Madison's 8th Annual Tecmo Super Bowl Feedback

[bgboud2]

Are you equating playing smart to ultra-conservative?

Yeah you can run inbouds and juke around for an extra 5 yards but then don't complain when you fumble.

[ Post made on a Tecmo Super Mobile Device!]

[Knobbe]

I dunno'. Playing super-conservative seems almost anti-Tecmo to me. The game's not even built around that gameplay idea. To me, Tecmo is as much Style as Result. I always imagined Madison as a place where, unlike playing online where you're removed and so victory is a bit more important, you have a chance to impress and show off in front of a live audience and that the "winner" was almost secondary. Thus why you had mini Grappling matches and the like.

This is by all means a social event and one can come in and play anyway they seem fit.

Your argument for online play victory being more important than a tournament is completely flawed.

There are a lot of people that are there to do nothing but win and those who accomplished that feat are on the front page of this site.

[Knobbe]

1. I guess I just find interesting people take my comments so personally. When you are watching any live sporting event, people/fans tend to have critical comments about the game Example: " Oh man why did Kobe take that shot there were two open guys".

The live sports event that you're watching is a tournament that it's taken them years and thousands of man hours to build up that they allow me to broadcast over the internet. You're indirectly invalidating those accomplishments in a sense.

I'm guessing when guys take a swipe at your roms this might make you feel a bit defensive and why wouldn't it? You've but in thousands of man hours over the years.

The point of broadcasting these games are to encourage people to show up at this event, events like this, and to perhaps start their own. The lack of quality in the broadcasts you do see online is a testament to the fact that this broadcast is secondary to my actual enjoyment and participation in said events.

[bruddog]

I feel like a broken record but im not directly critizing the tourney. Seems like an apples and oranges comparison. I EXPECT a lot of people to not like the super hacked roms...they are different.

If I may make a small sugesstion. It just seems to me showing even more of the venue and people participating rather than some of the pool play games that are typically blowouts goes farther to drawing people in. Maybe logistically/technically thats too hard since everyone is playing games. I'm sure you guys have thought about it more than i have.

Finally one simple question

Do you guys want me to not comment on the games next time?

I'm more than happy to not comment at all.

I mean its ok for your opponent/posse to yell

at players and tell them they suck but someone doing sometimes the same thing and sometimes offering critical analysis on a live chat feed gets sand in everyones vaginas. It sounds like as long as im in attendance im allowed to be an ass and no one cares.

[ Post made on a Tecmo Super Mobile Device!]

[buttdouglas]

As an inexperienced online player AND tourney player, I'd have to say that my initial gut reaction is that tournaments are the venue in which I would rather participate. I couldn't give a shit if I went 0-100 online, but feeling watchful eyes over my shoulder elicits in me the primal instinct to impress and succeed. Therefore, I might lob up more passes to covered players or try to run up the gut more with Marcus Allen online, but at a tournament the only goal is to win. If that's by winning 6-3, I'll take it. If it's winning 42-0, I'll take it. Just like any featured games, you can't predict how close it will be. People still watch Monday Night Football by the millions each week, whether it's a knock-down drag-out fight or a Saints-Colts blowout.

I don't think live feeds are the be-all end-all for people in making their decision to attend a tournament. If anything, I think all the negative feedback against inexperienced players is the biggest deterrent. Had this discussion occurred earlier and had I visited it, there's a good chance I may not have attended Madison for fear of feeling a sense of exclusion. But coming to learn what stand-up guys the Holzbauers and Matt Knobbe and all the rest who made this happen are is what helped me punch my ticket, and even in losing my group play I haven't regretted going for a second.

Okay, I think my boss is giving me weird looks...I'll hush now

[Knobbe]

I feel like a broken record but im not directly critizing the tourney. Seems like an apples and oranges comparison. I EXPECT a lot of people to not like the super hacked roms...they are different.

If I may make a small sugesstion. It just seems to me showing even more of the venue and people participating rather than some of the pool play games that are typically blowouts goes farther to drawing people in. Maybe logistically/technically thats too hard since everyone is playing games. I'm sure you guys have thought about it more than i have.

Finally one simple question

Do you guys want me to not comment on the games next time?

I'm more than happy to not comment at all.

