"Secret Sauce" Admitted by Strat

Backfire may know jukeboxes but he don't know stats.

Last Druid was good, but certainly there are many that are actually more successful but in a smaller sample size, but let's use Last Druid. The odds of making the playoffs is 1 in 4. Now that is 25 % of the time, let's give him the benefit of the doubt, if he was twice as good as the average player and we rank him as 50/50 to make playoffs, which is twice as often as random chance how likely is it he could make the playoffs 1,316 out of 2,112 leagues? Using 50 % likelihood of Mking playoffs it is one in 136,000 chance this is random. And you think the game is conspiring against him?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S2f76Kjx0c

Did you watch the video of those two clowns? There is no way those two could successfully implement a decent softball league program, and getting those two to put all the rules out there and expecting all their jukebox programmers to be on the up and up and complying with Andy and Opie's desire to have a complete listing of the rules, without listing all their backdoor cheat codes is terribly naive. We are pretty damn lucky this game exists. But you go on professing your arguement like Barney trying to convince Andy of the need for bullets, see where that gets you.

Have to love when the conversations of the afflicted results in a discussion of an immovable object against an immutable force that is non-submissive to any force of any magnitude, that won't shift from its position at all.

Meanwhile here is the last corporate staff meeting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cA-9lV5zDHk

player's aren't priced accurately. never have been . They half-assed addressed some of them with the launch of ATG9. went crazy overpricing RP only's, Tekulve amomgst others an exception, and some sp/rps like Pinero, Henry, Heredia come to mind. as for hitters, went both ways. several platoon hitters are way underpriced. as 4 overpriced, most of the ss/2b r overpriced, its ez to tell as most of the top 50 are always available. by 50 I mean cards. Morgan, Gehringer, Wagner excluding his non ss card, Larkin, Boudreau to name a few. even Hornsby and Vaughan r mostly available.

With all due respect, how would you know if the cards were priced accurately or not? If they're priced inaccurately that means there are great values out there to be had. But your winning % is .506 over almost 2000 teams so clearly you are not consistently finding those values that you are convinced are out there. Also your list of guys who are overpriced includes 4 of the best values in the set in Morgan, Larkin, Hornsby, and Vaughan. Those are all elite cards at $100 and above. They don't get used much below $100 but they're hardly good examples of overpriced cards.

Just minutes ago I lost a game in the 8th or 9th inning, by 1 run, because the game pulled Harry Hooper for PH Jimmy Bloodworth. I do not have that in my settings and it makes zero sense. When I see things like that, I can't help but think the game makes occasional arbitrary decisions to decrease the skill expression in the game.

So Strat is going to the trouble of coding blue shell bullshit but the way they do it is by randomly having a scrub pinch hit for a starter, rather than, say, letting Hooper hit and force-rolling an out, which would be undetectable. Makes perfect sense, you're definitely onto something here and it's not just HAL being his normal, terrible self. High quality evidence you're bringing to bear here.

Lastly, I have real experience with code, tackling large volumes of data, running game companies, etc. Sure, you can dismiss everything I say due to a lack of evidence but it's not like I'm a moron or watching out for spaceships from my telescope every night. I mean, what are we to do, just not talk about anything without evidence when we don't have access to the code? The hilarious part is the primary way to get "evidence" is to spend MONEY, and lots of it.

If you know how to code you don't need to spend any money at all, just scrape a bunch of finished leagues for their stats, play-by-plays, whatever. I'm able to do it and I don't know any code. Test your hypotheses against actual data and come back with the results, I guarantee the reception will be much warmer than it's been for the weak anecdotes you've been serving up so far. If your hypotheses aren't testable, they aren't worth talking about in the first place.

I finally cracked Dragon's Lair!

Joe Obvious keep drinking the Kool-Aid. how profound u r. by repricing cards, Strat admits to pricing errors? of course there r bargains. that's implied. knowing the bargains and being able to draft them r 2 separate events. I don't know play 100 and above . as for bargains at any league cap Strat could easily published the info, you know secret data with the secret sauce. as for Statistics, you can lie with numbers but numbers never lie. curious which League Setup Options you support or endorse? same with additional options, in Team Strategy, Hitter/Pitcher Prefs, etc.

@gkhd11a Unfortunately, you may have overlooked a key consideration. There is something called "Smurfing" in gaming in which very experienced players create new accounts to essentially erase all their poor results and start fresh. Imagine playing 500 teams and then starting over, you'd in theory post much better results than when you got started. Petrosian likely did not do this, he put it all on the line on one account. Do you have a way to quickly determine his win rates over his past, say, 300 teams? I imagine they would look better.

