Quote: Originally posted by monkee on 10/23/2009I was going to make this long interstitial response to naboimp's response to chesters response to etcbut I wontnaboimp allows that 10 games is insufficient sampling - the original point was that 7 games series are crapshoots if 10 games are insufficient samplingthe question is not randomness or no randomness - its a question of degree - there are programming tricks (some of which used to be in place - when this site had clientele - some of which still is (btw)) that can mitigate and moderate outlier activity the question is whether there is too much randomness - 10 games is too much

Quote: Originally Posted By monkee on 10/23/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By tnbishop on 10/23/2009
wow, some people here don't understand variance.

Michael Jordan has 32 FGA one game and then 12 the next. No, this isn't the sim, it's the 1990 season. Last year the Hornets beat the Nuggets in game 3 of the playoffs and then lost game 4 by 58 points. I can only imagine the nerd rage if that happened in a sim league.

you dont get it - real life doesnt form a good basis for discussion of behaviors in the sim

there are myriad reasons for real life variance having to do with subjective factors that are not accounted for in the sim

the sim is simply stat tables plus chance - there are no factors for emotional intensity, illness, feeling the flow etc etc in the sim

and there shouldnt be because the number one element that maintains competitive balance in this game is the salary valuation of the stats we draft -we pay for 3000 minutes and 30% drb and 90 d and 50% shooting (and we pay a little less for 311 tos or 323 pfs) and if we get 3500 minutes instead of 3000 the competitive balance gets jacked up and if we get 20% drb instead of 30% the competitive balance gets jacked up etc etc

the sim works opposite of real life where stats are simply a descriptor of past outcomes

in the sim stats are the basis for those results - sim outcomes should vary less than real life does

Quote: Originally Posted By RamBeast on 10/22/2009
holy crap... am I looking at a post that is trying to expand on a point and utilized a 16.5% usage against a 13.8% usage and claiming it's a joke ????? jeesh, my engineering degree might be out of date but my level of intelligence has never changed..... if you consider that to be within even 1% of a USEFUL example, you musta been absolutely frickin STONED !!!! I must be drunk off my 2 beers to actually want to join this particular conversation, but are you really even serious with that example ??? I guarantee if you show me the season's stats when it's over that Jerry will have taken the right number of shots (and I don't mean the tequilas that you apparently are on), compared to the bench player that you actually have the idiocy to bring into the conversation....

You must just want to add that to keep your posts up to date or something... that added absolutely nothing to any conversation that even pretended to include an intelligent thought.........

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 10/22/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By naboimp on 10/22/2009

Trevor,

If you think I am misunderstanding your argument, than make your argument clearly and concisely. I have and out of the respect for the owners in the NBA sim not named naboimp or pimp or whatever it is, I won't continually repost what I've already posted. As far as I can tell from some of your prior postings, you seem to think there is something wrong in the way the sim generates the random numbers moreso than the fact that they are generated, which is really an entirely different issue altogether (technique v. theory). I have no problem that random numbers are generated...that's plain ridiculous because EVERY simulation game has to have some random number generation....the problem with the numbers that generate is that they seem to/tend to cluster and that's a sign of pseudo randomness which other owners have pointed out...the clustering that is. http://www.boallen.com/random-numbers.html Like I said, if I thought this WIS sim or the other WIS sims generated numbers through true randomness, I would have shut up a long time ago.

Quote: Originally Posted By gin_caesar on 10/23/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 10/22/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By naboimp on 10/22/2009

Trevor,

If you think I am misunderstanding your argument, than make your argument clearly and concisely. I have and out of the respect for the owners in the NBA sim not named naboimp or pimp or whatever it is, I won't continually repost what I've already posted. As far as I can tell from some of your prior postings, you seem to think there is something wrong in the way the sim generates the random numbers moreso than the fact that they are generated, which is really an entirely different issue altogether (technique v. theory). I have no problem that random numbers are generated...that's plain ridiculous because EVERY simulation game has to have some random number generation....the problem with the numbers that generate is that they seem to/tend to cluster and that's a sign of pseudo randomness which other owners have pointed out...the clustering that is. http://www.boallen.com/random-numbers.html Like I said, if I thought this WIS sim or the other WIS sims generated numbers through true randomness, I would have shut up a long time ago.

