I know that high vs very high is a very common point of complaint here, and it's one that I have consistently dismissed. We know what the words mean. High means you have some chance, very high means you have a better chance. Now we don't know the percentages, but that's something that we can understand and work with. So far, so good.

So we know from seble that the signing odds range for "high" goes from 0 to x, and the range for "very high" goes from x to 100. We don't know where x is.

What I am wondering is whether we have any good data, in order to (1) try to find x, and (2) confirm that the system is working as intended.

I suspect that the complaints that high beats VH too often come from observation bias--we're more inclined to remember the cases that go against what we expect. That said, I'm sitting here looking at an "all contacted" list that contains five VH vs H battles, four of which have been won by H. And I'm remembering last recruiting season at College of NJ, where I had two VH vs H battles that both went to the H team. And it's making me wonder what the stats are. Anybody have any yet?

I did Smith 1st season 1st cycle and posted it
Was almost 50/50.

I do not believe half of what they say is "working as intended"

Posted by mullycj on 11/21/2016 1:48:00 PM (view original):
I did Smith 1st season 1st cycle and posted it
Was almost 50/50.

I do not believe half of what they say is "working as intended"

I think the theory of high and very high was and is a fantastic idea that makes the game better. But I am seriously starting to doubt whether it's working as intended as well.

Posted by tarvolon on 11/21/2016 1:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 11/21/2016 1:48:00 PM (view original):
I did Smith 1st season 1st cycle and posted it
Was almost 50/50.

I do not believe half of what they say is "working as intended"

I think the theory of high and very high was and is a fantastic idea that makes the game better. But I am seriously starting to doubt whether it's working as intended as well.

The feature is salvageable, but this is a prime example of a situation where more explanation of the intended functionality from WIS would really be helpful.

I think it would be a good idea for them to release some big picture data, now that 3.0 recruiting has run at least once in every world. If it is working as intended, it'd be nice to see what normal is supposed to look like.

A couple things on limited, user-run snapshots. The sample size is always going to be pretty small. And what many of us (I don't know about mully) would be looking at is top 100 battles, because that's what is the easiest and quickest to sort through. I'd guess that top 100 battles are going to skew toward the middle, i.e. a low VH vs high H, in 2-way battles. I suspect coaches are more likely to go all in on those battles, and when both guys go all in, they're likely to even out.

We've got to keep in mind that those categories are aesthetic, when you get past who is in signability range. They are not supposed to be a representation of effort credit.

I did a few in Allen last season. Sample size is small.

https://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?topicID=496649

Recruiting in Allen is starting today so I'll check back in after a couple days and post what I see is happening. But also, Darnoc's point about the effort changing substantially after signing is interesting. Anyone else see this?

I have personally been in 3 VH vs H battles and the High has won 2 out of 3 times.

So far I was in three VH to H battle, I was H once against two VH, I lost all three VH to H battles, so the H won three times. And I lost the H, to VH, VH... But there was two VH, so I guess it does not apply.

If it's working as intended, should I work hard to get to H against a VH...

Posted by pkoopman on 11/21/2016 2:31:00 PM (view original):
I think it would be a good idea for them to release some big picture data, now that 3.0 recruiting has run at least once in every world. If it is working as intended, it'd be nice to see what normal is supposed to look like.

A couple things on limited, user-run snapshots. The sample size is always going to be pretty small. And what many of us (I don't know about mully) would be looking at is top 100 battles, because that's what is the easiest and quickest to sort through. I'd guess that top 100 battles are going to skew toward the middle, i.e. a low VH vs high H, in 2-way battles. I suspect coaches are more likely to go all in on those battles, and when both guys go all in, they're likely to even out.

We've got to keep in mind that those categories are aesthetic, when you get past who is in signability range. They are not supposed to be a representation of effort credit.

Yes, I remember seble saying the difference was cosmetic. It would be useful for the current WIS staff to reconfirm that, since it has caused so much confusion.

Posted by kcsundevil on 11/21/2016 4:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 11/21/2016 2:31:00 PM (view original):
I think it would be a good idea for them to release some big picture data, now that 3.0 recruiting has run at least once in every world. If it is working as intended, it'd be nice to see what normal is supposed to look like.

A couple things on limited, user-run snapshots. The sample size is always going to be pretty small. And what many of us (I don't know about mully) would be looking at is top 100 battles, because that's what is the easiest and quickest to sort through. I'd guess that top 100 battles are going to skew toward the middle, i.e. a low VH vs high H, in 2-way battles. I suspect coaches are more likely to go all in on those battles, and when both guys go all in, they're likely to even out.

We've got to keep in mind that those categories are aesthetic, when you get past who is in signability range. They are not supposed to be a representation of effort credit.

Yes, I remember seble saying the difference was cosmetic. It would be useful for the current WIS staff to reconfirm that, since it has caused so much confusion.

The difference between VH and H? I'm 100% sure that wasn't cosmetic but that there was supposed to be a real difference in signing odds.

