Quote: Originally Posted By coach_billyg on 1/06/2010
you've said btown got screwed, as well as that the other game (the one he won) was much less likely. which is it? The first game was more likely to be the one where the extreme randomness happened HOWEVER he was griping about those results in comparison to the results of game 2, thus game 2 is always going to get more scrutiny because how could it be that different from game 1? I find the FG% flip to be odd as well, but is that more of a game 1 problem or game 2? I think the problem is, we all got off on the wrong foot, arguing game 2 in comparison to game 1, but logically that's what you would do. You wouldn't have known that game 1 was a problem per se if they didn't play a second game in a more favorable location for the game 1 winner i don't see how it can be both. thats what i was saying. i know you said he got screwed from the beginning. but you also reacted to me saying you should be complaining about the other game with, you've agreed that is the bad apple multiple times

Quote: Originally Posted By coach_billyg on 1/07/2010




colonels, look at the thread thewizard started (something up?) about a much more ridiculous championship game outcome, 80-29. the 29 point team won by 20 earlier in the season. before you use rush to use it to defend a randomness claim, do you see how that weighs on the discussion here? the game here is unexceptional, very easily justified, and like i said, a very poor choice to hang your hat on - there are examples worse on a very regular basis. If I thought this game was justified, I would agree with you and I understand that there will be worse cases of excessive/extreme randomness than the one I view at hand in this thread, however that fact doesn't make my perception of a "problem" here any less impactful or valid...do you see what I'm saying? Extreme randomness is extreme randomness if it happens by 20 points, 40 points, or 100 points...there are varying degrees, however one doesn't thwart another, they're all perceivably "wrong". This was the first case that was presented to me per se, thus I latched onto it, but like I said it happened to me about 15 seasons ago and I'm in agreement with those in the OK I GET IT thread. Surely there are/can be worse examples than this one.

also, keep in mind i continue to not make any claim about the validity of your conclusion. only how you get there. my perception of the randomness in this game borders on conspiracy theory, and i am completely unconvinced if it is true or not. so i am not about to weigh in on your conclusion. but you would do well to acknowledge when there is nothing more than feel to your claim, as i do with my randomness theories (if you've read them, i mention about 5 times per post, which tends towards a page, that i have nothing to base it on but feel). i make claims literally all the time based on nothing more than feel, so does everybody else. there is nothing wrong with it. but trying to pass it off as something more when its not never comes off well. i'm sure you can relate to that, based on the dozen or so posts you've made in the last week to the same effect. I'm not meaning for it to come off like that, but I have nothing more to base my claims on than feel, because A. WIS will always be defensive and "damage controlling" in these bizarre instances and B. Its virtually impossible for us guys on the outside to PROVE whether its happening or not happening, I understand and admit that. Like I've said earlier, in instances like these, if WIS showed me (which would never happen) that the randomness/RNG worked like it should, then I would apologize, wish everyone a nice day, and shut up. The fact of the matter is, I've dealt with the arrogant WIS staff before and they blindly defend everything that happens in their games makes me not trust anything they do really, rightly or wrongly.

Unfortunately, we'll probably never know and we have no information to base our "feelings" off of, but that doesn't mean I'm just going to accept perceived extreme/excessive randomness just because its apart of the game and I seemingly can do nothing about it. Like I said, a user here who's a computer programmer who isn't a colonels19 fan, admitted to me that TRUE randomness (like used on random.org) is almost never used in real life, thus its basically all PSEUDO randomness and that can and does work well, however if not managed and debugged properly, you can run into repetition and clustering problems, and its a theory like this that I believe and that I've latched onto. No I don't have actual WIS proof, but I have info from a very knowledgable computer programmer that leads me to believe that my/our claims COULD/MIGHT be right.

The fact that I see justification in some 40 point swings I think validates my claim/crusade against this bout of perceived extreme randomness. If any game doesn't pass the eye test here (I think you would agree that this one doesn't) then its up for debate and conjecture, and it should be.

CONGRATS ON YOUR TITLE AS WELL!

Quote: Originally posted by kannc6 on 1/07/2010did a little research on 40 point swings.. Took a major conference over the past 10 years..Big 12 North Found 3 examples of 40 point swings in roughly 150 home and home series... Not as unlikely as one would think..
07 Missouri +3, Kansas State +37
03 Kansas State +31, Iowa State +14
02 Colorado +15, Iowa State +26

There were about a half dozen home and homes in the 35-39 point range...

I know people were talking 1 in 500 or 1 in 1000... This SMALL sample size comes out to 1 in 50....

Quote: Originally Posted By kannc6 on 1/07/2010did a little research on 40 point swings.. Took a major conference over the past 10 years..Big 12 North Found 3 examples of 40 point swings in roughly 150 home and home series... Not as unlikely as one would think..
07 Missouri +3, Kansas State +37
03 Kansas State +31, Iowa State +14
02 Colorado +15, Iowa State +26

There were about a half dozen home and homes in the 35-39 point range...

I know people were talking 1 in 500 or 1 in 1000... This SMALL sample size comes out to 1 in 50...

Quote: Originally Posted By kannc6 on 1/07/2010I'm not really in the debate. Just saw something that interested me and decided to look into it.

Quote: Originally Posted By schroedess26 on 1/07/2010Ya personally I actually just don't see a point of debate on the engine right now and the random number generator. They are in the middle of a beta so while I am in that I will bring up things there and not here about the engine that will be replaced most likely in the next year