Every One of My 13 100+ Win Teams in ATG9

Charlie you're such a spin fraud. You woulda went to the girls mexican softball leagues to find some set are numbers to paint your narrative.

yes indeed!
Same old same old-
just like before when he adamantly argued against any black box things happening
only to then say 'I checked and it happened'.
at some point in the future he'll do an about face- when HE finally realizes it,
until then though...

geez y'all...if something is that wrong it should be easily refuted with a rational argument.

Yes Charlie typically plays the alternative explanations--but varied perspectives help clarify the issues.

There is no doubt that teams that are very successful are successful in their division. Easily shown in 12 team leagues.
Likely not a factor in 24 teamers from what has been shown anecdotally.

1. Pretty clear that 12 team leagues' highest performing teams do not meet expectation in post season.
1a. Considering how well they do in their div, it is plausible that divisional affinity is a factor. It is a trait of the best teams and the best players.
1b. But we haven't seen proof of that being the cause either--would take a deeper dive to be sure.

2. Not so clear that in 24 team leagues there is anything amiss unless we had more data.

BUT--and it is a big BUT because we are ultimately arguing over motive for no reason IMO--

FACT: We already have motive. Overall, SOM has a demonstrated willingness to achieve statistical "purity" in ways that they have shown (Max Rules, BPv3 etc). So we already know for a fact the online game is not run on strictly random dice rolls nor purely from card results and published lookup tables alone. Nor are the altered results shown anywhere

PLAUSIBLE ASSUMPTION: And I agree with someone saying it would be easy to code in "loaded dice" as background noise versus an algorithm over the top--that is not complex at all. Easy to alter the shape of a binomial probability density function. The dice are quite easy to manipulate. And after watching all my games via the replay on a recent team, I was puzzled at some of the result strings. No proof, but it is not conspiratorial based on methods for achieving desired outcome sets.

PLAUSIBLE ASSUMPTION: It is also plausible there is a "momentum limiter". But I just don't call it that because
I don't think that it would be for that purpose--I think it would be for statistical "purity".
Now that is believable to me because the predicate is already there. Just like Max Rules, flipping results, home team adv etc.

Several years ago I had this good run of winning championships (I cant remember exactly--maybe 4 rings out of 6 teams, maybe better). All of a sudden I had a bunch of teams that were terrible, like I just forgot how to play. Ever since then I've kind of wondered. Then last year I had a pretty good year I won about 10 championships out of 29 in 20XX and I did Ok in ATG. And I noticed over the last few months it's like pushing a rock uphill. But again I have no evidence that it's anymore than some bad teams and/or a bad run of luck.

The structure of the game does provide a motive if you're looking for one. If you want to maximize revenue you need to do two things: (1) get new users to keep playing, and (2) limit how often expert players win if they win too often. It looks like the best players tend to max out at winning 25% or 30%. That could be just a function of the game itself where it's difficult to get a large enough separation in the strength of teams for expert players to win more than that. BUT if it was possible for a player like Nevdully to win 50% of his leagues...would that be good for Strat? No. Other players, not just some new players, would be discouraged. Revenue would go down

The 100 win thing is interesting. If you're concerned about certain owners winning too much, why focus on 100 win teams? The only motive I can see is just trying to distribute rings among different ownere without focusing on the owner in particular. If Nevdully was dinged during the year..then how did he get 100 wins?

Maybe because I'm a lawyer I'm extremely reluctant to throw out allegations without any concrete data to support same. And I certainly do not have any of what I consider evidence of manipulation of the game.

But it would be interesting if Nevdully played let's say 10 games as Nevdully...and then 10 games under an assumed name at a different email address. Compare autoleague teams with the same caps, as close as possible similar players, same level of competition. And compare the records of those 10 team batches and see if NevDully's alter ago does a lot better. If not then we have peace of mind.

The structure of the game does provide a motive if you're looking for one. If you want to maximize revenue you need to do two things: (1) get new users to keep playing, and (2) limit how often expert players win if they win too often. It looks like the best players tend to max out at winning 25% or 30%. That could be just a function of the game itself where it's difficult to get a large enough separation in the strength of teams for expert players to win more than that. BUT if it was possible for a player like Nevdully to win 50% of his leagues...would that be good for Strat? No. Other players, not just some new players, would be discouraged. Revenue would go down

Even then, all they would need to do is a reprice. The salary cap is the throttle that prevents expert players from winning 100 games every time. There's just not enough value out there for players to run up the score like that. The salary cap makes it so that even players who don't know what they're doing end up with passable teams. If expert players were running away with rings as consistently as you describe, it would only be an indicator that there were some seriously mispriced cards in the set. A properly priced set enforces parity by its nature.

This ties into the 100-win team question as well. When is there the most value? Under the most extreme conditions. If a R9L balanced hitter can expect to see a lot of lefties, suddenly his value goes way up. So it makes sense that the teams that are most successful at outperforming cap-enforced parity in the regular season are the products of extreme environments. Teams that spent the season beating up on a favorable division. But extreme environments create extreme teams. If you tuned your team to destroy your extreme division, it's very easy to run into a hard counter from a different division in the postseason.

