Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Videogames Make Traditional Super Bowl Predictions

simoniker posted more than 10 years ago | from the fourth-quarter-knockout dept.

PlayStation (Games) 76

Thanks to Reuters for its article discussing videogame-based predictions for this weekend's Super Bowl. The piece explains: "Days before the real football championship is contested, Carolina Panthers wide receiver Steve Smith has beaten the New England Patriots' wide-out Troy Brown 29-21 in a head-to-head video game matchup." The match was played on Sony's NFL GameDay 2004, and it's noted: "In the first eight years of the event, the winner of the electronic showdown went on to hoist the Vince Lombardi Trophy as the Super Bowl champion." Elsewhere, 1UP has done its own Super Bowl predictions on four different football videogames, and the final results also favor the Panthers.

cancel ×

76 comments

Wow (2, Funny)

Fitascious (127984) | more than 10 years ago | (#8133912)

Never thought I would see Troy Brown's name in a slashdot story....

GO PATS!!!

Re:Wow (1)

rRaminrodt (250095) | more than 10 years ago | (#8134213)

Agreed!

I don't think any vidoegame can really capture the the real essence of this team anyway.

For fans of NE style music/humor/denigration-of-others they've been playing the Pats song featured here: http://www.meatdepressed.com/Music.asp on the radio recently. For fans of other teams, too bad. :)

And yes, the song is suppoed to be funny.

YES (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8133932)

Damn straight.

Wait a second... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8133954)

Tecmo Super Bowl doesn't have the Panthers, you insensitive clod!

video game Tom Brady (5, Insightful)

IncarnadineConor (457458) | more than 10 years ago | (#8133970)

I suspect the video game companies have rated the patriots players a bit low what with the real life team being on a 14 game winning streak and all. I would guess that the reason the games have been fairly accurate predictors in the past is because they have done a good job capturing the varrying skill levels of the players, but for some reason the patriots I watch on TV seem vastly better then the patriots I control in Madden.

Zen Football (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8134295)

Games don't do well with the decision making aspect. The Patriots win their games at the D-line. Getting solid pressure on everyone while allowing their linebackers a more versitile role. Feeling the heat while trying to see downfield through the outstretched hands of a three man front with the sinking realization you can't account for McGuinest is hard to model. In actuallity probably no team is done right, but on balance every team but the one on the instruction book cover is probably done right enough. Don't worry, the Pats will be a pretty good team to play in 2k4 assuming they don't Bill-it-up. Also, crowd noise doesn't cause a lot of offensive procedural errors in the football games I've played, nore does intimidation by the opposing defense.

That's the great thing about the NFL. Any team can win on any given day. 14 wins is special, but it's not *just* superlative play. Look at the Cardnials, owners of the NFC North. Next year I'd like to see them play a monday night game in Greenbay so I can hear a mic'ed up Boudin proclaim "Where my bitches at?!" as he takes the field.

I might add... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8134398)

that as a lifelong and often suffering Seahawks fan, I have made it my mission to find the quirks of whatever football game I get so I can utterly dominate with them. Like racking up so many yards that I'm ranked last because they used signed shorts, the stingy bastards! No need to cheat really. All the games I've ever played had wierd quirks that are easily exploited.

Typically the cycle is go through the list of plays, find your money defensive and offensive plays, possibly designing new ones to enhance the flaws they expose. Practice them to a finely honed edge. Set the most reliable anti-blitz, and most likely to sack versions as audiables. Then go to town. Oh in the case of maddens' it's often helpful to practice against the all madden, or all time, or cheat teams once you've got the idea of what you'd like to do to get your skill up.

No: video game BILL BELICHICK (2, Interesting)

kisrael (134664) | more than 10 years ago | (#8134748)

It's just a repeat of our New England complaint "we don't get no respect".

If the primary way one ingame NFL team differs from another is uniform look and player stats, then Virtual Patriots are probably going to look a lot less good than they do in real life...a video game player as "coach" is no Bill Belichick, and its gotta be hard for a video game designer to model the cleverness that makes the Patriots a standout team.

And I'd wager, if the player models were set before this season, they still underestimate the Pats, given how many injuries they've had, and how many "second string" players have gotten the chance to prove their worth on the field.

