CHEATING or skewed Game Engine? Need a Statistician!

Interesting that there were 4 games where the lucky team got more than 10 favorable rolls.
Yet the unlucky team won two of those games. Some might consider that unlucky for the lucky team.

I signed up for Strat's "favorable rolls" subscription which gets me a 5% increase in favorable rolls. It's a pretty good deal for $5 per month.

That reminds me of a Lenny Dykstra story.

Per wikipedia:

In October 2015, Dykstra told Colin Cowherd that beginning in 1993, he paid a team of private investigators $500,000 to dig up dirt on MLB umpires. He used the information, he said, to leverage a more favorable strike zone during games. He said it was not a coincidence that he led the Majors in walks in 1993, going from 40 in 392 plate appearances in 1992 to 129 in 773 at-bats the following year. In 1994, Dykstra walked 68 times in 386 plate appearances.[6] Dykstra would play on two more All-Star teams in 1994 and 1995.

Imagine what a 500K payoff to Richman might accomplish. Probably let us add two cards to ATG.

Interesting that there were 4 games where the lucky team got more than 10 favorable rolls.
Yet the unlucky team won two of those games. Some might consider that unlucky for the lucky team.

I signed up for Strat's "favorable rolls" subscription which gets me a 5% increase in favorable rolls. It's a pretty good deal for $5 per month.

Darn it, now the cat's out of the bag!

Played against Dykstra's brother in a card and dice tournament decades ago. A real unfriendly prick! I understand they both were. I know Lenny was famous for making defensive plays look tougher than they really were (the deliberate "bad route than dive" method).

That reminds me of a Lenny Dykstra story.

Per wikipedia:

In October 2015, Dykstra told Colin Cowherd that beginning in 1993, he paid a team of private investigators $500,000 to dig up dirt on MLB umpires. He used the information, he said, to leverage a more favorable strike zone during games. He said it was not a coincidence that he led the Majors in walks in 1993, going from 40 in 392 plate appearances in 1992 to 129 in 773 at-bats the following year. In 1994, Dykstra walked 68 times in 386 plate appearances.[6] Dykstra would play on two more All-Star teams in 1994 and 1995.

Imagine what a 500K payoff to Richman might accomplish. Probably let us add two cards to ATG.

Steve-- why aren't you out here yelling 'sour grapes' on this?

Like I implied elsewhere- so little of this matters while the Neros over here and there fiddle away.
These things have been discussed for so long and literally nothing important changes;
and until people speak in a unified voice to ask for things to be better none of it will matter.

The point I was trying to make was if you want something done, you have to email customer support. Complaining on these forums won't accomplish anything, since they don't read them.

I am angry, but I am also very reluctant to post this. However, when a 50-50 roll skews dramatically in favor of the same team in Game after Game in a Playoff series, credulity gets stretched further and further from any faith in the norm of fairness. Now, when you flip coins, of course there will be streaks, and one side may get ahead of the other for a while, but the further along you go, the rolls will tend more and more to even out over time. Here, just the opposite happened. I am defining a favorable roll to be on the hitter card when your team is at bat, and on the pitcher card when your opponent is batting.

Game 1: Team A gets 1 more favorable roll out of 65 total rolls. Team A won 6-2.
Game 2: Team A gets 16 more favorable rolls out of 92 total rolls. Team B won 7-6 in 11 innings.
Game 3: Team A gets 13 more favorable rolls out of 71 total rolls. Team A won 4-3.
Game 4: Team A gets 14 more favorable rolls out of 94 total rolls. Team B won 6-5 in 11 innings.
Game 5: Team A gets 15 more favorable rolls out of 79 total rolls. Team A won 4-2.
Game 6: Team A gets 6 more favorable rolls out of 72 total rolls. Team A won 8-5.

I'd like one of our statisticians out there to provide us with an equation that would calculate the odds of this very improbable situation of occurring in any playoff series -- and tells us what those odds are. Again, those big number of favorable rolls margins are not the problem. It is that Team A gets 'em every time, 6 straight times. The very essence of fair play might be at stake here.

MORE DATA FOR CHARLIE AND THE REST OF YOU TO MULL OVER:

Same Team A above moves on from the above series. Team A sweeps The Finals 4-0 over Team C.

