I.T. Erudio

Category: gaming

  • talkin football

    The NFL “divisional playoffs” were this weekend (January 22, 2023) – I thought the “better teams” all won today (Cincinnati beat Buffalo, San Francisco beat Dallas)

    Bengals

    The final score was Bengals 27 – Bills 10. To my eyes the Bengals are playing like a championship team – I’m not predicting anything, just saying that they are doing a lot of the things that championship teams do.

    Of course the Bengals continue to be disrespected by the “experts” simply because, well, they are the Bengals.

    e.g. The “spread” was Bengals +6 – which means that the Bills were a 6 point “favorite.”

    Sure the Bills were the home team, and they are obviously also a very good team composed of professional athletes – but a 6 point favorite?

    Well, you see the “line”/”point spread” in a football game is about getting equal money bet by both sides – then the “house” is guaranteed a % of the money wagered – no matter who wins.

    The “spread” isn’t about which team is actually better – it is completely about how money is being wagered on the game. Which again comes back to my point that the Bengals are being disrespected by the “experts”

    Experts

    Full disclosure – I don’t enjoy “picking” football games. Just in general I don’t bet on sports.

    As a “seasoned fan” I don’t bother to watch much “pre-game” coverage. I’ll turn on the game just before kick-off and usually mute the ‘announcers” and listen to music during the game.

    HOWEVER – when I was a “not so seasoned fan” I would sometimes watch ALL of the pre-game coverage, then the games, then watch the highlight shows. SO I’ve listened to a lot of “television experts” predict football games.

    There was an old “football expert” by the name of Jimmy “the Greek” Snyder who used to predict NFL game scores back in the 1970s/80’s.

    Now, ol’ Jimmy was probably wrong more than he was right – I don’t remember ever hearing his “correct/incorrect” numbers – but he was also a “Las Vegas bookmaker” so his win/lose record was MOSTLY irrelevant.

    Again, if you are a “bookmaker” you just want a lot of money bet ON BOTH TEAMS – so then you are guaranteed to make money not matter who wins.

    ANYWAY – at the end of his career (before he said something inappropriate and got himself fired in 1988) ol’ Jimmy loved himself some Dallas Cowboys (and in his defense the Cowboys were very good in the late 70’s and early 80’s).

    The problem was that the Cowboys as a franchise had some problems in the mid 1980’s (which culminated in a change of ownership in 1989), and were just not a good team – but ol’ Jimmy kept on picking them to win

    from a “psych 101” point of view ol’ Jimmy “The Greek” was suffering from a bad case of “confirmation bias” in regards to the Cowboys — i.e. he keep expecting them to be championship contenders because they had been championship contenders for so long.

    And that brings us to the 2022 Dallas Cowboys. They lost to the San Francisco 49ers today 12 – 19. The line was Cowboys +4.

    My guess is that the “betting public” made the “point spread” smaller in the Dallas game and larger in the Bengals games because of “confirmation bias” — i.e. the general public expects the Cowboys to be better than they are and for the Bengals to be worse.

    Which is why they play the games …

    My opinion on the Bengals win is that the Bengals were the “better team” today. The Bills certainly didn’t “quit” or “play poorly” so much as the Bengals played very well as a team and were in control from start to finish (they looked like “Champions”).

    ‘dem Cowboys

    The Cowboys had another “golden era” in the early-mid 1990’s – winning 3 Super Bowls in 4 years. But haven’t been back to a Super Bowl or Conference championship game since 1995.

    In that 27 year “championship game” drought they have only had 7 losing seasons. Team Owner Jerry Jones is willing to invest money in the team, they have a state of the art stadium, and a large passionate fan base – i.e. if there is a “recipe for success” the Cowboys have been following it.

    Watching the game today – my opinion was that the teams were “physically equal.” It was a close, entertaining game but I would describe it as the “Cowboys lost” just as much as the “49ers won.”

