If you mainly want an e-reader, I recommend one of the other Kindles that has an E Ink display, which is wonderful. The Fire doesn't have an E Ink display.
e-ink is wonderful, until you turn the page or you turn off the lamp that's next to you.
Everyone tells me you get used to the e-ink flash, and I hear it's gotten much better, but it still kinda stinks.
Most of my reading is done in bed or on my couch, neither of which has great reading light. The LCD is perfect for this.
Maybe it's the years I've spent in front of a computer, but staring at a screen in the dark doesn't bother me at all. Maybe I'll regret it someday.
Not just critiquing this particular model, but at least a couple things that need to be improved upon in game prediction:
1. Need to take into account playing styles of the teams along with their seed. (eg. how do teams that rely on 3pt shots fare vs. teams that play very physical defense, and all other permutations)
2. As Locke pointed out, extraordinary events play a large part in games. There was an article in the NY Times on stat analysis where a team official (may have been Houston Rockets' Daryl Morey) lamented a lucky shot-clock-beating 3-pointer by the opposing team, saying those kind of instances significantly alter the game. It'd be interesting to see if some teams are better at creating these lucky instances, or if they're strictly random
If you're looking for the quote about the three it is at the end of the article, and is made more interesting by the context of the 'lucky' shot. Briefly - Kobe misses 86.3% of long 3 pointers heaved up in the final seconds of games. The Rockets knew this. Quoting now: 'It was a shot Battier could live with, even if it turned out to be good. Battier looked back to see the ball drop through the basket and hit the floor. In that brief moment he was the picture of detachment, less a party to a traffic accident than a curious passer-by. And then he laughed. The process had gone just as he hoped. The outcome he never could control.'
