Posted by kcsundevil on 1/30/2018 10:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 1/30/2018 10:46:00 AM (view original):
Right now, the range to compete for a recruit is about 2 full prestige grades. If preferences, effort, promises are all equal, a team ~2 full prestige grades down is on the cusp of being in signing range.

If the argument is to narrow that range, the answer is no. I’ll never support that. That would make the game less competitive. Bad idea.

If the argument is to mask the underlying considering odds by making everyone in signing range appear as VH, whatever. I don’t care. Go for it. I doubt people would actually feel less offended by losing, especially if you continue to show the odds, but try it if you want, as long as the window stays roughly the same.

If the argument is to keep the window roughly where it’s at, but eliminate the leading credit bump that currently gives the effort credit leader an extra advantage in the final odds, I’m cool with that, too. Eliminate that bump, and you basically have what Benis is calling for, a team that’s 60-40 down in effort credit is on the low end of signing range - but instead of final odds appearing as 75-25, as they would now, they would actually be 60-40. But we should keep in mind, that will mean more upsets, not fewer.

Or we could just remove the final post-battle signing odds so people quit getting so upset about battles they “should have won”.

I was against posting the numeric results when it first started, and I'm still against it. I'm not sure how much good it does even for the "more information!" crowd.

I thought it was a dumb move as well. No clue why they did it.

Of ALL the things that they could have done post launch of 3.0, that is what they did? Could have fixed Champs page or considering list but chose to do that. Wow.

I like the current system.

#Me Too!

Posted by zorzii on 1/30/2018 10:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 1/30/2018 10:46:00 AM (view original):
Right now, the range to compete for a recruit is about 2 full prestige grades. If preferences, effort, promises are all equal, a team ~2 full prestige grades down is on the cusp of being in signing range.

If the argument is to narrow that range, the answer is no. I’ll never support that. That would make the game less competitive. Bad idea.

If the argument is to mask the underlying considering odds by making everyone in signing range appear as VH, whatever. I don’t care. Go for it. I doubt people would actually feel less offended by losing, especially if you continue to show the odds, but try it if you want, as long as the window stays roughly the same.

If the argument is to keep the window roughly where it’s at, but eliminate the leading credit bump that currently gives the effort credit leader an extra advantage in the final odds, I’m cool with that, too. Eliminate that bump, and you basically have what Benis is calling for, a team that’s 60-40 down in effort credit is on the low end of signing range - but instead of final odds appearing as 75-25, as they would now, they would actually be 60-40. But we should keep in mind, that will mean more upsets, not fewer.

Or we could just remove the final post-battle signing odds so people quit getting so upset about battles they “should have won”.

Or maybe reduce the odds at H. I mean, when you play your cards perfectly, and you end up losing against a H (I've had many coaches write to me while I was in Alabama and say they were sorry...) Sometimes, they get outplayed and are saved by a dumb roll. It is not good for the game. I mean, VH-VH, shows a real interest in the player, at least a similar one. A lower prestige letter needs more efforts, and will put it out intelligently. And they will calculate their risk and rewards. When they get ahead... why would they have to lose to a higher prestige letter just not invested at all?

Or raise HV and CV values.

If your class is ruined by losing a single battle, you haven’t played your cards perfectly.

Again, the question you should be addressing here is how wide do you think the prestige range should actually be? That’s the question that really matters.

Posted by Benis on 1/30/2018 10:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/30/2018 10:50:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 1/30/2018 10:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/30/2018 10:40:00 AM (view original):
Honest is what I posted.

Most/some/a few of us like the opportunity to go after the big boys. I/we know that we can't win if they really want the guy but, as long as I/we have a chance, I/we are happy.

In this particular case, I put myself in position to win outright in the first signing cycle. After that, I just wanted to stay in the game without wrecking the rest of my class in the process.

Nothing here is confusing. So why are you confused?

No one is confused (well maybe you are).

You want a system where you can compete with the big boys but you don't want to invest all your allotted resources to do so.

This is night and day from the 1.0 game you referenced where the low prestige teams literally had zero chance even if they did invest all their allotted resources.

