I'm not going to respond to all of that because it comes down to the fact that you clearly don't understand what the word "probability" means. You can ABSOLUTELY talk about the probability of drawing any specific set of 20 randomly selected cards from a pack of 100. To consistently call this "god mode," as if it wasn't the kind of thing that is done every friggin' day in the real world, is absurd. This is in high school textbooks and popular on the SAT ("John has 32 red cards and 27 blue cards. He puts them into a bag and randomly draws out 7 cards. What is the probability that he draws at least 3 blue cards?") If you just step back a moment you will realize that you know this is a standard type of question in probability. Any time you use standardized sampling - in this case, that means using standardized equations - to sample a probability distribution it is a probabilistic process. There are probability problems in the world that involve things other than flipping coins and rolling dice.

I will also say, this was just a representative model of an incredibly common sort of scenario for which probabilities are calculated all the time because it seemed uncontroversial. The reality is that this engine just uses a single value based on the prior outcomes relative to expected outcomes to modify the shooting percentage otherwise calculated. Mathematically, a much more accurate model would be that you start with a table with 15 1s and 5 0s for a 75% FT shooter. Every time after a card is drawn it is replaced by .75 1s and .25 0s. I suspect you would find something along those lines would closely match the results produced by the current engine. If you got the initial number of cards right.

You’re obfuscating. Of course it’s done “all the time in the real world”, because models are designed by people for different purposes, and to represent different things. Grad students abuse probability to show the thing they want to show “every friggin’ day”. I realize lots of people don’t see a problem with designing a system that’s biased toward a desired outcome. But let’s not pretend that isn’t what you’re doing here.

When used to represent how a free throw shooter hits free throws, the accurate model is that the shooter is drawing with the same number of cards on the table every single time he shoots a free throw.

I'm not obfuscating. You're repeatedly saying that this "isn't probability." That's an absurd statement. It's just as probabilistic as the model you want the engine to use. It just uses a different equation set. But frankly, even the way you want it is only "right" inasmuch as we agree with how the ratings are combined to come up with an expected shooting percentage. And it's also a gross mischaracterization to say that the system is designed to biased "toward a desired outcome," because the only stats that are biased are single-player or single-team stats. They aren't biased in any direction, they're pulled gently toward the center. But that doesn't inherently promote any specific outcome.

Your second paragraph is just wrong. Granted, the model used by the sim isn't accurate either. In fact, it's worse. Because in the real world FT shooters who have hit their most recent shot are more likely to make the next one, at a statistically significant level. Guys who have missed their most recent free throw (within the game) are less likely to make the next. The effect is stronger when it's multiple free throws in one trip - make the first, you are more likely to make the 2nd. But the point here is that this characterization that in real basketball every shot under the same conditions should have the same expectation of going in is just wrong. And the example you keep leaning on is an easy and obvious illustration of that. Any simulation that says we can take each shot in a vacuum is absolutely not recreating aspects of reality that can be statistically demonstrated to matter.

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/4/2018 12:15:00 PM (view original):
You're actually arguing the opposite point from shoe. His point is that things are not variable enough. I thought about pointing out how often season series are split, but it didn't actually feel important to the theoretical aspects of the discussion.

Also, HCA exists at all levels. It just isn't very big.

iLOL
EXACTLY...….
Complaints like this are why the adjustment in the engine was made.

I really think show is making a big deal out of nothing. Users want a game where game results are believable based on the two teams ratings.
The current engine does that better than the old one.....case closed.....lock the barn door

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/5/2018 10:57:00 AM (view original):
I'm not obfuscating. You're repeatedly saying that this "isn't probability." That's an absurd statement. It's just as probabilistic as the model you want the engine to use. It just uses a different equation set. But frankly, even the way you want it is only "right" inasmuch as we agree with how the ratings are combined to come up with an expected shooting percentage. And it's also a gross mischaracterization to say that the system is designed to biased "toward a desired outcome," because the only stats that are biased are single-player or single-team stats. They aren't biased in any direction, they're pulled gently toward the center. But that doesn't inherently promote any specific outcome.

Your second paragraph is just wrong. Granted, the model used by the sim isn't accurate either. In fact, it's worse. Because in the real world FT shooters who have hit their most recent shot are more likely to make the next one, at a statistically significant level. Guys who have missed their most recent free throw (within the game) are less likely to make the next. The effect is stronger when it's multiple free throws in one trip - make the first, you are more likely to make the 2nd. But the point here is that this characterization that in real basketball every shot under the same conditions should have the same expectation of going in is just wrong. And the example you keep leaning on is an easy and obvious illustration of that. Any simulation that says we can take each shot in a vacuum is absolutely not recreating aspects of reality that can be statistically demonstrated to matter.

