Updates

I've got a strength-of-schedule modifier in my NFL model now; we'll see how well it goes this week and then maybe I'll use that instead of the original.

Apparently the extravaganza in the last issue of P&A was too easy, as they claimed they upped the difficulty considerably; and I believe them. I've got about as much on this one as the last one, except I only worked on the last issue in bits and pieces, as my old printer refused to print it, and I more or less devoted today to this issue (apart from the grading I still have to do). The current score:
Sharp: No idea at the moment what is going on, and I don't have enough of the words to figure it out.
White: done.
Parker: done.
Post: probably doable, but this is not the sort of puzzle I enjoy and I don't feel like doing it right now
Price: done.
Ridge: Maybe I know what's going on, but not particularly close to an answer.
O'Connolly: Perhaps a glimmer, but I've not managed to make it work.
Baker: Again an idea of something to try, but I'm not getting anything out of it at the moment.
Reade: This one feels like that bit in the Princess Bride, where what's-his-name keeps switching the chalices around. I've been approaching it as though there are zero twists in the puzzle, but I'm pretty sure there's at least one. I'm hoping there's an even number, so that most of what I've got I can keep.
House: done. I feel prouder of the fact that I wrote a C++ program to do some of the grunge work in the middle than I am of the fact that I figured it out in the first place. I think figuring the puzzle out (and, worse, thinking it a little easy) means I've forfeited any right to be called "normal".
Kerry: this appears to be a Google hunt. Maybe I'll do it at work some afternoon this week.
Linkletter: Need a lot more words to get a toehold in this puzzle. Strangely, even in the isolated spots where I have enough words to get started, I can't seem to get them to fit.
Turner: haven't started, but should yield to actually working at it (famous last words)
Milk: Either I've got a couple words wrong, or my first thought isn't right. I'm betting on the latter.
Kidd: I have a bunch of random here, so who knows.
Mehta: As if.

This blog entry brought to you by the Mac Mini

Yes, that's right; I have finally upgraded my desktop machine from 1999 (or was it 2000?). Anyway, this thing is bloody small, that's for sure. I had to upgrade my printer as well, since it was even older, I think, and they don't make machines with those serial ports any more.

This post was eaten by Cox's FTP server the first time I tried to post it; let's see if this smaller, leaner, more better post makes it through.

NFL Week 3 rankings

Not the best week for the model last week: 7-8, but since that's only based on one week's worth of games that's not completely awful. Currently the model considers net points, net yards, and net turnovers. I really need to add a strength-of-schedule component to this thing, because I'm not really convinced by this current ranking. (Arizona #1? Kansas City ahead of Indianapolis? Really?) Anyway the list:
1. Cardinals (2-0) 11.37
2. Steelers (2-0) 8.94
3. Giants (2-0) 8.44
4. Eagles (1-1) 8.08
5. Bills (2-0) 8.07
6. Packers (2-0) 7.77
7. Titans (2-0) 7.18
8. Broncos (2-0) 6.23
9. Ravens (1-0) 5.78
10. Cowboys (2-0) 3.78
11. Redskins (1-1) 3.37
12. Patriots (2-0) 2.58
13. Buccaneers (1-1) 2.39
14. Bears (1-1) 2.29
15. Panthers (2-0) 2.04
16. Falcons (1-1) 0.62
17. Vikings (0-2) -0.85
18. Jets (1-1) -1.35
19. Chargers (0-2) -1.38
20. Raiders (1-1) -2.30
21. Saints (1-1) -3.49
22. Chiefs (0-2) -3.83
23. Colts (1-1) -3.87
24. 49ers (1-1) -3.97
25. Jaguars (0-2) -5.17
26. Dolphins (0-2) -5.61
27. Bengals (0-2) -6.91
28. Browns (0-2) -7.36
29. Seahawks (0-2) -8.76
30. Lions (0-2) -10.79
31. Texans (0-1) -11.06
32. Rams (0-2) -14.89

OEMC08

The first day was a mess. I'm pretty sure I dozed off a couple of times, since I remember waiting patiently for some tiles and then looking back and seeing that they had been discarded just two rounds back. Not good.

