Posted by pkoopman on 10/10/2017 1:47:00 PM (view original):
The skill is in managing risks, volatility and contingencies. What buddha said about coaches necessarily always recruiting the “best talent available” simply isn’t true. Good coaches are finding other ways to build good teams, and are having success. The elite-only is a viable strategy, as long as you’re willing to deal with the scarcity and volatility of the commodities you’re relying on. There’s nothing “artificial” about how these skills and strategies are weighed against each other.

So what skills did Coach A employ in getting his team to the Final Four using EE quality players yet prevented them to leave early? He somehow managed to keep 2 guys ranked in top 20 on the big board to stay. Which particular skills did he utilize to make that happen or increase his probability of that happening?

Posted by Benis on 10/10/2017 2:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/10/2017 1:55:00 PM (view original):
Tim Duncan. 4 years of college.

Realism, bro!!!

Okay I'll bite.

In REALISM BRO!!! world - the coaches at Wake knew that Tim was going to stay to get his degree.

Did they? I don't know. Did you have special inside info?

I'm not sure that I've ever seen a post by zorzii where he's not complaining about how the game is victimizing him. The topic shouldn't be, "Ugh, screw these EEs! This isn't fair, I'm getting screwed". It should be "Does anyone have any advice on how to handle the unpredictable nature of EEs". THAT thread would be a lot more constructive than this one.

Posted by Benis on 10/10/2017 2:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/10/2017 1:47:00 PM (view original):
The skill is in managing risks, volatility and contingencies. What buddha said about coaches necessarily always recruiting the “best talent available” simply isn’t true. Good coaches are finding other ways to build good teams, and are having success. The elite-only is a viable strategy, as long as you’re willing to deal with the scarcity and volatility of the commodities you’re relying on. There’s nothing “artificial” about how these skills and strategies are weighed against each other.

So what skills did Coach A employ in getting his team to the Final Four using EE quality players yet prevented them to leave early? He somehow managed to keep 2 guys ranked in top 20 on the big board to stay. Which particular skills did he utilize to make that happen or increase his probability of that happening?

You know the answer. The next question is, do you know the difference between random and probabilistic? Random is based entirely on chance, where all possible outcomes are of relative equal likelihood. Probabilistic is based partially on chance, where the likelihood of each possible outcome is individually calculated by determined - and to some extent, knowable - factors. I’m not being jerky, not everyone understands the difference.

So Coach A accepted the risk (both the demand/scarcity of the commodities he sought, and their volatility) because he deemed the potential reward (exclusive use of the commodities excellent attributes for x number of seasons) to be worth it.

Posted by pkoopman on 10/10/2017 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/10/2017 2:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/10/2017 1:47:00 PM (view original):
The skill is in managing risks, volatility and contingencies. What buddha said about coaches necessarily always recruiting the “best talent available” simply isn’t true. Good coaches are finding other ways to build good teams, and are having success. The elite-only is a viable strategy, as long as you’re willing to deal with the scarcity and volatility of the commodities you’re relying on. There’s nothing “artificial” about how these skills and strategies are weighed against each other.

So what skills did Coach A employ in getting his team to the Final Four using EE quality players yet prevented them to leave early? He somehow managed to keep 2 guys ranked in top 20 on the big board to stay. Which particular skills did he utilize to make that happen or increase his probability of that happening?

You know the answer. The next question is, do you know the difference between random and probabilistic? Random is based entirely on chance, where all possible outcomes are of relative equal likelihood. Probabilistic is based partially on chance, where the likelihood of each possible outcome is individually calculated by determined - and to some extent, knowable - factors. I’m not being jerky, not everyone understands the difference.

So Coach A accepted the risk (both the demand/scarcity of the commodities he sought, and their volatility) because he deemed the potential reward (exclusive use of the commodities excellent attributes for x number of seasons) to be worth it.

I don't know the answer. That's why I asked you.

Posted by pkoopman on 10/10/2017 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/10/2017 2:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/10/2017 1:47:00 PM (view original):
The skill is in managing risks, volatility and contingencies. What buddha said about coaches necessarily always recruiting the “best talent available” simply isn’t true. Good coaches are finding other ways to build good teams, and are having success. The elite-only is a viable strategy, as long as you’re willing to deal with the scarcity and volatility of the commodities you’re relying on. There’s nothing “artificial” about how these skills and strategies are weighed against each other.

