Posted by MikeT23 on 7/17/2017 8:17:00 PM (view original):
It's probably just preference. I prefer to play humans. I just loaded my non-con with human challenges when I KNOW that was a stupid thing to do(full conference will get my SOS where it needs to be). It's more challenging to compete against people whether it be games or recruiting.

The way zorzi explains it, he would avoid human recruiting altogether. So he never has to fight for a recruit. That doesn't seem like fun. So he, and maybe you, are playing to compete against people in the NT. I prefer to do that the entire season including recruiting.

I certainly don't think that's the "smart" way but, if I want to play alone, I can crank up the ol' xbox and do that.

What do you mean maybe me? I'm in easily the best D3 conf in Phelan and one of the best in all the worlds. We've had 5 of last 6 national champs. Its super competitive and I love it.

You just said you don't cross paths with other D3 coaches in recruiting, no?

Nope, your wrong, Mike's right. He tells it like it is.

Okay mike, you're right. Consider this the 1 millionth internet argument you've won. Congrats!

Can't be that many. This is the only message board I've ever been on.

I will say this and then shut up(for awhile).

I read all the time "I wish there were more people in worlds." Then, when TJoe started a movement to fill D1 in a world, there were dozens of excuses why people wouldn't join. I thought 50-60 people would jump at it. Immediately. I think with was 25-30. I think people would rather win than play humans. Do you have a team in Rupp in the rush to D1?

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/17/2017 8:41:00 PM (view original):
I will say this and then shut up(for awhile).

I read all the time "I wish there were more people in worlds." Then, when TJoe started a movement to fill D1 in a world, there were dozens of excuses why people wouldn't join. I thought 50-60 people would jump at it. Immediately. I think with was 25-30. I think people would rather win than play humans. Do you have a team in Rupp in the rush to D1?

Nope. I already explained why and I stated my case for the chosen world to be Allen or Tark which I'm in.

And the main reason that I talk about population numbers is because I believe this game is dying. That's my opinion and I know you don't share it. So my main concern is that the number of people playing this game is high enough to sustain the game. Additionally if more people play then they have more revenue and then would invest resources into fixing the issues we complain about. Its pretty simple really.

Posted by johnsensing on 7/17/2017 5:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/17/2017 4:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 7/17/2017 3:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/17/2017 11:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 7/17/2017 11:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/17/2017 9:27:00 AM (view original):
You all realize that teams with a 19% chance of winning a recruiting battle should win roughly 19% of those battles. You guys sound like they should win 0% of those recruiting battles.

That's not how math works.

Unless you have some empirical evidence that underdogs are winning battles at a statistically significant higher rate than they should, then there's nothing really to see here. My guess is that such evidence does not exist, at least in a way measurable to the HD user community, because neither the "favorites" who are winning the lopsided battles, nor the underdogs who are losing the lopsided battles, are making noise in the forums the way the favorite/losers are.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I don't think anyone is arguing the math -- I'm arguing policy/gameplay. Of course as things are currently set up, someone who has a 19% chance will win 19% of the time -- my argument is that it's a poor way to set up the game, and the game should be changed so that a 19% in a three-man battle has 0% chance to win (I'm not sure where the cutoff should be in a three-man battle -- 25%? 28?). What I am advocating is that for two-person battles, if one side hasn't put in enough effort to get to a 40% probability, they should have 0% chance. That's a better gameplay mode, IMO, because then you only have losses when it's a true tossup, or at least pretty close (which is really the way it works in real life, too, which is an added benefit).

Seems like you're the one being deliberately obtuse, because you're arguing that 19% should = 0%, and 39% should = 0%.

Again, that's not how math works.

Read my last post again. I'm not arguing about math. If you don't understand that (and apparently you don't), you maybe should step away from the conversation.

But it is about math. It's numbers: odds/percentages. That's math.

Sounds like your argument is that long shots should never win. That doesn't make sense. There's lots of reasons why long shots should occasionally win.

Let's say it's a two way battle between Indiana (81%) and Iowa (19%). Indiana should win most of those battles, according to the math that you seem to dislike. But occasionally, some recruit might decide they don't want to play for Bobby Knight because he sometimes throws chairs and chokes his players. Maybe their girlfriend is going to Iowa. Maybe they like sitting in cornfields while pondering the merits of a 2-3 zone.

That's my argument exactly, that long-shots should never win. It took three posts, but you finally got it. Your silly hypotheticals prove my point -- if a recruit doesn't like Bobby Knight, Indiana's never getting to 81% in the first place.

And in any event, that -- that (some) longshots shouldn't win -- is how 3.0 is set up. That's why you can't win at moderate, seble put a cap in place such that you need to put enough effort in to get to high in order to have any chance. All I am arguing is that the lines should be drawn differently -- to get to high, you should have to have a 40% shot, to VH, 45% (if we're using the current methodology). That a team with less than >30% chance can win a two-team battle is a problem, in my opinion (one of many -- but still, we gotta start somewhere).

That's where your argument falls short. The 81% is computed form a formula that accounts for recruiting effort modified by some of the intangibles (prestige of the schools, prestige of the coaches), but not all of the intangibles. Such as player X thinks Bobby Knight is an ******* and he is unlikely to want to play for him. That's where the "dice roll" of a 19% long shot takes the unexpected win.

Posted by johnsensing on 7/17/2017 7:43:00 PM (view original):
pkoopman, your comment was: "Well in reality, that is about what the bar is (assuming you mean 40 in a 60-40 battle, and not 40% of the effort credit leader). That threshold is somewhere above 37 and below 40 (or between ~60% and 67% of the effort credit leader)."

That is contradicted by multiple examples given in this thread -- several people have referenced battles where the winning team had a less than 30% (published) chance to win, which, according to this effort-stretching concept, meant that they had an even lower than 30% chance to win (yet still won). So I don't understand how you can say that the bar is about at 40%. Seems to me like the bar is far lower. Am I misunderstanding your comment?

Yeah, you're misunderstanding. They are stretched to benefit the team who has the effort credit lead. So if you see a team with a 30% chance to win, they were much closer to the leader than 70-30 in terms of effort credit. The 30% is only referring to the RNG "roll". No one ever really knows exactly what the effort credit battle looks like. In such a case, I'd put the difference in effort credit around 58-42. It's speculative, because seble/admin hasn't disclosed where the cutoff is, or how the sliding scale works. In the closest 2-way battles, the odds work out to 52-48 (I'm assuming - I've never seen a 51-49). That represents basically a toss-up. In the widest battles, the odds work out to ~80-20, which I think equate about 63-37 (actually I think it's 62.5-37.5 because that works out to a nice round 60% of the effort credit leader).