Re:video game Tom Brady (1)

Deliveranc3 (629997) | more than 10 years ago | (#8135024)

Xbox Live(or similar) and Good reporting will eventually solve this problem, an algorithm to calculate player stats based on previous games would be a challenge but think of the EA bucks, some people would do it for prerelease versions of Madden alone.

GameDay 2004 has wrong stats (2, Interesting)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 10 years ago | (#8135130)

I suspect the video game companies have rated the patriots players a bit low what with the real life team being on a 14 game winning streak and all. I would guess that the reason the games have been fairly accurate predictors in the past is because they have done a good job capturing the varrying skill levels of the players, but for some reason the patriots I watch on TV seem vastly better then the patriots I control in Madden.

Dead on - I asked about this prior to purchasing the game (I ended up getting GD2003 - which has the stats of the last Superbowl-winning Pats). It has the stats from the preseason and first couple games... when the Patriots were doing poorly. It doesn't include the stats from their later 14 game winning streak.

-T

Re:video game Tom Brady (1)

AvantLegion (595806) | more than 10 years ago | (#8142436)

>> I suspect the video game companies have rated the patriots players a bit low

Like the PANTHERS are rated all that high in the game??

The problem I have with this year's Super Bowl (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8133985)

Since the Panthers are a new team, I can't have my yearly pre-game Tecmo Bowl face-off!

I don't know about that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8135335)

They might not be made by the same company, the graphics for Gameday are pretty damn close...

LIONS IN 2006! (4, Funny)

the Man in Black (102634) | more than 10 years ago | (#8134001)

Yeah, you head me. Detroit Lions.

--The Last Lions Fan

Funny story. (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8134459)

The Detroit Lions were my 'Dark-horse' pick this past year. Because when they were getting their asses handed to them the year before, they never were 'ok' with it. They had a lot of speed, but mostly a good attitude. So when I took my friend to the Seahawks game this year, I was like, well there's really no reason we should lose, but the Lions are one of those teams that could take advantage of the open door. Seahawks are kicking ass, skiping names. The crowd of course is cheering, and some people are acting like the game is in the bag. I turn to my buddy and go, the games far from over, Detroit's a deep threat on every down. Lions take their next offensive snap, nine seconds, endzone.

We out here, in Seattle, know you guys are better than your record. We're still happy to kick your ass, but when you're not playing our boys we want the best for you.

Re:LIONS IN 2006! (2, Interesting)

li99sh79 (678891) | more than 10 years ago | (#8135428)

Yeah, you head me. Detroit Lions.

Assuming Millen and Mooch can inject some life into the moribund Lion's offense (ie draft Winslow in round one), and the defense can stay healthy the Lions will be a far improved team next season, and in the current NFL a run for the title in 2006 is not that far-fetched, though improbable.

-sam

Re:LIONS IN 2006! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8135796)

The defense would likely be able to stay healthy if they werent' playing 3/4s of every game. For the last few years the Lion's D has been essentially playing twice as much as the average nfl team. Of course they're going to start falling apart.

What they need, is more talented targets for harrington, and a credible running threat -- alot of which is in play calling.

But they have a definite personnel issue - not retaining talented free agents and over-paying for over-rated free agents.(*cough*Hakim*cough*Schroeder*cough*).

that said, the Lions will only see the superbowl in 2006 because it'll likely be in our backyard.

Re:LIONS IN 2006! (2, Interesting)

li99sh79 (678891) | more than 10 years ago | (#8138373)

The defense would likely be able to stay healthy if they werent' playing 3/4s of every game. For the last few years the Lion's D has been essentially playing twice as much as the average nfl team. Of course they're going to start falling apart.

Essentially true except that the two most greivous injuries to the lions this season (Cash and Stewart) occured in the preseason.

What they need, is more talented targets for harrington, and a credible running threat -- alot of which is in play calling

Kellen Winslow Jr. a reliable tight end would make Harrington that much better. The running game's a bit tougher because of Stewart's over-large contract, and the lack of top-flight backs in the draft this year. However, upgrading the middle of the line would help the running game as much as a new back. Pinner showed some spark in his limited playing time, he might be a stop gap answer. Ideally I'd like to see the lions draft Chris Perry in the second round, but that probably won't happen. If that is the case drafting a solid offensive guard to replace Ray Brown would be nice.

that said, the Lions will only see the superbowl in 2006 because it'll likely be in our backyard.

