cant make $$$$$$

[kidskid]

on the new game if your able to apply your old game credits to the up coming season what were you thinking. its for the cash. strato cant spend credits. its all about the $$$$$$$$ peoples. i might be out of line but i have to put 2 + 2 = 2006 or before. i'll bet a buck.

[Urishade]

On a somewhat related note I have noticed over the years that teams which were thought to be hopelessly out of the playoff race will often play much better down the stretch. Not so well that they get into the playoffs but enough were their record falls around .500 and within 5 games or so of the wildcard. I always intepreted this as SN way of drumming up new business as the season ends.

While there are plenty of diehards who will continue to buy teams regardless of whether they have a playoff season or finish 20 games out there are also a number of people who are in their Strato infancy. As such what better way to encourage a relatively new player to buy another team then having his current one finish on an up swing and just miss the playoffs.

That owner thinks hey I nearly made the playoffs, just a couple of adjustments and next season I'm good to go. So they buy another team. Frankly I think that is why the ballparks are becoming so homogenized so that every one will finish in and around the middle of the pack and be encouraged to buy more teams.

Having a customer's team finish at the bottom of the league isn't good for business. Basically with the pricing done so well these days and the parks all but the same it is very hard for anyone to gain an advantage and thus parity reigns supreme. But while that makes for some pedestrain game play it helps to stuff the coffers of the SN as every newbie, veteran, and hall of famer feels that they are just this {} close to that next playoff spot and/or championship.

[markp65]

This is in fact true. Most of us sense it, some of us know it.

I don't want to get into a debate on the ethics of it. But the simple truth is that anyone with a rudimentary programming abillity could deconstruct this bit of hidden code. It's called a "trigger code." Banks, lotteries and casinos use them, boards of election too. Here's how this one seems to work...

When HAL determines that a manager with a season's winning percentage under .450 has stopped setting per-series preferences within the last third of a given season, a mechanism is triggered causing an "overwrite/augmentation" code to SIM that manager's nightly game results. This augmentation code apparently skews the in-game probabilities to increase the losing manager's chances of winning by a factor that is the difference between the manager's current winning percentage and .500 (for example, a manager with a wp of .440 will have their chances of winning enhanced by a factor of .060 -- a small but statistically significant enhancement).

Once in play, it seems as though the overwrite code continues to run until the once-losing manager (a) comes within five games of the first place team in their division or (b) simply resumes setting their per-series preferences. At that point, the code reverts back to normal, and Sidd Finch resumes throwing the high heater.

[genevajack]

And what was just said sounds like a good one!!!

I just won a championship with a team that started 6-18. So go figure.

[keyzick]

As has most of us, I've teams that go on either a nosedive after starting out hot, or get hot after starting out cold.

Common theme is with runs for and against. A team with a good/great start, but low runs for/against differential, ends up going into a nosedive. This makes sense in that they're involved in a lot of close games, and the law of averages catches up with them. Similarly - teams that have a big favorable spread that have been losing (ie, whomping someone for the wins, then losing the close ones) usually go on a hot streak to turn things around.

Now, of course there are reasons that can be attributed to each - bad bullpens blow leads, etc., and what I've witnessed is not 100% of the time the situation around those streaks, BUT keeping a careful eye on the runs differential is usually a good measurement of how good your team truly is and whether it may take a turn for the better or worse.

If I were in charge of the coding for TSN though, I'd try to implement what markp65 discussed. Sounds like a great business idea. The only flaw I see with that theory as pertains to SOM, is that teams are playing other teams.....so if your favoring the losing teams, those losses have to pile up aganist all other teams, not JUST against the winning teams. Whereas casinos can tease people on a slot machine because each pull is completely independent of anyone else's at the casino.

Wow, didn't think I'd write this much! I guess I'd just like to believe that the results are actually do to the probability of dice rolls and aren't manipulated in any way.

[Sykes25]

[quote:b49ac0b8a5="markp65"]This is in fact true. Most of us sense it, some of us know it.

I don't want to get into a debate on the ethics of it. But the simple truth is that anyone with a rudimentary programming abillity could deconstruct this bit of hidden code. It's called a "trigger code." Banks, lotteries and casinos use them, boards of election too. Here's how this one seems to work...

When HAL determines that a manager with a season's winning percentage under .450 has stopped setting per-series preferences within the last third of a given season, a mechanism is triggered causing an "overwrite/augmentation" code to SIM that manager's nightly game results. This augmentation code apparently skews the in-game probabilities to increase the losing manager's chances of winning by a factor that is the difference between the manager's current winning percentage and .500 (for example, a manager with a wp of .440 will have their chances of winning enhanced by a factor of .060 -- a small but statistically significant enhancement).

Once in play, it seems as though the overwrite code continues to run until the once-losing manager (a) comes within five games of the first place team in their division or (b) simply resumes setting their per-series preferences. At that point, the code reverts back to normal, and Sidd Finch resumes throwing the high heater.[/quote:b49ac0b8a5]

TSN's game engine is based almost entirely on the coding of the CD-Rom version of SOM. The only "theory" that would apply is a "normalization" code which is NOT currently used by TSN. This was debated a few years ago and only applies to player stats and has nothing to do with manager settings etc.

TSN does not allow this to happen in it's game engine.

The single greatest thing about SOM as a whole, is that averages will always come out the more you play. Each time HAL "rolls the dice", you have the same probability of outcome no matter what that player did in his last at bat.

I would recommend not overthinking this so much. The SOM formulas have been in place for well over 40+ years. They have not changed in core values.

[durantjerry]

You guys think way too much.

[DAVIDCARROLL 2]

[quote:04f18cd89a="durantjerry"]You guys think way too much.[/quote:04f18cd89a]






me thinks you are right :lol:

[markp65]

Sykesy! Boys! Didn't you catch my Sidd Finch reference?

:(