So what skills did Coach A employ in getting his team to the Final Four using EE quality players yet prevented them to leave early? He somehow managed to keep 2 guys ranked in top 20 on the big board to stay. Which particular skills did he utilize to make that happen or increase his probability of that happening?

You know the answer. The next question is, do you know the difference between random and probabilistic? Random is based entirely on chance, where all possible outcomes are of relative equal likelihood. Probabilistic is based partially on chance, where the likelihood of each possible outcome is individually calculated by determined - and to some extent, knowable - factors. I’m not being jerky, not everyone understands the difference.

So Coach A accepted the risk (both the demand/scarcity of the commodities he sought, and their volatility) because he deemed the potential reward (exclusive use of the commodities excellent attributes for x number of seasons) to be worth it.

You are making an analysis by not taking into account important datas about this game, datas that people are trying to illustrate with absurd situations. The question is not who adjusted better or do some recuperate better than others or it's the way it is, the game was designed that way... you knew the rules.

It's about is it fair? Is there another way to go about this that will prevent these occurrences from being a deterministic factor in which owner will be doomed and which will get a break. We all proposed good solutions, heck KCDeVil just came up with an outside the box idea that would fix it partially (the recruiting part).

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/10/2017 2:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/10/2017 2:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/10/2017 1:55:00 PM (view original):
Tim Duncan. 4 years of college.

Realism, bro!!!

Okay I'll bite.

In REALISM BRO!!! world - the coaches at Wake knew that Tim was going to stay to get his degree.

Did they? I don't know. Did you have special inside info?

Had a pretty good idea

"Understand that part of the logic behind the move was the promise to his mother to get that degree, but another large part was, that by all accounts he simply enjoyed the campus experience too much."

Posted by l80r20 on 10/10/2017 3:21:00 PM (view original):
"You seem to prefer determinism-based games rather than probabilistic, which is fine. There are lots of those out there. But this game wants to be a competitive multi-player game; determinism too quickly becomes formulaic, and sacrifices competitiveness."

zorzii, when you're not asking someone obviously a lot smarter than you if he went to college, you seem genuinely befuddled. Here's a starting point: do you understand the quote above? Can you restate it in your own words? And if you can, then can you explain the difference between "deterministic" and "probabilistic" in your own words? If you cannot, then I suggest you get off your self-pity trip and start to listen.

I doubt he is more intelligent or more educated, he just has more time. I understand his explication, I know is argument would be right if he was attacking a the problem or seeing the problem Spud. What is writing can impress anybody cause it's good bla-bla but it's beside the subject.

Posted by zorzii on 10/10/2017 2:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/10/2017 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/10/2017 2:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/10/2017 1:47:00 PM (view original):
The skill is in managing risks, volatility and contingencies. What buddha said about coaches necessarily always recruiting the “best talent available” simply isn’t true. Good coaches are finding other ways to build good teams, and are having success. The elite-only is a viable strategy, as long as you’re willing to deal with the scarcity and volatility of the commodities you’re relying on. There’s nothing “artificial” about how these skills and strategies are weighed against each other.

So what skills did Coach A employ in getting his team to the Final Four using EE quality players yet prevented them to leave early? He somehow managed to keep 2 guys ranked in top 20 on the big board to stay. Which particular skills did he utilize to make that happen or increase his probability of that happening?

You know the answer. The next question is, do you know the difference between random and probabilistic? Random is based entirely on chance, where all possible outcomes are of relative equal likelihood. Probabilistic is based partially on chance, where the likelihood of each possible outcome is individually calculated by determined - and to some extent, knowable - factors. I’m not being jerky, not everyone understands the difference.

So Coach A accepted the risk (both the demand/scarcity of the commodities he sought, and their volatility) because he deemed the potential reward (exclusive use of the commodities excellent attributes for x number of seasons) to be worth it.

You are making an analysis by not taking into account important datas about this game, datas that people are trying to illustrate with absurd situations. The question is not who adjusted better or do some recuperate better than others or it's the way it is, the game was designed that way... you knew the rules.

It's about is it fair? Is there another way to go about this that will prevent these occurrences from being a deterministic factor in which owner will be doomed and which will get a break. We all proposed good solutions, heck KCDeVil just came up with an outside the box idea that would fix it partially (the recruiting part).

Yes it’s fair. Everyone is playing under the same conditions. An elite player is an early entry risk at any school. Replacing early entries is a headache for everyone.