Uhm what's likely about it, the 2006 Super Bowl(XL) was already awarded to Ford Field.

yes, I check The Sporting News's mock draft on a weekly basis, can't you tell? -sam

Re:LIONS IN 2006! (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 10 years ago | (#8141311)

And who will they be playing? The Redskins or the Saints?

Mangled English Hurt Brain (4, Funny)

\\ (118555) | more than 10 years ago | (#8134074)

The following few sentences on the NFL Gameday 2004 [1up.com] page are making my brain hurt:

At the end of the second half, the score is 7 - 6. The Panthers are not content to go into the locker room with the score so close. With less than 3 minutes left, they pull out some play calling that is so pass-friendly you'd think the Colts were on the field.

The end of the second half is the end of the game, and if it really means the end of the second quarter/first half, then why is there all of a sudden three minutes left and both teams score again to make it 14-9? For once I'm sure this isn't a product of my being half asleep, this actually MAKES NO SENSE. ARGH! For the love of god, 1up needs an editor.

Re:Mangled English Hurt Brain (4, Informative)

Acidic_Diarrhea (641390) | more than 10 years ago | (#8134141)

Bill Simmons wrote an article on the game, as he was there. It can be read here [go.com] . In it, he says that they were playing 3 minute quarters.

Editors? We don't need no stinkin' editors!

Re:Mangled English Hurt Brain (1)

angle_slam (623817) | more than 10 years ago | (#8137820)

That was a great article. But it is about the sponsored game, between players of the Pats and Panthers. Not the game 1up was talking about.

Re:Mangled English Hurt Brain (1)

angle_slam (623817) | more than 10 years ago | (#8137791)

It's called a typo. He said "second half", but he meant to say "second quarter". You can see that his next paragraph talks about the beginning of the second half.

Re:Mangled English Hurt Brain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8139917)

Yes, but if it's the end of the secod quarter, how are there still "almost three minutes left"? The quarter is supposed to have ended!

Results weren't supported by tests (4, Insightful)

Imperator (17614) | more than 10 years ago | (#8134153)

So I read the article about the 4 different games they tested with. The problem is that the games really weren't reflective of the real life teams. For example, in two of the games the Panthers were a passing team. Then they somehow conclude the Panthers are a lock? I don't think so. Video games may try to predict football games, but I still trust the predictions from Vegas much more.

Re:Results weren't supported by tests (1)

RaboKrabekian (461040) | more than 10 years ago | (#8134843)

Lighten up. They're not telling people to go out and bet on the results. It's done with tongue planted firmly in cheek. Just for fun. What happens when we let video games predict the outcome?

Re:Results weren't supported by tests (1)

Deliveranc3 (629997) | more than 10 years ago | (#8135002)

Um we have video games that have a completely acurate depiction of players skills. (Mental game is gone or well predicted). Game players coach better than rl coaches (I'd bet money we are there already).

Reality will imitate virtual reality OoooOOOOOoooo We're through the looking glass here people.

Re:Results weren't supported by tests (4, Insightful)

molafson (716807) | more than 10 years ago | (#8134993)

but I still trust the predictions from Vegas much more.

Problem with this is that when Vegas sets the line, they're not so much predicting the outcome of the game as they are predicting the betting tendencies of the gamblers. E.g. "New England -7" is calculated to ensure that roughly half the bettors will take Carolina, half will take New England.

If they set the spread too low, e.g. "New England -6.5," too many people would bet on New England, so that if New England wins by a touchdown the Vegas books would loose money...

This is also why the line changes if too many people start betting one team. It's kind of like the stock market, insofar as the odds have *something* to do with the teams' projected performance, but have much more to do with the publics' perception of the value of the bet.

At least this is how I understand the system to work. (IANA gambler, though.)

Re:Results weren't supported by tests (1)

jea6 (117959) | more than 10 years ago | (#8135713)

If I hadn't wasted all my moderator points on 'Funny' yesterday, I could send some 'Informative' your way. Here's another description of how the line works. [about.com]

Re:Results weren't supported by tests (4, Informative)

leviramsey (248057) | more than 10 years ago | (#8138196)

I am a professional handicapper and can confirm and elaborate.

