Broken

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by Cyprian

Because its frustrating. Previous versions were just much better. I have played multiple seasons(about 6 or 7 now) both sim games and playing through whole seasons where I manage the games. Just no where near accurate at all. It seems very obvious that certain big city teams have inherent advantages and do crazy stuff to win games even with ****ty players. I get that this happens in baseball, but not like it does here, not even close. The last game that broke my back was 3 passed balls in a row with bases loaded and 2 outs in the 9th to lose by one to the Cards. Now I know you'll say well that could happen. Sure but how about the fact that this is literally the 6th game of this current season I have lost due to passed balls in the 9th to teams like the cubs, cards, and mets. 30 games into the season. And this is not the first season. Pitchers are ready, have plenty of pitch count left, and matched up well. Baseball is a game of percentages and playing those percentages, but it seems that this doesnt matter in this version of OOTP.

It’s a game of percentages and that means sometimes you come out on the other side of random chance. The team I root for once won 116 games in the regular season and then lost in the postseason to a “big market team with all the advantages”. That doesn’t mean MLB is fixed, it means the Mariners had an awful week right when they needed to be at their best.

If anything the biggest complaint I see is the exact opposite: that GM mode is too easy to win and even big market teams just don’t present that much of a challenge.

[too_on_too_out]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

That’s nice - computers can’t be truly random because true randomness doesn’t exist - but when the seed is based on stuff like system time when you start a function (that itself is controlled by a button click) it may as well be random for all intents and purposes.

If this is supposed to be a criticism of OOTP, it’s a highly edgy one.

It was actually a criticism of Matt. And was somewhat-edgy.



True randomness does exist, just that machines, given RNG or no RNG, cannot, will never generate a random number. Because machines are completely rational and so must always follow steps. Unlike humans.


Speaking of the recently criticized Matt, human intuition is infinitely more refined, potentially, than most give credit. We pick up on patterns sub-consciously, this is proven. I mean - look at baseball, and sports in general. All-stars are constantly intuitively predicting plays before they happen. They intuitively reading and recreating rhythm and spatial patterns. That's proven and demonstrated.



Who's to say that some, without even realizing it perhaps, cannot pick up similarly on patterns - in an autistic rainman sense, if you prefer - in numbers. They can't explain it rationally nor mathematically but they just get a sense of patterns, predictability.

[Zorro]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

If you can crack the RNG in the game, you should be doing far better things with your talents than using it to win at OOTP.

Hey, What wrong with winning at OOTP? 😨

[Zorro]

Originally Posted by robc

Hey, are you the Zorro that was on the Puresim Baseball forums. If so, greetings! It's been a while and not sure if you'd remember who I am.

Hello my friend. Yes it is me. 😁

[RchW]

Originally Posted by David Watts

Don't know about you, but I suddenly have a hankering for some Toast

I was trying to remember Toast while writing that post.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Cyprian

Played OOTP for the last 6 years, never posted a thread like this before.

Understood. It was the thread itself and all the variants we see, not you specifically I was poking fun at. I apologize if it was offensive.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by too_on_too_out

It was actually a criticism of Matt. And was somewhat-edgy.



True randomness does exist, just that machines, given RNG or no RNG, cannot, will never generate a random number. Because machines are completely rational and so must always follow steps. Unlike humans.


Speaking of the recently criticized Matt, human intuition is infinitely more refined, potentially, than most give credit. We pick up on patterns sub-consciously, this is proven. I mean - look at baseball, and sports in general. All-stars are constantly intuitively predicting plays before they happen. They intuitively reading and recreating rhythm and spatial patterns. That's proven and demonstrated.



Who's to say that some, without even realizing it perhaps, cannot pick up similarly on patterns - in an autistic rainman sense, if you prefer - in numbers. They can't explain it rationally nor mathematically but they just get a sense of patterns, predictability.

We’re also very, very bad at seeing patterns that aren’t based on anything that would predict future performance. See: the original post in this thread.

[too_on_too_out]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

We’re also very, very bad at seeing patterns that aren’t based on anything that would predict future performance. See: the original post in this thread.

Evidence? Sounds like bias. You must really suck at draft picks.