I mean its ok for your opponent/posse to yell

at players and tell them they suck but someone doing sometimes the same thing and sometimes offering critical analysis on a live chat feed gets sand in everyones vaginas. It sounds like as long as im in attendance im allowed to be an ass and no one cares.

[ Post made on a Tecmo Super Mobile Device!]

I would also call this "apples to oranges" comparing online critiquing to being an ass in person.

Personally I wouldn't mind having you do analysis for the broadcast itself as a panelist if you're available to time so that you can have some context while doing so....it's nearly impossible to do so while at the tourney. I agree with you about the panning of the crowd, btw. Due to equipment issue i wasn't able to do PiP nor have a proper mike hooked up.

[holzy11]

(1) Bruddog: Personally, I have no problem with you continuing to comment. You’re a credible Tecmo source and your comments aren’t devoid of analysis or critical thinking. Carry on;

(2) Keirre21, on the other hand, should be crushed into a fine powder. Let’s rewind for a second. Following Jimmy B’s win last year, Keirre21 was over on PureTecmo making multiple comments about the pattern to Jimmy B’s play-calling. Rico immediately took exception, as did I, because it insulted not only Jimmy B, but also the field’s competitive integrity. It also implied that if Keirre21 were present, Jimmy B wouldn’t have won.

This year, after watching a few games, he declares that there are only 12 solid players in the field. 328 games were played on Saturday. If Keirre21 saw 10 games, he saw 3% of the tournament. To put this in context, he watched 1 min and 12 seconds of a 40 minute college basketball game. And don’t tell me “that’s honestly how I felt.” If your “feelings” are founded upon no analysis and no rationale, then honestly, you are a Neanderthal.

(3) What really irritates me about Keirre21’s comment is this perception that only recognizable names (i.e. fellow online Tecmoers) are solid. It’s been ongoing since TecmoII, when guys like Malferds were saying he lost to the “best console player” he’d ever seen. Ahh, that's just Jay from Sun Prairie. For whatever reason, there’s just always been a perception that the best Tecmo players are online. This has never made any sense to me. Yes, guys like Regulator and Daboy are great, but so are James and Rikster, and so are Buzzsaw and Josh. And that’s not even accounting for guys that haven’t played online in years (Sobhi, Sconnie, Mort, etc). This “online myth” is just idiotic and it ought to stop. Not only is it naïve, but it’s incredibly disrespectful to everyone that tested himself against the best Tecmo field ever assembled on Saturday.

I’m done talking about this guys. All it does is piss me off beyond belief.

[DFM]

(1) Bruddog: Personally, I have no problem with you continuing to comment. You’re a credible Tecmo source and your comments aren’t devoid of analysis or critical thinking. Carry on;

(2) Keirre21, on the other hand, should be crushed into a fine powder. Let’s rewind for a second. Following Jimmy B’s win last year, Keirre21 was over on PureTecmo making multiple comments about the pattern to Jimmy B’s play-calling. Rico immediately took exception, as did I, because it insulted not only Jimmy B, but also the field’s competitive integrity. It also implied that if Keirre21 were present, Jimmy B wouldn’t have won.

This year, after watching a few games, he declares that there are only 12 solid players in the field. 328 games were played on Saturday. If Keirre21 saw 10 games, he saw 3% of the tournament. To put this in context, he watched 1 min and 12 seconds of a 40 minute college basketball game. And don’t tell me “that’s honestly how I felt.” If your “feelings” are founded upon no analysis and no rationale, then honestly, you are a Neanderthal.

(3) What really irritates me about Keirre21’s comment is this perception that only recognizable names (i.e. fellow online Tecmoers) are solid. It’s been ongoing since TecmoII, when guys like Malferds were saying he lost to the “best console player” he’d ever seen. Ahh, that's just Jay from Sun Prairie. For whatever reason, there’s just always been a perception that the best Tecmo players are online. This has never made any sense to me. Yes, guys like Regulator and Daboy are great, but so are James and Rikster, and so are Buzzsaw and Josh. And that’s not even accounting for guys that haven’t played online in years (Sobhi, Sconnie, Mort, etc). This “online myth” is just idiotic and it ought to stop. Not only is it naïve, but it’s incredibly disrespectful to everyone that tested himself against the best Tecmo field ever assembled on Saturday.

I’m done talking about this guys. All it does is piss me off beyond belief.