The article is demonstrating a weakness of a specific function within a specific language. Not all functions in all languages. While PHP Rand() will repeat itself every 32000 numbers or so, any modern language's default rng is exponentially greater. Custom implementations, even within PHP can stretch that number towards infinite. Who even gives a **** about PHP? The NBA sim isn't a web script, retard. You can wonder all you like, but you don't know that WIS doesn't use SOME SORT of pseudo randomness. Like I said, if I was convinced that WIS used TRUE randomness, I would shut up and never say a damned word, edgewise, but I don't know that and probably will never know that, and I'm not just going to take somebody's word for it, or listen to someone who gets his kicks trolling after and trying to one up me after everything I say. You can say I'm an ******* if you like, but I need proof, especially when the results say otherwise...especially with the clustering problems.

Any lack of variation is coming from implementation of the random numbers, not the random numbers themselves. Quit pretending that programming is checkers.

Another nice ASSUMPTION on your part...you don't know...we don't know. I'm not claiming to be some sort of computer and or programming expert, but when the game's on its death bed, everything should probably be analyzed, no? Justly or not, I will not be satisfied until it is proven to me that TRUE randomness is implemented in these games.

(Apparently you didn't digest this last time...)

Quote: Originally Posted By longtallbrad on 10/23/2009

Quote: Originally posted by monkee on 10/23/2009
I was going to make this long interstitial response to naboimp's response to chesters response to etc

but I wont

naboimp allows that 10 games is insufficient sampling - the original point was that 7 games series are crapshoots if 10 games are insufficient sampling

the question is not randomness or no randomness - its a question of degree - there are programming tricks (some of which used to be in place - when this site had clientele - some of which still is (btw)) that can mitigate and moderate outlier activity

the question is whether there is too much randomness - 10 games is too much

To me that depends on what you're trying to establish. 10 games should generally be more than is needed to identify the better of two teams - unless they are extremely closely matched.

I would hope that 10 games isn't ALWAYS all it takes to determine which teams are the cream of the cream out of a field of 24, or else - as naboimp and all3 suggest - the regular season becomes pretty meaningless and boring.

Quote: Originally Posted By badja on 10/23/2009



Does the exhib SIM use a different engine? I like what I see there more than the full season. Defense actually seems to be effective, rendering the cookie cutters to .500 status.

As for RL vs. SIM....

The way I see it, there are 13 stat categories, plus offensive and defensive styles and settings. There is plenty of variance possible already. No need to have Wilt+MJ teams go for 2/4 from the line for the game. That ain't variance, its a rip off.

Regular TRUE randomness is going to provide all the variance the game needs...the game doesn't need further randomness to simulate uncontrollable real life factors such as the ebbs and flows, emotions of players and teams in a given game/stretch of games, and that's what seems to happen from time to time. I'm fine with regular randomness...all games NEED it, but excessive randomness to offset/override the things we CAN'T control is ridiculous and leaves no reason to play the game if the sim is just going to trump what your players are set to do, according to your own personal coaching style(s).

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 10/23/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By gin_caesar on 10/23/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 10/22/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By naboimp on 10/22/2009

Trevor,

If you think I am misunderstanding your argument, than make your argument clearly and concisely. I have and out of the respect for the owners in the NBA sim not named naboimp or pimp or whatever it is, I won't continually repost what I've already posted. As far as I can tell from some of your prior postings, you seem to think there is something wrong in the way the sim generates the random numbers moreso than the fact that they are generated, which is really an entirely different issue altogether (technique v. theory). I have no problem that random numbers are generated...that's plain ridiculous because EVERY simulation game has to have some random number generation....the problem with the numbers that generate is that they seem to/tend to cluster and that's a sign of pseudo randomness which other owners have pointed out...the clustering that is. http://www.boallen.com/random-numbers.html Like I said, if I thought this WIS sim or the other WIS sims generated numbers through true randomness, I would have shut up a long time ago.