Bookmaking in the US is based on -110 odds. Whatever side you want to back against the spread, you're risking $110 if you lose to win $100 if you win (there are discount books offshore/online; Pinnacle out of Curacao generally offers -105). Thus, as long as the betting on both teams breaks down in the 47.5% to 52.5% area, the bookmaker is guaranteed a profit whatever happens. At anything outside that range, the bookmaker is betting on the outcome, as they stand to lose money if the heavily bet side wins.

There's more to it than simple balanced action. The line opened in Vegas and offshore at NE -6.5 and got steamed up to -7. It's highly unlikely though, that any additional action would push it to 7.5 (at least at reputable books [see below]).

The reason is key numbers. You can generate pretty much every realistic number of points scored by an NFL team with a function like s(x,y,z)=3x+7y+z, where x, y, and z are all integers greater than or equal to zero, their sum is less than 8, and z is less than x+y. The realistic score differences are thus differences between s-values for two ordered triples satisfying those constraints. Analysis of this will confirm that 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, and 14 are commonly encountered score differences, with 7 and 3 being especially common.

The result is that bookmakers will require massively unbalanced action to move off of a key number (3, 4, 6, and 7) and to a lesser extent to move onto a key number. At those numbers, bookies are much more willing to gamble, as the balanced action around those numbers is a huge risk.

This risk is called "getting sided" or, even worse, "getting middled".

Imagine that you bet the Patriots -6.5, along with enough of the betting public, to push the line to 7. You buyback Panthers +7 at the same stake level. Let's say you're risking $1100 on both ends. If the Patriots win by 8 or more, Pats -6.5 wins, Cats+7 loses, for a net loss of $100. If the Patriots lose or win by less than 7, the reverse happens. But if the Patriots win by exactly 7 (which is common), your Panthers bet pushes (nothing gained, nothing lost) and the Patriots bet wins. Essentially you've hedged your way into betting at +1000 that the game lands on 7. This is "siding".

It's not difficult to see that the book gets mauled in this situation if everybody's doing it.

Now imagine that Patriots action pushed the line to 7.5. Now, both bets hit if the Patriots win by exactly 7. This is "middling".

You may recall a Monday Night Football game between the Giants and Bucs earlier this year. The line was Tampa -5.5 and steam on Monday pushed it to 6. Late in the game, Giants trailing by 4, they take a safety, giving Tampa two points. Al Michaels (who almost definitely bets on the games; it's not difficult to tell when he has OVER or UNDER) said, "That noise you just heard in Vegas wasn't an earthquake."

Re:Results weren't supported by tests (1)

leviramsey (248057) | more than 10 years ago | (#8139167)

A Super Bowl has been middled: Super Bowl XIII [lasvegassun.com] :

That game opened at Pittsburgh minus 3 1/2, before moving to minus 4 before moving again to minus 4 1/2. Those movements allowed bettors to get the Steelers at a minus 3 1/2 and, later, the Cowboys at a plus 4 1/2 and win both sides of their bets if the final score landed on 4.


Which it did.

"You could have heard the bookies howl as far away as Los Angeles," Banker recalled. "They compared that day to Pearl Harbor, the sinking of the Maine and the stock market crash of 1929 all rolled into one."

Re:Results weren't supported by tests (1)

molafson (716807) | more than 10 years ago | (#8139451)

Nice explanation. As I don't bet, I didn't know about getting "sided" or "middled," but logically it makes sense (insofar that I can figure it out). Thanks!

P.S. I just saw a headline about the bookies in Boston getting hammered with Pats bets. I didn't read the story, but it makes me wonder if the local guys in New England would have to move their line in this situation.

Re:Results weren't supported by tests (1)

leviramsey (248057) | more than 10 years ago | (#8139696)

Some have, some haven't.

There's two major schools of thought: one is that you move the line to 8 or 8.5 (which is the consensus line among those who are moving it).

The other is that you simply lay the excess action off on an online sportsbook or find a bookie elsewhere (Carolina would be ideal) to lay off action with. Basically it's just constitutes betting the Patriots elsewhere.

There's a third option, and this is basically what Vegas and the offshore world (the professionals) are likely to do, and that is adjusting the payout rates to make the Panthers more attractive relative to the Patriots (7-120 for instance, which would mean that Patriots bettors are risking $120 for $100 in desired profit and Panthers bettors are getting $100 profit for every $100 risked).