HATERS GONNA HATE

The tourney was epic and I feel privileged to have even volunteered a minute of my time.

[keirre21]

I love how people are getting all mad. Wow, you're really angry. Crushed to fine powder...great. I'm not going back on what I said just because someone gets all feminine. I wasn't trying to start any arguments, and yes my opinion was based on a limited amount of games, but how many times do you watch games (on TV, in the stands, a recording) and make judgements. With march madness coming up, how many of us will say Davidson, South Dakota state,Saint Louis, etc aren't that good they can only "insert coment here" or they only have 1 guy. I'm sure if the players who actually play on those teams would take offense to it also. You can knock me for my feeling but I could totally care less. I guess I should've define what I meant by solid....but I won't. Like I said, I've been in the live atmosphere before at bigger events and felt the same way. I love what you guys have going on at Madision and hope it keeps going strong.

[buttdouglas]

flute kid by The Tecmo Bowl

[marionbarry]

Unrelated to the argument, and apologies if I missed this, what's the deal with the NFL Films folks? Was it for a segment on some show, or what? Any word on when or if it'll be aired?

[DFM]

Unrelated to the argument, and apologies if I missed this, what's the deal with the NFL Films folks? Was it for a segment on some show, or what? Any word on when or if it'll be aired?

I love when people post completely unrelated questions in the wrong thread.

THREAD HI-JACK FAILURE

[holzy11]

Unrelated to the argument, and apologies if I missed this, what's the deal with the NFL Films folks? Was it for a segment on some show, or what? Any word on when or if it'll be aired?

To answer your question, NFL Films is doing a piece on Tecmo Super Bowl. They contacted Josh and I sometime last fall and expressed an interest in incorporating the tournament into the piece. Subsequent thereto, NFL Films interviewed a number of guys in an effort to chronicle their preparation and participation in the tournament. We've been told the piece will air on ESPN sometime near commencement of the NFL season. We have no idea how large a role the tournament and its participants will play in the piece. For what it's worth, the producer seemed thrilled regarding that which they captured on tournament day.

[ryanr33fulcher]

i cant believe this forum is even going on.

the only comment i have is on the talent that attends. i have very good knowledge about a lot of players in this tournament. and there is at least 40 guys i know of that have a good shot to win it. threw talent and LUCK i have been able to make it to the elite 8 the last two years. i have defeated several very good players in early rounds. not sure when keirrie became the measuring stick to tecmo talent. not going to comment on his tecmo game seeing how i have no clue what it is. but to make it to the final 4 you typically need to go 7-0 not a easy feat know matter who your playing. i find i awesome that the only people who complain about this tournament have not and will not attend.

[bruddog]

Who is complaining about the tournament?

[qb_browns]

i find i awesome that the only people who complain about this tournament have not and will not attend.

Who is complaining about the tournament?

Without stepping too much on his touchdown call, I believe that Rico is taking exception to the fact that some are critiquing the players in the tournament without having seen those players play. I'm thinking this is an indirect reference to keirre21's comment that there are only 12 good players at the tournament without having been to the tournament to see the potential quality of the players that are there.

'Complaining?' Not in the strictest sense of the word. Making opinionated, grandiose statements about a field of 176 without having been present to watch that field play? True. But it's his opinion on the matter--which some find offensive because it doesn't include a thorough look at everyone there.

[averagetsbplayer]

...but how many times do you watch games (on TV, in the stands, a recording) and make judgements. With march madness coming up, how many of us will say Davidson, South Dakota state,Saint Louis, etc aren't that good they can only "insert coment here" or they only have 1 guy...

You're correct that many of us will end up saying that a team isn't any good or that they only have one guy based upon a small sample. However, those of us that do say it should realize we aren't making an educated/informed opinion. Watching a team for one game (or part of a game) doesn't give us the proper context to judge a team. Sure, our thoughts are "probably" correct since we have some historical understanding from watching previous games of collegiate-level basketball. However, basing our opinion off of a small sample (a few games) is just showing our willingness to express our own ignorance (see: ESPN).

Now, with professional or collegiate-level sports, we at least have some history of watching seasons and tournaments/playoffs play out over time. If my friend who played basketball growing up didn't watch collegiate-level basketball and decided to offer their opinion after watching a game or two of the tournament, I'd blow them off since they have no real basis to form their opinion. If a guy who has played Tecmo growing up has never been to a Tecmo tournament and then tries to offer his opinion on the talent based on a very small sample, I'm going to blow him off, too.

