FLAW IN GAME ENGINE RESULTS??

I have detected a possibly serious flaw -- a thumb on the scale, if you like -- with the net randomness of which card generates a play result. I have recently taken a 2 year or so hiatus from regular play, including Barnstormers, for personal reasons unrelated to Strat and the issue I am raising reluctantly today. But with the teams I have organized and played since coming back to play recently ALL having large negative "ROLLS" results early on and continuing throughout the season, whilst certain other Managers seem to consistently enjoy substantial net positive "ROLLS" results. The effect is subtle, but when it gets to the point of having to reverse over 100-130 play results to match the ROLLS results of the successful playoff teams, then you got a problem if it keeps happening.

Understand, what I am describing is fine for a single season -- the ROLLS differentials are well within coin flip fluctuations. But over time, the results should tend to regress to the mean -- that is, I might have had a -75 net differential in one season, but prior and subsequent seasons SHOULD lowered that large negative number. AND a large positive +75 net differential should likewise be shaved closer to NET ZERO over time too. But if one direction or the other PERSISTS across several teams and several seasons, then there is some sort of thumb on the scale.

I pray to the gods of Pedro, the Babe, and Josh that this is not a Manager hack, though I am seeing one particular person benefiting at the present, so I want to see if this indeed continues to persist. Or does Strat ownership confer this bending of results on certain favored people? Perish the thought! But how else could these rips in genuine randomness keep getting bigger and bigger?

I am really sorry to raise and report this. Has anyone monitored these ROLLS results over a much larger statistical sample of Strat play than I have? I cannot submit this anonymously, though I wish I could. Somebody out there got good evidence to the contrary? Hope so ...

ANY THOUGHTS? - Jon

One possibility is that you are keeping your pitchers in when they are starting to fatigue.

I think ChompyBaby's suggestion has merit if you are setting your don't relieve settings to anything lower than F8.

I believe another possibility is SOM will sometimes make behind-the-scenes adjustments to play results. For example, a hitter might roll a groundout on his card, but a really high strikeout pitcher might overrule this and get a strikeout. In this case, the game engine might record this as coming off the pitcher's card even though the original roll was off of the hitter's card. I don't know if this is the case; I'm merely speculating.

I have detected a possibly serious flaw -- a thumb on the scale, if you like -- with the net randomness of which card generates a play result. I have recently taken a 2 year or so hiatus from regular play, including Barnstormers, for personal reasons unrelated to Strat and the issue I am raising reluctantly today. But with the teams I have organized and played since coming back to play recently ALL having large negative "ROLLS" results early on and continuing throughout the season, whilst certain other Managers seem to consistently enjoy substantial net positive "ROLLS" results. The effect is subtle, but when it gets to the point of having to reverse over 100-130 play results to match the ROLLS results of the successful playoff teams, then you got a problem if it keeps happening.

Understand, what I am describing is fine for a single season -- the ROLLS differentials are well within coin flip fluctuations. But over time, the results should tend to regress to the mean -- that is, I might have had a -75 net differential in one season, but prior and subsequent seasons SHOULD lowered that large negative number. AND a large positive +75 net differential should likewise be shaved closer to NET ZERO over time too. But if one direction or the other PERSISTS across several teams and several seasons, then there is some sort of thumb on the scale.

I pray to the gods of Pedro, the Babe, and Josh that this is not a Manager hack, though I am seeing one particular person benefiting at the present, so I want to see if this indeed continues to persist. Or does Strat ownership confer this bending of results on certain favored people? Perish the thought! But how else could these rips in genuine randomness keep getting bigger and bigger?

I am really sorry to raise and report this. Has anyone monitored these ROLLS results over a much larger statistical sample of Strat play than I have? I cannot submit this anonymously, though I wish I could. Somebody out there got good evidence to the contrary? Hope so ...

ANY THOUGHTS? - Jon

I am REALLY DISAPPOINTED no one from Strat HQ has commented here as to just HOW the Game Engine operates. If nothing is supposed to push the 50-50 odds of a play being based on either the Pitcher card or Hitter card, then there is a DAMN SERIOUS FLAW that needs to be addressed.

If on the other hand, the Game Engine ALLOWS and PROMOTES such a thumb on the scale as a consequence of Game play up to that point in the Game -- as the two comments so far hint at -- a clear explanation of this by a Codetalker from Strat HQ would be in order so as to better inform all players regarding strategy, player selection, and so forth.

GARCIA? PALMTANA? Wherefore art thou?

Two things might be true at the same time.