Re:Results weren't supported by tests (1)

the_ed_dawg (596318) | more than 10 years ago | (#8139931)

People do these "predictions" for all major sporting events, it seems. My personal favorite was a college football playoff system at Fox Sports [foxsports.com] . Texas beating LSU in the quarterfinals? Puh-lease . Texas got bitchslapped by Arkansas in its own backyard, bowed down to Big XII South heir-supreme Oklahoma, and got "snubbed" from the BCS by a K-State win only to lose to Wazzu. Why did they beat LSU in a computerized setting? Games tend to avoid coaching trends and other external forces in sports and focus entirely upon individuals' skills. Texas cannot win a big game despite having an elite talent pool. If they did, the Earth would cease to exist. :)

The point? There is no way that a game released at the beginning of the season can compensate for the Patriots' winning streak or their superior coaching. Everything hinges upon how the players were rated at the start of the season in the eyes of a set of programmers.

It gets even less meaningful when someone picks up the controller and starts playing. I can whip the computer 255-0 in six minute quarters in NCAA Football 2004 with my dynasty season and violate other players with a massively inferior team in multiplayer. Does that mean that Memphis is a better team than Oklahoma? No. It means I'm better than the person sitting next to me at this particular game. He can slap me silly in one of the other football flavors. Who is the better player, then? No one.

That said, Patriots by two TDs from their previous Super Bowl experience and pedigree from a much stronger conference.

Re:Results weren't supported by tests (1)

Imperator (17614) | more than 10 years ago | (#8143237)

That said, Patriots by two TDs from their previous Super Bowl experience and pedigree from a much stronger conference.

I'm not sure I disagree, but I do want to nitpick: the other 3 teams in the AFC East had 22 combined wins. The other 3 teams in the NFC South had 20 combined wins. (One of those was Atlanta, which went from very bad to very good when Vick returned late in the season--to beat the Panthers.) In contrast, the Pats only conference loss was to a much weaker Buffalo team, albeit on the first weekend of the season and quite a bit separated from their current streak. So who had the tougher conference? I'd say Pats, but not by much.

Then again, I'm not a fan of either team and I don't have money on the game, so don't take my word for anything.

My Prediction.... (1, Funny)

mhazen (144368) | more than 10 years ago | (#8134269)

Zelda the Windwalker will beat out Solid Snake, by a margin of six.

News? Stuff that matters? (-1, Offtopic)

metamatic (202216) | more than 10 years ago | (#8134296)

I think I speak for many when I say:

Who gives a shit?

(About the bread and circuses, or about the video game predictions?)

Fear the tradition (1)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 10 years ago | (#8134719)

As a PATS fan, even I have to admit they just went from being a favorite to an underdog.

This damn video game event is a curse and a half. I used to not give a rats ass, but the winner clearly has a history of good luck in the superbowl.

Re:Fear the tradition (1)

Acidic_Diarrhea (641390) | more than 10 years ago | (#8134935)

Yeah? How come the spread hasn't come down? I'd take the Patriots at 3 but the last spread I saw had them at 7. I mean, the Superbowl is usually a blowout but if you look at the past 14 games, the Patriots don't routinely cover a spread like that.

It would be amusing to see the spread drop because Troy Brown doesn't know how to play Gameday. [Although, to be fair, who plays Gameday anymore? EA and Sega probably have like 75% of the football market this year - as well they should, Gameday is 'teh poop'.]

Re:Fear the tradition (1)

analog_line (465182) | more than 10 years ago | (#8135131)

Gameday is 'teh standard' as far as this particular bit is concerned. Sony's done this for 8 years and it's predicted the winner every damn time. As a Pats fan, I was nervous about the underdog Panthers before, and I'm even more nervous now that Troy lost the Gameday battle.

Embarassed to admit it, but 8 years of correlation is hard to put aside. I'd love it if the Pats proved me wrong (one of the few times I would enjoy being wrong) but I dunno... Hope they do.

Cry.

Re:Fear the tradition (1)

Acidic_Diarrhea (641390) | more than 10 years ago | (#8135240)

This is why massholes deserve the teams they get. You get all worked up over a video game simulation, played by one player on each team. I mean honestly, eight years running isn't as impressive as you want to make it out to be. If I asked eight people on the street what their favorite ice cream flavor was and they all said vanilla, would you be incredibly confident that the next would also say vanilla?