[robc]

Originally Posted by Zorro

Hello my friend. Yes it is me. 😁

Good to see you again! I'm glad to see you're still enjoying baseball games. Hope you and those you love are doing well and haven't gotten sick during this epidemic.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by too_on_too_out

Evidence? Sounds like bias. You must really suck at draft picks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_bias

[too_on_too_out]

I've come to view pulling out the wiki page link as a white flag in forum threads. Sort of like calling someone 'Hitler'. Speaking of which, what happened to Matt?

[Cynical]

Originally Posted by too_on_too_out

True randomness does exist, just that machines, given RNG or no RNG, cannot, will never generate a random number. Because machines are completely rational and so must always follow steps. Unlike humans.

This is incorrect -- there are machines that use cosmic background radiation as a white-noise generator and, from that, can generate truly random numbers. And, at any rate, if you're doing a proper pseudo-RNG, it's actually pretty easy to involve a human in the loop (I'd be shocked if OOTP isn't using clicks + the system clock to seed a PRNG). Meanwhile, humans are actually terrible at generating randomness or recognizing it. We see patterns in everything, even when there aren't any, and if you ask someone to name a bunch of "random numbers", there's lots of biases that will crop up -- for instance, they're vastly more likely to be odd than even, will likely not be divisible by 5, and will be spread out too much over the total range they're covering (true randomness tends to develop 'clumps').

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by too_on_too_out

I've come to view pulling out the wiki page link as a white flag in forum threads. Sort of like calling someone 'Hitler'. Speaking of which, what happened to Matt?

You asked for evidence, I presented it. Apparently evidence is Hitler now?

If you want a paraphrase, it’s that humans make false positive (type 1) errors far more often than we make false negative (type 2) ones because, in the example I’ve heard, if you see rustling in the savannah, you’re inclined to believe that it’s a lion because the consequences of not reacting to it if it is a lion (and being eaten) are far greater than the consequences of reacting to it if as if it was a lion and finding out it was just the wind (looking like an idiot in front of your fellow gatherer-hunters). We were gatherer-hunters for far, far longer in our history than we’ve had agriculture, etc., and these biases remain. All of us fall prey to this; if anything denying its existence makes you more likely, not less, to succumb to it because you won’t be on the lookout for it.

In fact, I’ve seen it posited that schizophrenia is just an extreme version of this hyper-aware pattern recognition that we all have (and, similarly, the link between schizophrenia and genius might be that sometimes seeing patterns that nobody else sees causes you to uncover a heretofore unseen truth). Wikipedia articles or not, the human mind is fascinating...

[too_on_too_out]

Originally Posted by Cynical

This is incorrect -- there are machines that use cosmic background radiation as a white-noise generator and, from that, can generate truly random numbers. And, at any rate, if you're doing a proper pseudo-RNG, it's actually pretty easy to involve a human in the loop (I'd be shocked if OOTP isn't using clicks + the system clock to seed a PRNG). Meanwhile, humans are actually terrible at generating randomness or recognizing it. We see patterns in everything, even when there aren't any, and if you ask someone to name a bunch of "random numbers", there's lots of biases that will crop up -- for instance, they're vastly more likely to be odd than even, will likely not be divisible by 5, and will be spread out too much over the total range they're covering (true randomness tends to develop 'clumps').

I just gave the example of pro athletes. You couldn't have missed that. You don't like it, of course, because it demonstrates what I am saying. But you didn't miss it.


'We see patterns in everything, even when there aren't any.' =


Me: there's a pattern in my closet!
You: no, there isn't
Me: oh



Anyway, cosmic rays etc this is all just getting more refined in hiding the fact that machines are purely rational. Purely rational CANNOT by definition create random events or actions. Purely rational must always be procedural, or it is not purely rational. This is basic ontology.

[too_on_too_out]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

You asked for evidence, I presented it. Apparently evidence is Hitler now?

If you want a paraphrase, it’s that humans make false positive (type 1) errors far more often than we make false negative (type 2) ones because, in the example I’ve heard, if you see rustling in the savannah, you’re inclined to believe that it’s a lion because the consequences of not reacting to it if it is a lion (and being eaten) are far greater than the consequences of reacting to it if as if it was a lion and finding out it was just the wind (looking like an idiot in front of your fellow gatherer-hunters). We were gatherer-hunters for far, far longer in our history than we’ve had agriculture, etc., and these biases remain. All of us fall prey to this; if anything denying its existence makes you more likely, not less, to succumb to it because you won’t be on the lookout for it.

