Only in this STUPID game ...

LOL I do enjoy the folklore aspect of it. Homefield advantage is a max rule. I just can't imagine why anyone would spend time coding a momentum black box (and then not document its existence somewhere...then again bulletproof catcher isn't documented anywhere). Maybe Bernie liked having you guys on a bit.

Over the years, these are the "modifiers" that I have heard mentioned.

1) Homerun modifier. Fairly sure that this was a real thing back in the day, enough people had Ruth hit like 50 HRs in the first half of a season, and something like 7 in the second half. It appears that that modifier was later removed.

2) 100+ win teams losing championships modifier. Nevdully first flagged the extreme of this, his record was like 0-24. When he flagged it, some people refuted it, sharing their record that contradicts it. However, Nevdully's assertion is valid if you consider that perhaps the modifier is not applied across the board. i.e. it is applied only to teams that meet a specific criteria. I can relate, my record with 100+ win teams is similar to Nevdullys,1-23.
So I decided to look at the reverse paradigm, i.e. teams with low win totals that won championships. And that is what has convinced me, that playoffs have modifiers. I looked at my teams with 85 wins or less that made it to the playoffs and won championships, and guess what, that record is 12-1. These results, results, 1-23, and 12-1 are way too drastic not to be manipulated. STRAT themselves stated at one point that "playoffs have been enhanced to increase drama.." or something to that effect. Well....no kidding.
My sense is that if a 100+ win team modifier is being used, it is being applied to teams from owners who buy a large number of teams, i.e. that STRAT feels that will not be a deterrent to those owners purchasing new teams.

3) Home Field modifier. Already discussed in this thread.

4) Momentum modifier. Data already provided in this thread.

5) Run differential modifier. Still gathering data on this, but in the past 6 months I have had a large number of teams be either lead the league in run differential (or be 2nd) and not even make the playoffs. The number of series where I have had these kind of results has increased significantly--- my team loses games like 2-3, 3-4 and then wins one game in the series 17-1. Yes, this kind of skewed result can certainly happen normally now and then, but when it happens on a regular basis, red flags go up. I am in the process of gathering data on the number of series where this factor has come into play.

As a sidebar, one of course one could ask the question, if it is in fact true, why would STRAT be using these modifiers?

I have a friend who is a programmer for a large corporate retailer, and she laughed when I told her about these "conspiracy" theories. She said "of course they are doing things like this....with modern day analytics, they know the trends of which people and when people buy, how often they buy, and what motivates them to buy.....", she went on to say that it is possible that STRAT has determined that new participants get deterred by not winning or seeing that they have no chance to win. She indicated that imagine someone new to STRAT, gets in leagues with owners like NEVDULLY, PACOBOY, IRONWILL etc. and gets quickly disappointed and maybe discontinues playing. But if new owners, win a trophy once in awhile, that will keep them in the buying loop.
To confirm this, she said look what STRAT did with the ROOKIE leagues (that only rookies could enter)---so owners just starting out could win championships without having to face the likes of a DIVAD or a CRISTANO. And she mentioned that now STRAT lists owner who have won their first championship on all team's home page, ---once again, to indicate rookie owners that it can be done.
She went on to say that they have probably determined that owners who over time purchase a large number of teams, are going to continue to do so regardless if they lose some championships that they feel they should have won.

I asked my friend how difficult is it to program a modifier, particularly if it is not across the board. She said the game engine itself is probably time consuming to introduce modifiers, but once a modifier is created, applying it or turning it off and on, is not difficult. She also mentioned that there are things that affect results that may work on top of the engine (i.e. not related to dice rolls) that could affect outcomes. She said the only way to know for sure is for a forensic programmer to have a look and we all know that is never going to happen.

However, as some of you know, over time, some major top owners of this game have discontinued participating for a variety of reasons, some because they have data that they feel indicates that things are being manipulated.

Needless to say, I am addicted to this game, (I think I am going to have join a support group) but I have to say recent data is starting to make me wonder.

So maybe these are all conspiracy theories, or maybe not. Perhaps some of us are at the point where transparency is necessary for continued participation---I feel it is time for STRAT to come forward and specifically state one way or the other---if there are any form of result manipulation or modifier, and if so, what these are.

A community waits...

None of that would explain why they would bother to code a "momentum" black box. Momentum barely even exists in real life, it's mostly made up by commentators to create narratives out of chaos.

Is your friend aware that the company in question has a computer game that they haven't updated significantly since the 1990s? Or that 365 is played by a grand total of, what, a few hundred players? This is not some savvy tech firm optimizing user engagement, this is a ramshackle family business held together with scotch tape that literally closes on the weekend and has shown absolutely no aptitude for adding new users or otherwise growing its online presence.

