I'm curious, what's the worst bad beat/roll loss that you've experienced in recruiting? I haven't battled much, but just lost a 71-29 roll. I have to imagine there's been instances of a slightly worse loss and now I'm wondering who got the worst bad beat in HD history.

The worst it can be in a two team roll is either 79/21 or 80/20. Beyond that it goes from Very High/High, to Very High/Moderate and no roll happens.

3 team rolls (or more than 3 teams) have a wide variety of possibilities

Just lost a 72-28, after losing every other roll this season. Life is pain.

I’m starting to believe it’s better to be behind. I win a lot of rolls as the dog. And seem to lose rolls when ahead. Is there a way to check the numbers. Maybe it’s perception but are the underdogs really underdogs?

Im in every world and I am starting to keep track of all my rolls.
anyone want to create a spreadsheet for me?

Info I have now is the Dogs are up 2-0. 1 in my fav 1 not in my fav. But in West Virginia its about to look like a ******* craps table. So this should be fun.

Posted by Fregoe on 7/13/2022 7:19:00 AM (view original):
I’m starting to believe it’s better to be behind. I win a lot of rolls as the dog. And seem to lose rolls when ahead. Is there a way to check the numbers. Maybe it’s perception but are the underdogs really underdogs?

3 seasons ago in Wooden I started keeping track because of your exact situation happening to me.

So far I am 1-5 in VH-H rolls and 2-0 in H-VH rolls. You would think it would be the opposite.

Not keeping track of VH-VH, or 3 way rolls just FYI

I am doing
team season Fav % Dog % winner

I also started tracking my rolls a few seasons ago across all of my teams. Surprisingly I've been the leader on all 10 of them. 9 of them were 2-way battles. I'm 2-1 on the 50-60% odds, which is great, but extremely low sample size. On the 60-70%, I'm 1-3 which is a huge bummer. On 71+%, I'm 1-1.

Once again, very low sample size, but it doesn't feel good to be the frontrunner on every recruit and end up 4-6 (although 2 of them were 51% and 52% so basically even). Then there was a 3-way roll where I was the leader at 39%, so I wasn't actually ahead for the roll.

Posted by shoe3 on 7/14/2022 12:34:00 PM (view original):
The problem with this stuff is folks always, and I mean ALWAYS start keeping track after they’ve been losing a few. Because that’s when they notice. We will all have rough stretches, and there’s less deviance between the expected outcome of 70-30 and 30-70 sets than most folks realize, in practice. Because of the extreme low sample sizes we’re all individually exposed to, any deviance tends to instinctually feel like a design flaw. And if you have a handful of teams and have a rough stretch across a few of them, as described above, and start tracking then, well yes - that’s when it’s going to look like the system was designed upside down, from your perspective. But it’s not. No one confused the parameters and switch the A and the B. You’re experiencing what probability and small sample sizes look like in a game with thousands of users.

What IS possible though, at least somewhat plausible, is that there is a “good luck” factor for teams/coaches that doesn’t show up in the odds. I am fairly certain this plays a part - along with some kind of “momentum” factor - in the game engine over the course of a season. Now if this could get stuck on an individual team or user, whether by glitch or on purpose? Well that’s just fundamentally a different question than whether there’s a system wide design flaw confusing up from down, that’s all I’ll say about that.

I have actually been winning as an underdog. Most of my teams are lower prestige teams and I am finding its a very feasible strategy.

Posted by Fregoe on 7/14/2022 2:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 7/14/2022 12:34:00 PM (view original):
The problem with this stuff is folks always, and I mean ALWAYS start keeping track after they’ve been losing a few. Because that’s when they notice. We will all have rough stretches, and there’s less deviance between the expected outcome of 70-30 and 30-70 sets than most folks realize, in practice. Because of the extreme low sample sizes we’re all individually exposed to, any deviance tends to instinctually feel like a design flaw. And if you have a handful of teams and have a rough stretch across a few of them, as described above, and start tracking then, well yes - that’s when it’s going to look like the system was designed upside down, from your perspective. But it’s not. No one confused the parameters and switch the A and the B. You’re experiencing what probability and small sample sizes look like in a game with thousands of users.

What IS possible though, at least somewhat plausible, is that there is a “good luck” factor for teams/coaches that doesn’t show up in the odds. I am fairly certain this plays a part - along with some kind of “momentum” factor - in the game engine over the course of a season. Now if this could get stuck on an individual team or user, whether by glitch or on purpose? Well that’s just fundamentally a different question than whether there’s a system wide design flaw confusing up from down, that’s all I’ll say about that.

I have actually been winning as an underdog. Most of my teams are lower prestige teams and I am finding its a very feasible strategy.

Sure, plenty of coaches do that. Get to high on 5-6 instead of VH on 3, plan to win 2; maybe more if you have good luck. Absolutely a viable strategy, as long as you don’t have very specific needs and can be flexible; good coaches have been doing that for a while.

Concept is the same both ways, really. Whether you’re the winner or the loser, a 30-40% odds winner is far more noteworthy than a 60-70%.

Was in four rolls this season in D1 Knight. The underdog won all four. Two of them were essentially 70-30 odds (68-32 and 69-31). The other was 59-41 and the fourth was a three team roll with the lowest percentage team winning.

Just won 2 in a row! I'm on a heater baby!

To shoe's point, I did start keeping track after an 0-3 season which is dragging down my averages. Overall, I've been on hot streaks and cold streaks, but it's mostly played out to the intended percentages. I would like to hear your theory on "good luck" and "momentum" factors though. Sometimes it feels like I've been more lucky in the first 1 or 2 seasons at a new school. Could be confirmation bias though.