In fact, I’ve seen it posited that schizophrenia is just an extreme version of this hyper-aware pattern recognition that we all have (and, similarly, the link between schizophrenia and genius might be that sometimes seeing patterns that nobody else sees causes you to uncover a heretofore unseen truth). Wikipedia articles or not, the human mind is fascinating...

No, Matt is Hitler. Aren't I clear enough?

[RchW]

Originally Posted by too_on_too_out

No, Matt is Hitler. Aren't I clear enough?

As mud.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by Cynical

This is incorrect -- there are machines that use cosmic background radiation as a white-noise generator and, from that, can generate truly random numbers. And, at any rate, if you're doing a proper pseudo-RNG, it's actually pretty easy to involve a human in the loop (I'd be shocked if OOTP isn't using clicks + the system clock to seed a PRNG). Meanwhile, humans are actually terrible at generating randomness or recognizing it. We see patterns in everything, even when there aren't any, and if you ask someone to name a bunch of "random numbers", there's lots of biases that will crop up -- for instance, they're vastly more likely to be odd than even, will likely not be divisible by 5, and will be spread out too much over the total range they're covering (true randomness tends to develop 'clumps').

Yeah, regarding random number generation in computers, it would actually be much harder for OOTP to base its random seed off something other than “system time when process X started (which in turn was put into motion by a user action)”, since that’s the way the randomizes that come with most languages nowadays work (I’d say all but maybe there’s something else out there I’m not aware of - I’m positive that C#, Java, and JavaScript all do this because I work with those languages and there are things you have to do to account for the fact that they use system time).

And yes, absolutely with pattern recognition too. In fact, my problem with OOTP’s scouting system is that there are basically no false positives with established players, and so therefore if you see a 10 year vet’s Power drop, you can be pretty much 100% positive that was a real drop, when in fact there should still be false positives even for vets. What’s more, you never, ever see a false negative (an actual Power drop that’s not noticed by your scout). A scout using proper Bayesian analysis should categorically not watch a guy he knows like a book, see slower bat speed or whatever, and immediately conclude that his power just dipped 5 “points”. Your scouts really ought to *trail* the statistics, not anticipate them.

[too_on_too_out]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

You asked for evidence, I presented it. Apparently evidence is Hitler now?

If you want a paraphrase, it’s that humans make false positive (type 1) errors far more often than we make false negative (type 2) ones because, in the example I’ve heard, if you see rustling in the savannah, you’re inclined to believe that it’s a lion because the consequences of not reacting to it if it is a lion (and being eaten) are far greater than the consequences of reacting to it if as if it was a lion and finding out it was just the wind (looking like an idiot in front of your fellow gatherer-hunters). We were gatherer-hunters for far, far longer in our history than we’ve had agriculture, etc., and these biases remain. All of us fall prey to this; if anything denying its existence makes you more likely, not less, to succumb to it because you won’t be on the lookout for it.

In fact, I’ve seen it posited that schizophrenia is just an extreme version of this hyper-aware pattern recognition that we all have (and, similarly, the link between schizophrenia and genius might be that sometimes seeing patterns that nobody else sees causes you to uncover a heretofore unseen truth). Wikipedia articles or not, the human mind is fascinating...

You do realize that you are talking about merely odds. In other words -- you agree with me. You do realize that, right? For example, here is another range or spectrum: human minds are fascinating yet human minds are responsible for wikipedia. See? A spectrum. Did I ever say human intuition is infallible, 100% of the time? Neither does it need to, to be a truly powerful and effective force. Stop pretending to read/not read posts. I gave perfectly recognizable examples demonstrating intuition, which you pretend to not see.

[cheo25]

The 2018 ALCS was largely decided by passed balls and pitchers making throwing errors to first. This stuff happens.

Don't remind me. When your 70 defensive catcher plays like a 30. I've seen that happen in OOTP, too, so, see, OOTP covers everything.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by too_on_too_out

You do realize that you are talking about merely odds. In other words -- you agree with me.

You’re pooping out of your mouth at this point. You were wrong. An adult accepts that, takes the L, and moves on. You do you.