No one is doomed. No one is forced to play a certain way. Your gameplay choices have consequences. The game does not need to be easier for you to manage, the risks of pursuing strictly elite talent don’t need to be managed for you.

Posted by pkoopman on 10/10/2017 3:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 10/10/2017 2:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/10/2017 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/10/2017 2:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/10/2017 1:47:00 PM (view original):
The skill is in managing risks, volatility and contingencies. What buddha said about coaches necessarily always recruiting the “best talent available” simply isn’t true. Good coaches are finding other ways to build good teams, and are having success. The elite-only is a viable strategy, as long as you’re willing to deal with the scarcity and volatility of the commodities you’re relying on. There’s nothing “artificial” about how these skills and strategies are weighed against each other.

So what skills did Coach A employ in getting his team to the Final Four using EE quality players yet prevented them to leave early? He somehow managed to keep 2 guys ranked in top 20 on the big board to stay. Which particular skills did he utilize to make that happen or increase his probability of that happening?

You know the answer. The next question is, do you know the difference between random and probabilistic? Random is based entirely on chance, where all possible outcomes are of relative equal likelihood. Probabilistic is based partially on chance, where the likelihood of each possible outcome is individually calculated by determined - and to some extent, knowable - factors. I’m not being jerky, not everyone understands the difference.

So Coach A accepted the risk (both the demand/scarcity of the commodities he sought, and their volatility) because he deemed the potential reward (exclusive use of the commodities excellent attributes for x number of seasons) to be worth it.

You are making an analysis by not taking into account important datas about this game, datas that people are trying to illustrate with absurd situations. The question is not who adjusted better or do some recuperate better than others or it's the way it is, the game was designed that way... you knew the rules.

It's about is it fair? Is there another way to go about this that will prevent these occurrences from being a deterministic factor in which owner will be doomed and which will get a break. We all proposed good solutions, heck KCDeVil just came up with an outside the box idea that would fix it partially (the recruiting part).

Yes it’s fair. Everyone is playing under the same conditions. An elite player is an early entry risk at any school. Replacing early entries is a headache for everyone.

No one is doomed. No one is forced to play a certain way. Your gameplay choices have consequences. The game does not need to be easier for you to manage, the risks of pursuing strictly elite talent don’t need to be managed for you.

Again : are the probabilistic occurences that make or break teams, are they fair? You know what owners started to do Shoe? Reduce practice time in key stats so that likely staying does not change to on the fence and that on the fence does not change to likely going. I know soph to junior is normally a boost in chances but the game is now designed to make negative adjustments on practices. I haven't done it. Maybe I am dumb.

Posted by zorzii on 10/10/2017 2:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/10/2017 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/10/2017 2:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/10/2017 1:47:00 PM (view original):
The skill is in managing risks, volatility and contingencies. What buddha said about coaches necessarily always recruiting the “best talent available” simply isn’t true. Good coaches are finding other ways to build good teams, and are having success. The elite-only is a viable strategy, as long as you’re willing to deal with the scarcity and volatility of the commodities you’re relying on. There’s nothing “artificial” about how these skills and strategies are weighed against each other.

So what skills did Coach A employ in getting his team to the Final Four using EE quality players yet prevented them to leave early? He somehow managed to keep 2 guys ranked in top 20 on the big board to stay. Which particular skills did he utilize to make that happen or increase his probability of that happening?

You know the answer. The next question is, do you know the difference between random and probabilistic? Random is based entirely on chance, where all possible outcomes are of relative equal likelihood. Probabilistic is based partially on chance, where the likelihood of each possible outcome is individually calculated by determined - and to some extent, knowable - factors. I’m not being jerky, not everyone understands the difference.

So Coach A accepted the risk (both the demand/scarcity of the commodities he sought, and their volatility) because he deemed the potential reward (exclusive use of the commodities excellent attributes for x number of seasons) to be worth it.

You are making an analysis by not taking into account important datas about this game, datas that people are trying to illustrate with absurd situations. The question is not who adjusted better or do some recuperate better than others or it's the way it is, the game was designed that way... you knew the rules.

It's about is it fair? Is there another way to go about this that will prevent these occurrences from being a deterministic factor in which owner will be doomed and which will get a break. We all proposed good solutions, heck KCDeVil just came up with an outside the box idea that would fix it partially (the recruiting part).