[bruddog]

My main point was that fulcher said that people are complaining about the tournament when actually all that was done were comments on the quality of play and strategy used in games. Those are two vastly different things.

On the topic of the quality of competition. No one really knows thoroughly or precisely what it is. Kierre's sample size of the non-online guys is obviously small but I'm guessing that the people that have attended the tourney's estimation is only modereately

more accurate. You can only watch so many games and there isn't any objective measure. That being said I would agree that people attending the tournment obviously know much more about the guys that have never played online and can identify those elite guys pretty quickly

Just for the sake of argument lets use fulchers claim of 40 guys. I'd be willing to bet that if there was some way to measure

the true skill of each player(there isnt any practical way) that the chance the #1 guy has of winning any one tournament is quite different than the 40th best guy. Maybe the best guy has a 5% chance of winning any tourney and the 40th best has a 2.5% given the current field size. Sure in raw % it's not much but the best guy would be twice as likely to win as the 40th best. Thats a big difference.

MY impression is that the skill difference tightened up considerably from group play to single elimination. Of course its hard to define what a "good shot" to win it is but 40 seems like a reasonable guess as any.

Finally not to get lost in this discussion is the fact that a 150+? person live tecmo tournament was succussfully put on. Simply amazing! Sure I make critical reamarks about gameplay strategy without being there but that takes away NOTHING from the actual event itself. The same goes for my reasons for not having attended. Those reasons should not be taken as slights against the

tourney though some have pointed out why they could be.

May Tecmo VIIII be the best yet! Carry on with the great work!

[ Post made on a Tecmo Super Mobile Device!]

[qb_browns]

My main point was that fulcher said that people are complaining about the tournament when actually all that was done were comments on the quality of play and strategy used in games. Those are two vastly different things.

You're right. I think it was an imperfect word choice. I was merely making an attempt to explain his thought, but I probably did not do it justice because I didn't write it.

Just for the sake of argument lets use fulchers claim of 40 guys. I'd be willing to bet that if there was some way to measure

the true skill of each player(there isnt any practical way) that the chance the #1 guy has of winning any one tournament is quite different than the 40th best guy. Maybe the best guy has a 5% chance of winning any tourney and the 40th best has a 2.5% given the current field size. Sure in raw % it's not much but the best guy would be twice as likely to win as the 40th best. Thats a big difference.

MY impression is that the skill difference tightened up considerably from group play to single elimination. Of course its hard to define what a "good shot" to win it is but 40 seems like a reasonable guess as any.

I believe that you are correct in your assessment. I think you can even shrink the numbers a bit further. In a 176 man field split into 88 4-person groups would require 44 players to be theoretical "#1" seeds in each group. Even accounting for unknowns, misseeding, poor play, dumb luck, etc. those 44 guys do not each have a 1/44 chance of winning the whole thing. If we--as organizers--honestly sat down and did the math, the number of players who have an objective shot at winning the tournament (tecmo in a vacuum) would probably be in the mid 30s with an optimistic bent to the analysis. Obviously, moving to single elimination removed 112 players from the amount of players who had a shot, and the first round eliminated another 32 players--so the games should have been better.

Looking at the database on tecmomadison.com is a good place to really get a good feel for the competition within the confines of live tournaments as the organizers have spent many, many, many hours collating and organizing the records of everyone who comes to the Madison tournament, the Vogts tournament in Ohio, Knobbe's Nebraska tournament, and the 1 Chicago tournament that O'Dell helped to organize.

May Tecmo VIIII be the best yet! Carry on with the great work!

9 is IX, but that's just my OCD kicking in.

[bruddog]

Ah yes IX. I put that at first then changed it. Good catch!

Yes the combinded data is a good idea but there is a couple problems. It takes a fairly large same of games to be confident.

And also the makeup of the tourney field has been changing.

But the distribution of win percentages is interesting. It's pretty bell curvish beyond from 50% to 85% but there is sort of no real middle ground.

There is an abnormally large bunching at the 50%, 33% win level and the 0% level. Most likely that suggests some massive skill drop off points

and or people that don't return when they get crushed.