Honestly, benis, what you're suggesting is a really dumb way for a D- to challenge an A in his backyard with exactly one VG in the bag(and it wasn't distance). Dump max resources on the guy, cross your fingers and hope you can find another option if you're beaten. No thanks.

No one is saying you need to challenge an A prestige team as a D prestige team from across the country while at a preference disadvantage and thinking you only need to spend less than max resources. YOU chose to do that.

Is that what people complained about in the previous version?

"This game sucks! I'm at D- Cal Poly and I'd love to get this guy in NC but I can't seem to beat A- Duke while also battling 3 other schools for local players. We have no chance to win! Waaah"

Maybe there was a chance that there was no A team on the player when I started investing resources. In fact, there wasn't. Weird, huh?

I didn't complain about 1.0 until 10 years after the fact. And it wasn't A- Duke vs D- Cal Poly in NC. It was A Duke/UNC vs B VaTech in VA.

Posted by Benis on 1/30/2018 10:55:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 1/30/2018 10:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 1/30/2018 10:46:00 AM (view original):
Right now, the range to compete for a recruit is about 2 full prestige grades. If preferences, effort, promises are all equal, a team ~2 full prestige grades down is on the cusp of being in signing range.

If the argument is to narrow that range, the answer is no. I’ll never support that. That would make the game less competitive. Bad idea.

If the argument is to mask the underlying considering odds by making everyone in signing range appear as VH, whatever. I don’t care. Go for it. I doubt people would actually feel less offended by losing, especially if you continue to show the odds, but try it if you want, as long as the window stays roughly the same.

If the argument is to keep the window roughly where it’s at, but eliminate the leading credit bump that currently gives the effort credit leader an extra advantage in the final odds, I’m cool with that, too. Eliminate that bump, and you basically have what Benis is calling for, a team that’s 60-40 down in effort credit is on the low end of signing range - but instead of final odds appearing as 75-25, as they would now, they would actually be 60-40. But we should keep in mind, that will mean more upsets, not fewer.

Or we could just remove the final post-battle signing odds so people quit getting so upset about battles they “should have won”.

I was against posting the numeric results when it first started, and I'm still against it. I'm not sure how much good it does even for the "more information!" crowd.

I thought it was a dumb move as well. No clue why they did it.

Of ALL the things that they could have done post launch of 3.0, that is what they did? Could have fixed Champs page or considering list but chose to do that. Wow.

Hey, look, we agree on something.

Posted by shoe3 on 1/30/2018 10:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 1/30/2018 10:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 1/30/2018 10:46:00 AM (view original):
Right now, the range to compete for a recruit is about 2 full prestige grades. If preferences, effort, promises are all equal, a team ~2 full prestige grades down is on the cusp of being in signing range.

If the argument is to narrow that range, the answer is no. I’ll never support that. That would make the game less competitive. Bad idea.

If the argument is to mask the underlying considering odds by making everyone in signing range appear as VH, whatever. I don’t care. Go for it. I doubt people would actually feel less offended by losing, especially if you continue to show the odds, but try it if you want, as long as the window stays roughly the same.

If the argument is to keep the window roughly where it’s at, but eliminate the leading credit bump that currently gives the effort credit leader an extra advantage in the final odds, I’m cool with that, too. Eliminate that bump, and you basically have what Benis is calling for, a team that’s 60-40 down in effort credit is on the low end of signing range - but instead of final odds appearing as 75-25, as they would now, they would actually be 60-40. But we should keep in mind, that will mean more upsets, not fewer.

Or we could just remove the final post-battle signing odds so people quit getting so upset about battles they “should have won”.

Or maybe reduce the odds at H. I mean, when you play your cards perfectly, and you end up losing against a H (I've had many coaches write to me while I was in Alabama and say they were sorry...) Sometimes, they get outplayed and are saved by a dumb roll. It is not good for the game. I mean, VH-VH, shows a real interest in the player, at least a similar one. A lower prestige letter needs more efforts, and will put it out intelligently. And they will calculate their risk and rewards. When they get ahead... why would they have to lose to a higher prestige letter just not invested at all?

Or raise HV and CV values.

If your class is ruined by losing a single battle, you haven’t played your cards perfectly.