It’s about fair? Are you suggesting the guy who didn’t lose any of his potential EE’s cheated? That he exploited a loophole that he found that keeps his great players from leaving?

zorzii is the guy that spends his life savings trying to win the lottery because he believes it’s the only way to get rich. He claims to know the risk of the decision but spends all his money anyway. Then when he loses he complains that the lottery system isn’t fair because he’s broke and can’t pay his bills and someone else who just bought a quick pick - on a whim - won the multi million dollar grand prize

Posted by zorzii on 10/10/2017 4:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/10/2017 3:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 10/10/2017 2:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/10/2017 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/10/2017 2:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/10/2017 1:47:00 PM (view original):
The skill is in managing risks, volatility and contingencies. What buddha said about coaches necessarily always recruiting the “best talent available” simply isn’t true. Good coaches are finding other ways to build good teams, and are having success. The elite-only is a viable strategy, as long as you’re willing to deal with the scarcity and volatility of the commodities you’re relying on. There’s nothing “artificial” about how these skills and strategies are weighed against each other.

So what skills did Coach A employ in getting his team to the Final Four using EE quality players yet prevented them to leave early? He somehow managed to keep 2 guys ranked in top 20 on the big board to stay. Which particular skills did he utilize to make that happen or increase his probability of that happening?

You know the answer. The next question is, do you know the difference between random and probabilistic? Random is based entirely on chance, where all possible outcomes are of relative equal likelihood. Probabilistic is based partially on chance, where the likelihood of each possible outcome is individually calculated by determined - and to some extent, knowable - factors. I’m not being jerky, not everyone understands the difference.

So Coach A accepted the risk (both the demand/scarcity of the commodities he sought, and their volatility) because he deemed the potential reward (exclusive use of the commodities excellent attributes for x number of seasons) to be worth it.

You are making an analysis by not taking into account important datas about this game, datas that people are trying to illustrate with absurd situations. The question is not who adjusted better or do some recuperate better than others or it's the way it is, the game was designed that way... you knew the rules.

It's about is it fair? Is there another way to go about this that will prevent these occurrences from being a deterministic factor in which owner will be doomed and which will get a break. We all proposed good solutions, heck KCDeVil just came up with an outside the box idea that would fix it partially (the recruiting part).

Yes it’s fair. Everyone is playing under the same conditions. An elite player is an early entry risk at any school. Replacing early entries is a headache for everyone.

No one is doomed. No one is forced to play a certain way. Your gameplay choices have consequences. The game does not need to be easier for you to manage, the risks of pursuing strictly elite talent don’t need to be managed for you.

Again : are the probabilistic occurences that make or break teams, are they fair? You know what owners started to do Shoe? Reduce practice time in key stats so that likely staying does not change to on the fence and that on the fence does not change to likely going. I know soph to junior is normally a boost in chances but the game is now designed to make negative adjustments on practices. I haven't done it. Maybe I am dumb.

Yes, playing with probabilities is fair. It’s only unfair if not every team is playing under the same conditions; for example, if playing at Clemson made a player more likely to go EE because of where Clemson falls in the alphabet. Then you’d have a legitimate complaint. Right now, you’re just complaining that you can’t think of a way to play that suits your tolerance for risk. Tough.

Do whatever you want with practice time. If you think it helps your team overall, go for it. All we do is make choices. They should all have consequences.

Posted by possumfiend on 10/10/2017 4:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 10/10/2017 2:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/10/2017 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/10/2017 2:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/10/2017 1:47:00 PM (view original):
The skill is in managing risks, volatility and contingencies. What buddha said about coaches necessarily always recruiting the “best talent available” simply isn’t true. Good coaches are finding other ways to build good teams, and are having success. The elite-only is a viable strategy, as long as you’re willing to deal with the scarcity and volatility of the commodities you’re relying on. There’s nothing “artificial” about how these skills and strategies are weighed against each other.

So what skills did Coach A employ in getting his team to the Final Four using EE quality players yet prevented them to leave early? He somehow managed to keep 2 guys ranked in top 20 on the big board to stay. Which particular skills did he utilize to make that happen or increase his probability of that happening?

You know the answer. The next question is, do you know the difference between random and probabilistic? Random is based entirely on chance, where all possible outcomes are of relative equal likelihood. Probabilistic is based partially on chance, where the likelihood of each possible outcome is individually calculated by determined - and to some extent, knowable - factors. I’m not being jerky, not everyone understands the difference.