The article is demonstrating a weakness of a specific function within a specific language. Not all functions in all languages. While PHP Rand() will repeat itself every 32000 numbers or so, any modern language's default rng is exponentially greater. Custom implementations, even within PHP can stretch that number towards infinite. Who even gives a **** about PHP? The NBA sim isn't a web script, retard. You can wonder all you like, but you don't know that WIS doesn't use SOME SORT of pseudo randomness. Like I said, if I was convinced that WIS used TRUE randomness, I would shut up and never say a damned word, edgewise, but I don't know that and probably will never know that, and I'm not just going to take somebody's word for it, or listen to someone who gets his kicks trolling after and trying to one up me after everything I say. You can say I'm an ******* if you like, but I need proof, especially when the results say otherwise...especially with the clustering problems.

Any lack of variation is coming from implementation of the random numbers, not the random numbers themselves. Quit pretending that programming is checkers.

Another nice ASSUMPTION on your part...you don't know...we don't know. I'm not claiming to be some sort of computer and or programming expert, but when the game's on its death bed, everything should probably be analyzed, no? Justly or not, I will not be satisfied until it is proven to me that TRUE randomness is implemented in these games.

(Apparently you didn't digest this last time...)

Quote: Originally Posted By gin_caesar on 10/23/2009Stop accusing me of trolling to try and make up for the fact that you're talking out of your *** and I called you on it, again. I post on this site. You should know that by now
You're clearly out of your league on this issue, so I'll attempt to level with you here - I'm not saying there isn't a problem with percieved randomness from an end-user perspective because I think there is, I'm just saying that there is too much going on between places where the rng would be used in the code and the end-result of a simulation game for the rng to be causing a player's cold streak. Although I see why you as a layman might connect the two, that example doesn't illustrate anything to me as a programmer relative to your conclusion. You might as well be fingering a suspected syntax error.

Quote: Originally posted by monkee on 10/23/2009you dont get it - real life doesnt form a good basis for discussion of behaviors in the simthere are myriad reasons for real life variance having to do with subjective factors that are not accounted for in the simthe sim is simply stat tables plus chance - there are no factors for emotional intensity, illness, feeling the flow etc etc in the simand there shouldnt be because the number one element that maintains competitive balance in this game is the salary valuation of the stats we draft -we pay for 3000 minutes and 30% drb and 90 d and 50% shooting (and we pay a little less for 311 tos or 323 pfs) and if we get 3500 minutes instead of 3000 the competitive balance gets jacked up and if we get 20% drb instead of 30% the competitive balance gets jacked up etc etcthe sim works opposite of real life where stats are simply a descriptor of past outcomesin the sim stats are suppsed to be the determining basis for those results - sim outcomes should vary less than real life does

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 10/23/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By gin_caesar on 10/23/2009
Stop accusing me of trolling to try and make up for the fact that you're talking out of your *** and I called you on it, again. I post on this site. You should know that by now.
You're clearly out of your league on this issue, so I'll attempt to level with you here - I'm not saying there isn't a problem with percieved randomness from an end-user perspective because I think there is, I'm just saying that there is too much going on between places where the rng would be used in the code and the end-result of a simulation game for the rng to be causing a player's cold streak. Although I see why you as a layman might connect the two, that example doesn't illustrate anything to me as a programmer relative to your conclusion. You might as well be fingering a suspected syntax error.

I'll be very matter of fact with this...yes you do troll for one, and two, you don't know that they don't use pseudo randomness and I don't know that they do use pseudo randomness, so stop trying to paint this like you're right and I'm wrong, because it isn't really clear cut. You're saying your opinion is right and mine isn't because you know more about programming than I do, when this really has nothing to do with it. Yes I do think there is a problem with their implementation of randomness, however I also think its fair to question whether they use TRUE randomness or not, because that too would have a major outcome on how the game operates...those bitmaps show how clusters could happen,even if those programs aren't used in web scripts or what have you...it shows you that pseudo randomness can cluster, and that's what I'm trying to convey. I'm no expert, but when I first saw those examples of true and pseudo randomness, I immediately thought of and wondered which WIS used, and I think I have fair reason to believe that SOME SORT of pseudo randomness is used on this site, in most if not all games.