One, it would be nice, of course, if Strat would weigh in on this. Definitely would be nice.

Two, there may be things that are within your control to remedy this issue. Even if we managers remain in the dark to some extent. Namely, are you keeping in some of your pitchers when they are tired? It makes sense that tired pitchers are going to have gradually diminishing results. That will unbalance the roll results you are pointing to.

Two things might be true at the same time.

One, it would be nice, of course, if Strat would weigh in on this. Definitely would be nice.

Two, there may be things that are within your control to remedy this issue. Even if we managers rema in in the dark to some extent. Namely, are you keeping in some of your pitchers when they are tired? It makes sense that tired pitchers are going to have gradually diminishing results. That will unbalance the roll results you are pointing to.

Sigh ... each pitcher's card has rolls that are marked eligible to convert to hits -- they are marked with the ampersand @ character -- and I understand from a prior reading of the so-called super-advanced rules will sequentially convert to hits as a Pitcher tires and gets even more tired if left in.

I am raising an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ISSUE -- the distortion of the sacred 50-50 coin flip on each at-bat ... whether the result comes from the HITTER or PITCHER card. I am under the impression that no in-game result affects the 50-50 toss-up on each play. Am I misinformed or otherwise misguided??

(sigh) I'm afraid this is a perfect example how conspiracy theories get started...

1. I would expect playoff teams--on average--would have gotten more favorable net differentials. It could have contributed to them making the playoffs.

2. Expecting results to approach net zero over a number of seasons is not realistic. Over time and over enough seasons--a LOT of seasons--it will approach net zero on a percentage basis.

3. One of my good teams that has by far the best run differential in the league just lost seven games in a row. The game must be fixed! No. It was just a string of bad luck. You could easily have seven seasons--or more--of unfavorable net differentials that could be explained simply by bad luck.

4. We don't know for certain how SOM reports results in regards to which card was referenced when super advanced rules come into effect. Thus a couple of theories about letting one's pitchers get fatigued or high-strikeout pitchers might affect net differentials. We simply have no way of knowing, and don't hold your breath waiting for SOM to enlighten us.

5. Flip a coin 162 times. Do this more than once. Just because you didn't see it approach an 81-81 split on average doesn't mean your coin is defective. Now admittedly, it could be defective; however, it's far, far more likely explained by random chance.

(sigh) I'm afraid this is a perfect example how conspiracy theories get started...

1. I would expect playoff teams--on average--would have gotten more favorable net differentials. It could have contributed to them making the playoffs.

2. Expecting results to approach net zero over a number of seasons is not realistic. Over time and over enough seasons--a LOT of seasons--it will approach net zero on a percentage basis.

3. One of my good teams that has by far the best run differential in the league just lost seven games in a row. The game must be fixed! No. It was just a string of bad luck. You could easily have seven seasons--or more--of unfavorable net differentials that could be explained simply by bad luck.

4. We don't know for certain how SOM reports results in regards to which card was referenced when super advanced rules come into effect. Thus a couple of theories about letting one's pitchers get fatigued or high-strikeout pitchers might affect net differentials. We simply have no way of knowing, and don't hold your breath waiting for SOM to enlighten us.

5. Flip a coin 162 times. Do this more than once. Just because you didn't see it approach an 81-81 split on average doesn't mean your coin is defective. Now admittedly, it could be defective; however, it's far, far more likely explained by random chance.

I agree with your anecdotes describing the real world expressions of the 50-50 coin flip. I am speaking up modestly now because I have detected pressure AWAY from the 50-50 roll. So the first explainer needs to be whether or not such pressure away the 50-50 norm exists somewhere in the software to reflect prior play consequences. Again, the "remedy" for keeping a tired pitcher on the mound is the conversion of the @ampersand labeled outs into hits, NOT moving play results over to the HItters card instead. Thanks, Coyote.

Jon

I've definitely seen it repeated on the boards that pitcher fatigue makes a roll off the hitter card more likely, but OP is correct that the fatigue rules do not provide for that result, and indeed provide for a different result: changing @ readings from the pitcher's card. I would like to know more about where the oft-repeated meme came from and what data is behind it, if any.

Whatever is going on, Strat manually conferring positive or negative rolls on certain managers is not it. That's a really dumb idea and indicative of brain worms.

GARCIA? PALMTANA? Wherefore art thou?

Forsooth! How little ye know me. I resideth in Beautiful Banning, CA. I am retiredeth from education. SOMeth is a hobbyeth for me. Conspiracy theories cometh and goeth. Mostly goeth.