Quote: Originally Posted By schroedess26 on 1/06/2010

Quote: Originally posted by gillispie on 1/06/2010 colonels, btown's overall rating was 4 points lower than his opponent. and he lost by 2. according to your earlier arguments, that is essentially exactly what you would expect. what changed to cause such a monumental turn around?

Good point I know I dont go by the overall, but colonels has said that in the past

Quote: Originally Posted By metsmax on 1/06/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 1/06/2010

I don't want less randomness, I want consistent randomness all the time.

consistent randomness

military music

quiet noise

......randomness is consistent ONLY in large aggregations of events

The number of games played/run has nothing to do with the perceived problem of EXTREME/EXCESSIVE randomness. If the sim's randomness is screwing up because it has faulty pseudo random logic, no amount of game simulation is going to work it out, the problem will always be there. If I thought btown lost because of regular randomness and thought that his 43 point swing was justified like my 37 point swing, I wouldn't have said anything...but its incredibly unjustifiable.

I feel like I keep explaining the same things over and over again because you guys misunderstand my argument.

Quote: Originally Posted By gillispie on 1/06/2010
colonels - "If things happen under normal, regular randomness, then fine...that doesn't seem to be the case here...thus every time extreme randomness happens where the RNG clusters causing one team to bizarrely out perform another, then you have a problem."

no team bizarrely out performed another in either game. ESPECIALLY the second one which you are complaining about. that game was not even close to bizarre. look at the 2 teams again. there is 0 chance btown was better than 90%, its not even close. this is the game you hang your hat on? seems quite foolish to me.



This isn't the first time this kind of thing has happened and it won't be the last. I had it happen to me back at West Georgia in season 27 against Delta State in the CT. Favored by 35, killed the team by 30+ earlier in the season...lost by 3 to 2-25 dreck. And no that isn't "thems the breaks" that's "the sim taking a ****".

Quote: Originally posted by colonels19 on 1/06/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By gillispie on 1/06/2010 colonels - "If things happen under normal, regular randomness, then fine...that doesn't seem to be the case here...thus every time extreme randomness happens where the RNG clusters causing one team to bizarrely out perform another, then you have a problem."

no team bizarrely out performed another in either game. ESPECIALLY the second one which you are complaining about. that game was not even close to bizarre. look at the 2 teams again. there is 0 chance btown was better than 90%, its not even close. this is the game you hang your hat on? seems quite foolish to me. This isn't the first time this kind of thing has happened and it won't be the last.  I had it happen to me back at West Georgia in season 27 against Delta State in the CT.  Favored by 35, killed the team by 30+ earlier in the season...lost by 3 to 2-25 dreck.  And no that isn't "thems the breaks" that's "the sim taking a ****".

Quote: Originally Posted By coach_billyg on 1/06/2010i don't think anybody misunderstands your argument. I think so because you guys keep saying over a large sample size everything would work itself out, you would see huge outliers like this, etc, etc....but that does nothing to address the problem of excessive/extreme randomness or not. You guys think I'm sour graping about normal sim on-goings/randomness but I'm not. How else would I have found my own 37 point swing acceptable and not this 43 point swing? i think you are set in your belief in your conclusion, and are unwilling to accept that the only basis you have for it is your gut feeling, and that this game/example does not prove a damn thing. My gut feeling? I've been screwed before, I know what getting screwed looks and feels like here, and I whole-heartedly believe that the sim took a **** on btown and his Wentworth Tech team. What about all the others in the OK I GET IT thread purporting the same excessive randomness theory that I'm offering up...hell even antonsirius said it. You guys say "its only one game, its normal" I say "If it happens once, it proves it needs improvement"...my comment is more logical and sensible. Your "wait til next time" comment simply isn't good enough.

you are right that you keep saying the same things over and over, regardless of what others say, but i wouldn't go so far as to call it explaining anything. God forbid I don't agree with all of you just because you done told me and you've played this game forever.