“...that doesn’t inherently promote any specific outcome”. False, and you’ve said as much. It’s the basis upon which mully is resting his argument. The system is specifically designed to extra-favor the favorite, and it was designed that way in spite of the previous system generally producing “upsets” at a rate very similar to real life. Drawing from a limited set, rather than a constant set is a double-bias toward the favorite. You’re speeding/forcing regression, with the intent of producing fewer upsets. It’s unclear to me why you’re denying this now, this was explicitly what you were saying on earlier pages.

Drawing from a limited set is god mode. The only question is how powerful you want your god to be, ie how limited the set will be. A simulated FT shooter whose skill is based on a number convention will have the exact same odds of making every shot he he takes, in the same way a fair coin always has the exact same odds, regardless of how it’s been flipped in the past.

Posted by shoe3 on 10/4/2018 7:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/4/2018 4:18:00 PM (view original):
Look, I think it's pretty clear that you're not going to change your mind here. That's fine. I don't think it's important for you to do so. I don't think you're leaving the game. So I'm probably about done with this thread. The main thing is that in HD forums that are already often quite toxic, I did think it was important after seeing you blast the central element of the game - simulation of game results - that somebody come in and at least provide a counter-perspective. At least let new players see that there is a viable argument that, hey, maybe the game isn't so unfair as somebody said.

I do think that your perspective here is based on a very narrow definition of the words "probability" and "fair." Using the same equations to determine the range of outcomes of each event in each game is certainly an easy way to be fair and probabilistic. But I don't think it's the only way. The sim engine as it is now determines outcomes based on fixed equations, which determine an expectation value, and then a random number generator output is combined with that expectation value to determine the outcome of each event, resulting in a predictable distribution of outcomes. This is basically the textbook definition of a probabilistic simulation. Every team is subject to the same set of equations, they aren't changed, they don't discriminate against any team, any coach, any type of team, any type of coach, or as far as I can tell any system or strategy. This is basically the textbook definition of fair. Each team in each game has an equivalent probability of being positively or negatively adjusted based on their early-game performance. Nobody is being given an inherent advantage.

One could, if one wanted, think of the difference between the sim you are advocating for and the sim we have as the difference between a Monte Carlo simulation of a basketball game and a what if simulation of a basketball game. We are intentionally sampling more in the regions of high probability and largely ignoring the best- and worst-case scenarios in this engine, narrowing the distribution of outcomes. This is classic Monte Carlo behavior. Now, one could also argue that "WhatIfSports" should be using the "what if" simulation model. But Monte Carlo sampling is, in general, a more efficient way of describing probability distributions of reasonably normally-distributed variables.

I mean... you’re not delusional enough to think that anyone thought there was a chance *you* might change your mind... right?

There were a lot of folks reaching for the Xanax when 3.0 came out. I understand the impulse to get another view out there “for the new folks”, when it looks like the system is being painted a certain way by the people who don’t like it. A lot of folks have a very specific view of me because that’s exactly what I did. As I said from the outset, people like what they like. But we should be honest about it, and not try cover it up, or rationalize it with advanced looking statistics. A flipped fair coin is always going to have the same odds, no matter how it flipped the last time. A simulation that deviates from that is perverting probability. Your models and bracketed formulas don’t change that.

Another reason why I appreciate mully, while I think he’s completely wrong about half the time (including this one), he’s upfront. He’s ok with the system extra-favoring the favorite. He’s ok with god mode, as long as it’s on the side of the favorite. He likes what he likes. Cool.

I'm way late to this discussion. And I have nothing mathematical to add to this topic. You guys look at this game in a far more advanced way than I do. I put my best guys out there, and try to create the best matchups, and that's it. Because of all the random events that take place in this game, overthinking has caused me more bad than good. (If running uptempo is "wrong" when I have an advantage in ATH/SPD/REB/DEF and the highest team stamina in the entire country by a large margin, then I give up completely on trying to make sense of this game!). But I do have two things to bring up.

1) you've mentioned your love affair for mully multiple times. It's great to have friends here. I have lots myself. But you said the main reason being that he likes what he likes and says what he feels. Isn't that exactly what EVERYONE here does in the forums? The guys that are opposed to your views in this thread are doing that here. So why the man crush on mully specifically for similar reasons?

2) after mentioning all the different variables yourself, that can impact the outcome of possessions/games/whatever, why do you continue to use the "fair flipped coin is 50/50"? I understand where you're going with that. But that coin has different weights all over it. Things you mentioned, the defender, positioning, fatigue, etc. It's more like a rubik's cube than a coin. With a bunch of 10%'s and 5%'s spread out all over it.

If you read my last post in this thread, you should have an answer to both questions. If you’re still confused, send me a sitemail.

I don't know why you feel the need to quash anyone's man crush on here topdogg!!

Because I'm sure everyone was wondering "What's Tec's take on all this?", here I am to satisfy your curiousity.