Again, the question you should be addressing here is how wide do you think the prestige range should actually be? That’s the question that really matters.

I think I lost 13 in a row before quitting. And in these 13 in a row, I was once H. And I lost many VH to H rolls, many. I dropped my program. And even with all these loses Shoe, I still ended up raising the prestige to B-. So I had solutions, but the thing is, once you reach a certain level, you need these certain players to continue to progress. I was stuck. A guy took my team, remained one season... D1 is challenged everywhere... I am all for luck to be less involved in deciding which team wins and which one doesn't. I won't start with EE... But I am at the top in Phelan this season, playing 8 players because rolls are rolls... But if you see my history, I lost twice 3 ees and once 4 ees a season... No skills, just bad luck.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/30/2018 11:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 1/30/2018 10:55:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 1/30/2018 10:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 1/30/2018 10:46:00 AM (view original):
Right now, the range to compete for a recruit is about 2 full prestige grades. If preferences, effort, promises are all equal, a team ~2 full prestige grades down is on the cusp of being in signing range.

If the argument is to narrow that range, the answer is no. I’ll never support that. That would make the game less competitive. Bad idea.

If the argument is to mask the underlying considering odds by making everyone in signing range appear as VH, whatever. I don’t care. Go for it. I doubt people would actually feel less offended by losing, especially if you continue to show the odds, but try it if you want, as long as the window stays roughly the same.

If the argument is to keep the window roughly where it’s at, but eliminate the leading credit bump that currently gives the effort credit leader an extra advantage in the final odds, I’m cool with that, too. Eliminate that bump, and you basically have what Benis is calling for, a team that’s 60-40 down in effort credit is on the low end of signing range - but instead of final odds appearing as 75-25, as they would now, they would actually be 60-40. But we should keep in mind, that will mean more upsets, not fewer.

Or we could just remove the final post-battle signing odds so people quit getting so upset about battles they “should have won”.

I was against posting the numeric results when it first started, and I'm still against it. I'm not sure how much good it does even for the "more information!" crowd.

I thought it was a dumb move as well. No clue why they did it.

Of ALL the things that they could have done post launch of 3.0, that is what they did? Could have fixed Champs page or considering list but chose to do that. Wow.

Hey, look, we agree on something.

All four of us agree, which means there must be a superblue blood moon coming up, or something.

Now where’s mully to tell us all to go f ourselves?

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/30/2018 10:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 1/30/2018 10:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/30/2018 10:50:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 1/30/2018 10:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/30/2018 10:40:00 AM (view original):
Honest is what I posted.

Most/some/a few of us like the opportunity to go after the big boys. I/we know that we can't win if they really want the guy but, as long as I/we have a chance, I/we are happy.

In this particular case, I put myself in position to win outright in the first signing cycle. After that, I just wanted to stay in the game without wrecking the rest of my class in the process.

Nothing here is confusing. So why are you confused?

No one is confused (well maybe you are).

You want a system where you can compete with the big boys but you don't want to invest all your allotted resources to do so.

This is night and day from the 1.0 game you referenced where the low prestige teams literally had zero chance even if they did invest all their allotted resources.

Honestly, benis, what you're suggesting is a really dumb way for a D- to challenge an A in his backyard with exactly one VG in the bag(and it wasn't distance). Dump max resources on the guy, cross your fingers and hope you can find another option if you're beaten. No thanks.

No one is saying you need to challenge an A prestige team as a D prestige team from across the country while at a preference disadvantage and thinking you only need to spend less than max resources. YOU chose to do that.

Is that what people complained about in the previous version?

"This game sucks! I'm at D- Cal Poly and I'd love to get this guy in NC but I can't seem to beat A- Duke while also battling 3 other schools for local players. We have no chance to win! Waaah"

Maybe there was a chance that there was no A team on the player when I started investing resources. In fact, there wasn't. Weird, huh?

I didn't complain about 1.0 until 10 years after the fact. And it wasn't A- Duke vs D- Cal Poly in NC. It was A Duke/UNC vs B VaTech in VA.

You mean you were surprised that an A prestige team started recruiting a 5 star player in their backyard starting after a couple cycles?