The second day was a little better--the first game I could get no traction (lots of good hands, but I couldn't capitalize on anything), the second game I got my entire tournament's ration of great hands and good luck in, and the third game was pretty good, although I was hoping for a win. My goal for myself was 13/24, but I could only manage 9/24.

I've been assuaging my psyche by creating a crosstable generator for MJ tournaments. Apparently it took me about four hours (since I started a little before 6 o'clock, I think, after the tournament and supper), and this is what it comes up with for this tournament. (Yes, it could use headers and footers. It doesn't handle in-game ties either, so that's going to take a rewrite anyway.) I could explain what it means, but I'd rather make you guess.

Anyway, obviously I've fixed the PDF issues; and I'm seeing saved games also, so maybe this weekend I'll get a write-up of the games up here. (It's better than grading finals.)

This Level of Student Is Not Sustainable

I was in Richmond this last weekend, reading for a quizbowl tournament. Conveniently, it was also move-in weekend (really only convenient because parking in the parking garages was free). As part of their festivities, they had marked off a running course (perhaps 5K, perhaps just "all the interesting buildings", who knows). So two of the three lanes on Main Street on campus were roped off, as were two lanes on Franklin Street, and perhaps others. As I was driving down Main Street, I managed to control my impulse to run over a VCU student who was running down the only lane not set aside for runners.

Product Dis/Placement, Game Edition

So I got the game The Lost Cases of Sherlock Holmes through RealArcade. Yes, I know, finding hidden pictures, not exciting; the little minipuzzles weren't bad, and I was expecting to have to think to solve the crimes, as opposed to some card thing.

Anyway, there's a little bonus game that you can unlock, which I did: it's basically Mastermind, but with a twist. Instead of just getting black/white pegs, the pegs are associated with a position. (So for instance if I do purple purple purple purple, I might get a correct symbol under #2 and #4.) Makes the game a little easier -- ok, be honest, a lot easier. The best part: There are six colors. You have twelve chances at guessing. Did no one test this bit of the game, or are these designers so incredibly hopeless at Mastermind that they actually needed twelve chances at the puzzle when it tells you the right answers as you go along?

Online Dutch Open, Round 6

Ugh. We got through nine hands, which is good. I only won one, which is bad. Five of the hands were self-drawn, and I didn't get any of them, so I was in last place by a lot. In fact, my -119 took away all my hand points and then some. Finished with 10 table points (out of a possible 24), in 26th out of 52.

Online Dutch Open, Round 5

Today's theme was technical difficulties. People always miss -- there are 52 people on the tournament roster, and I saw 49 people at tables when the round started. Unfortunately, two of the missing were at my table, and the software was unable to handle it. So it took fifteen minutes for things to get sorted out, and we played awhile with just two. One of the absentees showed up at the end of the fourth hand, which was annoying, since the computer had just built him a large hand that we hadn't worried about, since the computer doesn't go out. Oh well. We got through nine hands (computers play fast, too); I only won two, but it was enough to win the table. 10 tournament points, 19th place.

Online Dutch Open, Round 4

We got through six hands this time; I won two, but Adrie won 3 (including a rather rare, at least in my experience, four shifted chows), so another second place. I'm now above 0 for tiebreaker points for the first time (at +8). Interestingly, after three of the four rounds so far, the person who won my table was in first place for the tournament after that round (exception being round 2). Probably won't happen in round 5, as the high score at the table coming in is 9, and the leaders are at 12. (Which is also interesting, in that 12 was the high score before the round started, too; all the 12's took fourths, and none of the 10s won their table.)

Online Dutch Open, Round 3

I feel a little better now. We finally got through eight hands. I won three, but so did another player, and I paid one too many times (three vs. two). So second place at the table, by eight points, climbing all the way up to 35th out of 52. It looks like a pretty even mix: only one player won all his games today (who coincidentally won this last table I was at); no one is at 0 points, and only two players at 1 point.

The goal for tomorrow is to continue the emphasis on fast that I was trying to do this last table (only switching to big-points towards the end). Granted, some of those hands in round 2, I'm not sure I have a complete hand if you let me keep all my discards.