what is *equally* - apparently it depends on your gameplan - the chance of it affecting an E8 game are slim and none

i like how despite being 31-0, i still am listed as having a 33 game win streak. I could be the first person to win 37 games in a season!

Quote: Originally Posted By tracyr on 5/27/2010
what is *equally* - apparently it depends on your gameplan - the chance of it affecting an E8 game are slim and none

i'm using seble's words there, but i think it's pretty obvious that he meant some teams were affected more than others. to what extent, i have no idea.

look, i'm not unsympathetic to the position you (and others) are taking -- and you may well be right the chances of the ratings drop affecting an E8 game are slim and none. but because there's that slim chance, as you evidently admit, i think that's why replaying the games is the best of a bad lot of choices. reasonable minds can certainly disagree.

i am highly unreasonable, ask anyone!

Quote: Originally Posted By johnsensing on 5/27/2010responding to both you and bugface:

i have no idea if my S16 game was messed up or not ratings-wise -- when i gameplanned mid-afternoon the day before, the rating looked ok to me. after i saw i lost the next morning, i didn't check them again until seble posted on all the knight boards. i'm guessing the drop in ratings came at the time the 2 am games were simmed? otherwise, why replay the S16? it looked like my guys' drops were roughly between 10-20 points each, give or take. it seemed in cases, i certainly had drops of more than 1 point. how substantive that drop is in terms of gameplay, i don't know -- for all i know, my opponent got hit harder.

but i think the main issue is this: teams were not affected equally, per seble. a lot of people seem to be ignoring that. given that, don't you have to re-run the games? maybe it didn't change the result, but maybe it did -- the point is that you don't know.

In my games, the difference in the ratings drop between the two teams was on average 2 points per player.... that is not a significant difference... and that difference was mainly because my walkon player was not affected by the change. that is a difference of .16 per player category... and the categories where we had those two points of difference could have been work ethic or durability. We are not talking about a huge swing in points. Even if it was a 20 point difference per player with one team being unaffected and the other team getting their average player rating dropping by twenty we are still talking of 1.25 points per player rating.

I think my biggest problem with the games being reran is that someone knowing my strategy is worth way more than .16 per player category. Also, I know that there is no correlation between one game and another. But lets say that I would beat my opponents 60% of the time, the odds of winning two straight would only be 36%. I understand the statistical fallacy there, but I think you can see the point. I won the first matchup 100% of the time.

Quote: Originally Posted By tracyr on 5/27/2010i am highly unreasonable, ask anyone

me too... lol

Quote: Originally Posted By mbalding on 5/27/2010i like how despite being 31-0, i still am listed as having a 33 game win streak. I could be the first person to win 37 games in a season

Obviously you have bribed the gerbils inside of the RNG machine.

Quote: Originally Posted By bugface1980 on 5/27/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By johnsensing on 5/27/2010
responding to both you and bugface:

i have no idea if my S16 game was messed up or not ratings-wise -- when i gameplanned mid-afternoon the day before, the rating looked ok to me. after i saw i lost the next morning, i didn't check them again until seble posted on all the knight boards. i'm guessing the drop in ratings came at the time the 2 am games were simmed? otherwise, why replay the S16? it looked like my guys' drops were roughly between 10-20 points each, give or take. it seemed in cases, i certainly had drops of more than 1 point. how substantive that drop is in terms of gameplay, i don't know -- for all i know, my opponent got hit harder.

but i think the main issue is this: teams were not affected equally, per seble. a lot of people seem to be ignoring that. given that, don't you have to re-run the games? maybe it didn't change the result, but maybe it did -- the point is that you don't know.

In my games, the difference in the ratings drop between the two teams was on average 2 points per player.... that is not a significant difference... and that difference was mainly because my walkon player was not affected by the change. that is a difference of .16 per player category... and the categories where we had those two points of difference could have been work ethic or durability. We are not talking about a huge swing in points. Even if it was a 20 point difference per player with one team being unaffected and the other team getting their average player rating dropping by twenty we are still talking of 1.25 points per player rating.

I think my biggest problem with the games being reran is that someone knowing my strategy is worth way more than .16 per player category. Also, I know that there is no correlation between one game and another. But lets say that I would beat my opponents 60% of the time, the odds of winning two straight would only be 36%. I understand the statistical fallacy there, but I think you can see the point. I won the first matchup 100% of the time.

absolutely i see your point -- as i said in my response to tracyr, i think reasonable minds can certainly differ on this one.

it seemed to me though that a good number of posts in this thread were acting like seble re-running the games was totally insane and there was no justification whatsoever to do so. i just felt the other side (which is evidently waaaaay in the minority) should be heard as well.

"There were teams that changed by 20+ points overall. That's not insignificant."

I lose to teams that have a 20+ lesser rating than my team all the time and I could not agrrree more that it is significant and B.S. Most recently with my Umass team in Night where a sim team beat two humans in the conf tourney. Maybe just rerun the whole season??

yes, but those teams that changed by 20 played teams that changed by 20

so yes, insignificant

so your quad rollover a bit back cant be redone but this can...actually games played...nice

Quote: Originally posted by dwoelflin07 on 5/27/2010so your quad rollover a bit back cant be redone but this can...actually games played...nice

Good point dw, the mistakes are racking up, I had forgotten about the super rollover in which teams that depended on stamina got screwed and those with young players got helped much more than they should.

Whats next

Orrdc,
The Final Four will be filled with teams who either lost in the S16 or E8, and all the teams who had made the Final Four in their respective tourneys will lose tonight.

Quote: Originally Posted By lazyedboy on 5/27/2010
My team is a 555 and had dropped to a 532, but I wasn't complaining then, even if I had lost, my only complaint would've been that my underclassmen didn't take such a hit like they had. right now, I'd rather the recruiting money and take the hit without complaints. Gotta love that mbalding was about to win the whole NT too, that would've helped my conference.

You sure about that? I think he has the edge because of experience, but not a done deal by any means. We may have something to say about the title over at Tufts. Until the reset we were in the Final Four with around a 40ppg margin of victory in the NT. Either way the RESET = BAD IDEA. You can rest assured that I will be ****** if we cough one up that we already won.

Not sure how many different outcomes there have been in Knight, but I do know one of the original D3 Final 4 teams is now just a Sweet 16 team and one of my conference mates who lost in the Sweet 16 is now into the Elite 8.