Warrior General Games

I'm so sick of watching something so obviously be wrong with it. Certain calls get favored so much it's silly.

http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/game/454710

In my inside playbook I had all 4 inside runs from the singleback spread at 5 stars, and then single back off tackle at 5 stars. Logic tells you that the combined spread runs should be called more, much more often buuuuuut no, the off tackle was called 14 times to the COMBINED other four being called 13 times.

That doesn't happen in a true rng set up, like EVER EVER EVER...the probability would be so incredibly small. So a play that has a 20% chance to be called every time an inside run is selected, is called 52% of the time! In the 30%s sure, over 50! C'mon man

.
.
.
.
.
/rant

ps. I won so don't just rattle off about being pissy over a loss etc.

Guessing you didn't mean that you had the off tackle at 5 stars?

No, he is saying he had 5 plays at 5 stars each and 1 of those plays got called 50% of the time.

You gotta remember though it isnt all about the stars. If a play is working, it is more likely to be called again.

Tough to say there is something wrong with a small sample size. Generally my gameplans have gone about as right as planned.

Like GE said, we know it isn't purely based on stars, but fwiw if you assume each play really does have a 20% chance to be called, the probability of Offtackle getting called on 14/27 inside runs is 0.00018

(27 choose 14) * (.2)^14 * (.8)^13

yay math

Originally posted by Spastic_Cowboy
Like GE said, we know it isn't purely based on stars, but fwiw if you assume each play really does have a 20% chance to be called, the probability of Offtackle getting called on 14/27 inside runs is 0.00018

(27 choose 14) * (.2)^14 * (.8)^13

yay math

i would guess that in an equal amount of stars and %'s that there is likely a formation bias. so the %'s would end up in the favor of the non diamond play. which actually makes sense if you watch your games and what you call honestly.

Originally posted by Galactic Empire
You gotta remember though it isnt all about the stars. If a play is working, it is more likely to be called again.

Says who?

Every game is a small sample. It all evens out over a larger sample of games.

Rob.!

GE, do you remember where you saw that nugget of knowledge that you just feverishly pulled out of your ass?

Originally posted by bhall43
Guessing you didn't mean that you had the off tackle at 5 stars?

Originally posted by Galactic Empire
No, he is saying he had 5 plays at 5 stars each and 1 of those plays got called 50% of the time.

This
Originally posted by Galactic Empire
You gotta remember though it isnt all about the stars. If a play is working, it is more likely to be called again.

That's complete bs and if so is dumb...btw it was the most ineffective of the runs since they called ZEB vs 4WR
Originally posted by bhall43
Tough to say there is something wrong with a small sample size. Generally my gameplans have gone about as right as planned.

I guarantee if I went through I would find more like this, just don't care to. It was just very glaring since it was zeb vs 4wr so I planned accordingly or thought so



Originally posted by Spastic_Cowboy
Like GE said, we know it isn't purely based on stars, but fwiw if you assume each play really does have a 20% chance to be called, the probability of Offtackle getting called on 14/27 inside runs is 0.00018

(27 choose 14) * (.2)^14 * (.8)^13

yay math

yeeeeah I figured it wasn't very good odds...thanks for the maths

Originally posted by bhall43
i would guess that in an equal amount of stars and %'s that there is likely a formation bias. so the %'s would end up in the favor of the non diamond play. which actually makes sense if you watch your games and what you call honestly.

why should there be a formation bias. I wanted the spread runs called roughly 80% of the time and should get something SOMEWHAT close to that

Originally posted by Rob.
Says who?

Every game is a small sample. It all evens out over a larger sample of games.

says who? I'm not posting this because it's the first time i'm seeing it. Sometimes I mix play call priority because I feel really iffy about a certain play, but often times I find at least 5 good plays to run and have them at 5 stars and will see one play get a weird priority throughout the game

Originally posted by HayRow
says who? I'm not posting this because it's the first time i'm seeing it. Sometimes I mix play call priority because I feel really iffy about a certain play, but often times I find at least 5 good plays to run and have them at 5 stars and will see one play get a weird priority throughout the game

Didn't follow this thread in detail but saw this last paragraph. Since I'm familiar (but not an expert) on computer coding, here's my insight.

Computers don't ever generate pure randomness. They can't think. Everything is binary. All they do is Yes/No.

So how do computers simulate randomness? They use a table. Every table created has small periods where the dispersion of these "random" numbers isn't ideal. It's the small sample issue Rob mentioned.

You expect randomness but can easily get a streak of non-randomness. If the table has 1000 possibilities, the 50 plays you call can all fall within a streak of non-normal dispersion.

It's not GLB2 code. It's basic computer code that effects every program that needs to call on the random number generator table.

Originally posted by Galactic Empire
You gotta remember though it isnt all about the stars. If a play is working, it is more likely to be called again.

I'm 99% sure this isn't true. Adding code that defines a play as working/not working and then adjusting priority would be a huge undertaking that would lead to all kinds of play calling bugs.

I don't see it.

Originally posted by Spastic_Cowboy
Like GE said, we know it isn't purely based on stars, but fwiw if you assume each play really does have a 20% chance to be called, the probability of Offtackle getting called on 14/27 inside runs is 0.00018

(27 choose 14) * (.2)^14 * (.8)^13

yay math

I don't think this is the right formula for this discussion. I think you're using the permutation formula to determine the chance that this specific game outcome was achieved rather than the more generic combination formula which is what our discussion is more about.

A .00018 probability over 25 seasons of games across all tiers is different than generically determining that a 20% play call chance happening 52% of the time is that rare.

But I'm on vacation so I'm not going into major math mode today.

I quit allowing multiple plays to be at full priority. I was noticing way too often something like this would happen whenever I did.

Originally posted by Rob.
Says who?

Every game is a small sample. It all evens out over a larger sample of games.

I remember a GLB god saying this in the past. If a play is successful (whatever that means) it's play call probability increases.