    No disrespect for San Francisco – they are another “doing things right” franchise (but they have made a couple Super Bowl appearances since their “golden era” back in the 1980’s/90s).

    But the Cowboys continue to make “small mistakes” that are hard to justify/explain.

    The Steelers Hall of Fame Coach Chuck Knoll once said that “Before you can win the game, you have to not lose.”

    “Before you can win the game, you have to not lose.”

    Chuck Knoll

    Yeah, it is a great “football coach” quote – what he (probably) meant is that more games are “lost” because of players making (self-inflicted) mistakes than are ‘won” by players making great plays.

    SO the Cowboys have a lot of very talented players – that managed to find a way not to win. I have an opinion on the “why” of the Cowboys continued “non championship” run – but it is just an “opinion” and it isn’t important or useful at the moment …

    To the 49ers credit, they let the Cowboys make those mistakes, took the win – and will play next week against the Eagles.

    BUT I didn’t get that “championship” feel from the 49ers – that doesn’t mean they won’t win against the Eagles. The Eagles are very good and were dominant in their win – but the Giants had that “happy they won last week” look – so the game will be interesting …

  • statistics vs analytics, sports in general and bowling in particular

    what a title – first the youtube video demo/pitch for the “bowling analytics” product …

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JKbL4_UEwc&t=1385s

    statistics vs analytics

    Yes, there is a difference between “statistics” and “analytics” – maybe not a BIG difference but there is a difference.

    “Statistics” is about collecting and interpreting “masses of numerical data.” “Analytics” is about logical analysis – probably using “statistics”.

    Yeah, kinda slim difference – the point being that there is a difference between “having the numbers” and “correctly interpreting the numbers.”

    “Data analysis” becomes an exercise in asking questions and testing answers – which might have been how a high level “statistician” described their job 100 years ago – i.e. I’m not dogmatic about the difference between “statistics” and “analytics”, just establishing that there are connotations involved.

    Analytics and Sports

    Analytics as a distinct field has gained popularity in recent years. In broad strokes the fields of “data science”, “artificial intelligence”, and “machine learning” all mean “analytics.”

    For a while the term “data mining” was popular – back when the tools to manage “large data sets” first became available.

    I don’t want to disparage the terms/job titles – the problem is that “having more data” and having “analysis to support decisions” does not automatically mean “better leadership.”

    It simply isn’t possible to ever have “all of the information” but it is very easy to convince “management types” that they have “data” supporting their pet belief.

    e.g. I always like to point out that there are “trends” in baby name popularity (example site here) – but making any sort of conclusion from that data is probably specious.

    What does this have to do with “sports” – well, “analytics” and sports “management” have developed side by side.

    Baseball’s word for the concept of “baseball specific data analysis” dates back to 1982 – about the time that “personal computers” where starting to become affordable and usable by “normal” folks.

    My round about point today is that most “analytics” fall into the “descriptive” category by design/definition.

    e.g. if you are managing a ‘sportball’ team and have the opportunity to select players from a group of prospects – how do you decide which players to pick?

    Well, in 2022 the team is probably going to have a lot of ‘sportball’ statistics for each player – but do those statistics automatically mean a player is a “good pick’ or a “bad pick”? Obviously not – but that is a different subject.

    The team decision process will (probably) include testing players physical abilities and watching the players work out – but neither of those 100% equates to “playing the game against other skilled opponents.”

    That player with great statistics might have been playing against a lower level of competition. That player that has average “physical ability test scores” might be a future Hall of Famer because of “hidden attributes”

    i.e. you can measure how fast an athlete can run, and how high they can jump – but you can’t measure how much they enjoy playing the game.

    MEANWHILE back at the ranch

    Now imagine that you are an athlete and you want to improve your ‘sportball’ performance. How do you decide what to work on?

    Well, the answer to that question is obviously going to be very sport AND athlete specific.

    However, your ‘sportball’ statistics are almost certainly not going to help you make decisions on how/what you should be trying to develop – i.e. those statistics will be a reflection of how well you have prepared, but do not directly tell you how to prepare.

