BuzzerBeater Forums

I have made an analysis which is intended to either prove or disprove a hypothesis that there is a mistake in the Game Engine when a match is played on Neutral Site.

The actual hypothesis states that there is also HCA present in the mtach, even when it is played on Neutral Site.

In the analysis I have checked results of 200 matches played on Neutral Site and 137 matches played normally, with HCA present.

These are the results (normal matches are marked as HCA, matches played on Neutral site are marked as NEUTRAL):

Total:

HCA - home win - 58,4%
NEUTRAL - "home" win - 57%

Same effort

HCA - home win - 62,8%
NEUTRAL - "home" win - 56,4%

Differnce 10 points or less

HCA - home win - 64%
NEUTRAL - "home" win - 62%

Same effort + difference 10 points or less

HCA - home win - 54,5%
NEUTRAL - "home" win - 75%

I don't want to blame BBs straightforwards for having a mistake in the GE, but according to this facts it is not as it should be.

There are a few ways to explain this:

1) There is a mistake in the GE when a match is played on Neutral Site and therefore HCA counts as well.
2) The HCA is too small to have an impact in the game.
3) The sample of the matches in the analysis is wrong and does not reflect the truth.

One way or another, I would like to please BBs to have a look at these stats, to have a look at their stats, if they have any, and eventually to have a look at and double-check the code to be sure that what is meant to be there, IS there.

EDIT: P.S. to MODs/GMs - I did not deliberately post it in the Bugs forum.

Last edited by PunkFloid at 11/11/2009 15:27:28

I must admit that your stats from cup games are quite convincing and I can't challenge them. It's clear that there will always be some deviation, so no problem at all.

My analysis included both cup games and national team games - U21 Euro Qualifiers in particular. And I don't understand why it should make the difference.

As I can see, the number of matches when the home team is stronger equals the number of matches when the home team is weaker in the qualifying round.

This strenght is based on the World rankings table - I know it does not necesarilly mean that the higher in the WR the team is, the better it is, but neither does it mean with cup games and divisions.

1st seed team plays at home: 0 matches against stronger teams, 4 matches against weaker teams
2nd seed team plays at home: 0 matches against stronger teams, 3 matches against weaker teams
3th seed team plays at home: 1 match against a stronger team, 3 matches against weaker teams
4th seed team plays at home: 1 match against a stronger team, 2 matches against weaker teams
5th seed team plays at home: 2 matches against stronger teams, 1 match against a weaker team
6th seed team plays at home: 3 matches against stronger teams, 1 match against a weaker team
7th seed team plays at home: 3 matches against stronger teams, 0 matches against weaker teams
8th seed team plays at home: 4 matches against stronger teams, 0 matches against weaker teams

It goes like 4-3-3-2-1-1-0-0 both ways up or down.

It's then easy to count that out of 28 games, in 14 games the stronger team is "home" and vice-versa.

But you seem pretty convinced in your posts so I don't know if I had not make a mistake counting this.

Last edited by PunkFloid at 11/11/2009 17:47:47

That's why I have made statistics for matches where the difference was 10 points and less, because that shows evenly matched teams.

you should be a lot more certain than that 1st seed will beat the 8th seed than that the 5th seed will beat the 6th seed.

But you can never be certain about this. Nor even in cup games...

So what I really meant was that for cup games, it's actually a random draw and guaranteed to end up at 50% if everything works correctly, while for NT games there is probably some bias since it's not random.

It's not random and therefore there can be no bias whatsoever!

But OK, if you are sure there is no mistake, we can end this discussion.

Last edited by PunkFloid at 11/12/2009 06:49:14

But OK, if you are sure there is no mistake, we can end this discussion.

Fine by me. I guess the answer to explanation to your results is 3), sample is just a little too small.

Thanks for the effort though. Another BB Myth solved!

Last edited by BB-Patrick at 11/12/2009 09:27:12