EDITED POST: SEE NEXT POST FOR MATH

[bruddog]

So I worked on the math for this and this post is somewhat math heavy. Take all these numbers as guesstimates because of the small sample sizes.

However I think its failry safe to assume the current distribution is accurate and the best players are going to win ~85% of their tournament games and the 64th best player is going to win ~60% of his tournament given the current field size.

There is a formula for predicting how often a team A will beat team B given their current win%. You're going to have to trust how the formula works or read about it here if you think

you can understand the math

http://www.chancesis.com/2010/10/03/the-origins-of-log5/

Lets take the absolute best case where the best seed manages to play a 60% player every round

85% vs 60%= 79% win chance. With 6 rounds (0.79) ^ 6 = 24% chance of winning

The worst case would be where the seeding is all fucked and he plays an equivalent player every round

85 vs 85= 50% duh! (0.5)^6 = 1.5% chance

Don't want to break this down round by round but when no upsets occur and thus the average chance of winning will be ~= 4.5%

***********************************************************************************************************

Now for the 60% winner

His best case scenario is basically equal to the 85% worst case scenario. He would have to have extreme fortune.

With complete mis-seeding and upsets occuring everywhere he would have a 1.5% chance

Worst case he plays an 85% tecmoer every round. He has a 20% chance of winning each game

His chance of winning is (0.2)^6 or 1 in 10000. LOL

His average chance of winning is ~ 1in 1000.

***********************************************************************************************************

So the top player is 40 times more likely to win than the 64th best. And betting on one of the worst players

to win. Well his odds are ~ 1 in 20 billion. You have a MUCH better chance of winning the california

lottery with a 1 in 18 million shot than betting on them.

**********************************************************************************************************

My guesstimate is that one of the top 14 guys given the current distribution will win ~ 50% of the tournaments

This statement reflects what happens online as well. The top few guys win the majority of league titles.

One of the top 40 guys will win ~75% of the tournament.

So far no one outside of the top 20 has won it.

**********************************************************************************************************

This probability lesson has been brought to you by bruddog.

[qb_browns]

So I worked on the math for this and this post is somewhat math heavy. Take all these numbers as guesstimates because of the small sample sizes.

Maybe with all the math--and this could be a completely separate forum topic--someone could determine a proper Tecmo elo rating system. Essentially both the live tournament community and the online league community need a good way of maintaining seeding/skill matchups/tournament matchups to make the most equitable and fair distribution of skill. It would make some of the random online tournaments easier to manage if the tournament was split into +1000; 700-999; and 500 (or average level)-699 levels. Seeding at the Madison, Ohio, Nebraska, and other live tournaments would be a little easier on the organizers if a player could point to an elp rating.

Hell, with the combined nerd power in the Tecmo universe someone could back track against all the results on tecmomadison to reverse elo for the live tournaments, and I'm sure somewhere there are results for original rom leagues and tournaments that can be used to compute an elo rating.

[averagetsbplayer]

Bailey, this what I had emailed you about a few weeks back. From what I can tell, the biggest issue is that an Elo ranking system heavily relies on a large number of games being played over decent periods of time. With these tournaments, we have such a small sample. I'd love to try it out, though. We have the data from some live tournaments, and we have a general idea of sequence (which is needed for Elo rankings, unfortunately).

[qb_browns]

Bailey, this what I had emailed you about a few weeks back. From what I can tell, the biggest issue is that an Elo ranking system heavily relies on a large number of games being played over decent periods of time. With these tournaments, we have such a small sample. I'd love to try it out, though. We have the data from some live tournaments, and we have a general idea of sequence (which is needed for Elo rankings, unfortunately).

I know. But the holdup we had was trying to translate the data into a workable model for the math. Maybe if we employee some of the math nerd brainpower out there we could begin to create a proper model.

[bruddog]

As average pointed out an ELO system or any ranking system will be crippled by the lack of sample size.There really aren't any mathmatical tricks around that. The only way to increase sample size would be if you had the the full game stats for every player which I know you don't. Then you could rank on a play by play level with MUCH larger samples.

Sure you can probably generate ELO rankings but you won't be able to be very "confident" about their accuracy. A simple strength of schedule adjusted winning % or point differential adjusted for schedule like SRS on pro-football-reference.com will be nearly as accurate and much simpler.