Game 1: Team A gets 4 more favorable rolls out of 76 total rolls. Team A won 8-6.
Game 2: Team A gets 9 more favorable rolls out of 71 total rolls. Team A won 12-0.
Game 3: Team A gets 5 more favorable rolls out of 89 total rolls. Team A won 9-8.
Game 4: Team A gets 5 more favorable rolls out of 91 total rolls. Team A won 8-6.

Same Team A, believe it or not. 10 straight playoff games. Team C and Team B never had more favorable rolls in any of these 10 games. Pitcher F ratings were almost always 9.

And for those of you who have asked, I am certainly going to take this to Strat HQ. But I wanted some odds calculated, which they have been, and to vet this with all of you Stratoholics who care to comment.

And I do not believe that Strat HQ does not follow these forum conversations, especially when the topic is fair play and game integrity. I believe Richman and Garcia and their colleagues are good people, or they wouldn't go to all the trouble of creating these cards with such granular performance factors that enable decently rough simulations of games that might have happened had they all been young at the same time -- and helps us remember or learn about the stars of today and yesteryear. Charlie, odds were 1 in 625 going into this next series. What are they now?

I really want there to be an innocent or inadvertent kind of explanation for this. But those prospects are dimming a bit too. What do you think?

Even when this happens, what makes you think it was deliberate? This is a game based on pseudo-dice. And even real dice have been known to go on streaks. I'm sure there's a casino somewhere that has been victimized by a long string of 7's at the craps table. And if you think SOM is out to get you in particular, you are just too paranoid.

Any streak like this actually provides evidence that the programming of the dice is actually fair. If something like this never happened, it would be evidence that the dice roll generator was adjusting the odds on any given roll based on the results of some number of previous rolls.

How many playoff series has SOM had in this game. My estimate is that they start about 15-20 leagues per week. That's 750-1000 leagues per year. So if the odds of the same team getting more favorable rolls in 10 consecutive games is 1023 to 1, it should happen about once a year.

Even when this happens, what makes you think it was deliberate? This is a game based on pseudo-dice. And even real dice have been known to go on streaks. I'm sure there's a casino somewhere that has been victimized by a long string of 7's at the craps table. And if you think SOM is out to get you in particular, you are just too paranoid.

Any streak like this actually provides evidence that the programming of the dice is actually fair. If something like this never happened, it would be evidence that the dice roll generator was adjusting the odds on any given roll based on the results of some number of previous rolls.

How many playoff series has SOM had in this game. My estimate is that they start about 15-20 leagues per week. That's 750-1000 leagues per year. So if the odds of the same team getting more favorable rolls in 10 consecutive games is 1023 to 1, it should happen about once a year.

Hi rBurgh.
We have played in several leagues together, and I really value your opinion. However, I do not believe it is me who is a target. I was just stunned to see the numbers keep skewing AWAY from the norm ... stubbornly, persistently in a situation I had personal experience with. I am troubled that this phenomenon -- which indeed should be exceptionally rare -- was too easily found and documented. The evidence is there may be something seriously wrong with the Game Engine. And if there is, is it inadvertent or somehow deliberate? I realize these are sensitive, even explosive questions, but better it be brought to light and fixed than swept under the rug. For instance, doesn't it bother you a bit that the phenomenon actually CONTINUED in the next playoff series ... with no margins favoring Team C by chance?
Jon

I don't see where the question has been answered as to how many innings were pitched at or near P-0 by your pitchers, or how much you are bunting/using the hit&run. These are variables that must be accounted for to perform a legitimate analysis. I don't believe there is an issue with the randomization at all.

I don't see where the question has been answered as to how many innings were pitched at or near P-0 by your pitchers, or how much you are bunting/using the hit&run. These are variables that must be accounted for to perform a legitimate analysis. I don't believe there is an issue with the randomization at all.

See just above where I am releasing the new data displaying the very same team CONTINUING to benefit in a four-game sweep of its next opponent. Almost all the plays were pitched at F-9, and none of the 3 teams featured bunting or hit & run plays. I skipped those excluding them from the counts.

So, of course, if my first scenario only has 1 chance in 625 of happening, then surely one can blithely conclude nothing to see here, move along ... NOT.
Jon