Posted by Benis on 1/30/2018 11:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/30/2018 10:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 1/30/2018 10:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/30/2018 10:50:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 1/30/2018 10:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/30/2018 10:40:00 AM (view original):
Honest is what I posted.

Most/some/a few of us like the opportunity to go after the big boys. I/we know that we can't win if they really want the guy but, as long as I/we have a chance, I/we are happy.

In this particular case, I put myself in position to win outright in the first signing cycle. After that, I just wanted to stay in the game without wrecking the rest of my class in the process.

Nothing here is confusing. So why are you confused?

No one is confused (well maybe you are).

You want a system where you can compete with the big boys but you don't want to invest all your allotted resources to do so.

This is night and day from the 1.0 game you referenced where the low prestige teams literally had zero chance even if they did invest all their allotted resources.

Honestly, benis, what you're suggesting is a really dumb way for a D- to challenge an A in his backyard with exactly one VG in the bag(and it wasn't distance). Dump max resources on the guy, cross your fingers and hope you can find another option if you're beaten. No thanks.

No one is saying you need to challenge an A prestige team as a D prestige team from across the country while at a preference disadvantage and thinking you only need to spend less than max resources. YOU chose to do that.

Is that what people complained about in the previous version?

"This game sucks! I'm at D- Cal Poly and I'd love to get this guy in NC but I can't seem to beat A- Duke while also battling 3 other schools for local players. We have no chance to win! Waaah"

Maybe there was a chance that there was no A team on the player when I started investing resources. In fact, there wasn't. Weird, huh?

I didn't complain about 1.0 until 10 years after the fact. And it wasn't A- Duke vs D- Cal Poly in NC. It was A Duke/UNC vs B VaTech in VA.

You mean you were surprised that an A prestige team started recruiting a 5 star player in their backyard starting after a couple cycles?

I wouldn't say "surprised" but with the 19 WE I was hoping the "A" teams would stay away. Dude easily became the best player on my team. Just another guy on AZ.

Posted by zorzii on 1/30/2018 11:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 1/30/2018 10:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 1/30/2018 10:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 1/30/2018 10:46:00 AM (view original):
Right now, the range to compete for a recruit is about 2 full prestige grades. If preferences, effort, promises are all equal, a team ~2 full prestige grades down is on the cusp of being in signing range.

If the argument is to narrow that range, the answer is no. I’ll never support that. That would make the game less competitive. Bad idea.

If the argument is to mask the underlying considering odds by making everyone in signing range appear as VH, whatever. I don’t care. Go for it. I doubt people would actually feel less offended by losing, especially if you continue to show the odds, but try it if you want, as long as the window stays roughly the same.

If the argument is to keep the window roughly where it’s at, but eliminate the leading credit bump that currently gives the effort credit leader an extra advantage in the final odds, I’m cool with that, too. Eliminate that bump, and you basically have what Benis is calling for, a team that’s 60-40 down in effort credit is on the low end of signing range - but instead of final odds appearing as 75-25, as they would now, they would actually be 60-40. But we should keep in mind, that will mean more upsets, not fewer.

Or we could just remove the final post-battle signing odds so people quit getting so upset about battles they “should have won”.

Or maybe reduce the odds at H. I mean, when you play your cards perfectly, and you end up losing against a H (I've had many coaches write to me while I was in Alabama and say they were sorry...) Sometimes, they get outplayed and are saved by a dumb roll. It is not good for the game. I mean, VH-VH, shows a real interest in the player, at least a similar one. A lower prestige letter needs more efforts, and will put it out intelligently. And they will calculate their risk and rewards. When they get ahead... why would they have to lose to a higher prestige letter just not invested at all?

Or raise HV and CV values.

If your class is ruined by losing a single battle, you haven’t played your cards perfectly.

Again, the question you should be addressing here is how wide do you think the prestige range should actually be? That’s the question that really matters.

I think I lost 13 in a row before quitting. And in these 13 in a row, I was once H. And I lost many VH to H rolls, many. I dropped my program. And even with all these loses Shoe, I still ended up raising the prestige to B-. So I had solutions, but the thing is, once you reach a certain level, you need these certain players to continue to progress. I was stuck. A guy took my team, remained one season... D1 is challenged everywhere... I am all for luck to be less involved in deciding which team wins and which one doesn't. I won't start with EE... But I am at the top in Phelan this season, playing 8 players because rolls are rolls... But if you see my history, I lost twice 3 ees and once 4 ees a season... No skills, just bad luck.

