THE BOOK cover
The Unwritten Book is Finally Written!
An in-depth analysis of: The sacrifice bunt, batter/pitcher matchups, the intentional base on balls, optimizing a batting lineup, hot and cold streaks, clutch performance, platooning strategies, and much more.
Read Excerpts & Customer Reviews

Buy The Book from Amazon


SABR101 required reading if you enter this site. Check out the Sabermetric Wiki. And interesting baseball books.
MOST RECENT ARTICLES
MAIL : You ask | We say

Advanced


THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

<< Back to main

Saturday, August 21, 2010

Jazz: how to win at hangman

By Tangotiger, 09:25 AM

I love useless sh!t like this.


Blogging
#1    Matthew Cornwell      (see all posts) 2010/08/21 (Sat) @ 09:56

I am totally going to beat my wife now - she usually creams me!


#2    puck      (see all posts) 2010/08/21 (Sat) @ 14:13

huh, that’s interesting.  I never drew the scaffold, either.  How common is that?


#3          (see all posts) 2010/08/21 (Sat) @ 14:53

We always began with the structure entirely built, and just made the hung man more complex.


#4    JEH      (see all posts) 2010/08/21 (Sat) @ 22:22

I will save this link for the next time I am trying to explain why Mathematica is my favorite toy. smile


#5    Bill Baer      (see all posts) 2010/08/22 (Sun) @ 00:16

#1

Your post reminds me of the time Mike Schmidt was in the broadcast booth with Harry Kalas during a Phillies game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKpEYMHAaOw

Harry Kalas: “...Michael Jack, how’s your golf game?”

Mike Schmidt: “Pretty good, Harry. I’ve been beating the hell out of my wife pretty regularly.”

*awkward laughter*

Harry Kalas: At golf, I hope. At golf, I hope.


#6    JD Sussman      (see all posts) 2010/08/22 (Sun) @ 00:16

favorite word for hangman is xylem


#7          (see all posts) 2010/08/22 (Sun) @ 03:13

I didn’t think that was useless sh!t at all - got my intellectual juices flowing in fact.

It was a really good backdrop to show how one would arrive at a Nash equilibrium.

I was thinking that the best way to get there would be to have two competing programs play each other - one’s the guesser and one’s the keeper (what would you call the non-guesser anyway?).

Both programs would use the same dictionary and the guesser would guess the most likely letters while the keeper would try to think of a word with the least likely letters. At that point the algorithms would begin to converge since the less used letters will be picked more often by the keeper.

I wonder if the equilibrium result would be that all the letters would be weighted close to the same. The rarer a letter is the more often it would get picked by the keeper resulting in the guesser using all letters equally.


#8    berselius      (see all posts) 2010/08/22 (Sun) @ 10:04

This makes sense when playing against a guessing computer, but my experience when playing with people is that they’ll usually change strategy after the first few guesses, thinking you’re trying to game them with a word with x, q, j, z, etc. I’ve found the best choices are things with the uncommon but not rare letters, like b, g, w, v. Gobble is one of my favorite words to use.


#9    Matthew Cornwell      (see all posts) 2010/08/22 (Sun) @ 19:47

#5

Thank gosh the context needed was already provided by the article!


#10          (see all posts) 2010/08/22 (Sun) @ 20:12

I like to use “flax”.

Generally I use 3-4 letter words only.


Page 1 of 1 pages


Name (required)
E-Mail (optional; WILL be published)
Website (optional)

<< Back to main


Latest...

COMMENTS

Feb 12 00:40
Clutch analogy

Feb 12 00:38
Reader Mail of the Day: Why do we need X years of fielding data?  And what about outliers?

Feb 11 22:08
Who is Jeremy Lin?

Feb 11 20:11
Fighting leads to goals?

Feb 11 19:55
Why do players get crappy caps?

Feb 11 19:12
Hero of the month: Brittney Baxter

Feb 11 17:59
MGL: Today on Clubhouse Confidential

Feb 11 10:29
Dwight Evans

Feb 11 02:12
Performance through the ages

Feb 10 23:01
For Your Soul