an elite eight game two seasons ago on a three pointer at the buzzer. So unfair...the RNG literally gave the final four, and eventual championship, to the other team ... they need to fix that problem.

I'm glad you brought that up.

In a game analysis you can point to several things that explain why you lost that game. Tough break but there are reasons why you lost or why the score was what it was. Or what you could have done differently to give yourself a better chance of winning.

#7, #12 on big board stays but not on board goes. What things can you point to and say 'ah yeah this makes sense why it happened'.

Agree with Benis. It's different.

Posted by cubcub113 on 10/10/2017 4:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/10/2017 4:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by possumfiend on 10/10/2017 4:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/10/2017 4:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/10/2017 2:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/10/2017 1:47:00 PM (view original):
The skill is in managing risks, volatility and contingencies. What buddha said about coaches necessarily always recruiting the “best talent available” simply isn’t true. Good coaches are finding other ways to build good teams, and are having success. The elite-only is a viable strategy, as long as you’re willing to deal with the scarcity and volatility of the commodities you’re relying on. There’s nothing “artificial” about how these skills and strategies are weighed against each other.

So what skills did Coach A employ in getting his team to the Final Four using EE quality players yet prevented them to leave early? He somehow managed to keep 2 guys ranked in top 20 on the big board to stay. Which particular skills did he utilize to make that happen or increase his probability of that happening?

So what were the skills that Coach A used to influence the EEs and get 3 highly rated players to stay even after making the Final Four?

Who cares? The game is full of probabilistic events that shape the way it’s played, who has success and the outcomes of the games themselves. Random numbers are how decisions are made in gaming environments.

I lost an elite eight game two seasons ago on a three pointer at the buzzer. So unfair...the RNG literally gave the final four, and eventual championship, to the other team ... they need to fix that problem.

I'm glad you brought that up.

In a game analysis you can point to several things that explain why you lost that game. Tough break but there are reasons why you lost or why the score was what it was. Or what you could have done differently to give yourself a better chance of winning.

#7, #12 on big board stays but not on board goes. What things can you point to and say 'ah yeah this makes sense why it happened'.

Agree with Benis. It's different.

That’s nice.

Posted by possumfiend on 10/10/2017 4:21:00 PM (view original):
Not all Bank robbers get caught, so there’s that, but they all take part in the same risk/reward behavior. The point you seem to keep missing is that something isn’t fair or unfair simply because you don’t like the results.

Damn, don't run for office or work in education or health...

Maybe #7 and #12 promised their momma they'd get a degree. Like Tim Duncan. Not on board had an agent screaming "YOU'RE A FIRST ROUND PICK!!!" and a GPA of 0.7.

Realism, bro!!!

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/10/2017 4:36:00 PM (view original):
zorzii, you're the worst. EVERYONE is playing the same game. Yet, when things don't go your way, it's so unfair. Life ain't fair. Deal with it.

Mike : I lost four starters, three juniors, one sophomores, two won't crack the first round of the nba draft, maybe three. Unlike Calipari, I had no clue what was going on, and when discussed with my ad, he said no more resources , I feel confident we do not need players.

If I do it over 100 times maybe odds will even out but it ain't happening, It probably would take a 1000... Of course I am discussing it, cause it's a bad game.

So you're playing a different game? No? Case closed.

Posted by l80r20 on 10/10/2017 3:21:00 PM (view original):
"You seem to prefer determinism-based games rather than probabilistic, which is fine. There are lots of those out there. But this game wants to be a competitive multi-player game; determinism too quickly becomes formulaic, and sacrifices competitiveness."

zorzii, when you're not asking someone obviously a lot smarter than you if he went to college, you seem genuinely befuddled. Here's a starting point: do you understand the quote above? Can you restate it in your own words? And if you can, then can you explain the difference between "deterministic" and "probabilistic" in your own words? If you cannot, then I suggest you get off your self-pity trip and start to listen.

This man crush you have on PK is getting a little obvious. Might want to ease up...

Posted by zorzii on 10/10/2017 5:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/10/2017 4:36:00 PM (view original):
zorzii, you're the worst. EVERYONE is playing the same game. Yet, when things don't go your way, it's so unfair. Life ain't fair. Deal with it.

Mike : I lost four starters, three juniors, one sophomores, two won't crack the first round of the nba draft, maybe three. Unlike Calipari, I had no clue what was going on, and when discussed with my ad, he said no more resources , I feel confident we do not need players.

If I do it over 100 times maybe odds will even out but it ain't happening, It probably would take a 1000... Of course I am discussing it, cause it's a bad game.

If it's "a bad game" then don't play it. WIS doesn't owe you a product tailored to your specifications.