Aside from that, can you call people by their forum/manager names? I don't know who anyone is haha. I'm way out of the loop on many things.

@Maxpower, I think Scorehouse is a very good player. He is in several of my leagues and has strong results. As I said earlier in the post, evaluating the skill of a player over 2000 teams is not going to be accurate. How about the last 300 teams, 100 teams, etc? I have a feeling you may not enjoy studying the cards as much as some other players as this is twice now that you spoke in this manner about card balance. Just by eyeballing the cards you should, in many cases, notice some large disparities in value. If you look at the top managers historically they tend to reuse the same cards a lot. For example, back when I used to play regularly, Lance Parrish was pretty powerful and IIRC he was around $1.72 mil, now he is around $2.4 mil. His price increased due to his results I assume. I won back to back rings with him back then as well and I didn't play him many times. I have to agree with Scorehouse too that Morgan is overpriced at 80M. Haven't studied him closely in a while but his card is one I skip regularly.

As for "evidence", again, you have absolutely zero, yet you constantly question me. Let's see your proof that everything is legitimate despite Strat being caught multiple times. And no, I'm not going to waste my time combing over tons of data just to have you look at it and discredit it arbitrarily.

I have a feeling you may not enjoy studying the cards as much as some other players as this is twice now that you spoke in this manner about card balance.

I agree, MaxPower is an average manager at best - despite the fact that the odds of an average manager having a record as good or better than his are 8.9 x 10E-72

I have a feeling you may not enjoy studying the cards as much as some other players as this is twice now that you spoke in this manner about card balance.

I agree, MaxPower is an average manager at best - despite the fact that the odds of an average manager having a record as good or better than his are 8.9 x 10E-72

I don't know who he is in terms of manager names, nor his skill level, but to say that the cards are all pretty much balanced is flat out wrong. If I believed that then I probably would believe everything is legit too. There is a reason highly competitive managers get so upset with the game and it's not poor sportsmanship or overestimating their abilities. The level of skill required to compete at the highest level in this game is very high. To take it a step further, don't you agree that the best player in the game versus a new player in a 1v1 162 game season, rolled with actual dice, would be an incredibly lopsided affair?

Ummm, his name is MaxPower, his record can be found under Community/Manager Records.

Your question about the head to head record of the best manager vs. the worst is interesting. One approach to answering is to use a Bradley-Terry model to determine the probability of Team A with talent a beating Team B with talent b

P(A wins) = exp(a) / [exp(a) + exp(b)]

I'd suggest the talent level for team A should be 0.3 - a team with talent of .3 will beat a team with average talent (0) 57.4% of the time - that lines up pretty well with the highest winning %'s in the directory referenced above (Panzer ace and MaxPower).

For symmetry, I'll choose -0.3 for the talent of Team B. Using the formula above, Team A will win 64.6% of the time. If the two were to meet in a 7-game series, the probability of A winning is 79.4%. I don't know if that meets your definition of "incredibly lopsided" or not.

I think it is time to go back to the turntable, pull out my old Tom Lehrer records, and play that classic called:

"NEW MATH"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIKGV2cTgqA

Ummm, his name is MaxPower, his record can be found under Community/Manager Records.

Your question about the head to head record of the best manager vs. the worst is interesting. One approach to answering is to use a Bradley-Terry model to determine the probability of Team A with talent a beating Team B with talent b

P(A wins) = exp(a) / [exp(a) + exp(b)]

I'd suggest the talent level for team A should be 0.3 - a team with talent of .3 will beat a team with average talent (0) 57.4% of the time - that lines up pretty well with the highest winning %'s in the directory referenced above (Panzer ace and MaxPower).

For symmetry, I'll choose -0.3 for the talent of Team B. Using the formula above, Team A will win 64.6% of the time. If the two were to meet in a 7-game series, the probability of A winning is 79.4%. I don't know if that meets your definition of "incredibly lopsided" or not.

64.6% is about what I was thinking. I could see it being higher but I'm not that much of a madman to roll out 162 games haha. I do very strongly believe that this game requires tremendous skill at the top levels, you can pretty much flesh out a team post-frenzy for 100+ hours if you really wanted to and keep searching for small improvements along the way. Nothing is guaranteed but I do believe some team compositions are extremely strong for their leagues, to the point of brutality. That's before even looking at some of the terrible manager settings a new player might think look good, including completely misinterpreting what they entail. Beyond that, a player can misclick, be drunk, etc and accidentally hit the wrong settings in the worst way. Mistakes happen.

I very strongly disagree with the notion that all cards are balanced so let's just pick what we feel like and it should all balance out. To me, that is absolutely insane Some of the teams I've seen, to me, are like works of art. So much depth and intracy. That is what truly draws me to the game.