That’s the game. What you can do with what you can get. I have one player I won a battle for at Oregon - in the midst of at least 8 lost battles, some where I was ahead, some behind - reached the final four last year, on the upswing again this year. The skill is in being able to use different strategies for different levels of players, and in long term team building, navigating contingencies and volatility. It’s a lot more complex than knowing what the cores are, and signing the guys with the highest cores.

Posted by shoe3 on 1/30/2018 10:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by calman877 on 1/30/2018 10:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 1/30/2018 10:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by calman877 on 1/30/2018 10:30:00 AM (view original):
In a H vs VH battle with differing prestiges there can be four different outcomes: higher prestige is VH and wins, higher prestige is VH and loses, higher prestige is H and wins, higher prestige is H and loses. The case you're talking about here is where the higher prestige is H and wins. I looked through the top 100 right now in Wooden and even though it's a small dataset I think it shows that you're looking at this incorrectly. Out of 14 instances, the case you're talking about happened one time, where the higher prestige team won the recruit while only being at high. It's actually more likely that allowing H to beat VH is helping lower prestige teams beat out higher prestige teams, as shown by the five times the H team won despite being lower prestige. Granted, this is a tiny dataset and I don't know the exact percentages of each battle, but I think it's possible that H beating VH helps lower prestige teams rather than hurting them.
higher prestige is VH and wins: 2
higher prestige is VH and loses: 5
higher prestige is H and wins: 1
higher prestige is H and loses: 6

	Higher Prestige
Winner		VH	H	Total
	VH	2	5	7
	H	6	1	7
	Total	8	6	14

H wins too often. that's my point and you just showed it.

That's a different argument then, I could agree with that.

This analysis doesn’t mean much, because you have no idea how much effort either team put in, and you don’t see the final odds, unless you were in on the battle. Prioritization matters. The higher prestige team may have only done 5 visits, and made no promises. The lower prestige team may have 12 visits and promised a start. Unless you know how much effort the teams put in, and know the final odds with the RNG roll, you can’t make an intelligent claim about what “should have” happened.

You're right that it's missing lots of important information, but that's information that you'll literally never have unless you're in those battles yourself as you mentioned. This sample is too small to be statistically significant, but if you got a big enough sample (50-100), I think you could make an intelligent claim about the odds that high beats very high. From that, you could draw your own conclusions on if it's too often or not.

Posted by shoe3 on 1/30/2018 11:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 1/30/2018 11:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 1/30/2018 10:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 1/30/2018 10:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 1/30/2018 10:46:00 AM (view original):
Right now, the range to compete for a recruit is about 2 full prestige grades. If preferences, effort, promises are all equal, a team ~2 full prestige grades down is on the cusp of being in signing range.

If the argument is to narrow that range, the answer is no. I’ll never support that. That would make the game less competitive. Bad idea.

If the argument is to mask the underlying considering odds by making everyone in signing range appear as VH, whatever. I don’t care. Go for it. I doubt people would actually feel less offended by losing, especially if you continue to show the odds, but try it if you want, as long as the window stays roughly the same.

If the argument is to keep the window roughly where it’s at, but eliminate the leading credit bump that currently gives the effort credit leader an extra advantage in the final odds, I’m cool with that, too. Eliminate that bump, and you basically have what Benis is calling for, a team that’s 60-40 down in effort credit is on the low end of signing range - but instead of final odds appearing as 75-25, as they would now, they would actually be 60-40. But we should keep in mind, that will mean more upsets, not fewer.

Or we could just remove the final post-battle signing odds so people quit getting so upset about battles they “should have won”.

Or maybe reduce the odds at H. I mean, when you play your cards perfectly, and you end up losing against a H (I've had many coaches write to me while I was in Alabama and say they were sorry...) Sometimes, they get outplayed and are saved by a dumb roll. It is not good for the game. I mean, VH-VH, shows a real interest in the player, at least a similar one. A lower prestige letter needs more efforts, and will put it out intelligently. And they will calculate their risk and rewards. When they get ahead... why would they have to lose to a higher prestige letter just not invested at all?

