Posted by cubcub113 on 9/1/2019 2:13:00 PM (view original):
For all the people who use SSS to say the listed odds are accurate, I can say that I have tracked all my battles and my results:
Battles where I had a >50 chance of winning (19): Projected to win 12.4. Won 14.
Battles where I had a <50 chance of winning (7): Projected to win 2.9. Won 1.

It doesn't quite seem like they're tossups guys.

whats SSS?

Posted by cubcub113 on 9/1/2019 2:13:00 PM (view original):
For all the people who use SSS to say the listed odds are accurate, I can say that I have tracked all my battles and my results:
Battles where I had a >50 chance of winning (19): Projected to win 12.4. Won 14.
Battles where I had a <50 chance of winning (7): Projected to win 2.9. Won 1.

It doesn't quite seem like they're tossups guys.

Although not wrong, it's one coach, so small sample size. I'm going to assume these are all 2 team battles? With 3 team battles, aren't all 3 coaches below 50% regardless? That would give more weight to the <50 side.

Do you track more define data as well? I know this would take a lot longer so you won't have an answer now I'm sure. But have you tracked 70/30s and how often you win/lose those? And 60/40s? Etc..... Those are the things I'm most curious about.

i feel like in any given world, Coach A could lose ten 80/20 while leading. And Coach B could win ten 80/20 battles while leading. Which would create accurate odds for "the game". But good luck telling Coach A that. It's the reason i feel this is such a difficult thing to prove, or agree on

"i feel like in any given world, Coach A could lose ten 80/20 while leading. And Coach B could win ten 80/20 battles while leading. Which would create accurate odds for "the game". But good luck telling Coach A that. It's the reason i feel this is such a difficult thing to prove, or agree on"

I'm 100% sure it doesn't work like that. Signing odds are independent events and have no impact on any other signing. It's like roulette, not black Jack. What happened previously has no statistically bearing on what will happen next.

i think some of you guys are overthinking this. its possible, but it would take a pretty impressive level of incompetence for those % odds listed to be inaccurate. its clear the intention is for them to be accurate, and its easy for them to be accurate, so what is the concern?

i am definitely one who might have questioned this at one point, but it would be to confirm an expectation, not because i had a handful of bad battles. and it would take probably a half dozen or more coaches reporting their odds and the winner, i suspect by ~100 battles you have enough to draw a best fit line which should be pretty close to what WIS is saying. or not, if its wrong, i suppose.

its not that hard to do, about 5-10 of you skeptical folks should get together and do it - ill even join in if all i have to do is report my battles - but you'll need odds of winning exactly, this better than or worse than 50 stuff doesn't come close. not positive 100 battles is enough, its just my off the cuff guess, it still could be influenced by luck for sure, i feel like you'd really want more like 1000 to say with a high level of confidence what is happening, but if you run 100 and its fairly close or way off, it would be pretty interesting at least.

Once you've come up with those recruiting percentages, flipping that weighted coin is one of the easiest things to program. I just can't fathom that 80% doesn't mean 80%, and 20% doesn't mean 20%. Makes zero sense. The computer needs some number to determine who wins. It's not magic. Makes sense that it's the number they are showing us at the end of battles, instead of WIS just blatantly lying to us.

If you hate the feeling of a bad beat, then sure, tell yourself that every recruiting battle is a 50% coin flip. But that's a mental state not indicative of mathematical error.

I agree that 100 wouldn't be good enough. And i agree with what basketts said.... think of every battle as a 50/50 flip. But here's the biggest problem with my input on this topic....... I'm not jumping up and down saying "the game is wrong. These odds are wrong. The odds aren't accurate and don't work". I'm just throwing my comments out there because so many of you swear by these odds and it's hilarious to me.

When it boils down to it, i said it needs to be more than 100, and the reason is because IN THE LONG RUN i think the odds actually DO work! But that's the problem. (Just an example coming!!!) I might lose 25 out of 30 rolls where i lead 80/20. If that happens, I'm going to be a person that says "these odds are ridiculous". And if i gave up on HD at that point, that would be a factor. So I'm not "wrong" in that case. But sure if i played for 10 more real life years it would likely balance out and I'd be a person that says "the odds are PERFECT" like some of you do.