My thought is simple: the result each possession or play should be evaluated solely on the ratings of the players on the floor at the time of the possession/play and the user's game settings, modified by fatigue. Throw everything together and run it through a probability matrix, and determine the result of the play. There should be no external factors (other than a slight modification due to HCA).

IF the coding is done right, the "better" team should have the probabilities tilted slightly in their favor over the course of 100+ possessions combined in a typical game.

But that's not to say that the better team will (or should) always win. Sometimes, using the coin-flip example, you will flip 7 heads in a row, even with a slightly tails-biased coin.

Over the course of a season, for all 1,000 or so schools across all divisions in any given world, the law of large numbers should result in things playing out to where the should be. But a single possession, a single game, or even a single season for one team, may see deviation outside of expectations.

The only reasonable excuse for it not playing out that way over the long run is if the game engine itself, in determining the results of any single possession/play, is fundamentally flawed. If that's the case, then millions of possessions over all teams in all games in all divisions of a given season, will have severely exacerbated the flaw.

Posted by Benis on 10/3/2018 2:01:00 PM (view original):
Probability, for the lack of a better word, is good. Probability is right, probability works. Probability cuts through and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Probability, in all its forms. Probability for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind.

And probability, mark my words, will not only save Hoops Dynasty, but that other malfunctioning corporation called WhatifSports.

A little disappointed no one got this movie reference.

Posted by tecwrg on 10/8/2018 12:43:00 PM (view original):
Because I'm sure everyone was wondering "What's Tec's take on all this?", here I am to satisfy your curiousity.

My thought is simple: the result each possession or play should be evaluated solely on the ratings of the players on the floor at the time of the possession/play and the user's game settings, modified by fatigue. Throw everything together and run it through a probability matrix, and determine the result of the play. There should be no external factors (other than a slight modification due to HCA).

IF the coding is done right, the "better" team should have the probabilities tilted slightly in their favor over the course of 100+ possessions combined in a typical game.

But that's not to say that the better team will (or should) always win. Sometimes, using the coin-flip example, you will flip 7 heads in a row, even with a slightly tails-biased coin.

Over the course of a season, for all 1,000 or so schools across all divisions in any given world, the law of large numbers should result in things playing out to where the should be. But a single possession, a single game, or even a single season for one team, may see deviation outside of expectations.

The only reasonable excuse for it not playing out that way over the long run is if the game engine itself, in determining the results of any single possession/play, is fundamentally flawed. If that's the case, then millions of possessions over all teams in all games in all divisions of a given season, will have severely exacerbated the flaw.

That's a lot of words to defend an old flaw in the game results that people generally didn't like.

The artificial momentum swing makes for a better game, even if it isn't 100% mathematically pure.

Remember, the game code is basically written in Tarekian Sanskrit. seble is doing his best with the hand he was dealt.

Posted by tecwrg on 10/8/2018 12:43:00 PM (view original):
Because I'm sure everyone was wondering "What's Tec's take on all this?", here I am to satisfy your curiousity.

My thought is simple: the result each possession or play should be evaluated solely on the ratings of the players on the floor at the time of the possession/play and the user's game settings, modified by fatigue. Throw everything together and run it through a probability matrix, and determine the result of the play. There should be no external factors (other than a slight modification due to HCA).

IF the coding is done right, the "better" team should have the probabilities tilted slightly in their favor over the course of 100+ possessions combined in a typical game.

But that's not to say that the better team will (or should) always win. Sometimes, using the coin-flip example, you will flip 7 heads in a row, even with a slightly tails-biased coin.

Over the course of a season, for all 1,000 or so schools across all divisions in any given world, the law of large numbers should result in things playing out to where the should be. But a single possession, a single game, or even a single season for one team, may see deviation outside of expectations.

The only reasonable excuse for it not playing out that way over the long run is if the game engine itself, in determining the results of any single possession/play, is fundamentally flawed. If that's the case, then millions of possessions over all teams in all games in all divisions of a given season, will have severely exacerbated the flaw.

So - do you agree or disagree with this statement.

Today's HD game produces an adequate amount of upsets and/or unexplained results.

I've lost games that I thought I should have won. And I've won games that I thought I should have lost.

But I've also benefitted and been the victim of drastic game swings between first half and second half. It's great when you benefit. It sucks when you lose.

In the end, the overall results of any given season is probably in the ballpark of my expectations.

But I'd rather win or lose fairly than be benefitted or victimized by a programmed adjustment that has no relation to the quality of my team, my opponents team, or either of our game plans.

And just to expand on that last comment . . . I wouldn't want my game plan to be partially or fully nullified in any way because there's a piece of code in the engine that determines that I've overachieved in the first half.

Posted by tecwrg on 10/8/2018 2:26:00 PM (view original):
And just to expand on that last comment . . . I wouldn't want my game plan to be partially or fully nullified in any way because there's a piece of code in the engine that determines that I've overachieved in the first half.

Then this might not be the game for you.