    Bowling

    Full disclosure – I am NOT a competitive bowler. I have participated/coached other sports – but I’m a “casual bowler.” i.e. if I have misinterpreted the sport, please let me know 😉

    Now imagine that someone has decided that they want to improve their “bowling average” – how should they approach the problem?

    • Step 1 would be to establish a baseline from which improvements can be measured.
    • Step 2 would be to determine what you need to “work on” to improve your scores from Step 1.
    • Step 3 would be to establish a session of “practices” to work on the items from Step 2.
    • Step 4 would be to re-test the items from Step 1 and adjust steps 2 and 3 accordingly.

    Sure, I just described the entire field of “management” and/or “coaching” – but how well a manager/coach helps athletes through the above (generic) process will be directly reflected in wins/losses in competition.

    Remember that the old axiom that “practice makes perfect” is a little misleading:

    Practice does not make perfect. Only perfect practice makes perfect.

    -Vince Lombardi

    Back to bowling – bowling every week might be fun, but won’t automatically mean “better performance.”

    Keeping track of your game scores might be interesting, but also won’t automatically mean “better scores.”

    I’m told that the three factors for the “amateur bowler” to work on are:

    1. first ball pin average
    2. single pin spare %
    3. multipin spare %

    In a “normal” game there are 10 pins possible each frame. The bowler gets two balls to knock down all 10.

    If your “first ball pin average” is 10, then you are a perfect bowler –and knock all the pins down every frame with your first ball.

    To be honest I haven’t seen any real data on “first ball pin averages” – it probably exists in much the same manner that “modern baseball statistics” can be derived from old “box scores” – but I’m told that a first pin average around 9 is the goal.

    If you consistently average 9 pins on your first throw – then you have a consistent “strike” delivery.

    Which then means that IF you consistently knock down 9 pins – you will have to pickup “single pin spares” on a regular basis.

    Then “multipin spares” are going to be an exercise in statistics/time and fate. Obviously if you average 9 pins on your first ball, the number of “multipin spare” opportunities should be relatively small.

    SO those are the data points being tracked with my “bowling analytics” application.

  • Eternity is a long time …

    Woody Allen started out “doing stand-up” in the 1960’s. (e.g. Spotify has “Woody Allen – The Stand Up Years Years 1964-1968”). I would have to re-listen to some of his stuff to give any sort of critique – BUT the fact that the “The Stand Up Years” was released in 2015 implies SOMETHING positive.

    ANYWAY – one of Mr Allen’s famous lines was:

    Eternity is a long time, especially near the end.

    Woody Allen

    Humor rarely translates well between generation. Artist/art/audience are all shaped by the times in which they live – and therefore the “generic societal sense of humor” obviously shifts over time.

    Is Woody Allen’s stand up act still “funny” today – yes. Was it (probably) considered MUCH funnier in the 1960 – also yes. (btw: hoopladigital has the album – I’ll listen to it later 😉 )

    It isn’t just that the material is “older” as much as “it was written at a specific point in time to be delivered at a certain point in time to an audience”

    Humor
    “Humor” may be eternal – BUT audience tastes change. What was commercially successful “back then” might not be successful “now” – but of course there is still nothing new under the sun (observed from a distance, over a long enough period of time – there are probably “cycles of humor” – but that is a different post)

    Obviously what we think is “funny” tends to fall into the “can’t argue with taste” category – but is also influenced by time/place/audience.

    Meanwhile back at the ranch …
    Is there a “universal” sense of humor? Well, maybe. We would probably have to venture into abstractions and pointless generalities but something that EVERYONE would think is “equally funny” is gonna be hard to find – simply because we aren’t all the same.

    Marvel has a new movie coming out (in November 2021) called “The Eternals.” I’m sure it will be entertaining, but the story is VERY old. Of course it should be remembered that the purpose of the movie is to entertain and “make $$” – and it will probably do both.