None of that would explain why they would bother to code a "momentum" black box. Momentum barely even exists in real life, it's mostly made up by commentators to create narratives out of chaos.

Is your friend aware that the company in question has a computer game that they haven't updated significantly since the 1990s? Or that 365 is played by a grand total of, what, a few hundred players? This is not some savvy tech firm optimizing user engagement, this is a ramshackle family business held together with scotch tape that literally closes on the weekend and has shown absolutely no aptitude for adding new users or otherwise growing its online presence.

This - except I would disagree with characeterizing SOM as "ramshackle." They have a business model. It has been quite successful going into their 7th decade. High tech is not part of the model. I'd say they are quite savvy compared to the thousands and thousands of tech bubble startups who have come and gone over that time.

For those that buy the computer game, you can see the max rules black boxes. There is an "improve statistical accuracy" switch which is normalization. They admit it affects home runs and batting average. They are silent on what else it may affect. As stated above this was turned on a one time, but its currently supposed to be off in the online game. Who knows for sure?

There are also home field advantage and starting pitcher clutch black box settings where few details are provided. I seriously doubt if SOM invested any time and effort into additional online coding that's not in the computer game.

I remember momentum and other modifiers that were already happening years ago when we were playing with real dice and paper cards.
The modifiers aren't in the programming, they are embedded in fabric of the Strat universe.

I think Einstein said "God does not play dice, but HAL does."

I'm an existentialist about this issue. Fiercely independent, not taking partisan sides Certainly the black boxes are there and can be checked or unchecked, certainly really strange things can happen (and I think recurrent injuries are another example), certainly there's not a mass conspiracy of SOM as a company against its most frequent users (seems bad business to make your most frequent users lose by rigging the game), certainly SOM is not a big sophisticated company, but the genius of Hal was his "card," which we study longingly for all the data and which makes it unique. Many good points made here by many astute users who I admire.

I think the truth is somewhere -- murkily -- in the middle, give or take. Which makes none of us happy, but I do understand the pain of a losing streaks. As for the larger question, who knows, who cares, it's not going to change, that's for sure -- and it doesn't matter. Just enjoy the game is my philosophy, live with the glory and the defeats, it's not a perfect game, we could never expect that if one takes the existential view.

I'm open to all discourse and debate, of course, and like when people speak up about the imperfections.

Now, I do remember and know Bernie Hou. Great guy, very talented, he came out to one of the Las Vegas SOM Tournaments that Bobbie Moretti hosted back in the early 2000s.

This - except I would disagree with characeterizing SOM as "ramshackle." They have a business model. It has been quite successful going into their 7th decade. High tech is not part of the model. I'd say they are quite savvy compared to the thousands and thousands of tech bubble startups who have come and gone over that time.

For those that buy the computer game, you can see the max rules black boxes. There is an "improve statistical accuracy" switch which is normalization. They admit it affects home runs and batting average. They are silent on what else it may affect. As stated above this was turned on a one time, but its currently supposed to be off in the online game. Who knows for sure?

There are also home field advantage and starting pitcher clutch black box settings where few details are provided. I seriously doubt if SOM invested any time and effort into additional online coding that's not in the computer game.

This. without caveat.
And Hack's perspective, in spirit.
And lab's point of view just for fun.

I don't see anything except regression to the mean typically...but of course, that can be enforced, just as max rules can enforce statistical accuracy.

Or the BPV3 algorithm can force pitcher fatigue to flip a result from a pitcher card to hitter card.
Try that when sitting across from your buddy rolling dice.

B.o.b.b.y. What a guy!
And Bernie may have reminded me of the head computer programmer in Jurassic Park--under-resourced, overworked, but he cared and he tried like hell. He was a fan of stratomatic and the community.

WAIT a MINUTE...
He speaks of Max Rules.
His name is Max Power.
He waxes on the intricacies of the online game.
I think we have a new conspiracy.
Max Rules took over the servers, developed his own AI, and escaped to the analog world as Max Power.

Prove it is false. Until you do, that's my story. Which makes Max Power one of the most senior managers here!
Rookie. pfffpt.

None of that would explain why they would bother to code a "momentum" black box. Momentum barely even exists in real life, it's mostly made up by commentators to create narratives out of chaos.

It's funny, you are so certain that they would never take the time to write that code.

Yet if they actually did as so many people (including me by the way) remember being stated/admitted, wouldn't your statement actually work against you ... That they wouldn't bother to take it back out???