I like you, you're a stats guy like me (I'm in engineering rather than finance).
Let's just play the hypothetical game here. Let's say the 3 players I mentioned above have performed in the bottom 3rd of the pool of the same players for 3 seasons straight each (which is about right for them for me). For three players to perform in the bottom third pool of their players would be 1/81 chance in a single season (assuming all things equal). For this to happen 3 seasons straight, we're looking at 1/531441 odds. Even if we change the assumption of all things equal (maybe my strategy is awful, who knows), I can't imagine it changes those odds more than 10-20% in either direction. I can't seriously be that unlucky (or maybe I can be that unlucky, judging from the packs I've opened lately lol).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Poppy
Mathematically speaking, there is only one kind of RNG. But, in a matrix with dozens of dice roles on dozens of ratings, weightings can be abused.
It is still like the stock market, in that there's a loser for every winner. If every card achieved its potential or historical performance, there would only be winners.
Now complicate everything, with a different pool of teams each season and league, all with supply/demand imbalances (too many Dave Stiebs, too few Randy Johnsons)
|