Charlie you're such a spin fraud. You woulda went to the girls mexican softball leagues to find some set are numbers to paint your narrative.

Well I have never seen a girl Mexicans softball league but I did coach a 20 and over women's team to a championship at our company and we actually beat the men's company softball team.

I see as usual Salty posted an hour after you so that was a nice remembrance. I do think there is black box stuff going on, just not in the playoffs. If it were it would show up in the Barnstormers tournament, but it inconveniently is not. The 100 win teams actual do quite well. You are obviously Nev a great player, and you make the playoffs far in excess of random chance and win championships far in excess of random chance, so I think it is clear that the game engine is not biased in general against you. So that also means that your sub 100 teams must really really win championships far in excess of random chance, why do you think that is, is the black box rigging the game for you in your opinion? I don''t think so. I think your teams are designed to do really well against the average team. Really, the idea that 100 win teams are programmed against makes absolutely no sense other than a programmer just being mean. Why does Woody09 only win 7 championships out of 87 playoff teams?

How does Nomadbrad manage to win 25% championships of all his formed teams when he has such a bias against him with successful teams? Heck 75% of his teams makes the playoffs and still there is a black box out there to get him!

The black box as I said in the earlier post that I have seen normalizes after 100 games and against certain players to lower or raise their chances of making the playoffs, I am pretty sure how this is done, I do not belive it is not real common but I have not seen it in the playoffs.

. It looks like the best players tend to max out at winning 25% or 30%. That could be just a function of the game itself where it's difficult to get a large enough separation in the strength of teams for expert players to win more than that. BUT if it was possible for a player like Nevdully to win 50% of his leagues...would that be good for Strat? No. Other players, not just some new players, would be discouraged. Revenue would go down

.

Do you realize that the odds of a player winning 25% championships out of 800 teams played in a 12 team league is 1 in a billion? Just to show how truly outstanding that player must be. That player is converting random chance to a one in a billion winning range. And even if we raise it to an expert player can win one in six on average that makes the 25% winner one in a million of those players. So yes when I see those players state that the black box is up against them, uh no.

Where are you getting that math? There is no way that you or anyone else could make such a calculation as to the chances of that occurring. Moreover, top players do win that often so it's clearly not thwt hard to do. Maybe 1 in hundreds not a billion.. I think, given the nature of baseball, that it's probably exceptionally difficult to get beyond that level of winning but who knows.

Anyway, there is a way to test once and all if there are black box things on the game that effect winning. See what happens when an expert players comes in as a new player. If people are going to constantly complain....why not attempt an experiment that could finally (mostly) nip these complaints in the bud?

I do have to say I'm really enjoying this discussion. In full disclosure I just started 365 about 4 years ago and have 30-something teams. Won a few (maybe with help?) and can pull off 90+ wins every now and then but haven't sniffed 100.

"That's baseball Susan" keeps ringing in my head though.

Every one of us has lost a series to the worst team in the league. The playoffs are such a small sample size. It seems more than reasonable to think any team can lose to another playoff team without some secret code SOM put in place to anger its most successful and loyal players.

I see as usual Salty posted an hour after you so that was a nice remembrance. I do think there is black box stuff going on, just not in the playoffs.
The black box as I said in the earlier post that I have seen normalizes after 100 games and against certain players to lower or raise their chances of making the playoffs, I am pretty sure how this is done, I do not belive it is not real common but I have not seen it in the playoffs.

LMAO-
Charles, you seem to have conveniently forgotten, or are simply pretending not to recall the myriad of times you claimed there was no black box-- with the same sort of incorrect logic. Lets just say it was almost every time, myself, Nev or the Last Druid or anyone else posted something about it...but hey, at least you were consistent, until suddenly you weren't.
It was quite Epimethean in nature.

PS-- how would you 'know' if it was happening in the playoffs or not?
You almost seem to not get that when its such a small sample size of ABs that its a million times more difficult to parse out stat.

Pepperidge farm remembers...

Almost all the teams that I'm discussing here the 30 out of 31 100+ win teams that lost in the playoffs, were pretty much all 175m - 250m cap teams...Not nearly as much "build against your division" in play there. Rarely any newbies to get fat off of...rarely every any "made too many moves and lost cap $$$ that cripple opponents teams" ...Almost always just solid team that reaches 100 wins...Conversely the high caps could also mean a much more level playing field so maybe a bit lesser of a chance in the playoffs, maybe...but 30 out of 31???

Aside from that, my long history with Charlie and the way he picks and chooses examples of "look at real baseball history" when it suits his point of view, vs all the time he's said "that isn't real baseball" when it doesn't, goes way beyond this convo...doesn't mean he always wrong, but if not, then that does mean Bruce, Salty, I and many others, always are.