Quote: Originally Posted By coach_billyg on 1/06/2010
have you even considered the possibility that the reason this happened to you had something to do with your coaching, not *just* the RNG? I ADMITTED that coaching, the defense change and the IQ improvement would have got some of the points back from the first 41 point blowout, I just didn't think that those changes warranted a 20-21 bucket shift...that's what I said. And like I said, its more likely that the extreme randomness occured in the first game rather than the second, something I believe you or somebody said earlier in this thread. honestly, i am not trying to say there is anything wrong with thinking there is too much randomness or the sim is out of whack. but you are making claims about games and attributing the results to the rng, when you have a weak understanding of how the sim engine works. I may not have played as much HD as you have or have perfected playing the game yet, however I think I have a good feel for what goes on here, and I think playing the NBA sim, WHILE VASTLY DIFFERENT, has helped me get a feel for what should happen and what shouldn't happen. I'm a reasonably smart guy and if something doesn't look right, and you look deeper and it still doesn't seem right even after the explanation, then something probably isn't right. Btown didn't come right out in this thread saying he got screwed, but he was ****** off enough to think that something didn't work quite right and I agree with him because it doesn't pass the eye test, among other things. Given that I've had similar nonsense happen to me PERSONALLY, I err on the side that he did get screwed...40+ points? i am not knocking you for that but you have agreed its true, and it is 100% to be expected when you haven't played a whole lot. i don't think you can claim that is irrelevant, because the judgment of what to attribute a game result to is extremely dependent on your view and understanding of the sim engine

Quote: Originally Posted By coach_billyg on 1/06/2010there is NO WAY your comment is more logical or sensible. you are pointing to a game where a guy who was easily less than a 90% favorite lost by 2, let's add context here AFTER HE WON BY 41 AT A LESS FAVORABLE LOCATION and claiming this single example PROVES the entire sim engine I said IT, meaning the random number generation process...gin_caesar suggested to me that all games probably use pseudo randomness but if that randomness isn't properly maintained and debugged, then you can get clustering and things of that nature that lead to bizarre, unjustifiable results. needs improvement. You yourself said that games like these have happened a lot more than 1 time...the RNG at least deserves a look see because of this. i am not sure i could come up will a less logical or less sensible statement if i tried

Quote: Originally Posted By coach_billyg on 1/06/2010on ratings most would expect that game to be a fairly close one. Wait a minute...the same overall ratings that don't matter...that you told me don't matter? Really?what you are claiming is tantamount to saying any time a team is a favorite, they should win. Not even close...what I'm saying is, death to extreme/excessive randomness. If it were proven that nothing goofy happened with the randomness here and that's just how the numbers truly rolled out, I would gladly apologize and reneg all of my comments. The fact that there's another thread griping about my same claims leads me to believe that there might be a problem and I'm not the only one that sees it.

you say the randomness is so extremely out of whack. No I didn't, stop reeling with your BS...I said the sim takes a **** from time to time, and this is exhibit A...I'd prefer if the sim didn't take *****. how then did rails, in a 9 year period, go 50-1 in the national tournament and win 8 championships? Because he's a great coach and most of the time the randomness here works, however there's an excessive randomness that pops up every once in a while that shouldn't. he was probably the favorite in that 1 game he lost. man, he must have gotten screwed. oh, the humanity! Stop being so melodramatic.

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 1/06/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By metsmax on 1/06/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 1/06/2010

I don't want less randomness, I want consistent randomness all the time.

consistent randomness

military music

quiet noise

......randomness is consistent ONLY in large aggregations of events

The number of games played/run has nothing to do with the perceived problem of EXTREME/EXCESSIVE randomness. If the sim's randomness is screwing up because it has faulty pseudo random logic, no amount of game simulation is going to work it out, the problem will always be there. If I thought btown lost because of regular randomness and thought that his 43 point swing was justified like my 37 point swing, I wouldn't have said anything...but its incredibly unjustifiable.

I feel like I keep explaining the same things over and over again because you guys misunderstand my argument.

trust me, I understand what you said - and one can discuss issues without suggesting that what you say is not understood - an alternative hypothesis is that what one says is fully understood and wrong

if I toss a coin 10 times, and repeated the process 1000 times, I would expect wide variation in the aggregate number of heads - from 10 to zero

if I toss a coin 1000 times, and repeated the process 1000 times, I would expect the great bulk of the experiments to produce close to 500 heads

consistency is a characteristic of randomness only when repeated

expecting "consistent randomness" when looking at any one or two events makes no sense at all - it is oxy moronic