    Anyway – the “very old” part touches on issues worthy of profound thought and/or deep analysis – which I won’t go into now.

    HOWEVER – from a “storytelling” point of view, if you have “all powerful eternal beings” in the “Marvel Cinematic Universe” (MCU) the question they have to address is “why they let bad things happen.” From the trailer it looks like they are going for the generic “we are not allowed to interfere with mortal history” thing – which again, is a storytelling tool as much as anything.

    If you are going to have “supremely strong” heroes then to tell an interesting story, you also need “supremely strong” villains. e.g. if the “hero” is all powerful, then the outcome is never in question and there is no real “conflict” which means there is no real “story.”

    This is why “Greek heroes” tended to have “tragic flaws.” If memory serves the ancient Greek concept of “gods” was that they were just like humans, but they lived forever. Then if you live forever, you have no real motivation to seek “glory” or accomplishments – i.e. who cares if anyone “mortal” remembers you, they are gonna die while you continue on …

    So in the MCU – Thanos snapping his fingers and wiping out half of existence is pointless – eventually the population would recover, and if you are “eternal”, well even Thanos would eventually die (in the MCU) and you would continue – so “no problem”.

    Again, from a “storytelling” point of view – stories about “happy people never having any problems” simply aren’t interesting.

    fwiw This is a big reason why “Superman” has been hard for DC to “do right” in recent years.

    Golden Age Comics
    The “golden age Superman” (in comics) from 1938 to 1986 illustrates all of the above storytelling problems. Of course at the start “Superman” wasn’t really “Superman.” Then as his powers grew, they also needed to introduce “weaknesses” in the form of the many flavors of Kryptonite.

    To be clear I’m not criticizing “Superman” – just pointing out the problem. If you have seen the old “Super Friends” from 1973 – sure, the intended audience was “8 to 10 year olds” – but when Superman shows up, it tends to end the episode (in a very deus ex machina kind of way).

    From a pop-culture point of view. Part of the problem with Superman and Batman was that the “audience” grew-up. If you read those comics from the 1950’s and 60’s there are a lot of classic stories – but they don’t spend a lot of time dealing with “real world problems.”

    Contrast that with Marvel’s “Spider-Man” (first issue 1962) – where poor Aunt May seemed to always be on the verge of death, and the bills were piling up, so Peter Parker had to get a job, and deal with going to school, and worry about his girlfriend, etc.

    (of course in true “over reaction” fashion – DC has almost jumped into the other ditch in recent years – but that isn’t important now)

    SO they either have to settle on telling almost exactly the same story over and over – or they need to invent weaknesses for Superman, and introduce “worthy opponents” (and a discussion on how “Lex Luthor” has changed from “mad scientist” to “evil businessman” to “Machiavellian politician” is another subject)

    By 1986 the problem facing DC was declining comic sales and so the “future of Superman” meeting (probably) went something like “well, we can invent another form of kyptonite or we can reboot the franchise and make Superman less powerful.” (fwiw: I thought the “reboot” went well – but then they “killed” Superman in 1992 … it must be a tough job 😉 )

    I’ll also point out that “golden age Superman” was basically a (very) secularized version of a protestant Christianity concept of the Divine.

    King David the psalmist
    Yes, I could spend some time supporting that last statement – but it is one of those things that “once you’ve been told” tends to be obvious. Of course if you passionately disagree with me on the subject – I could always be wrong … (and to be clear I’m NOT saying “Superman” is allegorical in a larger sense)

    My point (if I had one) is that one of the things that distinguishes “humanity” from other mammals is the ability to conceive of “eternity” in some limited fashion. King David and Psalm 8 comes to mind.