There's another streak going on and it's 14 games. Last time I fucking checked 14 > 8, wasn't it numb nuts?

On a related note, I can't wait to see the Red Sox implode this year.

Re:Fear the tradition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8135357)

You get all worked up over a video game simulation, played by one player on each team.

You get all worked up over a near-anonymous nerd message board.

Would you like a hug? :D

Re:Fear the tradition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8135387)

You think that's "worked up"? You haven't seen anything.

Re:Fear the tradition (1)

Rallion (711805) | more than 10 years ago | (#8137979)

God dammit. I knew somebody was going to mention my fucking team. Even though it has nothing to do with anything. I looked at your post, too, before I read it, and thought, 'that's the one.'

Of course I also suspect they'll implode. Since I think I've just proven myself to be psychic, shit.

Re:Fear the tradition (1)

FeetOfStinky (669511) | more than 10 years ago | (#8136039)

You should be embarrassed. If you find those "8 years of correlation... hard to put aside" then I suggest you brush up on your critical thinking skills.

Apples != Oranges.

Re:Fear the tradition (1)

kisrael (134664) | more than 10 years ago | (#8137116)

You should be embarrassed. If you find those "8 years of correlation... hard to put aside" then I suggest you brush up on your critical thinking skills.

I never took a stats class, but if the odds were 50/50 that the videogame match succesfully predicted the gamewinner each year, than thats a 1 in 2^8 chance, 1 in 256, that we'd see the results they have.

So most likely, there is a correlation, the game has SOME predictive power.

Absolute? Unlikely. But still.

Re:Fear the tradition (1)

Acidic_Diarrhea (641390) | more than 10 years ago | (#8155761)

Dear dumbass,
Your precious Gameday 2004 prediction method has failed. Please shut the fuck up from now on and never post to Slashdot ever again. Thank you very much dumbass.

yours truly,
Acidic Diarrhea

Re:Fear the tradition (1)

dewie (685736) | more than 10 years ago | (#8143131)

You know, it's bad luck to be superstitious.

Stupid (4, Interesting)

pudge (3605) | more than 10 years ago | (#8135087)

How many of these games would have predicted the Patriots would win 14 games in the regular season? Not a one. And if they can't do that, why trust them now?

Re:Stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8135299)

Over a large enough number of iterations: All of them at least once.

Basically, all other things being equal, the games are big collections of statistics, and a clear statistical leader probably has an at least marginally better chance of victory on game day. But, this unlike previous years most likely doesn't present as clear a statistical leader, and you've got two predominantly defensive teams duking it out. So, one might infere, that this year's Sony bowl is substantially less accurate as an indicator.

But Davis ain't nothing to sneeze at. If the Pats let him have ten yards at a shot, Vincent Gallo might be making a film called Foxburogh '04 staring himself a Thora Birch.

Besides the odds of this game are pretty close to 50-50 by most reconings. The odds of a 14 game streak, well those are significantly different. About the same as Sony's answer to, appearently, Tecmo football, judging by the graphics, predicting 14 superbowls in a row. Or if you just ment any 14 games (combinations as opposed to permutations) well Sony's odds just shot way up.

Re:Stupid (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 10 years ago | (#8135623)

Basically, all other things being equal, the games are big collections of statistics, and a clear statistical leader probably has an at least marginally better chance of victory on game day.

No, that's the point, they don't. The Patriots do not have the best stats, especially individually, and yet they are the best team in the NFL to this point, having won more games in a row than any team in the history of the league, except for the 1972 Miami Dolphins, If statistics mattered that much, the Patriots would not have won 14 games in a row (including two wins each against the Colts and Titans).

And how about two years ago, when the Rams were the clear statistical leader over the Pats? Oops!

Or if you just ment any 14 games (combinations as opposed to permutations) well Sony's odds just shot way up.

No, I mean the Patriots won 14 regular season games, and have won 14 games in a row (including playoffs), something no one predicted would happen, because if you look at their statistics, there's no reasonable way you would guess that. The point is that stats do not matter sometimes, except for the on in the W column. The Pats have shown, two of the last three years, that they don't need good stats to win, they only need to win.