Posted by tarvolon on 11/21/2016 4:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 11/21/2016 4:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 11/21/2016 2:31:00 PM (view original):
I think it would be a good idea for them to release some big picture data, now that 3.0 recruiting has run at least once in every world. If it is working as intended, it'd be nice to see what normal is supposed to look like.

A couple things on limited, user-run snapshots. The sample size is always going to be pretty small. And what many of us (I don't know about mully) would be looking at is top 100 battles, because that's what is the easiest and quickest to sort through. I'd guess that top 100 battles are going to skew toward the middle, i.e. a low VH vs high H, in 2-way battles. I suspect coaches are more likely to go all in on those battles, and when both guys go all in, they're likely to even out.

We've got to keep in mind that those categories are aesthetic, when you get past who is in signability range. They are not supposed to be a representation of effort credit.

Yes, I remember seble saying the difference was cosmetic. It would be useful for the current WIS staff to reconfirm that, since it has caused so much confusion.

The difference between VH and H? I'm 100% sure that wasn't cosmetic but that there was supposed to be a real difference in signing odds.

Seble really did say that, although I don't know that he meant cosmetic in the way everyone means cosmetic. I think what he was getting at was that your considering category is based on effort credit, but is not meant to be an unambiguous representation of your effort credit. Likewise, signing probabilities aren't the same thing as effort credit (or your considering category). Probabilities and considering category are both derived from effort credit, but they are not directly linked to each other. This was, if I recall, in the context of a conversation about teams getting late "momentum", putting in a lot of late effort, and knocking someone down from very high to high. The "momentum" affected the considering category, but *not necessarily* the effort credit - and hence the signing probability - to the same degree.

So basically, the idea was never to give us a good, unambiguous idea of what our signing probabilities were - if they wanted to do that, they would have just put the numbers up there, not mess with this very high vs high vs moderate stuff. Those considering categories are cosmetic, to the extent that they are too vague to use as a representation of your signing odds. They are only meaningful in telling you vaguely where you are relative to the effort credit leader, and if you are currently within signing range.

Posted by tarvolon on 11/21/2016 4:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 11/21/2016 4:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 11/21/2016 2:31:00 PM (view original):
I think it would be a good idea for them to release some big picture data, now that 3.0 recruiting has run at least once in every world. If it is working as intended, it'd be nice to see what normal is supposed to look like.

A couple things on limited, user-run snapshots. The sample size is always going to be pretty small. And what many of us (I don't know about mully) would be looking at is top 100 battles, because that's what is the easiest and quickest to sort through. I'd guess that top 100 battles are going to skew toward the middle, i.e. a low VH vs high H, in 2-way battles. I suspect coaches are more likely to go all in on those battles, and when both guys go all in, they're likely to even out.

We've got to keep in mind that those categories are aesthetic, when you get past who is in signability range. They are not supposed to be a representation of effort credit.

Yes, I remember seble saying the difference was cosmetic. It would be useful for the current WIS staff to reconfirm that, since it has caused so much confusion.

The difference between VH and H? I'm 100% sure that wasn't cosmetic but that there was supposed to be a real difference in signing odds.

I'm not saying it actually is cosmetic. But I'm pretty certain seble called it cosmetic in the beta forums. Anyone else remember this? (Edit, ty pkoopman, you beat me to it.)

i feel like i recall him saying that as a response to people complaining about high winning battles, saying he could remove H/VH distinction as some wanted, but it would really just be cosmetic, because the odds "behind the curtain" wouldn't change at all. basically, the odds/outcomes would be the same as with the labels, but coaches would know less going into the RNG.

Posted by bathtubhippo on 11/21/2016 5:14:00 PM (view original):
i feel like i recall him saying that as a response to people complaining about high winning battles, saying he could remove H/VH distinction as some wanted, but it would really just be cosmetic, because the odds "behind the curtain" wouldn't change at all. basically, the odds/outcomes would be the same as with the labels, but coaches would know less going into the RNG.

Ah, that would make sense.

Posted by bathtubhippo on 11/21/2016 5:14:00 PM (view original):
i feel like i recall him saying that as a response to people complaining about high winning battles, saying he could remove H/VH distinction as some wanted, but it would really just be cosmetic, because the odds "behind the curtain" wouldn't change at all. basically, the odds/outcomes would be the same as with the labels, but coaches would know less going into the RNG.

Yeah, I don't know that this was the same conversation I'm remembering, but that's a similar context. The odds are what they are, they're based on effort credit alone, and we don't have anything more than a very vague look (considering categories) at how they actually set up in a given battle.

Posted by bathtubhippo on 11/21/2016 5:14:00 PM (view original):
i feel like i recall him saying that as a response to people complaining about high winning battles, saying he could remove H/VH distinction as some wanted, but it would really just be cosmetic, because the odds "behind the curtain" wouldn't change at all. basically, the odds/outcomes would be the same as with the labels, but coaches would know less going into the RNG.

This is the opposite of how I remember it, but this would definitely make more sense than what I remember him saying. And I do make mistakes.