    Particularly the “What is man that You are mindful of him,” part (first half of Psalm 8:4). Which is the same question “The Eternals” has to deal with at the beginning …

    (btw: yes, of course your dog/cat/beloved pet loves you and probably has a sense of humor, as well as intelligence – but also isn’t terribly worried about what will happen when they die. The fact that animals can be completely in “the present” and love unconditionally is part of the appeal of having a “pet”)

    SO “The Eternals” will be asking the same question in the form of a “modern CGI movie.” (which I will probably see on the first weekend it is out – as always, I go to the movies primarily to be entertained – if the movie makes me “think” a little without being pretentious, that is fine …)

  • What makes a game a “game”?

    Movie
    “Free Guy” was “cute” and fun. First thought: they are examining a very old question. Maybe at the root of the movie is that the old “unexamined life is not worth living” thing.

    Games
    ANYWAY – the movie deals with ‘gaming’ in general so the “secondary thought” becomes just what makes something a “game?”

    Merriam Webster tells me that the word “game” dates back to the 12th century with roots (eventually) in the Old Norse “gamen” which meant “sport, amusement.”

    So there is that feeling of a “game” being both a “contest/competition” but also having a sense of “joy/fun/entertainment.”

    It might sound obvious but IDEALLY “games” should be “fun” for all of the people involved. If one side is “having fun” and the other side isn’t – then (arguably) they aren’t “playing a game” but engaging in some other activity.

    Competition AND Fun
    I’ll point out that the #1 reason young athletes stop participating in “sports” (in general) is because they aren’t having “fun.”

    The same idea probably applies to “games” in general – i.e. if you aren’t having fun, you will probably stop playing.

    Which is why we see online games constantly releasing “new content” to keep players interested. However, if the game is no longer “fun” participation will dwindle.

    Maybe a “game” has to be “competitive” and “fun.” There is a lot of wiggle room in calling something “competitive” – e.g. the game has to be “challenging,” as in not too hard but also not too easy.

    It is a common “game designer” tactic to make the “lower levels” a tutorial on how to play the game. Then as players master those skills, the level of difficulty rises. In essence EVERY game is a “learning experience” – but usually what you are learning is specific to the game.

    Final Answer
    It is PROBABLY accurate to say that “play” is an indicator of intelligence – i.e. the animals that engage in “playful activity” are illustrating the ability to learn and master activities.

    With humans the types of games a person plays PROBABLY tells you something about that person. But that sounds like a two drink discussion for another time …

    SO what makes a “game” a “game”? A combination of competition (remember it is possible to “compete” against yourself), fun, and the potential for “mastery.”

    If one of those three elements is missing – you are probably engaged in “non game” activity.

    Also important to point out is that what is “fun and challenging” for one person may be “boring busywork” for someone else. As I mentioned above – the games we choose to play say something about us as individuals.

    This was something of a plot hole in “Free Guy” – and is what motivated this post. The movie was entertaining – but “playing a game” implies interaction at some level.

    ok, no spoilers BUT If all someone does is “observe” then they aren’t “playing.”

    Imagine if someone tried to make an “aquarium game” (it has probably been done – I haven’t checked) – for it to be a “game” the player should have to select fish/occupants of aquarium, buy food, feed the fish. Maybe have the ability to sell fish and earn money to buy more/different fish, etc. THAT would be a game.

    BUT if all you do is WATCH the aquarium with zero interaction – well, you aren’t “playing a game” you are WATCHING.

    Again, the interaction is essential – and probably illustrates why the video game industry is bigger than the movie industry …

    Sports
    “Games” can also mean “athletic competition” – e.g. the “Olympic Games”, the “Pan American Games”, the “Commonwealth Games.”

    I “cut the cable” a few years back – so it was surprisingly hard to watch much “live” Olympic coverage. HOWEVER it was also very hard to avoid hearing about the Games.

    To compete at an “Olympic” level the athletes have to put in a large amount of work – no one “accidently” becomes an Olympic athlete.

    Just for fun I’ll argue that the most successful competitors still get “joy” out of playing their chosen sport. It may be cliche to say they play “for the love of the game” – but it is true 99% of the time.

    I have an informed opinion on “youth sports” in general – but that is another post 😉