All that said, back to benis' response.... do you all not feel like odds are based on the recruiting session as a whole? Because i will say that I've actually thought that to be true. Like in Crum recruiting in an entire season, RS1 and RS2, i always assumed that the engine would basically gather up ALL the 80/20 rolls for that season and give the recruit to the leader 80% of the time. And give the recruit to the trailing team 20% of the time. Does it not "generally" work that way?

Posted by topdogggbm on 9/2/2019 6:02:00 PM (view original):
I agree that 100 wouldn't be good enough. And i agree with what basketts said.... think of every battle as a 50/50 flip. But here's the biggest problem with my input on this topic....... I'm not jumping up and down saying "the game is wrong. These odds are wrong. The odds aren't accurate and don't work". I'm just throwing my comments out there because so many of you swear by these odds and it's hilarious to me.

When it boils down to it, i said it needs to be more than 100, and the reason is because IN THE LONG RUN i think the odds actually DO work! But that's the problem. (Just an example coming!!!) I might lose 25 out of 30 rolls where i lead 80/20. If that happens, I'm going to be a person that says "these odds are ridiculous". And if i gave up on HD at that point, that would be a factor. So I'm not "wrong" in that case. But sure if i played for 10 more real life years it would likely balance out and I'd be a person that says "the odds are PERFECT" like some of you do.

All that said, back to benis' response.... do you all not feel like odds are based on the recruiting session as a whole? Because i will say that I've actually thought that to be true. Like in Crum recruiting in an entire season, RS1 and RS2, i always assumed that the engine would basically gather up ALL the 80/20 rolls for that season and give the recruit to the leader 80% of the time. And give the recruit to the trailing team 20% of the time. Does it not "generally" work that way?

No, it doesn't work that way. They're independent events. You are giving Seble WAY too much credit to design a system that sophisticated.

Some entire recruiting sessions, it could be 70-30 for the 80-20 leader. Some entire recruiting sessions it's 90-10. Eventually it will even out.

Posted by topdogggbm on 9/2/2019 6:02:00 PM (view original):
I agree that 100 wouldn't be good enough. And i agree with what basketts said.... think of every battle as a 50/50 flip. But here's the biggest problem with my input on this topic....... I'm not jumping up and down saying "the game is wrong. These odds are wrong. The odds aren't accurate and don't work". I'm just throwing my comments out there because so many of you swear by these odds and it's hilarious to me.

When it boils down to it, i said it needs to be more than 100, and the reason is because IN THE LONG RUN i think the odds actually DO work! But that's the problem. (Just an example coming!!!) I might lose 25 out of 30 rolls where i lead 80/20. If that happens, I'm going to be a person that says "these odds are ridiculous". And if i gave up on HD at that point, that would be a factor. So I'm not "wrong" in that case. But sure if i played for 10 more real life years it would likely balance out and I'd be a person that says "the odds are PERFECT" like some of you do.

All that said, back to benis' response.... do you all not feel like odds are based on the recruiting session as a whole? Because i will say that I've actually thought that to be true. Like in Crum recruiting in an entire season, RS1 and RS2, i always assumed that the engine would basically gather up ALL the 80/20 rolls for that season and give the recruit to the leader 80% of the time. And give the recruit to the trailing team 20% of the time. Does it not "generally" work that way?

on the last point, it does not - each recruit decision is just a weighted coin flip.

I think something else that comes in to play is that certain coaches and teams are in the lead in recruiting more than others. I have 3 a+ d1 teams and a pretty good handle on preferences and prestige etc. I know in a battle if I'm going to be ahead or behind, and therefore I play from ahead most of the time. So I lose as the favorite a lot more than win as the underdog because I am the favorite a lot more than I am the underdog. So if I lose 4 battles out of 10 when I'm a 70%+ favorite then I feel screwed (I don't, but I teach ap stats so I kind of get it, but other players might) where I'm not the underdog often enough to balance out the bad losses with unlikely wins. Another part of it is caliber of player. I just lost a 71/29 at ucla for a stud sf, #2 overall recruit. I also just won a 30/70 battle with my Kansas team for a stud pg. I'll remember those a lot longer than if I lose a guy who might not start until he is a junior.