So Coach A accepted the risk (both the demand/scarcity of the commodities he sought, and their volatility) because he deemed the potential reward (exclusive use of the commodities excellent attributes for x number of seasons) to be worth it.

You are making an analysis by not taking into account important datas about this game, datas that people are trying to illustrate with absurd situations. The question is not who adjusted better or do some recuperate better than others or it's the way it is, the game was designed that way... you knew the rules.

It's about is it fair? Is there another way to go about this that will prevent these occurrences from being a deterministic factor in which owner will be doomed and which will get a break. We all proposed good solutions, heck KCDeVil just came up with an outside the box idea that would fix it partially (the recruiting part).

It’s about fair? Are you suggesting the guy who didn’t lose any of his potential EE’s cheated? That he exploited a loophole that he found that keeps his great players from leaving?

zorzii is the guy that spends his life savings trying to win the lottery because he believes it’s the only way to get rich. He claims to know the risk of the decision but spends all his money anyway. Then when he loses he complains that the lottery system isn’t fair because he’s broke and can’t pay his bills and someone else who just bought a quick pick - on a whim - won the multi million dollar grand prize

Again, beside the point, you are debating something I am not talking about. I am saying the consequences of risk should be the same for everyone, not only those who get a bad probabilistic sequence.

Team A is robbing a bank, the coach has 40% to get killed, 40% to get two years, 20 % to walk free.
Team A robs a bank, coach get killed.
Team B robs a bank, gets two years.
Team C gets the cash and is free.

That's your ee system, a bit more complicated.

How is it fair?

Posted by pkoopman on 10/10/2017 4:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 10/10/2017 4:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/10/2017 3:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 10/10/2017 2:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/10/2017 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/10/2017 2:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/10/2017 1:47:00 PM (view original):
The skill is in managing risks, volatility and contingencies. What buddha said about coaches necessarily always recruiting the “best talent available” simply isn’t true. Good coaches are finding other ways to build good teams, and are having success. The elite-only is a viable strategy, as long as you’re willing to deal with the scarcity and volatility of the commodities you’re relying on. There’s nothing “artificial” about how these skills and strategies are weighed against each other.

So what skills did Coach A employ in getting his team to the Final Four using EE quality players yet prevented them to leave early? He somehow managed to keep 2 guys ranked in top 20 on the big board to stay. Which particular skills did he utilize to make that happen or increase his probability of that happening?

You know the answer. The next question is, do you know the difference between random and probabilistic? Random is based entirely on chance, where all possible outcomes are of relative equal likelihood. Probabilistic is based partially on chance, where the likelihood of each possible outcome is individually calculated by determined - and to some extent, knowable - factors. I’m not being jerky, not everyone understands the difference.

So Coach A accepted the risk (both the demand/scarcity of the commodities he sought, and their volatility) because he deemed the potential reward (exclusive use of the commodities excellent attributes for x number of seasons) to be worth it.

You are making an analysis by not taking into account important datas about this game, datas that people are trying to illustrate with absurd situations. The question is not who adjusted better or do some recuperate better than others or it's the way it is, the game was designed that way... you knew the rules.

It's about is it fair? Is there another way to go about this that will prevent these occurrences from being a deterministic factor in which owner will be doomed and which will get a break. We all proposed good solutions, heck KCDeVil just came up with an outside the box idea that would fix it partially (the recruiting part).

Yes it’s fair. Everyone is playing under the same conditions. An elite player is an early entry risk at any school. Replacing early entries is a headache for everyone.

No one is doomed. No one is forced to play a certain way. Your gameplay choices have consequences. The game does not need to be easier for you to manage, the risks of pursuing strictly elite talent don’t need to be managed for you.

Again : are the probabilistic occurences that make or break teams, are they fair? You know what owners started to do Shoe? Reduce practice time in key stats so that likely staying does not change to on the fence and that on the fence does not change to likely going. I know soph to junior is normally a boost in chances but the game is now designed to make negative adjustments on practices. I haven't done it. Maybe I am dumb.

Yes, playing with probabilities is fair. It’s only unfair if not every team is playing under the same conditions; for example, if playing at Clemson made a player more likely to go EE because of where Clemson falls in the alphabet. Then you’d have a legitimate complaint. Right now, you’re just complaining that you can’t think of a way to play that suits your tolerance for risk. Tough.

Do whatever you want with practice time. If you think it helps your team overall, go for it. All we do is make choices. They should all have consequences.

Is consequences pejorative? Cause some don't get any penalties, is it fair?