Or raise HV and CV values.

If your class is ruined by losing a single battle, you haven’t played your cards perfectly.

Again, the question you should be addressing here is how wide do you think the prestige range should actually be? That’s the question that really matters.

I think I lost 13 in a row before quitting. And in these 13 in a row, I was once H. And I lost many VH to H rolls, many. I dropped my program. And even with all these loses Shoe, I still ended up raising the prestige to B-. So I had solutions, but the thing is, once you reach a certain level, you need these certain players to continue to progress. I was stuck. A guy took my team, remained one season... D1 is challenged everywhere... I am all for luck to be less involved in deciding which team wins and which one doesn't. I won't start with EE... But I am at the top in Phelan this season, playing 8 players because rolls are rolls... But if you see my history, I lost twice 3 ees and once 4 ees a season... No skills, just bad luck.

That’s the game. What you can do with what you can get. I have one player I won a battle for at Oregon - in the midst of at least 8 lost battles, some where I was ahead, some behind - reached the final four last year, on the upswing again this year. The skill is in being able to use different strategies for different levels of players, and in long term team building, navigating contingencies and volatility. It’s a lot more complex than knowing what the cores are, and signing the guys with the highest cores.

Agreed on complexity. But why not dim luck a bit... I feel there is too much involved now compared to the last system.

“But why not dim luck a bit... I feel there is too much involved now compared to the last system.”

We basically choose how much “luck” we want to rely on. If you’re going after only high value, high volatility commodities, you are necessarily relying on some “luck” (its probability, but I’m not going to beat that dead horse again). You’ll have to win battles for most of those players, and you’ll have to plan for them to possibly leave early. If your team is only those players, you will likely be playing with 8 or 9 players a lot of years. But it wasn’t luck - it was the strategy you chose.

When you blow $100 on slots at the casino, your bad day wasn’t “luck”. It was a choice. You could have played blackjack or poker, if you wanted more strategy.

Posted by calman877 on 1/30/2018 11:14:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 1/30/2018 10:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by calman877 on 1/30/2018 10:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 1/30/2018 10:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by calman877 on 1/30/2018 10:30:00 AM (view original):
In a H vs VH battle with differing prestiges there can be four different outcomes: higher prestige is VH and wins, higher prestige is VH and loses, higher prestige is H and wins, higher prestige is H and loses. The case you're talking about here is where the higher prestige is H and wins. I looked through the top 100 right now in Wooden and even though it's a small dataset I think it shows that you're looking at this incorrectly. Out of 14 instances, the case you're talking about happened one time, where the higher prestige team won the recruit while only being at high. It's actually more likely that allowing H to beat VH is helping lower prestige teams beat out higher prestige teams, as shown by the five times the H team won despite being lower prestige. Granted, this is a tiny dataset and I don't know the exact percentages of each battle, but I think it's possible that H beating VH helps lower prestige teams rather than hurting them.
higher prestige is VH and wins: 2
higher prestige is VH and loses: 5
higher prestige is H and wins: 1
higher prestige is H and loses: 6

	Higher Prestige
Winner		VH	H	Total
	VH	2	5	7
	H	6	1	7
	Total	8	6	14

H wins too often. that's my point and you just showed it.

That's a different argument then, I could agree with that.

This analysis doesn’t mean much, because you have no idea how much effort either team put in, and you don’t see the final odds, unless you were in on the battle. Prioritization matters. The higher prestige team may have only done 5 visits, and made no promises. The lower prestige team may have 12 visits and promised a start. Unless you know how much effort the teams put in, and know the final odds with the RNG roll, you can’t make an intelligent claim about what “should have” happened.

You're right that it's missing lots of important information, but that's information that you'll literally never have unless you're in those battles yourself as you mentioned. This sample is too small to be statistically significant, but if you got a big enough sample (50-100), I think you could make an intelligent claim about the odds that high beats very high. From that, you could draw your own conclusions on if it's too often or not.

I did that awhile back. Its somewhere on here.