I am not saying the Pats will necessarily win; of course, there's only one way to know that, and that's playing the game. I think they will win, although I always think they will win. :-) Still, the Patriots have the clear edge. They have a at least as good (if not better) offense, better special teams, a more balanced offense, and the proof of winning the second most consecutive games in history. And perhaps most importantly, they have a coaching staff that has been the best the league's seen in many years, that prepares the team better than any other.

Only one thing is for sure: we will find out which team is better in 2.5 days. But even if Carolina wins, this simulation, which doesn't take the whole season and intangibles into account, is still useless.

Re:Stupid (1)

Acidic_Diarrhea (641390) | more than 10 years ago | (#8158724)

"No, I mean the Patriots won 14 regular season games, and have won 14 games in a row (including playoffs), something no one predicted would happen, because if you look at their statistics, there's no reasonable way you would guess that."
Given a mature simulation system, it is actually possible for the Patriots do go on a 14 game run. You keep trying to make the claim that a 14 game run could have never been predicted. What you mean to say is that it is statistically unlikely for any system to output that as a result but, with any mature simulation of the games, randomness [i.e. luck] should play a part and therefore, even if you underrate the Patriots roster, a 14 game winning streak remains in the realm of possibility.

I agree with you that the whole '8-0' record was meaningless. But if you ran a simulation and the Patriots won 14 games in a row, it would be just as meaningless. Outcomes can be simulated for any sporting event and, by statistics, the favored team has a better chance of winning but if statistics always dictated outcome, no one would watch. The possibility of upset is what keeps it interesting and prevents it from being an easy model for an event simulator to use. And that's all I've got to say about this subject.

I bet you're pleased with the outcome last night. I am as I had taken the Pats to win but not cover the spread.

Re:Stupid (1)

Lightwarrior (73124) | more than 10 years ago | (#8137210)

> How many of these games would have predicted the Patriots would win 14 games in the regular season? Not a one.

Do you know that, or are you just randomly spewing stuff? I don't know how *well* this was generated, but the '02-'03 season I just finished in Madden 2k4 would have yielded a Raiders/Bucs Superbowl (with Gannon getting QB MVP), had I not interfered (because, to the best of my knowledge, the Falcons didn't beat the Raiders 56-0).

I'm curious; I think I'll go through and generate all of last season, just to see how close it happens. Had I the NCAA 2k4 football game, I might be able to import a draft selection to see if this year simulates close to how it actually worked...

-lw

Re:Stupid (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 10 years ago | (#8137667)

Do you know that, or are you just randomly spewing stuff?

You present a false dichotomy I am unable to adequately respond to.

Re:Stupid (1)

Lightwarrior (73124) | more than 10 years ago | (#8138110)

> You present a false dichotomy I am unable to adequately respond to.

Then let me rephrase. Regarding:

> How many of these games would have predicted the Patriots would win 14 games in the regular season? Not a one.

Are you factually aware of this, or is it a statement made without proof? Do you have a resource to back it up, have you simulated it yourself, or has there otherwise been a study that conclusively proves your statement correct?

Or was that statement conjecture?

-lw

Re:Stupid (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 10 years ago | (#8138938)

Are you factually aware of this, or is it a statement made without proof?

Those are not mutually exclusive. You're not very good at this, are you?

Re:Stupid (1)

Lightwarrior (73124) | more than 10 years ago | (#8171124)

You wrote:

> How many of these games would have predicted the Patriots would win 14 games in the regular season? Not a one.

Did you perform any analysis of these games to come to this conclusion? If so, what?

Feel free to answer the question this time.

-lw

Re:Stupid (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 10 years ago | (#8171438)

Feel free to answer the question this time.

Feel free to pull the pickle out of your ass. Not only did none of them claim that they did -- which they surely would have -- but in the end, they all were proved wrong anyway. Come to terms, breathe in, breathe out.

Re:Stupid (1)

Lightwarrior (73124) | more than 10 years ago | (#8172774)

So you came to the conclusion that none of the games *could* have predicted a 14 game winning streak by the Patriots because the article didn't say they did.

Do you think that's a valid assumption?

I don't claim that football games are 100% accurate predictors - however, I think that claiming that it's impossible for them to be correct is jumping to conclusions. Which has been the entire point of questioning your reasoning.

-lw

Re:Stupid (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 10 years ago | (#8173043)

Do you think that's a valid assumption?

Do you think you DON'T have a pickle up your ass? I mean, really. I'm serious. If you think you're making me look or feel bad, you're wrong. If you think you look cool, you're wrong. You might feel cool, but that's just sad. No one cares, except for the small group of people with pickles up their ass.

Re:Stupid (1)

Lightwarrior (73124) | more than 10 years ago | (#8181922)

If you don't care, why do you keep replying? Insulting people on the internet is about the most fruitless thing one can do with their time.

Thanks for proving my point, btw.

-lw

Re:Stupid (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 10 years ago | (#8184211)

If you don't care, why do you keep replying? Insulting people on the internet is about the most fruitless thing one can do with their time. ... trumped only by questioning how someone else chooses to spend his time. Oopsie on you!

Thanks for proving my point, btw.

You didn't have one.

Re:Stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8151900)

NFL 2k3.

BSG review of the game (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8135254)

http://espn.go.com/page2/s/simmons/blog/040129.htm l

Bill "Boston Sports Guy" Simmons did a nice commentary on the game from a gamers/sports addicts perspective.

You have to scroll down to the 12:45 update but its worth the read.

-1 REDUNDANT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8135307)

That's already been posted as a comment [slashdot.org] , [and with a clickable link at that!] donkey.

Sounds like a television event.... (1)

JohnLi (85427) | more than 10 years ago | (#8135573)

Why not start broadcasting the game....you could break to show the players reactions but mainly concentrate on the game. There are so many damn cable sports networks that play mostly filler anyway(I think ive seen the same billiards trick shot challenge like 5 times on espn2). Sponsorship for the even is obvious.

Now to the personal stuff. Madden is so much better than gameday, and the New Orleans Saints will crush all next year :).

Re:Sounds like a television event.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8145032)

You're right - they should do it with the folks playing. These guys [ugo.com] had a good idea with a decent presentation - but could use some work.

in other news (1)

Luveno (575425) | more than 10 years ago | (#8135970)

a coin was flipped eight times in a row today, and came up heads every time.

Couldn't resist.... (1)

kcbaltz (180406) | more than 10 years ago | (#8136511)


a coin was flipped eight times in a row today, and came up heads every time.


What are the odds?!?!? :)

Re:Couldn't resist.... (1)

kisrael (134664) | more than 10 years ago | (#8137202)

Just to beat a good joke down: 1 in 256.

Re:Couldn't resist.... (1)

Pluvius (734915) | more than 10 years ago | (#8137219)

One in 2^8 (256).

But what are the odds of the next coin coming up heads? That is the question.

BTW, I wouldn't put much creedence in these video game predictions unless they computed the results a hundred or a thousand times to eliminate the effects of chance. That would take too long to do unless you used the much less accurate "quick simulation" mode, though.

Rob

Re:Couldn't resist.... (1)

dmachine (519368) | more than 10 years ago | (#8137642)

But that's the beauty of the superbowl. Anything can happen. If you run the simulation a thousand times, the statistical leader will come out on top. But the superbowl is 1 game for all the marbles. So a video game is probably going to be just as accurate as a coin toss, a rock scissor paper match, or pretty much anything else.

Re:Couldn't resist.... (1)

damien_kane (519267) | more than 10 years ago | (#8137991)

But what are the odds of the next coin coming up heads? That is the question.

1 in 2; That is the answer.

The Missing Link (1)

CFTM (513264) | more than 10 years ago | (#8137736)

These predictions are really pointless because they don't factor in the intangible aspects of a team. One of my friends is from New England so I've watched most of the games that the Patriots have played this season. This is a team that, most of the time, does just what they have to do to win. They've done shootouts (first game against the colts), they've done low scoring defensive bouts (Miami game in the snow) and everything in between. I haven't had the pleasure of watching the panthers so I don't know much about them, I just know that a video game can never capture the essence of a sport. Human will and determination goes a lot farther then you'd think.

Interesting Game... (2, Funny)

damien_kane (519267) | more than 10 years ago | (#8138073)

Where was it that they had a computer deciding the best way to win?

Oh yeah, when a kid almost destroyed the world [imdb.com]

Wouldn't you prefer a nice game of chess?

Nothing traditional about... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8143786)

This [ugo.com] (except for the commercial preceding it). Though I'm not sure what to say about it. A little long, a little hit and miss but at least it's not the same old same old.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...